Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 16

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 retarget to Werewolf fiction. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Werewolves in fiction → List of werewolves  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This currently points to List of werewolves, but Werewolf fiction exists. I tend to think the list should just be merged into that article, though the result would be somewhat lengthy. I am open to alternatives. BD2412 T 21:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Werewolf fiction as the new target is a simple rearrangement of the redirect name. Merging the two articles is probably something that should be done; however, that's outside the scope of an RfD discussion. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Werewolf fiction as more plausible synonym --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Werewolf fiction. Not sure who is typing this in outside seasoned wikipedians but seems okay to me. Maybe people searching other search engines to find this perhaps. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because 1) the wording of the redirect leads to assume the reader is looking for a list of something, and 2) as far as I am aware, all werewolves are fictional, so the concept of "werewolf" itself is fictional. Retargeting this to Werewolf fiction does not seem to be where readers want to go if searching this term, but if need be, a hatnote can be added to the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: Until the at least the middle 18th century, there are many sources that treated the affliction/ability as real. It was explored as a medical condition in the 1960s. The werewolf article was a better read than I expected! Theoretically, the list article could be expanded to include older mentions that were part of folklore that would not quite fall under the realm of fiction in the modern context.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Godsy: Well, that's surprisingly surprising! Good finds and points in the matter, and that was an interesting read. Withdrawing my stance then. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 23 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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Anoushka Sunak → Rishi Sunak#Personal life  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Krishna Sunak → Rishi Sunak#Personal life  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Usha Sunak → Rishi Sunak#Early life and education  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Yashvir Sunak → Rishi Sunak#Early life and education  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete because these names of non-notable close family members of former UK prime minister Rishi Sunak have recently been removed from his article per WP:BLPNAME, and because the categories on these redirects may lead readers to draw conclusions. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On the same note, I also propose deleting redirects Florence Rose Endellion Cameron, Ivan Cameron, and Wilfred Lawrie Nicholas Johnson. @DeFacto, pinging so you can add these if you want. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete those three too. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:52, 22 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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to FIVB Men's Volleyball Nations League#Reform from 2025. Will tag with {{R with possibilities}} (and {{R to section}}) per the article potential. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025 FIVB Men's Volleyball Nations League → FIVB Men's Volleyball Nations League  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mentioned at the target page and per WP:FUTURE. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 04:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Better be recreated as an future article if reliable sources exist. Withdrawn. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A draft is now pending review. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine to FIVB Men's Volleyball Nations League#Reform from 2025 while we wait for the draft to be approved. Jay 💬 14:24, 27 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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the redirect's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025 FIVB Women's Volleyball Nations League → FIVB Women's Volleyball Nations League  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mentioned at the target page and per WP:FUTURE. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 04:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 16 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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Pinga (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pignas → Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog#Reception  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

unlikely misspelling of "pingas"? if it's not deleted, i'll suggest retargeting to youtube poop, while i make a not as misspelled redirect to it cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh wait, "pingas" is already a redirect to a dab. leave that one as is (give or take a mention of it in the dab), or retarget it to ytp? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Target to dab and tag as misspelling and avoided double redirect. My first instinct was to delete, but given the correctly spelled title exists, might as well target to where the correctly spelled title goes. (As for plausibility, is swapping the location of two characters next to each other really that implausible of a typing error? After all, I've done taht plenty of timse.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Target to the DAB page as an R from misspelling. I added a mention of YTP at the target page that is hopefully acceptable. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:06, 17 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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The two Johns → They Might Be Giants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

