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 per EurekaLott. Fill in the blank: the reader who searches uppandas most likely wishes to go to ...The hatnote is there for the minority, which seems like it could be sizeable -- but it's dwarved by the primary use.J947 †edits02:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add an amplification and expansion of Shhhnotsoloud below:WP:PLURALPT links the destination of the plural redirect to the singular. If the desire is to redirect the plural somewhere else, then the singular should also be redirected. -UtherSRG(talk)02:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - though perhaps we should amend that to say "...to its singular or the destination its singular redirects to" to be clearer. -UtherSRG(talk)12:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Panda (disambiguation) - "pandas" could also refer to red pandas as well as giant pandas, among other things, so there is no clear primary topic.SilverTiger12 (talk)18:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.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).
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. I don't see what the problem is. This is an R from misspelling and is applicable to most if not all entries at the current target. The request at the talk was to redirect to the doll or disambiguate, and I thinkUser:BlazerKnight's (he's not with us anymore) decision to retarget to the dab was proper. Jay 💬13:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toMatryoshka doll. I think this is a much more likely misspelling for that term than any other; there's not enough variance to override the general primary topic forMatryoshka here.J947 †edits01:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.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).
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.
It does not appear that this was a government-endorsed programme, as the name implies (quite the opposite, in fact). There doesn't seem to be a suitable retarget available, from what I can see.Tollens (talk)09:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.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).
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.
In my mind, the question is, does it help the reader get to an appropriate article that gives information about what the reader was searching for? This Latin title is the name of the book that the reader is likely to see, or they may copy it off the image of the book cover, and it does bring them to an article where it is relevant. Had theysearched on Commons, they would have ended up with an image of the book cover, and a dead end, but it's much more likely they'll search at Wikipedia. Although there is not yet much about the book there, it is mentioned (in red-linked English and Hungarian) and is the logical place to send readers, for now, until that red link gets expanded and someone writes the article.
Depending how determined they are as a searcher, if they want more info about the book, the interlanguage link provides a link to the Hungarian article about the book. Given that the redirect is the en-wiki reader's best path to getting the information they want, it seems like an appropriate use of the feature to me. The fact that the English part of the{{interlanguage link}} is still red because we don't have the article (yet) but hu-wiki does, is only incidental to that, and does not stand in the way of getting the reader to the best content for their search.Mathglot (talk)19:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.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).
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, unhelpful. Search covers the same ground as a set index would. Don't supposethis needs to be sent to a deletion discussion. We're effectively PRODding here anyway.J947 †edits01:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.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).
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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
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. Redirect is a game that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the game it redirects to. "Air Battles: Sky Defender" is a game by Pilot Entertainment and Wild Hare Entertainment according toGameSpot andGameSpy. Battle of Britain II: Wings of Victory is a game by A2A Simulations, Tri Synergy, and GMX Media. Only similarity seems to be the fact that they are flight simulations games from the mid-2000s.Mika1h (talk)16:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I changed my mind, I found a PC Gamer review where it states that the game is "a stripped-down, newbie-friendly version of Shockwave's high-flying Battle of Britain II." --Mika1h (talk)16:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.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).
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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
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 It's just time-filler between shows no actual child cares about. The only ones searching for this are enthusiasts.Nate•(chatter)04:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget – As long as there is information (just the day of release and some of characters at the moment), the redirect should exist. Unless I'm misreading, the deletion !votes seem to just beWP:DOESNTBELONG based on the seeming "unimportance" of the show. Even if it isn't notable enough for its own article, there is almost no notability requirement for a redirect to exist.Randi MothTalkContribs18:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.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).
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.
I don't think it will be created, though. I created these year's winter transfers articles on Japan, but have no intent of creating another four for summer transfers. ~~SoftReverie (talk)18:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pelmeen10, this redirect is effectively an{{R from move}}, as it appears to have been the title of the target article between November last year and the day before you started this discussion. I don't think it's likely there would be consensus for deletion now, but that would be much easier to achieve once the other list article is created and the redirectbecomes ambiguous. Would you like to withdraw this nomination now and then start a new one once the situation changes? –Uanfala (talk)13:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until ambiguous. [2] and [3] were incorrect speedy deletions as CSD:R3 does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move. [1] is a more complex case (J1 vs J2) and involving a histmerge of the target, it was not deleted for the same rason. Jay 💬13:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it can be misleading. Whoever types "List of J1 League football transfers 2023" is currently being redirected to the winter transfer article. But, the former content of the list was supposed to cover the whole year. Personally, i don't think anyone would actually purposely type "List of J1 League football transfers 2023" at all. Previous seasons always utilized the winter and summer as separate articles, so i believe this redirect is of little to no use or importance. ~~SoftReverie (talk)18:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.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).
Early 2023 execution of a Ukrainian prisoner of war
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.
