The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep: why should they redirect to the same place? Do you have better targets in mind? Why does it need to be discussed here? The existing targets appear to be good articles for people searching for those terms.Lithopsian (talk)21:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete2-year college andTwo-year college since these terms could also refer toCommunity college.No opinion on the "4-year" ones at this time. In addition, I disagree with the nominator that the "2-year" and "4-year" redirects should target the same place, but now that I'm aware of the "2-year" redirects, I believe that they should be deleted.Steel1943 (talk)21:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everything atJunior college seems to indeed be two-year, though. That's not true ofCommunity college, so this seems unwise. I'll also register my disagreement with the initial nomination that all four of these should point to the same place. --BDD (talk)21:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Junior college and community college are very nearly the same thing in the US, and generally 2-year colleges, but often very different elsewhere and not necessarily a 2-year college. One or the other still seems like the best target unless anyone comes up with something better. There isCommunity colleges in the United States - could that be what a majority of people are looking for when they type 2-year college?Lithopsian (talk)22:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lithopsian,Steel1943, andBDD: Sorry about the nominations. I got confused. Is it OK if I partially withdraw the nomination by withdrawing the four year college redirects, but leave the two year college redirects up for discussion?Mstrojny (talk)22:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have not modified any of the above comments, since most touch on both the four-year and two-year redirects. Anyone should feel free to modify their own to suit the split nominations, though.This diff shows the single discussion pre-split. --BDD (talk)15:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion wasretarget toReblogging and hatnote. There are clearly two relevant topics here, though one is an error whose plausibility can hinge on regional pronunciation. This will provide readers access to both topics. --BDD (talk)17:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SURPRISE. When people search for "repost", they will be trying to find the term very commonly used in internet culture, not an obscure action in a sport. The word "repost" isn't even used in that article.NixinovaTC19:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and retarget: The redirect right now makes no sense, but this is a term that I can see people searching on Wikipedia. It should be retargeted to a more appropriate article. --1990'sguy (talk)15:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...So, "delete" if there is no appropriate target to retarget this? Or how aboutwikt:repost if there is no appropriate target on Wikipedia, considering that this term may be looked up by others?Steel1943 (talk)18:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a hatnote to Wiktionary andReblogging orsoft redirect. This is a very plausible misspelling of an uncommon term that many people looking for will not have seen written. I support a soft redirect as a second choice, as this is a term that is commonly searched for (318 hits in the first 11 months of last year) and while there isn't scope for an encyclopaedia article we should take users to the best alternative content, that at Wiktionary - remember many more people know about Wikipedia than know about Wiktionary.Thryduulf (talk)18:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
In my opinion, I think that may be somewhat of a stretch since the terms could still be vague. Someone may look up these terms expecting to find something aboutwhite supremacy or something of the like.Steel1943 (talk)00:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing redirects. A person searching for the terms isn't necessarily thinking of the word white in the demographic sense. --Stefan2 (talk)01:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Seems like there's a vague sense leaning toward delete, but I'm not convinced there's consensus here, especially given the age of these. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Amory(u •t •c)16:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure what someone would have in mind when searching for "white agenda", but they aren't likely to find it atethnic stereotype. Same with the others, delete all unless there's a more appropriate target that actually mentions the term. —Xezbeth (talk)09:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The phrase "retail politics" (Wiktionary: "The political strategy of engaging with small groups of individuals in face-to-face interactions") is mentioned nowhere in the target, so someone who searches for this in search of a definition is left none the wiser. I can't find any particularly viable alternative targets. – Arms & Hearts (talk)21:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary. It is the sort of term that people will look up and in the absence of an article, linking to Wiktionary is better than nothing.Thryduulf (talk)18:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Some of these, such asI. saskatchewanensis, are linked only from the target article, which contains no nontrivial information about any specific species, and others, such asI. walterdorfensis, are not mentioned at all. All should be deleted perWP:REDLINK. