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.
Redirect to modern name (Isotopes of tellurium), and addhatnote there re historical name + link. Since old meaning likely is not used that often any more, and so cannot claim main target. (OTOH, someone coming from an old source and missing the hatnote may end up confused/mislead. To prevent this, option 2: make full DAB, will surely do no harm). -DePiep (talk)17:55, 12 November 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.
This probably should wait until the merger discussion concludes. If the articles are merged, this can point to the merged article. If not, it should be deleted perWP:XY. -Eureka Lott14:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation as a redirect to somewhere else (or even the main title of the new article) based on the outcome of that merger proposal. Trade and commerce are worldwide phenomena, not uniquely Canadian issues, so redirecting a general international term to one passage about it inCanadian law is not an appropriate use of the titleregardless of the outcome of any other discussion.Bearcat (talk)21:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There appears to be consensus to delete here, but what aboutTrade and Commerce? Should it be added to the discussion? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,BDD (talk)21:53, 21 November 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.
While one Mo Robinson has been charged with manslaughter in this case, he is not currently mentioned in the article and thus I'm not sure it's appropriate to have this redirect.signed,Rosguilltalk21:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on the talk page of the article in question seems to be leaning toward a consensus to not include any information about Robinson until an actual conviction is produced.signed,Rosguilltalk19:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he's not named in the article, so the redirect is likely to leave readers confused. Removing the redirect will indicate to them we have nothing on the subject (which is, in essence, correct). If consensus on the inclusion of his name in the article changes, then recreation of the redirect would be appropriate.WilyD13:19, 2 December 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.
"Jesus Is Born" is a track by Kanye West. It comes out on Christmas. "Jesus Is Born Out Christmas" is not a track by Kanye West and is essentially an ad.signed,Rosguilltalk21:16, 21 November 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 wasdelete. The continuing disagreements about portals aside, which is almost infinitely out of the scope of RfD, the only remaining arguments to keep here are of the "redirects are cheap" variety, which is always rebuttable if good other arguments are made that suggest why a redirect isn't helpful. A significant majority of other participants have made delete arguments that suggest the Speculative Fiction portal is just not closely-related enough to count as a valid target for a reader looking for a Harry Potter portal. There therefore seems to be a consensus that it is unlikely to be a sufficiently helpful redirect to outweigh it giving a false impression of the specific portal existing. ~mazcatalk11:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's a portal redirect, and the only valid target for it in the portal namespace isP:SF. Instead of nominating everything for deletion (which seems to be yourMO lately), how aboutyou fix it, BrownHairedGirl? You seem bent on removing practically everything to do with portals. Add a few more mentions of Harry Potter stuff toP:SF; there are certainly enough things that could be added (movies, books, possibly characters, etc.), thereby improving the wiki instead of slowly whittling everything away. ···日本穣 ·投稿 ·Talk to Nihonjoe ·Join WP Japan! 21:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC) I really don't care anymore. Do whatever you want with this redirect. You obviously are goign to do whatever you want regardless of anything else. ···日本穣 ·投稿 ·Talk to Nihonjoe ·Join WP Japan!16:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: your hostile tone lacksWP:AGF. Please reconsider that.
Keep as it's a portal redirect, and the only valid target for it in the portal namespace is P:SF seems to me to a kinda meaningless comment. I am not aware of any guidance or policy which says that that a potential or deleted portal title should be created as a redirect to anything. On the contrary, huge numbers of portal redirects (e.g from country to continent, or from US state toPortal:United States) have been deleted at RFD in recent months precisely because the target contains too little about the redirect title.
Speculative fiction is not my field, so I definitely willnot go making substantive changes to the portal. I deplore the way that many portals's lists of selected articles are being rewritten by editors with no demonstrable expertise in the field, and I absolutely refuse to emulate their conduct.
SpecFic is also a very broad field, and I AGF that the editors who do have familiarity with the field are those best placed to judge the appropriate balance of topics perWP:WEIGHT. If you believe that the current balance is wrong, then you are of course free to propose that HP be given greater prominence. But if you do so, I hope that it will be on the basis of an assessment of HP's significance across the whole huge breadth and history of speculative fiction, rather than a case ofWP:Recentism. Your post here seem to me to be suggesting or implying that the portal should be restructured to justify the existence of the redirect, which would be a back-to-front approach. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)23:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I created the SF portal, almost entirely by myself. It took almost a year of working on it to get it as robust as it is. I also took it to featured status (before the community decided no portal deserved that status, and summarily made all featured portals "former featured portals"). Since pretty much no one else ever edits it or participates in any discussions about it, I see nothing wrong with "restructuring" it to include more HP content. It has noting to do with recentism, either. The SF portal has content from a wide breadth of years.
