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.
Similar reasoning as the "Holy See (The)" redirect, people looking for the country are more likely to searchGambia orThe Gambia, both of which lead to the correct page. People who have already typed in Gambia just aren't likely to want to continue it with a oddly placed "(the)".TheAwesomeHwyh23:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care about this particularly much—it doesn't mean much at all—but this redirect isn't not useful either, as perRHARMFUL.Also, please adhere toMOS:LISTGAP for accessibility reasons.J947(c), at23:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those redirects should be made, just that there would be no reason to delete them. I don't get the last point I'm afraid.J947(c), at23:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not how we disambiguate, nor is it how we make titles. The fact that its equivalent redirect minus the "(The)" targets the same page,The Gambia, reduces its utility and is unnecessary search bar clutter.However, there is a similar redirect in existence,Gambia, TheGambia, The ... whichshould be kept since it is arranged in a manner similar to a sort name, and thus has utility.Steel1943 (talk)23:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly weak-ishly because of the pageviews and the parenthetical qualifier, perJ947. If people are using it and it's not ambiguous, where's the harm here?Doug MehusT·C02:25, 29 February 2020 (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.
Found via a random search of Help Desk archives. The page was a proposal (last revision here) before being redirected in 2004(!) byMichael Snow inthis edit. Rcats added in 2017 bySteel1943; notice that in this case, the redirect has history but that history is not needed for attribution of the Help Desk page.
Comment Thisdoes have some history to it, as a failed or successful proposal. Its utility as a redirect islow, but perWP:ATT, deletion is likely out of the cards. I'd support, and prefer, ahistory merge to what ultimately became of this proposal, possibly into the current target. Failing that, maybe arename and possibleretarget-ing?Doug MehusT·C15:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one of the problems is how to identify whatultimately became of this proposal. I fail to see how the Help Desk is a successor, even spiritually, of that proposal. "Someone choose to redirect it there at the time" seems particularly flimsy evidence; on the contrary, judging by[1] and a couple of later edits, the Help Desk was a general help forum as soon as it started to exist in March 2004, whereas the proposal at time of redirection was more akin to current-dayWP:NPP (a list of potentially problematic articles marked for various issues). OTOH NPP was created in March 2004 too butas patrol log of the new pages feed, so not an exact match either.TigraanClick here to contact me15:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revert and mark with{{failed proposal}}, though I won't fuss too much about what specific tag we use as long as it clearly communicates that the proposal was unsuccessful. No meaningful connection with the help desk. --BDD (talk)19:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Restore and tag per nom,BDD,Tavix, andJ947 above. I don't have an opinion on the rename, but that's something that could possibly be pursued outside ofRfD. I don't think redirecting this to the help desk was the correct way to handle this, to be honest. For clarity on the restoration, do you meanthis revision?Doug MehusT·C 02:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)(Striking duplicate !vote.Eagles24/7(C)21:41, 6 March 2020 (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.
Redirect to Wiktionary, which normally is okay, but only redirects to a troll entry on Wiktionary created by the same (now-blocked) user who created this. I'm not sure how to nominate an entry on Wiktionary for deletion, but I would do so if I knew how. No point in having this crap clog up here or there.Hog Farm (talk)22:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't seeany encyclopedic value in this soft redirect to Wiktionary, so it's clearlywithin purpose. I think that's the better way to handle this, to nominate it for deletion at Wiktionary if it fails their attestation guidelines. As Tavix notes, this could then be speedily deleted perG8.Doug MehusT·C00:18, 29 February 2020 (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.
