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 term "prison music" is ambiguous (music about prison, or music from prison?) and being sent to the category to which this redirect targets does not serve the user better than using Search for"Prison music".Shhhnotsoloud (talk)16:49, 27 December 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.
Notwithstanding the lack of consensus on the closure of the last RfD of a group of redirects including this one,Luxury homes should have the same target asLuxury home perWP:PLURALPT ("the normal situation is that a plural redirects to its singular, or to wherever its singular redirects", soretarget it toReal estate. Redirects to category space are really not optimal for situations like this, especially when there's a singular version pointing somewhere else, and no reason to ignore the guideline.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)16:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toReal estate for now; a mainspace title for a likely-mainspace search term. Better than where it's at right now, and consistency is a plus. Whether or not "real estate" is an amazing location for "luxury homes" to target, is a topic without consensus, as it seems.Utopes(talk /cont)18:37, 2 January 2025 (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 current redirect is the only remotely plausible one in the page history, else I would've probably deleted or draftified. But since it's not mentioned at the target, I'm not sure this works either. Thoughts?theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)07:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clean-up after a blocked disruptive editor. No prejudice against good-faith creation if someone actually thinks such a redirect would be beneficial (as opposed to a red link). --Paul_012 (talk)08:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Pale Garden is a place added in the newest update of Minecraft, notable for featuring the newest monster creaking. I think the target provides information about whats the most notable about the place, which is the monster.Catalk to me!14:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I would have thought that theWP:NOTBURO argument would be in support of quickly deleting junk redirects resulting from pages created in bad faith instead of going through huge bureaucratic discussions to find accommodation for them. --Paul_012 (talk)14:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normally my argument would be same as your's, but since I believe the redirect should be kept, enforcing BURO would require pointlessly deletion and restoring/retargetting.Catalk to me!14:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I did say that there should be a redirect if someone thinks one would be beneficial, and since you do, I'm striking my above !vote. (Though I'm still not quite convinced that's an optimal target.) --Paul_012 (talk)14:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toList_of_Minecraft_characters#Creaking. I do not agree that this target contains no information about the subject of this redirect. It tells you, 1) It is a biome location in Minecraft. 2) The biome is in greyscale. 3) The biome contains the monster known as "Creaking". There is no further information that is really needed, this says everything we're going to say about the subject, and since we have the information, we should provide it to the user when searched.Fieari (talk)07:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thendelete (orreturn to red if you're feeling feisty) in absence of a good enough target. strong oppose restoring and sending to afd, as it was a pile of copyvios with no reliable sources in sight. i'm pretty sure canonni's reversions in the page history were 50% accidents lol.there's also every chance someone might be looking for something related to thepale king too, i guessconsarn(formerlycogsan)19:54, 27 December 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.
Keep - nothing wrong with initialisms as long as they aren't ambiguous, which this one isn't. Your personal knowledge of redirects isn't really a criteria for something to be deleted. Example of similar redirects:J. S. Bach,J. F. Gmelin, and others in{{r from short name}}. Pandora isn't a good guideline for multiple reasons and there's frequent enough pushback about it that we should probably have an RFC to pull it sooner or later.BugGhost🦗👻15:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ambiguous withTodd Swift and and multipleTom Swift (disambiguation). Even if it weren't ambiguous, the number of possible First-initial Last-name redirects are very large, and perWP:PANDORA, we shouldn't make (or keep) them unless the person has widely or historically been known in writing by this form of name, such as J. S. Bach, mentioned above. Given the (admittedly depressing) sheer superstardom of Swift, it's hard to see that anyone is going to need this redirect in order to help find her article.35.139.154.158 (talk)18:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a gut feeling that out of the options presented here, Taylor Swift is the primary topic by a long margin. Anyway, here's some examples of Taylor Swift being referred to via T initial:T-Swift,T-Swift,T.Swift.BugGhost🦗👻19:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BugGhost, this is a popular-enough nickname for Taylor Swift. I disagree with ambiguous arguments because AFAICT it's not notably used for anyone else. --Tavix(talk)21:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Swift is the primary topic for "T Swift". Doesn't matter that if "T. Swift" or "T-Swift" or what have you is more common, this spelling is used in text and it's completely reasonable way to type it if you hear it. Tag with whatever rcats make sense and move on. PANDORA, which I'm not a fan of, isn't really against this because we've generally accepted having redirects from common nicknames to their most famous user.Skynxnex (talk)21:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "T Swift" is a commonly used nickname for Taylor, and is not ambiguous/also the primary topic among the Swifts whose name starts with T.Utopes(talk /cont)18:33, 2 January 2025 (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.