As for my "hostility", it likely comes from multiple reasons: your crusade against portals over the last several months, the community complaining that portals don't get enough visits, and then refusing to incorporate links to the best portals (even on a rotating basis) on the main page, thereby relegating them to secondary status and making them practically impossible to find for the casual visitor. You have no idea how much work goes into creating a really solid portal, yet you seem determined to wipe them out. So yes, just a little warranted hostility. ···日本穣 ·投稿 ·Talk to Nihonjoe ·Join WP Japan!00:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, @Nihonjoe, that is notWarranted hostility; it is just venting steam. It is a mixture of your misplaced resentment that the consensus at about 1000 MFDs has not gone the way you would like, and your wholly unfounded attempt to blame me for decisions related to the main page and to the ending of the featured portals process, in both of which I have had no part. Your attempt to blame me for decisions taken before my involvement in portals is very shoddy conduct, and yourWP:HARDWORK is a classic argument to avoid in deletion discussions. (I don't doubt the hard work. I do question the value to readers and to the encyclopedia).
Who else is going to type in Portal related info other than editors looking for edit history and a quick-link? As long as the portals are related and there are mentions then it shouldn't be an issue. -Knowledgekid87 (talk)18:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lepricavark, I respectfullydisagree that this RfD is "a waste of time" per the varied responses and diverse rationales, especially on the "delete" side of it. We now have four people (nom included) expressing a desire to delete, each with good, and different, reasons. I think this was a good nom byBrownHairedGirl. --Doug MehusT·C20:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't think this is a helpful redirect and, technically, there may be a reason to delete it due to the usage of the pseudo-namespace "Portal:" prefix. --Doug MehusT·C15:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Nihonjoe's comment above timestamped01:55, 16 November 2019 suggests that the imbalance may have been created with the aim of influencing this discussion, rather than of ensuring that the portal reflects the core policy ofWP:NPOV. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)09:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: What is wrong with you? I added articlesdirectly related to this portal because they were directly related. I've pretty much written off this discussion as a lost cause. There are too many people who seem to agree with you hell-bent crusade to destroy all portals. Now, youvandalize a portal because you choose to assume bad faith on my part. You have no valid reason for undoing these additions, especially since I added many additional articles clearly not related to Harry Potter. The articles added were generally featured, A, B, and GA articles. You clearly have no clue what you're doing (reverting edits you "don't have the energy to evaluate"), and are just trying to wreak havoc within portals about which you know absolutely nothing. Please, go try to be "productive" elsewhere. You're causing nothing but problems here with your ham-fisted attempts to do whatever it is you're trying to do. ···日本穣 ·投稿 ·Talk to Nihonjoe ·Join WP Japan!16:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: please strike the personal attacks, and also strike that bogus accusation ofvandalism (seeWP:NOTVAND).