Last one (of the redirects targeted tomicropenis needing discussion and attention anyway!). Similar to the redirectslittle dick,tiny penis,tiny cock,small cock, andsmall dick, the latter four of the quintuplets are also on today's log page, this redirect is not mentioned in the current target. Since there are no defined parameters onwhat constitutes ashort penis, this redirect is ambiguous and confusing perWP:R#D2. In terms of assessing its utility perWP:R#K5, or lack thereof perWP:R#D8, it had47 pageviews in the preceding twelve month period inclusive to yesterday. That's probably exactlyborderline, so perWP:R#D2 andWP:K#K5, I amneutral towardretarget-ing to thedab pagesmall penis as{{R from more specific name}} and{{R from related topic}} or to delete-ing this redirect, and bringing it forth for discussion. --Doug MehusT·C03:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentRfD isWP:NOTCLEANUP. Thedab page can be fixed. Nevertheless, we cannot say that the human male has exclusive ownership toall penis size-related redirects. Lots of non-human males have penises.Doug MehusT·C20:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply going to 'penis' wouldn't be helpful. Beyond that? Well, what is or isn't 'short' is relative and has no coherent definition as mentioned above. I realize that this is kind of silly to get into, but the fact is also that 'short' isn't the same thing as 'small'. Life exists in three dimensional space (and beyond). Looking at a whole person, of course, it's easy to observe two people and think of one them as being bigger in general even if he or she is genuinely less tall. And, as additionally stated above, there's the fact that... well, it's an awkward topic to talk about, but the penis is something that doesn't just apply to other regular mammals as well as humans. It applies to angels, centaurs, cyborgs, demons, elves, ghosts, goblins, golems, harpies, nagas, necromorphs, orcs, robots, tentacle-coated abominations rising from the depths of the cursed oceans, and many other plausible to implausible creatures thought to maybe prey upon humans in a particular way should you somehow run into one. What they consider to be too 'short'? All bets are off.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)02:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is; we have disambiguation hatnotes for a reason, e.g.{{about|a medically defined condition|more subjective evaluations|Human penis size}}. As second choice, do it the other way around. By no means should this be deleted, since it's a common phrase and we have somewhere to send it, and redlinking it will obviously inspire (probably multiple) attempts to create non-encyclopedic material at this title. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Just noticed your reply, can you clarify what you mean by "do it the other way around"? I tend to agree itshouldn't be deleted, but the reason why I'm opposed to retargeting tohuman penis size is because humans aren't the only mammals with penises, long or short. I also think that, because there's no defined sizes on what constitutes a "short penis,"micropenis, a human condition, isn't appropriate. I wouldweakly support retargeting topenis, which touches, broadly, on thesizing of penises; however, my preference would be toretarget to either of (a)small penis or (b)penis (disambiguation).Note: I have proposed merging thesmall penis disambiguation page intopenis (disambiguation) since thisRfD was originally listed.Doug MehusT·C00:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't much care which direction the redir vs. hatnote goes. As for that "little matter", I don't think it's regular English usage (i.e., nothing encyclopedic or even Wiktionarian) for "micropenis" or "small penis" or anything like this to be applied outside a human context, so I'm skeptical that it matters. I think most male mammals have much of their penis as retractile, so the question doesn't really arise. I guess it could in an animal husbandry context (e.g. if a bull or stallion was literally incapable of mating successfully), but I'm unaware of sources using "micropenis" in such a context (even when I search google for keywords likelivestock micropenis). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CoffeeWithMarkets. The phrase may be common, but what does that mean? Can we really speak to what a short penis is? For a phrase to be on Wiktionary, it needs to be idiomatic, meaning the phrase has some meaning beyond the meaning of its individual parts. So they havewikt:short end of the stick, for example, but will likely never have "short penis". While this isn't a formal criteria here, it can be helpful when assessing this sort of redirect. And since a short penis is just a "penis" that is "short", by whatever definition, I don't think this is a helpful search term. --BDD (talk)16:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm stillneutral onretarget-ing to adab page (whethersmall penis orpenis (disambiguation)) or todelete-ing, but per my comments above, if it helps to clarify, I oppose retarget-ing tohuman penis size.