It's obscuring creation slightly (by being a blue link rather than a red link), but it's not blocking it. Anyone can just edit the redirect and turn it into an article.BugGhost🦗👻16:41, 27 December 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.
Prior consensus has shown these kinds of redirects should be deleted.+ the "Felukah" redirect in particular was actually created by me as a page move, so counts towards aG7. Forgot about the whole "page move" clause, my bad (Just to be clear, I wouldn't objectmusican if that was a redirect as THESE redirects and previously nominated ones clearly show that at least a FEW people would need to be helped by redirectingmusican to the correctly spelled version)
Delete all these redirects per nom and above. I'm not sure we still need them, especially since the disambiguators are misspelled. Regards,SONIC67822:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced by the pageview argument. The page was moved immediately after its creation, and lasted just a few days at its base "musican" title. This is not a situation of a "longstanding title that people might expect to still be valid"; this was an error fixedimmediately when it was spotted. The view numbers existed as they do because of a sole wikilink that has now been corrected. The modern pageviews are boosted by the RfD and are negligible enough (from my POV) to feel comfortable vanquishing the typo permanently. Nobody would ever expectName (musican) to be a valid title so imo it's more helpful settle the entire lot in one go rather than piecemealing typos.Utopes(talk /cont)00:14, 5 January 2025 (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.
Keep per 2A0E - if a user types this in then it is obvious where they are attempting to go. Redirects don't have to be 100% accurate, and often it is helpful when they aren't. No benefit of deleting - should be kept.BugGhost🦗👻09:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contains 8 extra letters. Could also contain 7, or 9, as well as any other permutation. No evidence that this song uses this unlikely variation, per nom.Utopes(talk /cont)18:28, 2 January 2025 (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 as implausible censoring. just say "b*tch" if you're that worried about the fuck words. of course, this means i'd consider "nightb*tch" to be a plausible redirect.don't you hate it when your stay at home wife sometimes transforms into a dog? that happened to my buddy eric once, and his week was ruinedcogsan(nag me)(stalk me)11:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plausible censoring. Wikipedia is not censored, but a redirect is not content, it's a navigation aid. The fact that wikipedia is not censored doesn't mean our users necessarily know that, or that they won't self-censor themselves, or copy a search term from someone else who does.WP:CHEAP applies.Fieari (talk)23:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not censored and shouldn't encourage any misguided notion that we'll de-censor self-censored search terms. If something's citeably referred to in censored fashion, that's different. The playShopping and Fucking was frequently referred to in the media as"Shopping and F***ing", for example (e.g.), and that would be a legitimate redirect title. I'm kind of surprised thatShopping and F***ing doesn't already exist, now that I've looked for it. —Hex•talk16:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep redirecting a redacted version to the non-censored version is pretty much the opposite of censorship. I did a new simple google search for "Nightb***h" and found that the Daily Mail has used it in two video posts and three articles, so it's very possible someone will search Wikipedia for that exact title.Skynxnex (talk)21:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fieari. People who are citingNOTCENSORED are not grasping what's happening here - a user is typing in a word containing "b***h" and getting taken to an article with the word "bitch" - this is the opposite of censorship. This particular spelling is used online and unambigious - should be kept.BugGhost🦗👻09:53, 27 December 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.