what makes those two specific johns "the", as opposed to john and john from john and john, or any other combination of two johns? doesn't seem related to "gigantic (a tale of two johns)", which is about those two specific johns, but doesn't necessarily make those of all johns "the" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete simple google search does not relate to this target. It's a 1923 film, or Biblical Johns -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 08:27, 17 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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Brown hat → Grey hat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at current redirect article. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find a good target in en.wiki. GSearch just points me to brown hats up for sale. -- Lenticel ^(talk) 00:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• According to Urban Dictionary (yes, I know), a "brownhat" (no space) is "a startlingly incompetent wannabe hacker with malicious intent", so the current target isn't unreasonable. However, as the term isn't mentioned there (and doesn't appear to have much traction in general), Delete per nom. Tevildo (talk) 17:30, 17 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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nationalparken → Northeast Greenland National Park  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nationalparken means "national park" in both Danish and Swedish and does not necessarily refer to this park in particular (e.g. uses at [1], [2]). If we have any aggregated List of national parks in Scandinavia type articles that would be an appropriate target, but I wasn't able to find any that include both Denmark and Sweden. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED. National parks in general have no particular affinity with any particular country or language - and it's not just Swedish and Danish, the Luxembourgish Wikipedia has lb:Kategorie:Nationalparken too. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:51, 17 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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Shawn "Source" Jarrett → Record producer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Jarrett is a specific record producer; redirecting his name to the concept of a record producer isn't helpful at all, especially when he isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. This redirect should be deleted. Sock (tock talk) 13:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not helpful to readers. He appears to exist, but an article about him do not. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete per nom and Ca. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. No prejudice on the creation of the article for this individual provided that there are reliable sources that deemed him notable. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:18, 17 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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yogu → Yogurt  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

seems to refer to one of two yogurt brands that aren't notable, or a thing nestlé did once that is also not notable. doesn't seem to be a commonly used abbreviation, and if it's just an unfinished word, then why even make a redire cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:44, 16 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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fruit bottom → Yogurt  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

originally a short essay about putting fruit at the bottom of yogurt to make it taste like yogurt with fruit on the bottom, currently mentioned in passing in the target. however, putting fruit at the bottom of things is not a concept exclusive to yogurt (though it might be the primary topic), and the title implies it's about the bottom of fruit (whatever that means for most of them). torn between voting to delete as vague, or as broken english cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

will mention fruit at the bottom, an album that doesn't appear to have a lot in common with yogurt. i think a redirect could be made in sentence case and targeted to yogurt, with hatnotes on both articles, but "fruit bottom" could refer to obscure sex practices for all anyone knows cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Googling for "fruit bottom" -Wikipedia gets a total of 10 hits, the first is the only one that appears relevant but it's a blog and the word "fruit" doesn't actually appear on the page when you visit. Of the rest, 1 is an Etsy shop where the word "bottom" doesn't appear on the visited page, and the rest are random cololcations and/or not in English. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Gonna be real, my first thought when I see the words "fruit bottom" is Fruit of the Loom, a brand that sells bottoms (as in the article of clothing). As for Fruit at the Bottom the album, it seems to be an album named after one of its songs-- albeit the title track's lyrics don't seem to be talking about yogurt either. Honestly I don't have a clue. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at first thought, its a type of cake. -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 08:28, 17 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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Al Gore#Presidential run speculation. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft Al Gore → Al Gore#2008 Presidential election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mentions of this specific phrase in the target article. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:FC81:4199:A8ED:9666 (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fake draft to article redirect. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 12:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think this is using "Draft" in the sense of military draft (which is mentioned at Al Gore#Military service) or "a handful of his supporters formed a national campaign to draft him into running" (Al Gore#Presidential run speculation). The similarity to Wikipedia's draft namespace is probably coincidental. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Al Gore#Presidential run speculation. That's what the creator was targeting in 2008: Gore's political drafts. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• *Retarget per Hyphenation Expert and my comment above. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 18 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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Jay 💬 14:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Shinespark → Characters of the Metroid series#Etecoons and Dachora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The section only mentions it once and in passing. No description of it is given. Also, this is a gameplay feature and not a character. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Metroid#Gameplay, I found a decent mention of it here that can easily be added. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No mention has been added yet to the proposed target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:29, 16 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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 21:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tighten → Megamind#Cast  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