@BDD andCoffeeWithMarkets:both make compelling arguments for the "delete" side, so, since there doesn't seem to be support to my idea retargeting toward the disambiguation page, one can safely conclude that there's probably a rough consensus here now to deletion.Doug MehusT·C17:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: discussion still ongoing Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk)22:31, 28 February 2020 (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. There's a strong consensus that the redirect is ambiguous and generally not useful in its current form, and while it couldreasonably be redirected to one of several other places, nobody has gained significant agreement that it would actuallyhelp anyone if retargeted to any specific place. ~mazcatalk13:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not needed and should have never pointed to that article. It's also a grammatical issue. "Vaginal entry" would be grammatically correct. And ifusing that latter spelling, going with that as a name, it should redirect to theVagina article.Flyer22 Frozen (talk)22:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus (Doug Mehus), I would have stated "or redirect." But "vagina entry" is not a word. It's like a grammatically incorrect version of "vaginal entry." I don't see a need to redirect it. We could simply create "vaginal entry" and redirect it instead. No need to ping me if you reply.Flyer22 Frozen (talk)22:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But since this isnot a vote, I said, "per you," because yourrationale states you oppose keeping at the current target and are supportive of, chiefly, deletion or, alternatively, retargeting. Grammatical correctness doesn't apply to redirects; we havelots of redirects for plausible misspellings.Move-ing this redirect toVaginal entry is definitely possible, but I think we should just create a new redirect, and target to the same place.Doug MehusT·C23:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus (Doug Mehus), again, no need to ping me. I'll check back here for replies. I've pinged you, but that's because I'm not sure if it's best to ping you when I reply here. As for the matter at hand, some editors will state "not a vote" with regard to consensus-building; this is perWP:Consensus. I've also noted that consensus on Wikipedia is not about votes (unless it's something like RfA). But it does seem that in venues such as this one, it pretty much comes down to a vote. Either way, I am aware ofWP:Redirects are cheap. And it's because of that cheapness, that they can often be validly deleted. Wikipedia has taken grammatical correctness, including misspellings matters, into consideration times before when it comes to whether or not to retain a redirect. This includes whether or not the misspelling is common enough that we should retain it as a redirect. In this case, you feel that retaining "vagina entry" is beneficial. I don't when "vaginal entry" is considered. Any reader typing in "vagina entry" is looking for "vaginal entry." It's just that "vagina entry" popped up when they typed "vaginal entry." Or they left out the l when typing. There is no need for "vagina entry." We'll just have to agree to disagree.Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post.Flyer22 Frozen (talk)23:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Involved Comment From my perspective, there's at least arough consensusagainst deletion in that the nominator and Flyer 22 Frozen are either ambivalent toward retargeting tovagina, retargetingsomewhere, or to deleting. The subsequent comments by yours truly and validated by Hog Farm have refuted the grammatical incorrectness ofvagina entry being implausible, which adds support to Flyer22 Frozen's alternate option of retargeting tovagina.Doug MehusT·C15:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm firmly for deletion. I read Ivanvector's comment below, and I'm still for deletion. Per what I stated above, I see no need at all to keep this redirect. It is not at all beneficial. "Vaginal entry" should be created instead and this should be deleted.Flyer22 Frozen (talk)01:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not we call this a grammatical error, and whether or not the creator intended for it to be this way, I already addressed the fact that a misspelling being common enough to retain it as a redirect is commonly employed. This, however, isn't some case where retaining this odd variation helps the reader if "vaginal entry" is created instead. I wrote most of the Vagina article and had never seen this redirect. If I had, I don't remember it, and I have a very good memory. I should have created "Vaginal entry." Anyway, I won't be broken up about "vagina entry" being retained; it's not something that matters much.Flyer22 Frozen (talk)01:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as proposed above. Redirects don't need to be grammatically correct, in fact one of their functions is to capture searches from plausible incorrect forms. A reader attempting a keyword search for "vagina" and "entry" would be well-informed by landing atvagina.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)15:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Flyer 22 Frozen. I'm not giving too much weight to the page views there—anything that shows up in the search box when you enter "Penis" or "Vagina" is going to get a lot of use just from juvenile antics. Retargeting toVagina seems uniquely unhelpful, since a reader searching this will almost certainly know what a vagina is and that they can search for it directly. To the extent this implies something more specific, it's misleading. --BDD (talk)20:22, 28 February 2020 (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 or explain. What is "Wedian"? No mention of it in the article and cannot find it in any of the references there. From the reference on the redirect, it seems to be a project codename. If we're going to keep this redirect, we need something in the target article explaining it. —Smjg (talk)12:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not something I feel strongly about either way. Anyway, I made the redirect because that was what I was looking up and the search came up empty. The name was quoted in serveral non-wikipedia articles.The Guardian,MIT,Urban Development Consortium. I'm Scandinavian, and the name was also at that time (when the redirect was made) quoted quite extensively in Scandinavian Media (probably from the same source)Bygg.noBT etc etc. Anyway, i'd be fine with deleting the redirect, if it's a problem.Sertmann (talk)15:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've