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.
Implausible redirect because it's missing a word, uses the numeral 3 instead of spelling the word, and spells "questions" wrong. Nothing links to it and it's not even the result of a page move.ReykYO!21:16, 3 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.
Snow keep I have readded the anchor removed by the OP and added a note regarding the name. According to sources the Anderson–Earle–Goldschmidt–Powers algorithm is an alternative name for what is also known simply as Goldschmidt division, which is already discussed in the article. Either that, or at least related to this. Presumably it is implemented inIBM System 360 Model 91,IBM S/390 as well as in theAMD K7. Since the topic is notable and readers can expect to find an entry in this encyclopedia, it would be a disservice to our readers to not catch the term and redirect it into the division algorithm article. At a later stage and depending on the further development of the division algorithm article one of those redirects could even become an article of its own. --Matthiaspaul (talk)18:26, 24 October 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.
Urdu people was an article for a few months back in 2010. It got discarded, and rightfully so: its very topic was entirelyWP:OR as Urdu speakers do not constitute an ethnic or social group. The current target is not good either: Muhajirs are indeed associated with Urdu but the language isn't native to all of them and it isn't a defining charactestic; the majority of native Urdu speakers are in India and so aren't Muhajir anyway. Conceivably, the redirects could be retargeted toUrdu, but they aren't plausible as search terms (Urdu-speaking,Urdu speaker and many other variants already exist), and their very existence misleads in the way it implies the existence of some sort of social group. –Uanfala (talk)12:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my rationale above. These are commonly used terminologies in Pakistan and would be a valid search term for anyone searching for the subject.Mar4d (talk)04:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While there is consensus to retargetUrdu people I'm not seeing consensus regarding the other redirects. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Thryduulf (talk)14:48, 3 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.
Delete per Xezbeth. Ambiguity is not the issue here; it is unhelpful to direct a reader to an article that contains no information about their desired topic. --Black Falcon(talk)22:07, 3 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 wassoft redirect towikt:decent andwikt:decency. It doesn't seem like there is much of a preference between deletion and soft redirection to Wiktionary, so I've gone with theWP:ATD. I've ignored the rude or confusing comments by the IP, by the way. --Tavix(talk)14:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the case againstDecency is weaker than for decent, as wheredecent can be a rather all-purpose adjective (e.g. decent food, decent wage),decency IMO does have to refer to moral character. That having been said, it's still not a perfect synonym formorality, so I'm not really opposing a soft redirect.signed,Rosguilltalk17:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I wouldn't want to complicate things here;Ibadibam, as the nominator, do you have a preference as to whether or notDecency should be included in this discussion? --BDD (talk)17:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteDecent. Redirects to wiktionary can be useful for terms that readers are likely to want the dictionary definition of. I don't think readers would be looking for the meaning of an everyday English word. As forDecency, I don't think it should targetMorality as it's not a synonym at all. Yes, morality is one aspect of it, but there's aat least one more –propriety. Maybe that can be retargeted to wiktionary? –Uanfala (talk)12:06, 30 October 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.
Aside from the misspelling of "professor", there are doubtless many other professors with the surname Phillips so it's unclear why this one should be singled out.ReykYO!10:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note I've addedProfessor phillips, created by the same editor about 9 months earlier, to this discussion as again there is no obvious reason why this particular professor Phillips is targetted.Professor Phillips (with correct spelling and capitalisation) has never existed.Thryduulf (talk)11:18, 3 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.
No mention in target article. Zero incoming links. Barely any pageviews/traffic. It seems to me that this was only created because someone thought it was a plausible typo of "ACTH", the proper abbreviation for the target article.Ϫ06:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When compared with the average regularly used redirect, yes, it is. I'm expecting at least a few hundred a month. --Ϫ16:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right. Admittedly, without doing a proper statistical analysis over many different types of redirects and their uses, I don't really know.ACTH itself however gets a monthly average of 2094, but that is the more likely search term over typing in the entire article name. --Ϫ17:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can make out, ATCH is a non-notable musical artist, a non-notable university course (I think) about "architecture critical theory history", a local shortening ofAtch Lench (a village in Worcestershire) and a typo for "aitch" among other things as well as a typo for ACTH. None of these uses seems to predominate.Thryduulf (talk)11:33, 3 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.
