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.
for the record, "below" refers to "brock harrison", a name seemingly originating from a fanfic, that may or may not have been coincidentally mentioned before by brock'senglish voice actorcogsan(nag me)(stalk me)12:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This name is not mentioned on the target page and the low page views suggests it isn't a common search term either. --RL0919 (talk)16:10, 14 August 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 result of the discussion wasdelete. This was seen as a plausible search term, but there was difficulty in finding sources. Jay 💬13:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't intend to vote on this, but it is plausable that the surname was given to the character in some international dubbings. At least I personally have a recollection of this being the case and thus the R being a plausable search term, but it would be very difficult to verify now, due to a need to search potential distorted/localised alterations of the name.Respublik (talk)21:11, 30 July 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).
Everyone around the world, c'mon - Yahoo! - It's a celebration!
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 the first line of the song. Totally implausible to use a space dash space before and after the "yahoo" with an exclamation point, followed by the rest of "it's a celebration". The vastly more plausible means of reaching this page is by typing "Celebration" in the search bar, as the Kool & the Gang song is option #5. People searching for this particular set of three lyrics, will be disappointed that the full extent of their search term is not discussed at the target page.Utopes(talk /cont)17:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overly detailed lyric with dashes, etc., that is not discussed on the page. (The more basic version of the lyric, "Everyone around the world, come on", is mentioned there and would be more plausible.) --RL0919 (talk)16:17, 14 August 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).
Well you can tell by the way I use my walk, I'm a woman's man, no time to talk
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.
Invalid use of an "R from lyric", which are designed to be for "redirects to a source that discusses the lyric" at the target page. People who search for this instead of "Stayin' alive" are looking forparticular information about the lyric in question that they used as a deliberate search term; which, will disappoint readers when they find nothing related to it at the page. We do not generally redirect lyrics to songs on the premise that they "are lyrics for the songs", even IF it is the first two lines of the song.Utopes(talk /cont)17:37, 13 August 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.
Delete This phrase is far too common to redirect to a specific source, let alone one where it's not considered iconic enough to warrant a mention in the article. A surprising redirect indeed.Glades12 (talk)08:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too generic to be directed to this specific series, especially when it isn't discussed on the target page. --RL0919 (talk)21:30, 14 August 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.
No reason to use commas, and then switching to hyphens make this spelling variant totally implausible and unexpectable. We don't typically redirect lyrics to the songs that they originated from, unless the lyric has specific significance and references specifically directed to the importance of the lyric, which doesn't seem to be the case here (the only mention of this is taken from a reference's quote by happenstance, seemingly).Utopes(talk /cont)17:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually if you know this song then using a mix of commas and hyphens isn't implausible - it's sort of a list of four items, tree of which are "lager" and the fourth is "mega-mega-white thing". People search for songs based on the part of the lyrics they can remember (I do this a lot) but external search engines are much better equipped to deal with such searches than Wikipedia is. If someone does want to read the Wikipedia article about the song they can search after learning the title if it isn't in their search results.Thryduulf (talk)18:12, 13 August 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.
No mention of this phrase at the target article. People who know of this phrase would certainly know of the character called "Norm". With zero context for this search term, this redirect will disappoint readers who use it and realize after scrolling the entire article forNorm Peterson that there is no mention of the search term they used to reach the article.Utopes(talk /cont)17:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless. Should there be an article, or a redirect, for every catchphrase (or utterance) of someone notable enough for an article? Pointless even if mentioned in the article.Blood, toil, tears and sweat, maybe. Best wishes,Pol098 (talk)00:23, 20 August 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.
No mention of this phrase at the target article. Zero context for people who use this search term, and end up at a target where the phrase they searched for has zero mentions, and zero presumable importance if its never been included since 2002.Utopes(talk /cont)17:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Relatively generic phrase that isn't mentioned in the target article. And there probably isn't much searching for phrases from radio shows that went off the air over 50 years ago. --RL0919 (talk)22:14, 14 August 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).
I'll be all around in the dark. I'll be everywhere. Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat, I'll be there.
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.