added a couple of the sources cited above, though I think this is a pretty fineWP:CRYSTAL line. I think we're safe because we're just reporting on what others have said rather than speculating ourselves, but I wouldn't be surprised if the addition is reverted and we end up back here. --BDD (talk)17:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think BDD's additions seem fine/convincing, at least for the time being. This could be relisted to see if they persist for a week, but for now I think it's fine to keep this redirect. ~Amory(u •t •c)18:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plausible search term that is now explained at the target. (I believe the mention is appropriate, but that is not directly an RFD matter.)Glades12 (talk)19:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC), updated 20:09, 1 March 2020 (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 and attribute with an edit summary. There's consensus in the first instance that this redirect isn't helpful at this time for readers, as a succession of trims and merges have removed any mention of this fictional location from the current target. Valid concerns, however, were raised about technical attribution issues in future if some of these merges happen to be undone, and some of the content was to resurface in the published version. Out of an abundance of caution, therefore, I've made anedit to the original merged target (also now a redirect) crediting the initial author, who was the only user in the history that actually added significant content to the article that may need attribution. ~mazcatalk14:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Two Watchers" are not mentioned in the English Wikipedia. The article was merged, but the page it was merged into has been redirected, so the content is not around in the articlespace.Hog Farm (talk)20:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. With no merged content extant, we also no longer need to worry about attribution. In fact, "Two Watchers" isn't mentioned in any Middle-Earth related articles. --Tavix(talk)02:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter. If the content is anywhere in any revision ofany article, then the attribution history must be preserved on wiki. SeeWikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Hyperlink (the sentence about the "disadvantage" to that attribution method). There are no "unless someone later blanks the merged content" or "what if the page gets redirected to a different page?" exceptions to this legal rule.WhatamIdoing (talk)17:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for attribution when there is nothing to attribute. Simply put, there iszero content on the Middle Earth Two Watchersanywhere on Wikipedia. If we were that strict about attributing removed content, we wouldnever be able to delete anything, which is obviously not the case. --Tavix(talk)14:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless someone's going to write about these statues into the Mordor article, there isn't much to say about it or to keep. The fandom pages can document and preserve such details.AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)23:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As long as the content remains on Wikipedia, even only in theMiddle-earth article history, attribution requirements of the licenses require that the attributions for that content remain. The only place where the attributions exist is in theTwo Watchers redirect history, so the redirect must be kept to maintain that attribution.TJRC (talk)00:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks,Tavix. By "parallel history problem," I assume you mean that the target of the history merge would have revisions that don't necessarily run parallel to each other in terms of their content? Ican see this as a relatively minor problem, if looking back through the history for something, but if the goal is just to adhere to the licensing requirements, I think it's relatively minor given the lower likelihood of needing to look through revisions from, say, 10 years ago (other than, say, copyright investigations). Our methods by which we preserve attribution are...complicated. History merges, like you say, can result in problems of histories running parallel to each other whereas talk page history merges can be easily broken or corrupted and merges using redirects can fall through the cracks and be accidentally deleted.Doug MehusT·C14:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page I linked to contains a lot of information about parallel histories. Instead of assuming, please read that link. We're getting off topic now, so I'll leave it at that. --Tavix(talk)14:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have an opinion, but just want to say that, assuming the above is true, I believe Tavix has the attribution requirements right. At the very least, what he describes has been standard practice at RfD, AfD, and elsewhere for a long time. ~Amory(u •t •c)18:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Admin #1 deletesArticle because "With no merged content in the current version, I never need to worry about attribution for that blanked content again".
Editor #3, not knowing anything at all about the merge or the deletion, reverts Editor #2 – and now we need that attribution back, because what we have is a copyright violation.
And if it's not Editor #3, it's a re-user who was pointing to it for their attribution, or a researcher trying to figure out how Wikipedia's content changed, or an editor trying to figure out why this guy claims to have created a hundred articles when only five can be seen in the user's contributions, or what the big deal about this edit war was, etc. There are a lot of uses for Wikipedia's history that aren't about the current version of an article.