BrownHairedGirl Thanks for doing that, and for the homework you put into your portal and related redirect nomination discussions.That doesn't necessarily sound like fair play on Nihonjoe's part. Boy the time we waste on these portals!Doug MehusT·C16:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: And now you're assuming bad faith on my part, too. I've done nothing with this portal except try to improve it. I went through the list of featured, GA, A, and B articles for science fiction and horror and added any that weren't in the portal. Exactly how is that not "fair play"? Go ahead and delete the damn redirect. I really don't care anymore. ···日本穣 ·投稿 ·Talk to Nihonjoe ·Join WP Japan!16:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: For clarity, I said, "potentially." I didn't say it was necessarilynot fair play. Nonetheless, I apologize if you assumed I was not acting ingood faith. I appreciate your clarification and am satisfied that you weren't acting in a manner that wasn't fair. Based on your reply I will strike that portion of my earlier comment.Doug MehusT·C16:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Black Falcon and my comments on the discussion forThe Prisoner. We don't have a portal for Harry Potter, nor any portal with a substantial focus on it. --BDD (talk)16:13, 2 December 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, although it's well sourced in news articles, it's not worthy enough IMO for a redirect. Also, most sources agree it's an "old" term used at the time, so it's even more irrelevant nowadays. BTW there are a few news articles that make the link between EverCrack and video game addiction[5][6], but it's still barely notable IMO. --Signimu (talk)13:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nihonjoe's comments. Redirects don't have to be notable since they're not articles. They're possible search terms - what is a user wanting to read when he types in "Evercrack"? Redirecting it to theEverQuest#Addiction section seems better, since it refers to that game, and there's a link there toVideo game addiction.PaulGS (talk)21:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget or Keep per PaulGS and Nihonjoe. Outdated terms are actually often more useful redirects than contemporary ones as fewer people will know what they mean and so they're more likely to look it up on Wikipedia if they encounter it when reading sources contemporary with the term which are often likely not to define it as it was in common use at the time.Thryduulf (talk)09:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb, agree from reading the "keep" !vote arguments, they do either favour or alternatively retargeting to the below. I think sometimes editors !vote "keep" when they mean retarget, which adds to the confusion if patrolling editors/administrators are going through quickly. I probably would've closed as retarget, but that's just me.Doug MehusT·C20:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb, agree completely. There's enough of an RfD backlog here. This seems to me an example of relist biasTrialpears told me about because sometimes non-admins, who can't close as delete, will relist to help clear the backlog but it just postpones things. Odd, though, since "delete" isn't anywhere close to being consensus. PingingTrialpears to see if they'll consider assessing the consensus here and closing as a non-admin. --Doug MehusT·C20:46, 21 November 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.
I disagree that there was consensus when I relisted this (was split between "keep" and "retarget"), but am not going to dispute this close since there are more important things to do on Wikipedia than dispute an early close essentially forced by complaints.Steel1943 (talk)13:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 is way too ambiguous of a title for a redirect. Internet search results show that while this phrase has been used in connection with the Hong Kong protests, it also has been used the outcome of recent farmers' protests in India[7], recent disputes in Nigeria[8], the2018 Google walkouts[9], the2018 Arizona teachers' strike[10] and likely many more. Given how broad this term is, I think deletion is preferable to disambiguation in order to just let the internal search engine do the work.signed,Rosguilltalk00:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Before voicing an opinion, it should be mentioned that the spelled out version,five demands, also redirects to the same article. With that being said, although the phrase is core to the Hong Kong protests, the connection was difficult to make using Wikipedia's internal search alone. It was only upon Googling the phrase that I found out what it was about, where the first thirteen results are about the protests. This gap in clarity was the reason I made the redirect; to make Wikipedia's search as clear as Google's, and why I'm defending its utility here.Googol30 (talk)01:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is way too broad and ambiguous. The fact that there's a lot of association in Google hits means that there's a lot of recentism going on here, rather than that it is an indication that this is a term that overwhelmingly or specifically refers to the objectives of the protests. --Cold Season (talk)01:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate between different uses of this phrase, or failing that,keep. Per Googol30, the internal search engine is inadequate at showing readers topics associated with this term.feminist (talk)12:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orDisambiguate Too ambiguous. Google search algorithms will have a recency bias. If disambiguate is the outcome, my disambiguate is conditional upon redirectingFive demands to the dab page, whichGoogol30 alerted us to. Similarly, if delete is the outcome, we should also deleteFive demands.Doug MehusT·C01:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Hong Kong "five demands" are far and away theprimary topic for those searching for the phrase "five demands". Where is the evidence that those searching for the phrase "five demands" would expect something else, and upon seeing those sources, why would a hatnote to a disambig page not suffice for those alts?(notwatching, please{{ping}})czar02:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am underwhelmed by the nomination after clicking through the links. Those show other protests that asked for various stuff which fell into five buckets, but that is not the same as the HK situation. "The five demands" is a well-spread term and could not be replaced by "the five claims" or "demands A through E" (well, I do not know about the Cantonese/Chinese wording, but "five demands" seems to be the most common English translation by far). The sentence fragment "5 demands" could be found in other contexts, but it does not matter because it lacks the special meaning it has in the HK context. "The prestige" is a fairly common sentence fragment in English, but whoever types it in the Wikipedia search box is very likely to be looking for the book (or film) with that title.TigraanClick here to contact me16:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Tigraan. There must have been other instances ofThree Kingdoms,Ten Percent, etc., but as unique concepts they are article titles without need of disambiguation. Five Demands has become the core of this democratic movement.--Roy17 (talk)19:16, 23 November 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 wasno consensus default to keep. This seems to be a fringe case between keeping a{{R from other capitalization}} and a redundant redirect getting in the way of other possible applications. But since there is no alternative page content proposed for the current title, I'm defaulting to keep.Deryck C.17:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JASPencer, though if we ever have an article on a specific entity by this name—search results on the encyclopedia are showing me a play and a soccer organization—I would be fine with aWP:DIFFCAPS situation. --BDD (talk)16:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly redirects reader to the topic they're looking for. Nomination presents no rationale for deletion, nor can I imagine any.WilyD13:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WilyD: In case you missed it, the rationale for deletion is:Software automatically handles capitalization differences, making this redirect redundant. --Tavix(talk)13:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a rationale for deletion, it's at best a rationale to be totally indifferent to whether or not it's deleted.WilyD13:23, 2 December 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.