No mention of these three sentences at the target page. Totally implausible for people to use this phrase as a means of navigating to the Grapes of Wrath, instead of just typing... "the grapes of wrath". Wikipedia hasnever had a practice of creating a redirect for the first line, or last line, or whichever line in between of a book, and targeting it to the book itself. The only time this could POSSIBLY happen is if the line in question had some type of significance to be substantially mentioned, or perhaps it has its very own standalone article and notability? But absolutely not for an unmentioned string of three sentences, with no context at the target page. The small number of people who'd use this search term instead of "the grapes of wrath", would be disappointed to have no information related to their exact search phrase.Utopes(talk /cont)17:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I sometimes use a notable (and in this case, a culturally iconic) line, if I can't quite recall the film I am searching for in internet search engines.Halbared (talk)18:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to being another overlong quote that is not in the target page, this quote from the movie is just a rephrasing of dialogue that is also in the novel. --RL0919 (talk)18:34, 15 August 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 only mention of this phrase at the target article is that "it was often quoted in Looney Tunes and Tex Avery's cartoons. It appears on multiple other pages, but there's really no benefit towards redirecting it anywhere, as it seems to be far more appropriate to let the search results do it's thing, (or better yet: type the quote into Google instead, as there's zero guarantee that a redirect exists for any given quote), rather than lock people into a subjective target that only provides a sentence worth of context (an average amount compared to the other Wikipedia pages out there).Utopes(talk /cont)17:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only does this phrase appear in several articles, what is presented in those articles suggests this target might be a misrepresentation of the catchphrase's history. According to the article onBilly Gray (comedian), he originated the phrase while playing a character on Abbott and Costello'sradio show, not the TV show discussed in the target article. Another article links the phrase to a different radio program,The Baby Snooks Show. Without a clear target, I agree with leaving this to general search. --RL0919 (talk)21:34, 15 August 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).
Hello, I'm the Nostalgia Critic. I remember it, so you don't have to.
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.
No mention of this quote at the target page. Totally implausible that someone would type this looking for the Nostalgia Critic general topic (as opposed to the specific quote they typed in), as anyone who knows this phrase already knows who the Nostalgia Critic is. Indeed, their name is already spelled out in the fourth and fifth words of this unmentioned two-sentence redirect. The second sentence becomes totally unnecessary, and also disappointing to people who type this entire thing out as there is zero context or significance about Nostalgia Critic's intro discussedanywhere at the target page.Utopes(talk /cont)16:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's implausible for people searching for information on the Nostalgia Critic, to use the entire opening monologue of the Nostalgia Critic, instead of searching for the two words of "nostalgia critic". As you point out, the intro has been used for memes in the past, so people searching for it INSTEAD of just typing "nostalgia critic" into the search bar, are likely looking for coverage of the phrase (which we have zero of on Wikipedia).Utopes(talk /cont)18:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Long quote, not mentioned in the target article, and the name of the target article is already in the quote begging to be searched for directly. --RL0919 (talk)21:41, 15 August 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.
Totally implausible to type three "a"s due to it being a personal interpretation of something this person once said. A redirect with "away" doesn't exist, which is the more natural way of typing this. A "catchphrase" disambiguator is misleading as the target page is not about a catchphrase, but a person. While the phrasedoes appear at the target article, every mention is at the end of an unsourced paragraph.Utopes(talk /cont)16:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A redirect for this phrase with normal spelling is reasonable – it appears at his gravesite and on a statue of him – but the 'aaa' is not. --RL0919 (talk)21:50, 15 August 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).
Train leaving on Track Five for Anaheim, Azusa and Cuc-amonga!
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.
Near replica of a deleted redirect, my position in the previous deletion discussion is still true that a random hyphenation makes this a totally unlikely means of searching especially when the "Cucamonga" version without a hyphen doesn't even exist.Utopes(talk /cont)16:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the previous redirect - which is the same save for two characters being swapped - was deleted as implausible, then so's this one. The fact that Google doesn't return anything useful for this puts a full stop on it. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques00:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Changing the some capitalization and placement of a hyphen doesn't make this any more plausible than the one that was already deleted. --RL0919 (talk)21:43, 15 August 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.
Does not appear anywhere in the text. This personal interpretation of a particular phrase does not lend well as a redirect, no indication that people would type this, and Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. We do not have any context about a "thang" "jaw" at the target article, and the pronounciation of "yaw" (which exists in the article with zero references, and should honestly just be cut right now as totally unnecessary information), appears only one time.Utopes(talk /cont)16:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The catchphrase "Ay-thang-yaw" (not "Ay-thang-jaw!") appears in the lead section, with other catchphrases. These all need sourcing in the main article before any redirects are considered. I think this redirect should be deleted, espcially since its spelling and exclamation mark are very dubious. Also, shouldn't 'Template:R from catchphrase' be used, in any case?Masato.harada (talk)17:10, 13 August 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.
Totally implausible to type two a's, followed by a hyphen, followed by two a's, and etc, to represent a prolonged sound. The letters "haa" only appear in the article once, in an unsourced personal interpretation of what this probably sounded like. Besides that, there's no other information for this search term, with no indication or claim that it is notable (no sources present in relation to it).Utopes(talk /cont)16:39, 13 August 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).