So on the one hand, we have a redirect that goes to a page whose current version doesn't mention it. The reader might be disappointed but would probably figure out that it's something about Tolkien. On the other hand, we have the possibility of ending up with a copyright violation. The question here is whether it's important enough to you to remove that redirect that you're willing to risk copyvios. My own POV is that the policy says "do not delete", with no exceptions, and not "don't delete, unless you've verified that the content isn't visible in the current version of any article, in which case, it's absolutely safe to assume that nobody will ever restore any of it." What's your POV?WhatamIdoing (talk)18:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Iconcur with Tavix here. There's notthat many editors usernames here, when you strip out the bot edits and this RfD discussion listing, that recording the editors names in an edit summary on one or more target articles then deleting this redirect should solve anyattributon concerns.Doug MehusT·C23:55, 28 February 2020 (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.
RetargetAl Jilwah (which also points to the wrong target) toYazidi Book of Revelation whereKitab al Jilwah is mentioned as an alternative name (whereكتابkitāb meansbook). Of course,Book of Revelation alone is understood in English-speaking contexts as meaning theChristian Book of Revelation (aka ΑποκαλυψιςApokalypsis), which is something different altogether. Not sure about the usefulness of the parenthese. Is that book really widely known under that name which some might call "blasphemous"? I don't know, and I personally don't care this way or that about blasphemingper se, but some other people do, and if that alias isn't widely known, why mention it? —Tonymec (talk)02:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not about blasphemy for me, an atheist. It's just a recognition that labeling any non-Satanist religion "of Satan" is inflammatory and disrespectful. The only "Black Book of Satan" mentioned on Wikipedia comes from an actual Satanist group (Order of Nine Angles). Note that "Al Jiwah" has already been retargeted in the above discussion (link in case of relisting). --BDD (talk)16:26, 26 February 2020 (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. While certainly relevant to the current target, consensus here seems to be that it's very much ambiguous. ~mazcatalk14:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Check this link:Lockout/Tagout. If you scroll-down you'll see the section about the energy-isolation device. It's an important part of Lockout/Tagout. It would probably be better to have it's own page, but since it doesn't I made it a redirect page. But please -- don't delete it.
Comment Good find,Noah Tall. The key here, though, is that it's not mentioned in the target article. That said, that's a reasonable primary source for which we could easily add a mention. The question becomes, is this theonly possible "energy-isolation device"? Ifso, then it's probably harmless to keep targeted here. Ifnot, then we need to think about what the other possible uses are and whether retargeting, disambiguating, or deleting is best. I haven't looked into it yet, so have no comment either way, but hopefully this helps.Doug MehusT·C21:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going by my own research, this is the only page to me that we have on Wikipedia to redirect this to. So I don't think we need a disambiguation. I'm not an expert in this field though so you understand, but I haven't been able to find any page that has anything to do with energy-isolating devices aside from this one, and that's why I made the redirect. As I said earlier though, I think it would benefit from a page of its' own more so than as a redirect page.--Noah Tall (talk)23:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As such, this only looks helpful to readers already familiar with the topic, and is likely to confuse others. --BDD (talk)17:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dunno, it seems like it'd be pretty trivial to mention at the topic? I'm not a LOTO expert, but at least by my read, isn't half the lead/lede dancing around the idea of using a device? Is there any reason we shouldn't just say something to that effect? More to the point, theProcedure section explicitly discusses devices, saying, among other things,Safety equipment manufacturers provide a range of isolation devices specifically designed... andfor example, an isolation device does not have to resist a chainsaw.... It seems like the targetdoes refer to energy-isolation devices, but by saying that they are devices that isolate energy. ~Amory(u •t •c)18:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The latter is not a synonym for the former. The title of the redirects makes it seem the target article's subject actually performs the task of isolating energy, which the target's subject does not. The target subject is literally just a procedure for placing a tag informing workers not to perform electrical work on the device which is tagged prior to removing the tag. These redirects' titles areWP:REDLINK at best, misleading (in their current states) at worst.Steel1943 (talk)22:37, 28 February 2020 (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.
Names for humans in Tolkien's writings not important enough to be mentioned in the target article. None of these have been merged anywhere (I checked), so there is no attribution issues with deletion (No page history either, all created as redirects).Hog Farm (talk)22:19, 28 February 2020 (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.
