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 article was moved to help clear up what show it's from, but it got moved back a few days later. There's nothing else called Bart Has Two Mommies, so there's no real point in having this redirect. Most users would search the title first instead of adding parenthesis. Additionally, no pages currently link to this and it was created before the episode aired.Delete.Scrooge200 (talk)20:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above. "Bart Has Two Mommies (The Simpsons)" is technically a Simpsons video, so where is the proof of deleting this redirect?Seventyfiveyears (talk)17:16, 24 September 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.
Those storms never reached hurricane intensity, nor were there any hurricanes along with those names. Cyclone Larry did occur in the Southern Hemisphere. Same for Cyclone Nicholas and Cyclone Odette. However, I'm not 100% sure if we should retarget Nicholas and Odette to the storm list.Seventyfiveyears (talk)20:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Harmless. These names are all included in one of the naming lists for the Atlantic, so it's more than likely that we'll see them being used for future hurricanes. Interestingly enough,this list will be used next year.CycloneYoristalk!22:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only 85% sure that we should retarget Nicholas and Odette to dab page. Disambiguate Larry just in case that there is another hurricane with this name, for example in 2021.Seventyfiveyears (talk)23:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection to that. However, disambiguating Larry does seem unnecessary, at least for now, we should wait for Larry 2021 to form next year. In the meantime, the hatnote at Larry’s article does the trick.CycloneYoristalk!06:53, 24 September 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 wasdisambiguate the first,retargeting the second there. Thanks to Shhhnotsoloud for the draft! --BDD (talk)19:09, 30 September 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.
The result of the discussion waskeep. I think this fairly could've been either keep or no consensus, though the outcome is the same. --BDD (talk)19:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They exist because this spelling is used in some of the literature. It is quite normal for such kind of terms that different typographical notations (like with space, with hyphens, quoted, with slashes, in parentheses, etc.) are used by different authors and over larger timespans. One purpose of redirects is to provide an input interface for any of them. --Matthiaspaul (talk)18:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not preaching to the choir, but just tried to be efficient in the use of my time to safe a perfectly valid redirect carelessly nominated for deletion. You are obviously notWP:AGF in your fellow editors. May I ask you to do your homework and bemuch more carefulWP:BEFORE you make nominations for deletion? This is no fun at all, it is wasting other editors' precious time and energy. And there's always a risk involved of good contents to be accidently deleted if the original author is not (or no longer) around to provide background on something and no other competent editor happens to stop by in the few days of discussion. There are other venues (like article talk pages (in the case of redirects probably that of the target page)) to discuss possible issues, if you are not alreadysure something must be deleted because it is junk or a mistake.
While a lack of Google hits does not tell anything about the existence of something, here are two links from the first page of Google hits using these terms and notations (one historical and one modern):
You took my "preaching to the choir" statement out of context, and accused me of doing something I didn't. I was saying that I know what purpose redirects serve, which is why I nominated these things in the first place. Your claim that "You are obviously notWP:AGF in your fellow editors." is a claim with no foundation. I did myWP:BEFORE and found no results, which is why I started this discussion. These are redirects, not articles. It should be clear why a redirect targets an page without having to know a figurative backdoor or secret handshake for references that only subject material experts know in order to to figure out why a redirect targets a page; at the same time, the redirect needs to be spelled and punctuated in a plausible manner. Anyways, your whole comment was anWP:AGF failure so I have nothing more to say. Have a nice day.Steel1943 (talk)22:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Over here "preaching to the choir" is an accusation, that's what I responded to in regard to AGF. Also, because you obviously don't put trust in the competence of other editors, those who wrote the article, provided the references, created the redirects, and answered swiftly above. You certainly don't need to be an expert on a topic, but you should know enough about a topic to be sure that something you nominate for deletion is incorrect. Otherwise, better don't make such nominations (except for in cases of obvious junk) as you are thereby putting possibly good contents or infrastructure at risk - that's potentially harmful, wasting resources, and annoying the contributors, and therefore not good, even if you act with the best intentions (I'm sure you did).
