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 wasaccept draft. This doesn't preclude redirection in the future if the community finds it appropriate, of course, but the draft looks good and should make for a better baseline for discussion. --BDD (talk)18:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re-target toJenner Institute. Redirect seems to based that the Oxford University/Astrazeneca vaccine is called ChAdOx1, or that ChAdOx1 is the shortened form of ChAdOx1 nCov-19. In fact ChAdOx1 is a viral vector that has been used in several vaccine trials by the Jenner Institute e.g. forflu andMERS. --TedEdwards22:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: What about redirecting toSarah Gilbert, which mentions her research in using ChAdOx1 for MERS vaccination?
I strongly believe that a redirect should not link to a page that will confuse what the meaning of the term is, and I believe that redirecting "ChAdOx1" to "Covid-19 vaccine" will cause confusion over what ChAdOx1 is. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, and should not feed incorrect beliefs, like ChAdOx1 being a Covid vaccine. So I don't believe the redirect at the moment provides value.
This page, being a discussion page, should provide an opportunity to discuss all pages that "ChAdOx1" could redirect to, not just "Jenner Institute" and "Covid-19 vaccine", so I am willing to discuss this. --TedEdwards23:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TedEdwards andRich Farmbrough: now that the AZD1222 article has been created, what about to write a stub for theChAdOx1 ? Maybe something like "ChAdOx1 is a viral vector developed by .... and used for different vaccines trials as .... and Covid-19 (under the name of AZD1222)"Alexcalamaro (talk)05:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toAdenoviridae#Vaccines. That section mentions & explains this term, and can be further expanded with information about other ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines to avoid any misleading implication that ChAdOx1 is only associated with COVID-19 vaccines. (N.b.: the target section itself might benefit from being retitled, e.g. to something like "As vaccine vectors", to avoid confusion withAdenovirus vaccines.)61.239.39.90 (talk)06:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget -Adenoviridae#Vaccines seems to be the best and most accurate currently existing option. I agree with the assertion that even if this ismostly being used in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine using this vector, it's still quite inaccurate to point it at that and imply it's a specific meaning. A stub article, though, may be the best option. ~mazcatalk12:15, 1 December 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.
Obvious keep. Have you ever been in the situation to use a foreign-language keyboard (for example while you are on holiday in a different country)?Druck is the printed label on the key of German keyboards which corresponds with thePrtScr key on English keyboards, so people may have a need to find out what it means. This is a situation different from f.e. an alpha-key label likeQ which might be associated with a different key initially (before loading a national keyboard driver), f.e. with letter "A" on an French AZERTY rather than an English QWERTY keyboard, because this can be remedied by loading the corresponding keyboard driver, so that pressing "A" actually produces "A". However, the label for the print-screen key would still showDruck after loading the driver, so the English user may still need to know what it is. Therefore, the redirect helps users to find the relevant info. Since it is not in the way of another article, the solution perWP:REDIR is to keep. --Matthiaspaul (talk)15:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We typically target redirects to the most specific article/section, therefore the targetPrint Screen appears to be more appropriate thanGerman keyboard layout, although that would be another option, but only the second best one. After all, the user entering this is well aware of the fact that s/he is using a foreign language keyboard. There won't be any surprises when s/he gets redirected toPrint Screen, as this immediately answers the implied question even without explicitly mentioning the foreign language term there. --Matthiaspaul (talk)14:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toGerman keyboard layout. Matthiaspaul is making some reasonable enough assumptions about how this may be used, but they are still assumptions, and there are multiple points at which the scenario could fail.German keyboard layout#Key labels may be the best choice, since it avoids the reader having to find the content within the article. --BDD (talk)19:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toGerman_keyboard_layout#Key_labels per Ketiltrout. I broadly agree that most use of this redirect is going to be people puzzling over the meaning of the key on a German keyboard and looking for a translation, but in any other circumstances just dumping them atPrint screen without context is suboptimal. The page covering German keyboards with an explicit translation seems the most appropriate solution. ~mazcatalk12:20, 1 December 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.
