May 22

New Tretyakov Gallery

African Star Treaty Alliance Group

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 delete. Based onminimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expiredPROD (a.k.a."soft deletion"). Editors canrequest the article's undeletion.✗plicit03:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• African Star Treaty Alliance Group →African Central Bank (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Created from scratch as a "redirect with possibilities", presumably becausethe target page at the time mentioned it. I can find no evidence that this organization exists, or any references at all outside of Wikipedia. See alsoWikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFRA Commission.IMSoP (talk)18:24, 22 May 2022 (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.

INLA

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._signed,Rosguill^talk18:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• INLA →Irish National Liberation Army (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Having just acceptedIntegrated nested Laplace approximations as an AfC submission, I propose retargeting there and hatnoting the previous target. The new page seems to see primary usage on general search results and scholar search. On the other hand, there are plenty of incoming links, so I would like to hear others' opinions rather than retargeting unilaterally.Felix QW (talk)10:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate aside from these two topics, there's alsoIraq National Library and Archive --65.92.247.17 (talk)02:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate (drafted). Not clear there exists aWP:PRIMARYTOPIC here either by long-term significance or usage in reliable sources. Almost all the Google Scholar results are aboutIntegrated nested Laplace approximations, while almost all the Google News hits are about the current target. Google Books favours the former, but not very heavily (about 7-to-3). There's also InlA (Internalin) which is about 5% of my Google Scholar results.61.239.39.90 (talk)22:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak redirect All of the links I just disambiguated were to the Irish National Liberation Army.I dream of horses(Contribs)(Talk)05:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That makes sense, since the Irish National Liberation Army is the current target of the redirect. The disambiguation page drafted by IP is supposed to replace that redirect as the outcome of this discussion.Felix QW (talk)08:37, 26 May 2022 (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.

Doctors (2016 TV series)

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.✗plicit11:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Doctors (2016 TV series)Doctors (2016 TV series) →The Doctors (South Korean TV series) (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The title of the series isTheDoctors, so having this as a redirect is not beneficial for searchers. –DarkGlow •09:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is also a plausible way to refer to the series-people might forget the "The" at the beginning of the title-as also shown with the arguments (mine included) ata discussion in January last year about "The War of the Worlds" as another name for the 2005 filmWar of the Worlds, redirects don't have to show theexact title as long as it's plausible. Plus, it's still getting a good number of pageviews (currently standing at an average of four per day), so I don't really see the point in inconveniencing a lot of readers who're searching for that TV show. Regards,SONIC67817:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as seems plausible.Rubbish computerPing me or leave a message on mytalk page18:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Korean doesn't have the definite article --65.92.247.17 (talk)02:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

