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 would advisedeleting as potentially misleading; "peoples" implies a group of closely related ethnic groups, while the Dutch are generally understood to comprise a single ethnic group. —Anonymous04:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment though they are also historically divided, with Hollanders, Frieslanders, etc. TheFrisians of Friesland are not Dutch, but are in the Netherlands.People of the Netherlands leads to "Dutch people" making it the default article for the people of the country, not just the ethnic group. --65.92.246.77 (talk)08:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an r from plural. I'm not seeing the implication of different groups, generally we redirect plurals to the base form of the topic.Utopes(talk /cont)06:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But as Cremastra and myself have already explained, the Dutch area people in the sense of how the word is normally used, not multiple peoples. Therefore, while it could be correct in some cases, it's inaccurate for this one. —Anonymous19:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Significa liberdade, the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia (and Canada, if someone wanted to add it) are all multi-ethnic societies, and the articles about their nationals acknowledge this. Therefore, it makes sense to use "peoples" to acknowledge that there are multiple ethnic groups who may call themselves "American" or "British". However, the article makes it clear thatDutch refers to a single ethnic group, not a nationality. A German living in the Netherlands is a Netherlander, but not Dutch. A Dutch person living in Australia who still remains their cultural customs is Dutch, regardless of citizenship. Therefore, when Dutch is understood as an ethnic descriptor, it would follow that "Dutch peoples" describes a group of related ethnic groups, like theTurkic peoples,Italic peoples,Iranian peoples, orMalagasy peoples. However, there are no "Dutch peoples" in this sense, so a reader who searches this will be left puzzled. Thus concludes perhaps my strongest and most coherent wikiargument ever, over a redirect that will probably get fifteen page views on the next twenty years. —Anonymous01:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬20:22, 17 February 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 - Implausible as it may seem, this is an OLD redirect, and should be kept for that reason alone, purely to prevent link rot if nothing else. For its stupid implausible formatting, hyphen included, it gets a surprising number of yearly hits... 33 this year alone! That hints to me that external incoming links are a thing somewhere, and we should continue to catch those. To the contrary of nom's opinion, I believeWP:CHEAP applies here.Fieari (talk)00:07, 21 February 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.
Weak retarget toFried shrimp#Ebi tempura perHyphenation Expert's comment. It's not enough for me to fully support their targeting option since allShrimp arePrawn but not all prawn are shrimp, meaning the proposed target may not necessarily be about the subject of the redirect, but it's better than the current target which only has a vague mention of "shrimp" atTempura#Seafood; having the redirect target there would seem to be aWP:RETURNTORED situation due to the lack of content specifically about the subject of this redirect. Either way, the current target is not specifically about shrimp but rather "presentation" about tempura in general, and there's more content about a shrimp topics atFried shrimp regarding tempura, so at the very leastdo not keep.Steel1943 (talk)23:59, 17 February 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.
Seemingly unhelpful to redirect the cyrillic to the Dracula disambiguation page. To my understanding none of the entries have the cyrillic anywhere.Utopes(talk /cont)23:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Contingently,Retarget toVlad the Impaler - According toRomanian Cyrillic alphabet, Romania used a cyrillic alphabet until 1830,Vlad the Impaler was in the 15th century. That would make thisWP:RFOR compliant... assuming that this cyrillic is correct to the historical Romanian alphabet, and that this term was used for Vlad in Romanian at some point before 1830. I would guess that this is the case, but I don't know for certain, so my !vote is contingent on these being true.Fieari (talk)23:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more try. Notified of this discussion at the suggested target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬17:10, 17 February 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more try. Also notified the BLARer of this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬17:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The source references quoted above are from 2003 and 1984 - not recent. The ToL accepts WoRMS as a standard reference and we should continue to follow it as the newer (and regularly updated) source. The redirect follows MOS and the taxobox in the genus article. Until that changes, we should not tinker with the redirect.Loopy30 (talk)17:18, 17 February 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.
Retarget toMasami Akita discography where the 2004 album "Tamago" is listed. It cannot be redirected to Egg, since that is not a Japanese topic and there is no AFFINITY. It cannot target the current target, since it's the wrong name. The current target and other uses of Japanese food are PTM and not useful as not referred to as such on its own. --65.92.246.77 (talk)07:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support DAB - Whileegg has no affinity for Japanese perWP:RFOR, there are plenty of English uses of Tamago as can be seen in the draft. Adding Tamagoyaki and Onsen Tamago to the dab might be acceptable as well.Fieari (talk)00:13, 21 February 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.