Keep, possibly weak-ishly due to the low pageviews identified byHog Farm, perJasonAQuest andDispenser. The fact that it doesn't include the.com in the redirect string to be an{{R from domain name}} doesn't matter, nor really do the lack of spaces. As well, theage of the film likely contributes to the low pageviews, so theage of this redirect shouldn't be ignored perWP:R#K4.Doug MehusT·C20:19, 1 March 2020 (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.
Foreign language redirect of a ordinary term with no particular tie to the language. Some parts of Romania do have a lot of mudbrick construction, but mudbricks are not an inherently Romanian concept. Previously redirected from a merge after discussion, there are now no links to the redirect.oknazevad (talk)17:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chirpici[ro] is not a 'foreign language term' (with the pejorative lack of importance that implies) but rather a local term for a foreign technique of building withmud bricks. Unsurprisingly (surely this is unsurprising?) there are international and climate-based variations in vernacular building techniques, regardingadobe,cob and mud brick building. However WP has no little collective knowledge of craft building topics, andTalk:Adobe#Suggested merge II was a dreadful idea, failing to understand the distinction between adobe and mud brick. FortunatelyJim Derby does have a bit more understanding and opposed it.
What the nominator hasn't mentioned is that it's a redir in the first place because they were the one who blanked an old stub article on it:[7]
This should be a discussion on whether we restore Chirpici as an article on en:WP, and whether we can find viable English language sources to support it. Having previously worked on a few Anglo-Romanian aerospace topics, this is difficult: Romanian sources are removed as non-English, and we don't have many people with the language skills to translate in detail. Yet it is though clearly a WP:Notable topic: it's one of the few European mud brick techniques which is known across Europe (Chirpici houses have been built in SW England, with the aid of Romanians).
Should it exist as a redirect (if not an article) - of course. Why ever not?
Should it be linked as a redirect frommudbrick? Maybe, if (as is likely) it would be referring to a specific section within that article for the technique, as practised in Romania.
But, and this is the concern I've had for years, and the reason the article got redirected in the first place, is that it is just a "local term" (that's is to say, a non-English term) for a concept that has an English name for which we already have an article. Local techniques which may be borrowed don't rise to a distinct enough concept to warrant a separate article, and what hasn't been shown is that the term has use in English language sources. That's the concern.oknazevad (talk)20:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the change to a redirect was me just carrying out the consensus of the discussion onTalk:Adobe, a discussion I got involved with because there was a lot of erroneous stuff going on at the time, such as the inappropriate move ofcompressed earth block which would have erased any distinction of that technology. Fortunately knowledgeable people came along to stop the errors, but it doesn't change thatchirpici is just the Romanian language term for mudbrick (and it is that because it's blocks, not loose material), andWP:RFFL states plainly not to create non-English redirects for common terms.oknazevad (talk)00:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chirpici isn't merely the Romanian term for mud brick, it's the Romanian term for mud brick, as practised as a fairly widespread vernacular building technique in Romania. We do recognise that local variants of a technique can differ, and that they can justify separate, notable articles. As noted, we probably can't source this well enough to make a robust en:WP article on it (although we used to have an adequate stub), but it's certainly enough to justify a redir and a para inmud brick.Andy Dingley (talk)12:09, 21 February 2020 (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. There is consensus that this is an ambiguous redirect. Creation of an article or disambiguation-like page dealing with the concept is expressly encouraged by this discussion. ~mazcatalk13:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are active rosters for leagues other than Major League Baseball, this is an inappropriate target. I propose changing this into a disambiguation page.Eagles24/7(C)15:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per nom. Don't even think it needs a discussion, as it's a plain fact that MLB isn't the only sports league with active rosters.oknazevad (talk)18:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Write article, which might be short. AFAICT, only the MLB article discusses the concept; but it's mentioned in some American football biographies at least. I think "roster" in a sports context may be a purely North American term; is it used in other sports also, e.g. hockey, lacrosse or even soccer? We havepractice squad, a related NA concept, which also mentions "main roster". See also DAB pageroster, which includes the different conceptroster (workplace). I suggestroster (sports) as a working title.Narky Blert (talk)08:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Isupportdelete-ing this redirect if a draft disambiguation page hasn't been drafted, as this would still allow for recreation as a disambiguation in the future.Doug MehusT·C 01:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)(User !voted twice, striking this one.Eagles24/7(C)21:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Delete I agree with Narky Blert that such an article is warranted. Disambiguation isn't necessarily a bad idea, but none has been drafted, and it's not clear to me exactly what it would look like. --BDD (talk)00:41, 9 March 2020 (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.