I wanna die

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. Many felt the moral responsibility in this case went beyond any rules, and this rendered any rule-based arguments such as "implausible search term", moot. Most were not particular if the target was an article or aWP:CNR as long as it gave relevant info on suicide avoidance. Those promoting disambiguation were not against the moral intention, but wanted the encyclopedic value of the redirect term to be given its due. There is no agreement, or acceptance of a compromise, between keeping atList of suicide crisis lines, or retargetting toWP:Responding to threats of harm, orSuicide, or hat-noting to one (or more) of those from a disambig page. Jay(talk)20:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I wanna dieI wanna die →List of suicide crisis lines (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Noble idea, but this is an unlikely search term.Chase (talk |contributions)22:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to saykeep because it is doing no harm. It does probably violate a rule, but unless there seems like there would be a more suitable target it's a cheap redirect and I'll just invokeIAR because my argument is not policy based.TartarTorte01:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteWeak delete. I see the good spirit in it, but it's not a title or subject match, and is essentially an Easter egg.Steel1943 (talk)02:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed to "weak delete" since yeah, I definitely understand theWP:IAR reason to "keep" per everyone who has participated thus far, but it still has the non-encyclopedic issues I mentioned.Steel1943 (talk)12:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, for what it's worth,WP:SUICIDEWP:SUICIDE redirects toWikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, which includes a link tometa:Mental health resources. If this redirect is not deleted, we may want to consider redirecting readers to a page that isnot an article so it seems more "official", such as one of the two aforementioned pages.Steel1943 (talk)12:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -WP:IAR to save redirect which may help in suicide prevention.--06:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byMaranoFan (talk •contribs)
• Keep. There is a slight chance this redirect could help someone and I can't find anything when searching that this would be in the way of. So what we have is a redirect that at worst is harmless and at best could save a life. Given that, I cannot see any justification for deletion.Thryduulf (talk)07:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While a noble effort, i believe that this is an unlikely search term, as shown by thetwo pageviews and theGoogle trends— Precedingunsigned comment added byHeartGlow30797 (talk •contribs)03:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perWP:IAR. I agree that we are building an encyclopedia but if there's a life on the line then I think we can temporarily ignore that. --Lenticel^(talk)00:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while definitely well-intentioned, there is little to no chance of anybody searching for this phrase when looking for phone numbers, and trying to use WP:IAR as a basis for keeping is frankly just a cheap cop-out. It's not beneifical at all and makes no sense to have redirects whose title cannot even be found within the target page (and I cannot think of a plausible place to implement it).SNUGGUMS (talk /edits)23:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, takes readers to the article they want/need to get to.— J947 ‡^{message ⁓edits}23:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, this was a kneejerk reaction and I don't know what the best option is. And I now think I'd rather not comment on this topic's coverage on the site because *potential* consequences are scary.— J947 ‡^{message ⁓edits}02:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete (or maybe disambiguate). Sorry, but I see azero chance of someone trying to find a suicide hotline while typing this in. On the other hand, there are a few minor references of this phrase so search results would be better here (eg:Heavy Heavy Low Low,You'll Never Tame Me,Tales from Wyoming,60 Second Wipe Out). I'd be open to disambiguating, but it'd be a bit too trivial for my tastes. --Tavix^(talk)23:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep / retarget to something likeWikipedia:Responding_to_threats_of_harm - seeWP:SUICIDE for a precedent.ObsidianPotato (talk)00:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.Alexcalamaro (talk)18:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget toWikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, where readers would benefit from the information that this page provides, in case they do find themselves in need of seeking professional help.CycloneYoris^talk!08:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay(talk)06:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: too vague (e.g. title of numerous songs).Veverve (talk)13:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The target is not the encyclopedic topic for this expression.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)19:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perWP:IAR as above - does no harm.Hentheden (talk)22:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't keep the scientific jury is still out on whether crisis hotlines are effective are helpful at all; while well-intentioned, the current target is non-neutral and could come off as condescending. Deleting would be fine IMO, as would the retargeting suggestions. I could also see this being a crude but plausible attempt by a reader to find thee article forSuicide, so that can be considered as a possible target as well._signed,Rosguill^talk22:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rosguill. I don't believe a CNR is helpful in this instance, as that info page is geared towards editors rather than readers – probably not helpful for readers to contact WMF or admins.eviolite(talk)19:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment although I supported for keeping the target, I'm also fine with retargetting toWikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. --Lenticel^(talk)01:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify. There are several articles that might see this useful as a dab page, includingI Wanna Die in Los Angeles,Spawn (1997 film)#Soundtrack (which contains the song "No Remorse (I Wanna Die)"), andReverence (song) (whichinfamously uses the phrase). I would think it fully appropriate to include a hatnote in the dab forWP:IAR reasons, but I think that the current hard redirect runs intoWP:ASTONISH issues and wouldn't be significantly more effective at getting people to click on the suicide hotlines page than having the text in a hatnote on a dab page. —Mhawk10 (talk)04:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply- I concur with dabify, and hat note to another suitable article, such as responding to threats of harm. --Jax 0677 (talk)12:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In the event someone is contemplating dying, this would actually be a useful redirect as although they might not be looking for this page exactly, it would indeed be helpful, just not in the "traditional" sense of Wikipedia. Case in point,WP:EMERGENCY provides a mental health resource link if the person on the page is in the same situation I described earlier.172.112.210.32 (talk)15:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I hate to add another proposal here, but I think it could be a good compromise. Rosguill points out thatSuicide is a plausible target here. That article has, byspecial community override in 2019 ofWP:NODISCLAIMERS andMOS:HATNOTE, a hatnote link toSuicide prevention. In other words, retargeting toSuicide would still satisfy the core of what the keep side wants here, without some of the identified downsides of directing people to a particular kind of resource. As such, I suggest weretarget toSuicide. I'll note that, like Tavix, I see the potential DAB targets as not meriting a DAB here. But the same logic of this retarget suggestion could be applied to a DAB, just having its lede sentence be"I wanna die is a phrase often associated with desire to commitsuicide, or even copying the hatnote from the suicide article (which also appears atSuicide methods).--Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they)06:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:WP:INVOLVED relist as to allow the April 25th log page to be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoris^talk!08:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate - This is a tough case. I'd prefer that, as stated above, we create a disguambiguation page, particularly since there's a semi-notable song with this title.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)15:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of any other acceptable solution; the disamguation page does not work since every entry is either a PTM or does not mention the phrase and I don't find the IAR argument for keeping to be convincing.* Pppery *_{it has begun...}17:00, 23 May 2022 (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.