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)22:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the bulk nature of this, we could use some more discussion.Moreover, none of these redirects were tagged; I have now done so. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Amory(u •t •c)16:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These types are tough. Redlinks in taxonomic articles are normal, and that certainly points to delete. But{{R to subtopic}} could be appropriate for a species that's never going to have its own article. Without any specific (pardon the pun) knowledge of these, I could easily see that being the case for a bunch of species of fossil bivalves, which points to keep. Those without mention sure feel like a delete, but maybe theyshould be mentioned, and maybe that just means listing them. (How "selected" are the "Selected species"?) I suppose I'm leaning delete, cautiously. PingingPlantdrew, whose input on taxonomic discussions I always value. --BDD (talk)17:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. This is quite an unusual case. The accepted wisdom among editors working on taxonomic articles is that fossil species are usually best covered in an article about the genus, not separate articles for each species. However, I'm having trouble finding that position documented anywhere; it certainly comes up on talk pages frequently, butWikiProject Dinosaurs seems to have the only explicit mention of it (WikiProject Palaeontology takes a weaker stance against species articles). However, for most genera known from fossils, it's unusual to have more than 2-3 known species (which could be readily compared and contrasted in an article on the genus). Bivalves fossilize exceptionally well, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there are fossil bivalve genera with dozens of species, but that's certainly not the norm for fossil genera overall.
"Selected species" on Wikipedia never means very much "selecting" was being done. More typically it means "here's all the species listed in whatever sources I had at hand, but I'm not sure if those sources are comprehensive". BothWoRMS andFossilWorks include some species not listed in the article, as well as species listed not listed in the other database (WoRMS doesn't aim to be comprehensive for fossil species; FossilWorks aims for comprehensiveness, but isn't there in practice).
I think it's quite unlikely that articles will be created for each species, so I'm not sure the logic of REDLINK applies here. Some of these species may end up placed in other genera;I. walterdorfensis is nowCremnoceramus walterdorfensis according to WoRMS. Having these redirects poses a maintenance burden (an article onCremnoceramus needs to be written beforeI. waltderdorensis can be pointed to the right place). I'm not inclined to take the time to check each redirect for current taxonomic placement (let alone writing any missing genus articles); I feel like these redirects are really more of a headache than they are worth. However, it does appear that many of these have incoming links. I'm going withweak keep due to incoming links. If they are kept,{{R from species to genus}} (which is currently a redirect to{{R from subtopic}}) would be an appropriate tag. 19:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byPlantdrew (talk •contribs)
Keep. I'm more of a lumper than a splitter, even with living organisms (see e.g.Floridobolus), and comprehensive context is key. There is no rule mandating every taxon MUST have an article, especially if the article says no more than "Inoceramus aequicostatus is a species of bivalve in the genusInoceramus described by Voronetz in 1937" (lots of extant insect stubs consist of such pablum). That exact same information (species, genus, author and year of description) is present in the full scientific name, and placed in better context in the list atInoceramus. I don't think it's worth deleting any redirects.--Animalparty! (talk)19:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to genus - palaeontology project guidelines are clear about this. Prehistoric species articles should be covered at the genus level, and only split off if that article becomes too long, which is not the case here. Prehistoric species stubs should not be created in general.FunkMonk (talk)19:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Acute HIV Infection and Early Diseases Research Program
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - inherently spammy; readers will not find any useful information on this topic at the target, only general information about what I assume is the program's research subject.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)14:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AIEDRP was a US research program to study acute HIV infection ("what happens when you first get infected", in plain English). If we had a proper article aboutAcute HIV infection, then it would be mentioned there; ifNIAID (which already mentions HIV 14 times) were complete, it would be mentioned there. As it stands, however, the most relevant reason to keep this redirect is that it's 12 years old, andWP:RFD#KEEP says tokeep "Links that have existed for a significant length of time".WhatamIdoing (talk)11:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete per nom. I have just removed the only mention of it in the article and went to nominate it for deletion – what a coincidence it has just been nommed two hours