In 11 April 2023, a video showing the beheading of a living Ukrainian soldier was released in pro-Russian media. His identity was unknown (and I chose this title for the article believing it would stay that way) and the date of his murder was too, but it was assumed to be the summer of last year. Turns out however that yesterday it was revealed that the soldier was Szerhij Pataki and that he was murdered actually in March 2023. So, this title is now inaccurate.SuperΨDro07:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.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).
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 uppercase redirect was initially pointed atPine Bowl (stadium)Pine Bowl (stadium) before the article was merged toDeGol Field. After the merge yesterday, it is currently being pointed toPine Bowl. Therefore it is not appropriate to compare the pageviews to the current target.
The uppercase version was linked 18 other articles on wiki before I have done the clean up (see my user contributions (API output)). Though the traffic is similarly low on these 18 pages, there will always be people clicking through these 18 pages. If the pageviews of the redirect is significantly higher, I might buy the argument that there are external/old sites linking this redirect directly.
If the redirect had pointed toPine Bowl the whole time, the 3–to–1 split for be extremely unlikely as a view on the redirect effectively results in a view on the dab page. The point was not that, but that this redirect is actually a more useful navigational aid thanPine Bowl
While internal links do account for some, probably most, of the views, perthis backlink checker there are 29 external links pointing to this redirect. I suggest, per policy, that it's a safer decision to keep this redirect than to run the risk of breaking links.
Keep. I'm all for getting rid of redirects for non-standard forms in the disambiguator, but not when there are any reasons to keep. Having been the title of an article (in this case, between 2015 and 2020) is one of the strongest reasons to keep a redirect and usually outweighs much worse problems with the redirect than odd capitalisation. Fixing the incoming wikilinks was great, regardless of what happens to this redirect, but the external links we have not control over. –Uanfala (talk)22:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.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).
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.
I just started updatingDiscworld (world) and was trying to reference and link to Cheery Littlebottom assuming she'd also have an entry inAnkh-Morpork City Watch after I saw the one on Captain Carrot. I was annoyed to learn it was empty and just redirected back there via see also. When I checked to see if she had a standalone article I saw the redirect and discussion here. I think the redirect should be pointed toAnkh-Morpork City Watch#Sergeant Cheery Littlebottom and, since it's currently empty, that subsection be significantly expanded so it doesn't just two step redirect you toDiscworld (world). I added an expansion needed notice about that problem (and similar ones with other characters).TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk)05:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget both to the existing sectionAnkh-Morpork_City_Watch#Sergeant_Cheery_Littlebottom, which is no longer completely empty now that I've expanded it with one very short sentence. Given that the article has decent-size sections on the other characters, and that Ms Littlebottom appears to be a core character, I expect that this section is unlikely to be removed. –Uanfala (talk)12:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.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).
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. Rough consensus that this term should be disambiguated. Support for either keep or a retarget was limited to one editor apiece following the drafting of a dab.signed,Rosguilltalk00:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Target term not mentioned in the article; the title could refer to any of various sex acts that involve genitals. Aprevious RfD for the redirect suggested targeting to the current target, but seeing that the target is not mentioned... I suggest either disambiguating or deleting.Colgatepony234 (talk)00:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: disambiguation is used when a term is mentioned at multiple target pages. Search results for"genital sex" show the phrase being used for either sexual characteristics, as above, or for sexual intercourse. However,Sexual intercourse does not use the phrase "genital sex", so a disambiguation link to that article wouldn't be very helpful. —Sangdeboeuf (talk)22:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toSexual intercourse, largely per User:Jay. Came into this assuming I'd vote for some kind of disambig because it can refer to more than one thing, but if you trust major search engines to do their job properly, the overwhelming tendency is to bring up articles related to sexual activity, rather than different types of sex characteristic determiners; I was surprised how lopsided it was. In Google web search, it wasn't until result #11 that I found anything that wasn't related to sexual activity, whether intercourse or other types.Mathglot (talk)05:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with basic search engine results is that they return both reliableand unreliable sources, whereas Wikipedia should reflect usage by just the most reliable ones. Partial title matches like"oral–genital sex" can bias the search results as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk)08:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate (drafted). Two-item DABs aren't ideal, and two-item DABs where the term isn't explicitly used at either target are even less ideal, but I think that would be the least worst option here, better than an{{r without mention}} that would necessitate a hatnote for an unlikely search term.--Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)05:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I went forSexual characteristics as the primary, anddid justify itusing reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense as perWP:CONSENSUS. So in the absence of a counter-argument in favor ofSexual intercourse as the target, the term should not redirect there. —Sangdeboeuf (talk)02:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went by Mathglot's argument and thought it was good as the justification. But, now I see why different people may think their choice is the primary. I have changed my vote. Jay 💬15:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.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).
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 and add in a{{efn}} footnote on "War of Resistance" (which is listed in the article's lead as a synonym). This is the pinyin transcription of the Chinese term抗戰 meaning "War of Resistance".59.149.117.119 (talk)00:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.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).
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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review).
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 30#Daniel Shulman
Mathglot (talk)04:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]