Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 6

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Rot Stops Here → Suicide bidding  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• This Is The Generation → Suicide bidding  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• This Is the Generation → Suicide bidding  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• This is the Generation → Suicide bidding  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is for a non-notable album by a non-notable band called Suicide Bid, who article was deleted years ago and recreated as a redirect to Suicide bidding (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide Bid). It doesn't make sense for this title to be redirected there. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no relevance to current target.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "The Rot Stops Here". The album is mentioned at Sonic Boom Six#Suicide Bid, but it's just a passing mention so doesn't really help anyone. The mention at Babar Luck#Duets is even less substantial. As there is no good target for this deletion is the best option. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Suicide Bid had two albums, so I'm adding the other to this nomination for the same reason. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget "This is the Generation" (and its varients) to Psalm 24 - verse 6 of which is the overwhelming primary topic of search results for the exact prhase. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. I oppose Thryduulf's retargeting proposal, it's a WP:PTM of sorts since it is an incomplete quote. If we are in the business of retargeting to incomplete quotes, Sarvastivada could also work. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the redirect to Psalms is interesting but search results are better. Legacypac (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Professor Science → Diplodocus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete Created due to a reference in Dinosaur Comics. Not a useful search term for Diplodocus, also an unlikely search term for Dinosaur Comics, but that would be slightly more appropriate as a redirect target. Plantdrew (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy → Outline of the creation–evolution controversy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Articles called Kuru → Kuru  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Articles about Mormonism → List of Latter Day Saint movement topics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Articles about 2006 Winter Olympics by nation → 2006 Winter Olympics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete Articles about articles are very unlikely search terms. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't think we should make a habit of having 'Articles about xxx' - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy and Articles about Mormonism as that is exactly what will be found at the target and area reasonable search terms for that content.. Delete Articles called Kuru as this is not a useful search term for a disambiguation page - someone would just search "Kuru". 'Retarget "Articles about 2006 Winter Olympics by nation" to Template:Nations at the 2006 Winter Olympics which is the navigation template listing all the articles we have for nations at the 2006 Winter Olympics and thus what people using this are looking for. We should not preemptively create redirects in the "articles about", but ones that have been created should be kept or retargetted if there is a reasonable target. Our job is to help readers find the content they are looking for without requiring them to know our naming conventions beforehand. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. "Articles called Kuru" is a leftover from someone incorrectly titling a disambiguation page, which should have been moved without leaving a redirect.  — Scott • talk 15:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all no redirects to Articles about foo. Dumb search term Legacypac (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What give us the right to describe some perfectly logical search terms as "dumb"? WP:BITE and all that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Undesirable self-referencing. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How on earth is this any more or any less of a self-reference than a disambiguaiton page? Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• VVilliam Shakeᶘpeare → William Shakespeare  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete Another VV Shakespeare redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. VVe do not need theſe, and they may confuſe. —Kusma (t·c) 20:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Found the source! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Othello_title_page.jpg It was literally printed with two "V"s instead of a "W". @Kusma: If you don't mind a question: How would this confuse? I think most readers would recognize it as an archaic spelling and/or would know who it refers to. Having said that I used the wrong character for long s for this redirect, so this isn't a "keep" vote here. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was weak keep. The other two related discussions were deleted, but after going over the discussion below, viewing it in the light of all three, I think this discussion is a weak keep. As conceded below, the arguments for keep are at their zenith on this one, and I'm not convinced of the likelihood of confusion or precedent setting. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• VVilliam Shakeſpeare → William Shakespeare  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another implausible redirect to this article using two v'sGoveganplease (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC) Goveganplease (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. VVe do not need theſe, and they may confuſe. —Kusma (t·c) 20:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I recall adding this since the way the "W" was printed in the document looked like two Vs, or that they actually used two Vs (this is why if one does a redirect, one should link to the "source") WhisperToMe (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Found the source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Othello_title_page.jpg - As in the other thread, I'm curious about why this would confuse. Wouldn't most readers know who this is referring to? This is not a keep vote since I realized I used the wrong character for the "long s". WhisperToMe (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW I would like to Keep this redirect as it has the correct "ſ" character, uses the correct capitalization, and that the "VV" is accurate to the original source document. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one is the best of the set, a direct copy of ancient printing. I remain unconvinced that it is of any use (it is only for readers capable of entering a long s, but not knowing the standard spelling of Shakespeare's name. Are there any of those?). As W was a common letter by the time Othello was printed, I expect this was meant to be a W, not a VV, and this is a printer's choice (maybe they didn't have enough Ws??), not an alternate spelling. I would like to discourage creation of redirects for names or things containing a long s. (Thousands of words and names exist that used to be written with a long s). —Kusma (t·c) 12:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I typically only create a long s redirect if I actually see it printed in a historical document. Many modern names could in theory use a "long s" but in practice that would never appear for those names/terms. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • WhisperToMe, please don't. The search function automatically takes care of this, see below. —Kusma (t·c) 10:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am aware the search bar takes care of capitalization and other aspects (and I knew long s to the regular one), but as I usually navigate Wikipedia by simply typing the name of the article in the URL address bar, and because Wikipedia internal links are case sensitive (and would be "long s" sensitive) I have a preference for creating redirects with different capitalizations, etc. (if they appear in a formal print article) anyway. Having said that... WhisperToMe (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WhisperToMe. It may be archaic, but it matches a source for the time period. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are likely sourced typographical variants of nearly every English name and term with an "s" that predates the mid-19th century, and having redirects with the "ſ" for any number of them would certainly be WP:COSTLY. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  They are also not necessary for searching: Although Paradiſe Lost does not exist, if you enter "Paradiſe Lost" in the searchbox, you end up at Paradise Lost. The only potential use is for linking, and I don't think that is a good idea either. —Kusma (t·c) 09:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  And it works the other way around as well: VVilliam Shakespeare gets you to VVilliam Shakeſpeare. —Kusma (t·c) 10:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That I didn't know. That's interesting! WhisperToMe (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• VViliam shakespeare → William Shakespeare  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Completely implausible redirect, especially considering there is two misspellings here (the 2 V's and only 1 L)Goveganplease (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC) Goveganplease (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete re this and the other two Ye Olde Spelling Shaxberd redirects above. Nobody is going to type in imitation Elizabethan typography. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I honestly do wonder if people will in the far future: near future, possibly not, but there had been advances in Unicode et al, and I wonder if/when search engines will treat the long s differently? Also keep in mind that the long s was used far beyond the Elizabethan period: this newspaper from 1804 uses the long s WhisperToMe (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. VVe do not need theſe, and they may confuſe. —Kusma (t·c) 20:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @Goveganplease: Not a misspelling, because it was literally printed that way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Othello_title_page.jpg - This is not a keep vote, though, as the capitalization is wrong and the absence of the long s. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Elektroniskā cigarete → Electronic cigarette  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Cigarillos electronicos → Electronic cigarette  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Electronic cigarettes are not related to any language in particular. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - insignificant WP:FORREDs. ComplexRational (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, we must be consistent. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.