The result of the discussion wasretarget toInternet bot. Besides being favored by a numerical majority, this page is preferable since it contains encyclopedic content. If there are uses at the disambiguation page not currently covered atInternet bot, they probably should be. --BDD (talk)23:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are many types of "bot accounts". Bots are not exclusive to Twitter, and targeting "bot accounts" to "Twitter bot" does not paint a full picture of bot accounts.Utopes (talk)03:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that, but that wouldn't show the hatnote to the Wikipedia page, which is quite a likely search term I think. I don't object to the section target, it is my clear second choice.Thryduulf (talk)16:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(both). For one,Bot accountBot account does not exist. Also, the subjects onBot and specifically called "bot" and not "bot account(s)", and thus pointing this redirect toBot is confusing and misleading. Best to delete this redirect to allow the search function of Wikipedia to do its job instead of forcing readers to go to a specific page when looking up "bot accounts".Steel1943 (talk)16:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The former is very easily fixed - and indeed should be created as a redirect to wherever the consensus of this discussion is thatBot accounts should point. As to your second point, what topics could someone searching for "bot account" or "bot accounts" be looking for that are not listed atBot? Why and how would forcing readers to make several additional clicks (up to 3 or 4, depending on device, navigation method and access level) to reach search results, which may or may not have what they are looking for, be better than the disambiguation page?Thryduulf (talk)16:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...Because "Best to delete this redirect to allow the search function of Wikipedia to do its job instead of forcing readers to go to a specific page when looking up "bot accounts"", considering that there is no guarantee the reader will be able to find what they are looking for exclusively by what is on theBot disambiguation page.Steel1943 (talk)21:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have still yet to identify anything that a reader might be looking for that is not listed atBot, nor have you explained how unreliable search results (which may take several clicks to get to) are better than a reliable, curated list of the targets that could be wanted. Your quoted comment applies when there is no relevant single article or disambiguation page because the search term is unclear, nebulous or just too generic but not in cases like this when the search term is clear and there is a short disambiguation page that includes all the relevant targets.Thryduulf (talk)12:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no guarantee that the page "...includes all the relevant targets..." for the reasons I already stated above. There isalways a chance that search results may be unreliable, but that situation is better than forcing a reader to chose possibly inaccurate options from a disambiguation page with a title mismatch.Steel1943 (talk)14:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By that argument we should do away with all disambiguation pages and let the search engine do the job - something which I'm sure you'd agree would be extremely harmful to the encyclopaedia. You keep saying that the dab page might not contain everything someone might be looking for, but you haven't been able to come up with a single example of what someone using this term might plausibly be looking for which is not at the dab page. I've just looked at the first 80 hits and found only one possible target that wasn't already on the dab page -spambot - so I added it. The search results did not includeinternet bot orTwitter bot, which are very plausible targets.Thryduulf (talk)21:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not fully. I just have the long-standing opinion thatpartial-title match redirects are unhelpful as targets to disambiguation pages (with the exception of portions of human names [given names and surnames].) That, and how does one know that someone looking up "bot account" may or may not be attempting to locate a subject onAccount, considering that word is part of the redirect?Steel1943 (talk)00:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toInternet bot, which looks to be the most relevant article in a general sense. The see also looks helpful for those who may be wanting a specific type of bot. FWIW, Ioppose retargeting toBot per Steel1943. --Tavix(talk)22:39, 4 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.
MeetsWP:RDELETE criterion 8 as a very obscure synonym for the target article. The creator of the redirect mentionedthis clip as the source of the nickname, but I'm not finding any other usages of the nickname through a Google search. Actually, all the top Google results for "Bionic Button" and "The Bionic Button" appear to be about a level ofGeometry Dash, so the redirect has the potential to be misleading as well. –Lord Bolingbroke (talk)03:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I've been watching F1 for 7 years, 5 of those had Button as a driver and I have never heard of this nickname. A google search for name yeilds only youtube videos of people playingGeometry Dash. SSSB (talk)08:45, 3 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 is a4chan meme that's not mentioned at the target (and shouldn't be, since there's no coverage of the meme in reliable sources). It's also unlikely that anyone would search for this long phrase.SpicyMilkBoy (talk)00:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are also many other groups worldwide that represent only 13% of a given population - for example under 6 year olds in at least three different census towns in India, immigrants to Slovenia from other parts of the former Yugoslavia and the proportion of Mexican immigrants to the United Kingdom who are working.Thryduulf (talk)11:53, 3 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.
While Beijing Daxing International is near Huangcun, it appears to not be the closest airport to Huangcun––that honor would appear to belong toBeijing Nanyuan Airport[1]. At any rate, there's no indication that any one airport is known by this name, therefore I would suggest deletion.signed,Rosguilltalk00:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence that the Daxing Airport is referred to as Huangcun Airport in any sources, including Chinese ones, searches only reveal a train station near the airport (and theBeijing–Xiong'an intercity railway line linking the railway station to the airport) and a former airport in Guangzhou built in 1940 -[2]. Perhaps a Huangcun Airport article can be created another time for the one in Guangzhou, but for now the redirect will only cause confusion since it is unlikely anyone will search for the Daxing Airport under the Huangcun name.Hzh (talk)12:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When I saw this my first thought was the 黃村機場 in my home cityCanton, Kwangtung, which was a real airfield but disappeared quite some time ago. I dont seem to find any mentions of this Chinese name of the current target.--Roy17 (talk)00:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thanks to Hzh, the former airfield in Guangzhou is now mentioned atGuangdong Olympic Stadium (the stadium now occupies the airfield's former site). OTOH if there's no appetite for retargeting there then this should be deleted; neither airport in the vicinity ofHuangcun Subdistrict, Beijing [zh] is called Huangcun Airport, so this is just confusing and misleading.59.149.124.29 (talk)12:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:While it is true Huangcun is the name of a place in Canton, Huangcun is another name for Daxing. The following archive of a now defunct population website in Spanish shows shows Huangcun as the name of the town and Daxing as another name for ithttps://archive.md/FcHu. The same thing in National Geographic Atlas of The World 6th edition (I don't think in the newest editions it says so)shows in the city map section Daxing and in brackets (Huangcun).--Otis the Texan (talk)22:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huangcun is a town or an area withinDaxing District (you can see Huangcun listed there, you can also see from the population in the link you gave that it's the town, not the district), they are not the same thing. The airport is in Daxing district, not Daxing town.Hzh (talk)23:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Huangcun is the center of Daxing District (although some part of the former Huangcun town is already split to Linxiaolu Subdistrict etc.), but Daxing Airport is at south/southeast of Daxing District (and part of Guangyang District of nearby Langfang city). BTW, just use a Chinese online map, I see the Huangcun is 25 km from the Daxing Airport.Ombresuvenere (talk)20:06, 5 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 November 10#Guangzhou Province
Y I approve.ReykYO!11:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]