Template - {{R from possibilites}} - it may develop into a broad topic, or research may be able to be done now, but no broader topic exists rn.BarntToust21:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or develop into an independent article. Basically there's no reason to delete the redirect as long as the broader article doesn't exist.Simonm223 (talk)22:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perWP:WTAF, and specificallyoppose any sort of justification with the possibilities template. It might very well be a fine topic for an article, but redirecting to a specific bill is pretty inappropriate.35.139.154.158 (talk)17:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template as a redirect with possibilities. The broader topic has possibilities for development, but for now the target article cites reliable sources that indicate the topic has been noteworthily identified as a case of transphobia/anti-trans bigotry in the United States House of Representatives. If it is not templated,keep.Hydrangeans (she/her |talk |edits)04:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A user searching this term is unlikely to want the specific bill and more likely to be searching for an article on this subject. Support recreation of a full article per above.SmittenGalaxy|talk!11:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toTransphobia in the United States, to the "Government actions" section if needed. In addition to the Private Spaces Act, it also mentions,In mid-July, the GOP in the US House of Representatives supported bills that would target transgender athletes with the "Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act" sponsored byGreg Steube. The mention of transphobia in the House in the broader Transphobia in the U.S. article makes the latter a valid redirect target.Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs)03:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SmittenGalaxy. The suggested target appears valid but has too little to show for a redirect term with such specific potential. Jay 💬18:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toTransphobia in the United States per Rotideypoc41352. I actually count three: a paragraph on Nancy Mace's bill, a sentence on Greg Steube's bill, and a paragraph on a bill by Marjorie Taylor Greene. That's plenty of discussion for me. --Tavix(talk)15:07, 7 January 2025 (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.
Thanks for merging those pages. I haven't deleted such a large number of pages at once before, so I didn't realize I needed to merge them. I'll be more careful next time. My reason for deletion was that if I search for a specific latitude, I'm more likely to want to know what's on that latitude, rather than being redirected to another article. I'm not very good at English, so I may not have been able to explain my thoughts well. For example, for latitudes 81°S to 89°S, I don't think I would want to be redirected to the same article every time I search for one. While I understand other perspectives, I still think having separate articles would be more user-friendly. But if everyone agrees to keep the redirects, I'm fine with that.--Psycho CSL (talk)02:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These redirects were created to provide completeness for all of the other line of latitude articles, e.g.13th parallel north. These ones don't warrant their own articles, being entirely within the Arctic Ocean or Antarctica - there's not really anything useful that could be said about them, but perWP:CHEAP, redirects toArctic Ocean orAntarctica at least gives readers an idea of where they are should they be searched for. Redirects toCircle of latitude, as suggested above, would be OK but not really precise enough for my liking.Bazonka (talk)09:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bazonka and Someone - these are cheap, accurate redirects that fill the purpose of completing the set of line of latitude articles. Deleting would encourage making articles that aren't necessary, a redirect is better.
Thanks cyclone for fixing the RFD listings.Psycho CSL if you need to nominate lots of RFD's again I'd recommend usingmassXFD, which makes bundling a lot quicker, and makes the resulting listing/notifications simpler.BugGhost🦗👻10:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. 1)Wikipedia is not an atlas. While we may have articles about countries and things that you do find in an atlas, it's not meant to be a database dump of what countries cross what arbitrary lines of latitude/longitude. There's nothing inherently interesting about breaking up by integer values of degrees; this is a task more suited to a program that has geographic data and can convert any such line of longitude or latitude into such a list automatically. 2) Evenif you want these for completeness, the ones we do have are part of a series, and these are not, soWP:REDYES applies. We shouldn't have these redirects to cover up the fact that these parts of the series don't exist. Furthermore, there's absolutely no reason why the series has to be complete at all.35.139.154.158 (talk)18:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lines of latitude and longitude articles have been taken to AFD several times before and they've always been kept. This Redirects for Discussion page is not the appropriate place to discuss them, but feel free to raise them at AFDyet again if you must. In any case, there is nothing inWP:NOT that mentions atlases, and of course there are thousands of articles about geographical locations.
Regarding your comments about the Arctic ice sheet, this is not fixed in place, and (especially with the future effects of global warming) parts of the parallels might go over open ocean, thereby making a redirect toArctic ice sheet not necessarily correct. The ice sheets are in the Arctic Ocean, so redirects toArctic Ocean will always be correct, whether the parallels pass over ice or open water. I'm not sure what "similar concerns exist in the south" really means – these parallels are entirely on the continent of Antarctica. A redirect toAntarctica is therefore more precise than a link toAntarctic which covers seas that these parallels don't pass through.Bazonka (talk)21:59, 28 December 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).
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 5#Check Six