ago.wumbolo^^^14:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't really see a reason too, Know your meme classifies MSNPC as a separate topic related to the NPC meme, so I don't really see why we shouldn't follow the suit and the nom failed to explain it in my opinion.Openlydialectic (talk)03:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see an argument for keeping as a{{R to article without mention}} (useful search term, and usage is above noise level) and an argument for deleting (not mentioned in article, and difficult to source for a mention). A DuckDuckGo search showed no mention in usable sources, the KYM entry is only a submission thus it is unusable. Leaning delete as redirects to an article without a mention are generally discouraged.feminist (talk)02:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There aren't many cases where keeping a redirect without mention is a good idea, and this isn't one of them. If you know the meme, it could be a fun little easter egg, but otherwise, it's just going to mislead readers. --BDD (talk)21:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Weak delete "Contractor combatant" seems to have very little use outside Wikipedia. "Combat contractor" has some, but often in phrases like "combat contractor fraud", i.e., regardinggeneral contractors, from consumer protection agencies. I'd be ok with a retarget toPrivate military company, though. --BDD (talk)21:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
A cross-namespace redirect which has only been used four times since its creation (indicating that it's not an overwhelmingly common search term to merit its existence).feminist (talk)15:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap. Is there a reason why you'd what to break those three archived discussions by making it impossible to know where they were pointing to?Diego (talk)11:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@UnitedStatesian: Not challenging the !vote, just out of a desire to understand: in what sense are this kind of redirects "expensive"? Deleting it won't take less space in the database, nor is the link so heavily used that it will affect trafic.Diego (talk)11:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Appears to be Hungarian equivalent word, but isn't mentioned in the article - we don't need redirects from every language.PamD13:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
No mention of "Sierra" in target article, despite assertion of redirect-creator that "Vela Sierra was one of the three components of the Vela Program". Please add that content, with a source, to the target article to justify this redirect.PamD13:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the redirect, I suggest a retarget toProject Vela. You're right that the articleVela (satellite) doesn't mention the Vela Sierra component of the program, which is a major omission. Since I don't have time to fix this, a more appropriate redirect is toProject Vela, which mentions all three components of the Vela program (Vela Hotel, Vela Sierra and Vela Uniform). --Mtu (talk)13:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Term not present in target article. Capital "S" suggests this refers to some specific work?political synergy is neither a redirect nor an article. No apparent reason for this redirect: not an obvious synonym.PamD13:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
No mention of term in target article. It may well be a synonym, but a sourced mention in the article should be added for this to be a useful redirect.PamD11:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley:. Thanks for retargetting it. We need the term, or something recognisably the same, to be mentioned in the target article; everything in that target article ought to be sourced. I wouldn't demand a source for "Heat wheel" to redirect to "thermal wheel", as they seem roughly synonyms.PamD12:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
@HueMan1: you don't need to delete the redirect. If you already have a draft article, an admin can move it over this redirect when it is approved. Alternatively you can just overwrite the redirect with an article.Thryduulf (talk)15:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Doesn't really belong to the target article as it's not a number of any sort, just an indefinitely large quantity, usually not numeric - seehere andthe examples here. Nowshedload andshitload are both included in theOxford English Dictionary as "A large amount or number" (while "fuckload" doesn't get a mention): if this redirect is kept, there should perhaps be an addition to the target article to include all three of these terms.PamD12:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I once calculated a metric unit equivalent of a fuckton, but can't find that notebook now and it wasn't published anyway. It's colloquial, unlikely to have a formal definition. Keep or retarget per Headbomb.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)03:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This redirect is in a peculiar format that doesn't contain the "and" or any form of the word (&) in its name. It seems unnecessary to me.Paper LuigiT •C01:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 19#Four-year college
Done I have not modified any of the above comments, since most touch on both the four-year and two-year redirects. Anyone should feel free to modify their own to suit the split nominations, though.This diff shows the single discussion pre-split. --BDD (talk)15:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]