Ashley Guillard falsely accused Rebecca Scofield of being involved in the crime which is the target of this redirect, and Scofield won a defamation suit over that accusation. The mention of Guillard had been removed from the target article as WP:UNDUE weight.Rebecca Scofield was deleted todayat its RfD, this should be too. Jay 💬09:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete(unless a discussion of the case is ever re-added to wikipedia) - Anyone searching this name is looking for information on the false accusation, and they won't find it because it was removed from the article, presumably for BLP compliance. Unhelpful, as the existence of this redirect without an explanation in the article could beactively misleading! It might lead a searcher to assume that the accusation was true, for example!(Note, regulars to RfD will know I often support redirects without a mention because they CAN be helpful... this one can't)Fieari (talk)00:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At best this is unhelpful; at worst there are BLP concerns. Contra Jax,WP:CHEAP#1 is irrelevant: while it is true that deleting redirects does not save disk space, that does not mean that we should retain redirects which are unhelpful or harmful. We routinely delete redirects for all sorts of reasons despite the existence of CHEAP.Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk)15:48, 21 February 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, no such work called the "consise grove dictionary of music". Whenever someone feels like adding this material to the article, they can create a redirect for "The Grove Consise Dictionary of Music" as soon as there is content to substantiate reader's search term. At this time there is not, so no need to mislead readers with a promise of content we cannot deliver at this time.Utopes(talk /cont)10:55, 13 February 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.
This particular capitalisation would probably refer toGameover ZeuS. The page was originally created as a camel-case title in pre-MediaWiki times, so I'm not sure how easily this is retargeted, but in case it is not, a hatnote would unfortunately appear quite odd (though the malware should probably be added toZeus (disambiguation) either way).1234qwer1234qwer403:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote toKeep. With the "delete" option unavailable, the least damage is done by keeping redirect to a well-known properly capitalized name, thus avoiding a surprise. Most search engines ignore the case anyhow, so this redirect will not help externally to find the malware article. --Викидим (talk)03:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Gameover ZeuS. Agreed with Michael Aurel that anyone typing it this way isprobably thinking of the malware. A hatnote directing to Zeus and Zeus (disambiguation) could be added there, and the article added to the disambiguation page as well. That should cover all the likely possibilities.P Aculeius (talk)14:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Long long ago, an editor had funcreating a page with the last letter of random words capitalized. When he realized others were joining in and having fun too, he converted it into a redirect. It was tagged as CamelCase some years later.
However, this is not CamelCase, but a kind of a mix ofalternating caps andrandom caps andStUdLyCaPs (these names are redirects to alternating caps by the way). Our article onLetter case doesn't have a name for it either. Redditors havetried naming it "Terminal capitalization" and "Question case". I have untagged CamelCase, and tagged the redirect as{{R from miscapitalisation}}. We may keep it that way as an antique, or to make the redirect relevant in the present day,retarget toGameover ZeuS, and untag. I don't see usefulness in retargeting to the disambig page, but having a hatnote at Gameover ZeuS to the disambig page may be done. On Worgisbor's concern, "See also" is the right place, it should not be a dab entry. Jay 💬21:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CAMEL has this 2001 post from Clifford Adams:.. when I recently wanted to link to "democracy",... I made the link "DemocracY" (to follow the new convention of last-letter-capitalized). What is this convention that he talks about? I did not find anything on it inUseModWiki. Jay 💬07:35, 28 February 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 - this redirect implies that King of Swing received a DSport more than it implies that it got a DSsequel. I also can't imagine it getting much digital footfall, honestly.Jacktalk17:21, 23 February 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.
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 know, but by the way, "WP:BFDI" has evolved into Wikipedian slang for something that'spopular yet not notable (which would be irrelevant otherwise). For proof on this, here's a quote fromWP:BFDI itself (most related parts highlighted in bold):
In fact, several usershave used the term "WP:BFDI" to broadly refer to any subject in general whosepopularity, or evenexistence, does not translate to notability.
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 result of the discussion wasno consensus. This discussion is very split between keeping the redirect toLondon, retargeting toLandan Rooney, and deletion. Editors advocating for keeping the redirect pointed out that this redirect reflected the spelling of the pronunciation of London in some local London accents. Editors advocating for retargeting toLandan Rooney noted that Landan was a name, and that Rooney was the only person with a Wikipedia article with the name; some editors were concerned this was fairly unlikely to be what a reader wanted (WP:PTM was cited, though that applies to disambiguation pages; however, the concepts behind it are probably applicable here). Deletion was also suggested from editors who were concerned with both proposed options; the primary concern about redirecting toLondon was that this was unlikely to be a search term based off the pronunciation, and that it was an implausible misspelling. I find no consensus for any of these three options.(non-admin closure)Skarmory(talk •contribs)03:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a nickname reflecting local pronunciation, either by local self-deprecation or outside mirth, just likeNawlins orTrawna. I don't see the point in redirecting this to a random Canadian curler as if he's like Adele or Madonna being known by one name.Unknown Temptation (talk)22:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because it is pronounced like that in certain accents, does not mean that it is spelled differently and this seems like a really implausible misspelling of "London".GoldenBootWizard276 (talk)23:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Pretty evenly split between keeping, retargeting and deleting; worth one final relist to try and get a clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Skarmory(talk •contribs)03:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PTM does not apply.WP:RDELETE #2 and/or #8 should be the ones being mentioned instead of PTM at RfD. There are boatloads of PTM redirects already that aren't going to be deleted because of multipleWP:RKEEP reasons, particularly #5, and thatWP:RCHEAP. However you can say PTM would prevent a disambiguation page from being created out of the redirect. --65.92.246.77 (talk)00:05, 19 February 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.
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 February 25#Jewish Israeli Aramaic