Special military operation

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._signed,Rosguill^talk18:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Special military operation →Special operations (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect was created after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. President Putin described the military operation as a "special military operation".

A "special military operation" is not a synonym for "special operations". Special operations is a term for the military activities conducted byspecial forces. TheList of military special forces units has three definitions of special operations.

A books search in a past discussion found that the phrase had been used pre-2022. The phrase had been used to describe or name variousmilitary operations.

The redirect should be toOn conducting a special military operation or be deleted.Melbguy05 (talk)12:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Become a disambiguation page[1]--Sunfyre (talk)08:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sunfyre:WP:MOSDAB Disambiguation pages are used "when different topics could be referred to by the same search term". Special operations is a different search term.--Melbguy05 (talk)09:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget toOn conducting a special military operation as the primary topic, but add a hatnote linking toSpecial operations for other uses of the term.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)09:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zxcvbnm:Google books has a few instances of special military operation being used as a synonym for special operations and many instances of the use of the adjective special to label a conventional military operation as a special military operation. Special military operation is overwhelming used in reference to the Indonesian government/military termDaerah Operasi Militer (Indonesian).Google scholar is the same as Google books.Daerah Operasi Militer has been translated asarea of special military operation,special military operation area andspecial military operation zone. The government declared two regions with separatist movementsAceh andIrian Jaya as DOM and later revoked the status. If there was aDaerah Operasi Militer article, or a section in an article, it would be worthy of a hatnote not special operations.--Melbguy05 (talk)19:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)-[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoris^talk!08:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget toOn conducting a special military operation with hatnote.Rubbish computerPing me or leave a message on mytalk page17:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging participants of the previous RfD:QueenofBithynia,Veverve,Wasted Time R,Mx. Granger,matthiaspaul. Jay(talk)11:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not a new term, but used to describe special operations of military kind, therefore the current link target is the proper link target, see the target article's lede:

"Special operations are military activities conducted by specially designated, organized, selected, trained, and equipped forces using unconventional techniques and modes of employment"

What's new is Putin's euphemism to call a war a "special military operation", but this is (deliberately) covered by the hatnote in the "Special operation" article, which makes it clear to anyone who might be under the influence of Putin's propaganda that Putin is misusing the term and points them to our article on Putin's "On conducting a special military operation" speech, where they can find more background on this and also pointers to other articles about the war.

Redirecting them to the "On conducting" article would be misleading them as if Putin's use of the term would be the proper use of term - and this would be letting Putin's propaganda win - attempting to redefine already well established terms is a common strategy in far-right circles (Putin's misuse of the term "denazification" is another example). --Matthiaspaul (talk)13:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per previous discussion and theWP:Ten year test. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs)07:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. As this issue has been raised more than once, I think it's best to have this as a disambiguation page. —QueenofBithynia (talk)16:28, 29 May 2022 (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.

Googl

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._signed,Rosguill^talk18:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• GooglGoogl →Google (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should this point toAlphabet Inc. (Nasdaq: GOOGL) instead?Goog,GOOG andGOOGL all pointed to the publicly-traded holding company.feminist (talk) Слава Україні!04:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No I doubt people are looking for Google's parent company if they accidentally skip a keystroke at the end of Google's name without going all caps. I think this should be kept asWP:RTYPO.Zeke, theMadHorrorist^{(Speak quickly)}_{(Follow my trail)}07:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Could also be a typo forGoogol orNikolai Gogol (whereGogol points to). -CHAMPION^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)}00:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per Champion.Veverve (talk)23:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,_signed,Rosguill^talk20:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget toAlphabet Inc.: I think that the argument of{{R from stock symbol}} makes sense. We already have a{{redirect2}} to google from the top for GOOG and GOOGL anyways, so I don't think it would be a particularly harmful redirect for those looking for google who forgot to type the e.TartarTorte23:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perWP:RTYPO and as the fairly obvious primary topic. A hatnote regarding the stock ticker can be added if deemed necessary; retargeting to theAlphabet Inc. would be my second choice.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT)23:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoris^talk!07:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nom and with the same reasoning as TartarTorte. If typo is an argument, then besides Googol, there is also Googal, Googel and Goo.gl as listed inGoogle (disambiguation). Jay(talk)11:40, 28 May 2022 (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.

Real vampires

Dendrobaena veneta