If you have some background in coding theory you will know that there are many sometimes strange looking conventions and notations in use to describe the codes. We can't do anything about it, they are used and therefore we need redirects for them.
It might be difficult to track down a larger body of the printed literature, but fortunately in this case some stuff is online, and it was trivially easy to find the listed refs with Google proving the use of this notation. There's no backdoor or secret handshake involved. You should have found them as well, in particular as one of the citations is prominently used in the article where these codes are discussed, indicating that you did not even look at the locations these redirects point to. So, I really wonder what you did at all to come to the conclusion that these redirects should be deleted even though their purpose is fully covered by our guidelineWP:RPURPOSE. Clearly, your necessary research prior to the nomination was not thorough enough perWP:BEFORE. This can happen as a mistake, but it should remain a rare exception, otherwise you need to improve that and your judgement before making nominations for deletion. This isn't the first time that you make invalid nominations. That's why I ask you to please be more careful.
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 at the target or the connected svWiki and fiWiki articles. The Finnish article mentions "Kilonväylä" as an alternative name, but it's not clear whether that's equivalent to this term. Searching online I couldn't find anything suggesting that this was an alternative name. Delete unless a justification can be provided.signed,Rosguilltalk16:46, 14 September 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.
Disambig. Why does this even need to be discussed? It's a clearly useful search term that is ambiguous with a finite number of articles and no clear primary topic. What else other than disambiguation could be appropriate?Thryduulf (talk)17:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add hatnote to target article. We don't have an article on the etymology of the U.S. state name, so a hatnote will suffice in place of a disambiguation page. -Eureka Lott02:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, though I totally agree that the article needs to be moved toNames of Georgia if so. I've added a hatnote for the US state, which should've been there already. I would be fine with disambiguation: the etymology of the state is much moresimple than the country's, not necessarily less notable. But in general, it makes more sense to prefer a full article as primary topic over a section or list entry. --BDD (talk)18:56, 30 September 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.
Not mentioned at the target, internet search didn't turn up anything that clarified the connection, delete unless a justification can be provided.signed,Rosguilltalk16:31, 23 September 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.
Wayne Lineker was only onTOWIE for a month. (Daily Star) He's had just-as-notable adventures since then (Google News) and it doesn't make much sense to have this being a redirect to a page he isn't even mentioned in. Let me know your thoughts!Bernat (talk)14:58, 23 September 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. No substantive history or links. The talk page exists as a talk page archive, but we generally don't create redirects of the subject pages of talk page archives.Bsherr (talk)13:28, 23 September 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.
Comment. When i saw the redirect, it was initially pointing to "We Didn't Start the Fire", a song that includes "Belgians in the Congo" as a redirect.Belgian Congo made a better redirect target than that. No objections if deleting it seems a better move than keeping it with this target. —C.Fred (talk)22:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is plausible due to the song lyric, and gives the proper context for Belgians in the Congo. I disagree that it's sufficiently ambiguous, the current target is what someone would be looking for when researching this phrase. --Tavix(talk)14:34, 7 September 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.
Comment. Only the first 2 are averaging more than one view per day. I think for the moment they are probably pointing to the right article for most people. That could possibly change in the future. It doesn't matter much, as long as the hatnote is in place.Station1 (talk)18:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is per Station1. They're primary topic at the moment. Other incidents don't come to the same level as the recent protests and reader convenience is served best this way. — Amakuru (talk)21:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the target article is, at least currently, the primary topic by a significant margin. Readers looking for other events are served by the hatnote.Thryduulf (talk)11:41, 14 September 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.
Upon further investigation, these are linked within the template text, not in lieu of the template, so yeah, just straight delete these with no qualms.Hog FarmBacon01:54, 24 September 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.