Delete perPKT and, secondarily, the nom. Yes, it's a plausible typo perGderrin andEurekaLott; however, we shouldn't need to have umpteen redirects for every article representing most possible misspellings. It's unwieldy. So, here, I look to the stats, which show it being used, on average,once every 3-4 months. Just as redirects arecheap, as a counter-argument, they can be re-created just as easily. For that reason, I see no benefit to keeping or retargeting.Doug MehusT·C23:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which stats you were looking at, but the Pageviews Analysis for this redirect shows an average of two views per month between October 2017 and October 2019. -Eureka Lott15:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EurekaLott I didn't actually calculate the average, but took a rough approximation looking at the pageview stats from last May to now. There were several periods with no hits in a given month or two. In other months, it was only one or two hits. --Doug MehusT·C15:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as an improbable typo. While I agree with Eureka Lott's basic premise that flipping two letters is a likely error, the probability of flippingtwo particular letters is much smaller. There are many variants of this particular error, such as "Rtopical rainforest", "Torpical rainforest", "Trpoical rainforest", "Troipcal rainforest", "Tropcial rainforest", "Tropiacl rainforest", "Tropicla rainforest", and so on—not to mention all of the variants where someone presses the wrong key, such as "Tropival rainforest", "Tropucal rainforest", etc. We should not create, and do not need, redirects for everypossible misspelling, only the probable ones (such as "adress" to "address"). --Black Falcon(talk)05:24, 29 November 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.
Not mentioned in target, I suppose it could be a portmanteau of mist and drizzle, but that's not in the article and is a mere supposition on my part.Onel5969TT me12:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary. It is misty rain/drizzle but interestingwikt:mizzle gives the etymology as Middle English rather than a modern portmantaeu. We don't seem to have any content about it, other than atList of British slang#M which gives a definition in a completely different sense. Accordingly, I think the best thing we can do here is to soft redirectMizzle to Wiktionary (it is the sort of thing people will look for) and retargetMizzles to that soft redirect.Thryduulf (talk)16:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect towikt:mizzle (added Wiktionary wikilink for XfD Closer to copy+paste) atWikitionary perThryduulf above. (Sidebar: Props to soft redirects, which I like; a lot of editorsdon't like them, but I actually think they help the reader knowwhy something is pointing them somewhere by nudging them rather than shoving them there.) --Doug MehusT·C15:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to XfD Closer: I don't want to prejudge the outcome of this RfD, but have added the soft redirect markup below the RfD markup on each of the proposed redirects perThryduulf above. I assume, if this is the outcome, for soft redirects, we'd close as "custom" and then entersoft redirect and any other optional comments? Just so I understand the process for the future.Doug MehusT·C16:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and you'll save the closer some work if that's the way the discussion goes. --BDD (talk)15:13, 27 November 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.
I don't see an RFOREIGN problem when both the redirect and the target are Latin. That doesn't mean the disambiguation page isn't a better target, though. --BDD (talk)21:03, 8 November 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 wasdelete. Consensus is that it's a seldom-used term that does not unambiguously refer to the target. ~mazcatalk01:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure,WP:XY. I accidentally selected this from the drop-down search instead ofShopping cart, but the term does not appear in the article. My quick Gsearch indicates it is more commonly used to mean agift card, although sometimes acredit card.
Weak keep (3rd choice) with one or more hatnotes atPayment card,Gift card,Card#Other uses, and elsewhere. This could get unwieldly, so favour #1 or #2, respectively
Delete as confusing and not really used. The searches on the internet bring up questions for clarification rather than show any widespread use of the term.AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)02:03, 23 November 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 December 6#Television app