Delete - I respectfully disagree withJ947 on the pageviews analysis. 74 pageviews since 2015 doesn't mean a whole lot. It received 20 in 2019[8], which is below the treshhold I would consider to indicate general usefulness.Hog Farm (talk)23:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not how we disambiguate, nor is it how we make titles. The fact that the target is a title match minus the "The", this redirect serves no utility other than someone possibly unnecessarily clicking it after typing "Holy See" in the search bar. So, delete as unnecessary search bar clutter.Steel1943 (talk)23:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perHog Farm actually; it's simply unused. J947's pageview analysis shows 74 pageviews, but that's going back to its creation in 2015—that works out to less than 1 pageview per month. This could be due to bots, search engine crawlers, or a single user that has the page bookmarked for some reason. It's hard to know where those pageviews are coming from, but at any rate, it's most likely used not bypeople but by a singleperson, if it's used by people at all. I agree with Steel1943 that this is not how we disambiguate at all, but we could still keep redirects with seemingly implausible disambiguatorsif they had widespread usage. This is not that, so, in this case, it's just cluttering up the search box.Doug MehusT·C02:22, 1 March 2020 (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. Fairly even split between keep and delete, given the level of participation I don't think a relist would help. Keep editors felt that the redirects were sufficiently plausible misspellings, delete editors disagreed.signed,Rosguilltalk23:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
N.b., I've combined these nominations.Prior to this there were no comments on the individual nominations except the above comment from the nominator, left in the "Jezuz" discussion. --BDD (talk)20:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as plausible misspellings. We can't assume all readers will know how to spell such a proper name: it's not generally a word that L2 learners learn early on, its great cultural prominence does not extend completely throughout the English-using world, and even in those other societies where the name is prominent it's almost invariably spelt differently than in English. –Uanfala (talk)23:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you check the amount of hits each page got in the past year, you can because the hits per year for all of them except Gesus are less than 25 so I would be willing to say keep Gesus if anything.
Weak keep all perUanfala, given the notability of the target subject, the possibility for misspellings, and since none of these seems like intentional vandalism-ish misspellings (even though the creator did apparently create some variants that were indeed problems, as mentioned above.) However, I'm "weak" perAngusWOOF's "delete" vote: These aren't notable misspellings either. However, this is a case where them being deleted will probably cause more harm than good unless these redirects haveWP:REDLINK potential by having a title/spelling conflict with another subject, which I do not see any such evidence presented thus far in the discussion.Steel1943 (talk)23:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked for other noteworthy topics that could go by these names and didn't find any (not counting the possibility ofGesus being mistaken as the plural ofGesu (which doesn't have a plural form) orDel Gesu (which has a plural form, but then thedel is not separable from theGesu). –Uanfala (talk)00:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of these redirects also made definite vandalism-ish misspellings and got blocked for harassing other Wikipedians. For me it makes it very likely these are vandalism redirects too.71.34.25.253 (talk)00:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also check the amount of hits these pages got in the past year. Other than Gesus, they all got at most 24. And some of them were me searching them up a couple of days ago to confirm these are not deleted. Other than Gesus, I see no point in keeping them.— Precedingunsigned comment added by71.34.25.253 (talk)00:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, possibly weak-ishly, perUanfala andSteel1943. These are all plausible misspellings, some more common than others, perhaps. Unless there's other uses for these redirects, there's no harm in keeping them.Doug MehusT·C00:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I searched up the amount of hits in the past year. Gesus got 97 the rest got at most 24. Other than Gesus, I do not see any possible value in keeping these.71.34.25.253 (talk)00:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other than Gesus these redirects only got up to 24 hits last year, some even 15-18. It makes me not see a reason to keep some of these even more. 97 though for Gesus makes me willing to say keep.71.34.25.253 (talk)00:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I decided to type here the basic overall records for the hits these pages got in the past year.
