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 is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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 is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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.
Conflicted feelings about this one. Created initially pointing tocultural area, then changed to current target byВикидим. The current target defines "non-Western" culture in terms of its relationship with the west, and also excludes non-Eastern non-Western cultures, notably all of Africa and (depending on how you count) Latin America. The target also doesn't significantly cover culture. On the other hand, I can't think of a better target, and it's acommonly used term.Rusalkii (talk)19:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My change was inspired by Western/Non-Western dichotomy (as defined by the Western culture) clearly present in the title, and the Non-West is (mis)labeled as East since at leastKipling:East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet. Africa, if mentioned specifically, IMHO is part of another,North-South divide.Викидим (talk)20:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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.
Pretty much never referred to this way. A google search gives an acronym from the hotel industry, pediatrics doctor's program, and a smattering of other acronyms none of which we seem to have pages on. Also nominatingSmerfs andThe Smerfs, the latter of which is at least mostly unambiguous. Note that this user is responsible for a large number of recently nominated redirects.Rusalkii (talk)22:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, extremely short misspellings have a tendency of being more harmful than other misspellings, as they arehighly likely to conflict with existing-word real estate. SMERF is apparently an acronym for "Social, Military, Educational, Religious, and Fraternal groups"; could very well be a search term for that. It isincredibly easy to find the correct spelling of Smurfs, Smerf is not a useful misspelling redirect.Utopes(talk /cont)05:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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 is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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 is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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 is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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 is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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 is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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.
This seems to be a housing development that was mentioned in the Honey Hill article (although the sources cited do not use this name, only giving the location as Honey Hill). As the Honey Hill article was redirected, this was also redirected to the same target. Although Honey Hill is mentioned there, Honey Hill Mews is not.Peter James (talk)20:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Honey Hill Mews is a one-street housing complex, which doesn't need a redirect to Cambridge — far too broad a topic for a redirect and it's not mentioned there. Never an article as such, so no useful history to consider.Rupples (talk)17:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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.
Retarget as per A7V2, Thryduulf, and Pppery. Specifically remandinguser:Gödel2200: If a perspective reader did not know that there were multiple strikes in March, they deserve to be redirected to the article they wanted, especially one that explains that there WERE multiple strikes. The Timeline article does this job.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk)00:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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 is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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 is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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 think this Wikipedia namespace -> userspace essay shortcut is actively detrimental, and leads toWP:UPPERCASE issues, where editors, especially new ones, citing the shortcut haven't actually read the THREE essay, and cite it as the interpretation ("GNG requires three sources"), nonwithstanding that that's not what the essay is about, it's an essay, and it's auserspace essay not necessarily reflecting consensus.
Comment: It's unclear as a matter of current policy whether (and to what extent) GNG allows notability outside of THREE. The guideline itself is silent on the issue;WP:NCORP explictily endorses it:Anindividual source must meetall of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also bemultiple such sources to establish notability.;WP:NBIO explicitly rejects it:If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. That leaves GNG in a middle state where it's not reaaally clear and varies by the interpretations of who's participating in any given discussion. I personally tend to lean towards the NCORP/THREE approach; claims made as a part of an in-depth, well-researched article are more reliable than claims made in passing, making "strung-together" articles usually of lower quality.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)18:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
claims made as a part of an in-depth, well-researched article are more reliable than claims made in passing is only sometimes true and conflates reliability with notability.Thryduulf (talk)19:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sources only count towards GNG if they're reliable for the claims they make, no? And articles that string together notability tend to have lots of glaring holes...theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)19:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you're proposing here. You are right that people often cite this without understanding what it's saying. That's unfortunate, but I can't cure the underlying cause of that. There'scurrently 3515 links to this. What are you going to do with all those? If you want to amendWP:GNG, propose an amendment. I agree that GNG is broken. But I don't see how deleting this redirect solves that problem.RoySmith(talk)20:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.3,516 uses. Folks that placed the link expect the current target. No convincing reason given for retargeting. There is no PAG or norm I am aware of that disallows WP shortcuts targeting userspace, nor that disallows WP shortcuts targeting essays. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae(talk)20:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to withdraw this nomination. It's clear to me that people consider any change here nonworkable in light of thousands of references to this shortcut, even if some agree that the references may be misguided. ~A412talk!21:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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.
Mataragka is not, I don't believe, known as Matarangas (but is known as Mataranga). See edit history: this used to be a single-entry disambiguation page.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)17:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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 European Union merger law does not seem to be referred to as "merger regulation 2004", as the full title (including 2004) does not appear at the target, although "merger regulation" does.Utopes(talk /cont)23:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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 is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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 Cognitive Brain Research Unit is a unit at the University of Helsinki. The current target is the unit's founder, who also directed it from 1991-2006. Not much is said about the unit at the current target, so I'm not sure if it will be satisfactory for people looking for it. However, I don't see it mentioned onUniversity of Helsinki, either. I'm curious what the best target for this could be.Significa liberdade(she/her) (talk)21:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the target talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬13:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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 is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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.
Dan Schneider already exists without the disambiguation, which is the intended target. There's no reason why someone would add the parentheses, and this redirect wasn't created from a page move.Bandit Heeler (talk)19:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This redirect is a left-over from an article created that duplicated an existing article on the subject. Instead of deleting it as a duplicate, they just redirected to the other article. No articles link to this, it is not a likely search topic. Pointless to have. Nothing in the edit history was used in the other article so history retention also isn't important here.Geraldo Perez (talk)19:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, it's not a likely search topic, or at least something that's not being used. Before the nomination of the redirect, itwasn't getting any views, aside from a singular view on the 23rd of March, and bearing in mind the target's recent surge in page views over the last few days.Bandit Heeler (talk)16:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Steel1943. Keeping{{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirects is beneficial because the disambiguation might only becurrently unnecessary and this allows links to the current target to remain accurate regardless of whether another person of this name becomes notable in the future.Thryduulf (talk)18:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Steel1943 and Thryduulf. Unnecessary (but not incorrect/etc) disambiguation is not a reason to delete a redirect.A7V2 (talk)08:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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.
Weak keep. This does seem to be a misspelling (not a typo) that is in use in the wild, e.g. I've just corrected two uses in articles[2][3], most likely one made by non-native speakers under the influence of words like "knee".Thryduulf (talk)18:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not useful as a typo redirect as it can refer to several different words. And at the end of the day, Neck is not a hard word to spell and does not needANY typo redirects. Luckily and correctly, it has none. If anything,Neecap is a more viable misspelling ofKneecap(compared to "Kneck" and "Neck") as it replaces a "confusing" 'kn' with a "phonetic" 'n', but even "neecap" would be a pointless redirect and I would not suggest it.Utopes(talk /cont)05:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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 is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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 is preserved as an archive of the discussion.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/2024 April 10#Nashid Al-Huriya