They bite, they fight, they bite and bite and fight
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.
Almost identical version to a previously deleted redirect (see:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 30#Hen-reeeeeeeeeeeee! Hen-ree Al-drich!), but instead of 13 E's, it's a "y" followed by a hyphen, followed by a "y", followed by a hyphen, followed by a "y", followed by a hyphen, followed by a "y", followed by an exclamation point. From there, the name is separated with hyphens and makes this a highly implausible search term due to this stylization being highly unreplicable and impractical.Utopes(talk /cont)16:28, 13 August 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.
Keep. This is a perfectly normal{{R from other disambiguation}}. We don't require readers to know our naming conventions before being able to find the article they want. In this case even if theydo know that books are generally disambiguated by author they could use this search term if they don't know who wrote it.Thryduulf (talk)12:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why do you actually object? Currently, the redirectEmpire of Death (Doctor Who novel) is sitting in multiple categories, but really it should be the correctly disambiguatedEmpire of Death (Bishop novel) in these categories perWP:CONSISTENT. As there is a page history behind the redirected article, it would make sense for the article to be moved, rather than just de-populating the categories from one redirect and re-populating from another.--woodensuperman12:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am objecting to is deletion of a redirect that is useful to readers. If you actually just want to swap the redirects then that's OK, but I admit to not understanding the point.Thryduulf (talk)13:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating removal of either redirect, both are valid. Just need to move the history to the correctly disambiguated one, and make sure the correctly disambiguated one is the one populating the categories. Should have been simple maintenance, but another editorobjected for no apparent reason.--woodensuperman13:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the history at the current location. This is a book that originates from a television series, and thus conforms across multiple naming conventions. PerWP:NCEPISODE, which primarily focuses on episode and character articles,Where the title is the same as an episode, character, orother element from the show, disambiguate further using Article title (Show Title episode/character/element). As per the example given, this covers all other elements; i.e. just howSerenity (Firefly episode) andSerenity (Firefly vessel) are disambiguated from each other using the same programme name, as areEmpire of Death (Doctor Who episode) andEmpire of Death (Doctor Who novel). Given that the article also doesn't actually exist due to the AFD related to it, note that the AFD related to theDoctor Who disambiguation, and thus the relevant history should remain at theDoctor Who disambiguation.
It is media from and related to a television series, thus it crosses multiple naming conventions; per the lead of NCTV, it covers thearticle title forany topic related to television. Ta. --Alex_21TALK22:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have argued my position, and will not go in our textbook circular discussions. We'll await the consensus of this discussion. Cheers. --Alex_21TALK23:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move per nom. This appears to be much ado... why was the original page move halted? Yes, "Bishop novel" is the canonical name where we'd expect an article and where the history should live, as stated by the nom, but also the current title is totally fine so we should keep the redirect. Unless I'm missing a conversation somewhere, this seems uncontroversial. So move it to the proposed title and keep all redirects as valid. Easy.czar19:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, without your non-!vote above, an admin might have been minded to close this as a move, so you've actually ended up wasting more of the community's time on what should have been a straightforward move in line with our guidelines.--woodensuperman11:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attacking another editor on their !vote is the poorest faith move I've seen yet. They have every right to voice their opinion; your saltiness that it wasn't closed your way needs to be taken elsewhere. --Alex_21TALK11:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After all that, I have just realised that there isn't actually another novel calledEmpire of Death, so I assume it would be non-controversial to move the page history toEmpire of Death (novel) instead, as additional disambiguators no longer seem necessary perWP:BOOKDAB.--woodensuperman11:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Procedural close as wrong forum. They are fine as redirect titles. For the page history, this is a controversial move request and may be listed atWP:RM#CM. Jay 💬14:00, 21 August 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.
Revert without prejudice to AfD or merge perWP:BLAR. According toTalk:Quake 4#Enemies "it was agreed to merge the Strogg and the Quake 4 pages together" however I can't find that discussion nor does it appear that the content was actually merged.Thryduulf (talk)14:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreeing with Cogsan that it would be inappropriate to restore this content due toWP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. I note that because this is a redirect (and has been since 2007), this is the correct venue. --Tavix(talk)18:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article was redirected in 2007 and then again in 2009. If the subject is not mentioned anywhere, then this thing should be deleted, considering the existence of an article about the subject of this redirect is a clearWP:NOTGUIDE violation.Steel1943 (talk)18:32, 13 August 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).
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 25#Gay cake