Gesus got 97 hits on 75 different days, with one day in May getting 4 hits. Not often, but it does happen so I am willing to say kepp on this one.Gezuz got 24 hits on 18 different days, with two days getting 3 hits in April and October.Jezuz got 20 hits on 15 different days, with one day getting 3 hits in July.Gesuz got 18 hits on 12 different days, with one day getting 4 hits in January.Finally, Gezus got 15 hits on 13 different days, with two days getting two hits in January and May.While I do agree, there can be misspells, all of these other than Gesus get hits so rarely I do not see the point.Edit: I also checked when Jesus got the most hits last year. Most of these redirects did not get that many hits during Easter time and Christmas time, the two moments of the year where everyone searches up Jesus on Wikipedia.71.34.25.253 (talk)01:01, 29 February 2020 (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 there are clearly multiple meanings of this term, with no strong indication as to which one a reader is looking for. This is discouraged byWP:XY. ~mazcatalk23:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at the target, and I wasn't able to figure out if/how the terms are related from searching Google Scholar. Delete unless a justification provided.signed,Rosguilltalk18:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but I also think this could become a broad-concept article or a disambiguation article in the future for the possible uses of the terminology. My primary usage for the term is indeed a company that operates a bus shuttle service; it could also apply toSpaceX, which has a contract with NASA to launch rockets and the like. I wouldn't use the term to refer to a space shuttlepilot, though.Doug MehusT·C00:52, 29 February 2020 (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.
Blood grouping and crossmatching are different things. Blood grouping (which I'm currently working on a draft for, because we somehow don't have an article on it!?!) refers to determining a person's blood type, i.e., type A negative and so on. Crossmatching refers to testing a patient's blood sample against donor blood to determine if it is compatible. Blood grouping is usually done before a crossmatch, and is part of electronic crossmatching, but it's not the same thing. The article does discuss blood grouping briefly, but only as an alternative to crossmatching in emergency situations. TL;DR: Suggest deleting perWP:XY.SpicyMilkBoy (talk)18:03, 28 February 2020 (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.
Retarget toSabre Corporation. While the fictional company is mentioned in the target article, I don't see why a fictional company in a TV show should have priority over a corporation publicly traded on a stock index (NASDAQ in the US). Hatnote to Dunder Mifflin if deemed necessary.Hog Farm (talk)14:14, 28 February 2020 (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.
Delete as ambiguous per above and because of the unnecessary disambiguation qualifier, which makes it an implausible search term as aredirect.Doug MehusT·C14:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fraction does not have its own page, and the (number) disambiguator makes it much less likely to be intended as a search for the date.Hog Farm (talk)14:07, 28 February 2020 (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 as an implausible search term because of the long parenthetical qualifier. Therecould be merit to a project shortcut here, without the parenthetical qualifier, but I don't we need toretroactively create shortcuts to failed project proposals. Thus, I agree with the first and latter two points ofReyk's argument; it's unnecessary and garbage.Doug MehusT·C14:10, 28 February 2020 (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.
Unclearwhy this redirect redirects to the current page of a fictional character from a television series. This, arguably, should be theprimary redirect forCalona Wines, whichhas been the subject of book-length local history books and a fair bit ofreliable sourcemass media press coverage; however,Calona Wines is currently awaiting article creation. So, I'm proposing to either (a)delete perWP:R#D10 or (b) toweak disambiguatefor now, if possible thoughpartial title matchesmay apply here, until an article forCalona Wines is created then it could beboldly retargeted there as theprimary redirect. I wouldoppose retarget-ing toHerb Capozzi orW. A. C. Bennett becauseCalona Wines is only tangentially mentioned in either article and it becomes anXY thing. Similarly,Calona has never been a variant spelling forKelowna; it's always been the name of Calona Wines, Calona Vineyards, and related for-profit private enterprises, as a play on the spelling of the nameKelowna. Iwouldweak support retarget-ing toOkanagan Valley (wine region), if that's possible here, even though it's not the full company name, until such time asCalona Wines has a published article, then this should target there as{{R from short name}}.Doug MehusT·C00:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to encourage article creation; clutters searching. Not mentioned in the target, no other suitable target. As well asCalona Wines, there are two blacklinked people with the surname. Nothing in Italian or Spanish WPs.sv:Opopaea calona has no English equivalent and would not be a suitable target if it did.Narky Blert (talk)10:11, 28 February 2020 (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/2020 March 7#TMNT Nickelodeon