With the conclusion of the 2019–20 season of Argentine football on 28 April 2020, it was decided by the Argentine Football Association (AFA) thatthe next Primera División season would start in 2021, instead of the second half of 2020. A redirection from this article to2020 Copa de la Liga Profesional should not be made because: 1) the Copa de la LPF will not count towards league records, and 2) it is not considered a league competition but rather as a cup (just like the defunct Copa de la Superliga) which was only made to align the league to the calendar year from 2021 onwards. Therefore, there will not be a 2020–21 season in Argentine football, especially in the Primera División tournament.CodeMars04 (talk)17:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget. There is lots of precedent for sporting events and seasons that have been cancelled due to Covid to redirect to whichever article explains the cancellation as they are and will remain likely search terms. In this case the best target is possiblyArgentine Primera División#2020–present.Thryduulf (talk)19:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNote: I created the redirect. I'm happy for any decision to be made, just as long as it's consistently shown throughout articles. I created the redirect for the sole reason of the career statistics tables on player articles. The Copa Libertadores and Copa Sudamericana are both being played in the gap between the Primera División seasons (2019-20 & 2021), as is the Copa de la Liga Profesional itself, so wasn't sure where we'd put player's stats for those competitions in. As 2019-20 has ended, yet 2021 hasn't begun. I thought 2020-21 would be a good middle ground, especially as Soccerway list Copa de la Liga Profesional apps/gls as Primera División apps/gls. A similar situation as the MLS Is Back Tournament, which has (seemingly) been paired in with MLS 2020 for statistics etc. I'm willing to listen to other editor's ideas, I'd just want consistency that's all.RPSwp (talk)19:32, 22 November 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.
This redirect was pointing to a Notable people section, despite the article about said person having been deleted at AfDhalf a year ago. As Sabur should not be listed at the target without notability having been established, this redirect serves no purpose and should be deleted.signed,Rosguilltalk19:50, 30 November 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.
While this was created with the justificationthe term "Eurocrimes" was used by Věra Jourová in a speech on LGBTQ rights on 12 Nov. 2020, an internet search primarily lists a variety of unrelated subjects, including a 2012 film[1], a think tank[2], and a crime fiction association[3]. Given the range of (likely non-notable) referents, deletion seems like the most appropriate course of action.signed,Rosguilltalk19:41, 30 November 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.
This doesn't appear to be an alternative name for the target nor a likely misnomer. Delete unless a justification can be provided.signed,Rosguilltalk19:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isThe BFG's word for "helicopter". If there was relevant content atThe BFG or a related article I'd suggest retargetting there, but it isn't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia and there is nowhere in the article it could be reasonably added so it is not a useful redirect.Thryduulf (talk)20:36, 30 November 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. If you have a problem with the target article then take it to AfD, but while it exists this is a completely ok redirect to it - someone looking for this information will find it at the target.Thryduulf (talk)17:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wouldn't go as far as saying that top 10 lists are unencyclopedic. They very well could be if they are the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. However, that's not the case here—there is nothing special about the set of the 10 tallest buildings in Moscow. That is also not the subject of the list because there are a lot more then 10 buildings listed. --Tavix(talk)21:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think all top 10 lists and redirects are unencyclopedic as some could very well be encyclopedic but since in this case there are well more then 10 buildings on this list I think the redirect should be deleted unless we remove the extra buildings but that would require a discussion and RFD is the wrong venue for that.🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk)00:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix andAyana: While it is true that more than 10 buildings are located at the target, anybody using this redirect will find the top 10 tallest buildings in Moscow listed there. This is therefore a{{R to broader topic}}. We regularly create and keep redirects from titles like e "Tallest foo in Bar" to "List of foos in Bar (by height)" even though more than one foo is listed at the target (especially when there isn't a single clear answer or the single tallest foo does not have it's own article). I don't understand why this is any different? Redirects do not need to be encyclopadic titles, they just need to be plausible search terms and I am convinced this is an example of just that.Thryduulf (talk)01:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a plausible search term. It's quite clear that someone searching this would be taken to the right place. I think top 10 lists in general are common enough that it's not unlikely someone might think to search in this way.A7V2 (talk)07:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Overall I'm not a big fan of this sort of redirect, but at least this top 10 list is objective, so I don't see much harm in keeping it around. It looks like it gets a hit about every couple weeks. ―NK1406talk•contribs03:00, 1 December 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. The phrase "Presidency of Mike Pence" assumes that Mike Pence has been President at some point in time. This is not the case. Furthermore, the Great America Committee hasn't explicitly stated that it desires Mike Pence to become President as far as I now. People just assume that the creation of the PAC is a political move. ―NK1406talk•contribs03:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as misleading speculation. If we needed to target itsomewhere, this is probably the correct target, but we do not need aPresidency of Mike Pence title at all in the absence of any imminent likelihood or coverage of that occurring. ~mazcatalk12:52, 1 December 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 December 8#Protected page