not entirely sure megamind as a franchise has dominion over the public perception of this specific word, or that tight would be a good target cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 15:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to wikt:tighten and hatnote to the previous target, essentially per nom. Duckmather (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. Per WP:SSRT, only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects (emphases mine). This word is neither commonly wikified (indeed, there are no mainspace links that point to it), nor has it been repeatedly recreated. But because it might reasonably be a search term for multiple items on Wikipedia, and none seem like an easy primary topic, a dab page should suffice. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What would you place on a disambiguation page for this term? There are over 10,000 uses of tighten (or variants like tightens, tightened, and tightening) in the mainspace. I couldn't review them all, but from what I did see, there aren't enough candidates to justify creating a disambiguation page. - Eureka Lott 04:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like Eureka Lott, I struggled to find alternative candidates to list on a DAB page. I concur with Red-tailed hawk that a soft redirect is unhelpful here. In the absence of other suitable targets, I see no reason to change from the present one. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agreeing with Presidentman, unless there's a few good suggestions for the contents of a DAB, I think it should remain as-is. I don't think the existing redirect is helpful to many people, but I don't think moving it to anywhere else would be an improvement either, so keep. BugGhost🪲👻 10:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is just not what people are likely to be looking for. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Tight? Hat note to character (i.e. the current target) and add a wikt link box to the page for wikt:tighten. Not the ideal solution, however, it might be the best that can be done for now (bar an article on the generalized topic, which would be difficult). Either that, or delete it. The search engine seemingly handles it better. This is a rare case where it seems keeping it as is would be a harmful surprise. Loosen does not exist. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Tight seems fine to me. I am hard-pressed to imagine the person specifically looking up the Megamind-related meaning. BD2412 T 14:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or retarget to Wiktionary:tighten. I'm having severe difficulty believing that a reader looking up the word "tighten" would be attempting to locate any of the subjects currently listed at the disambiguation page Tight. In addition, I do agree that the Megamind reference is so obscure that leaving the redirect as is is probably not helpful. The best ways to serve the readers in the case are is probably ... we either give them search results so they can figure out what they are trying to find, or we send them to Wiktionary so they can get a definition of this word. Steel1943 (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The WP:SSRT-ers have it ... scrap the Wiktionary reference. However, this word is so common as an word in English that I believe most readers being directed to the Megamind article are going to be unclear why they were led to the article if they were looking for the concept of "tighten". Steel1943 (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Presidentman. No suitable alternatives have been identified: there's nothing to put on a potential disambiguation page, redirecting to Wiktionary wouldn't be appropriate per WP:SSRT, and the term isn't mentioned on the Tight disambiguation page. That leaves the current target as the only viable option. No objection to a disambiguation page if some good candidates are identified. - Eureka Lott 17:01, 20 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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 14:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Notorious Software Patents → List of software patents  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused (no pageviews in 90 days) redirect of unlikely editorialization and capitalizaiton. Nat Gertler (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list does say some patents have "achieved notoriety in other ways", but not all patents listed are "notorious" (if we are editorializing here), and the list isn't about patent controversies anyways. Misleadings and unlikely search term. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not WP:NPOV. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI redirects do not need to be neutral per WP:RNEUTRAL. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Some software patents have been described as "notorious" by reliable sources, so it is a reasonable search term, and it is reasonable (and not uncommon) for a more specific search term to redirect to a broader article. However someone using this search term is almost certainly looking for either a list of software patents that are (or have been called) notorious or information on what makes a software patent notorious, but that information is not in the target article or the main article about software patents, making the redirect misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I know I'm going against the grain here, but... for starters, I agree that this is a plausible search term. I also agree that redirects need not follow the NPOV naming policy, and in fact, POV article names are best as redirects. Where I disagree with the above !votes is the idea that the target article is not the best place to get information on notorious software patents. I've read the article/list... and while it does include some non-notorious patents, it definitely includes the notorious ones as well. From where I'm standing, that means that this article provides the information the searcher is looking for, and that's the job of a redirect. Fieari (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fieari: while it might include the notorious patents, you can only know that if you already know which software patents are notorious (so the article tells you nothing you don't already know). If you want to learn which are notorious then you will have had your time wasted at best (because the article doesn't tell you) or mislead into thinking they're all notorious. If you want to learn what makes software patents notorious, either in general or what makes specific ones notorious then again the article is of no benefit to you. In all cases the redirect misleads the searcher into to thinking we have content that we do not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Keep If a cited section is made at List_of_software_patents#Miscellaneous which explains the notoriety of certain software patents. Otherwise, delete as potentially vague at best. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:AFFINITY (i.e. titles with adjectives (e.g. 'important', 'significant', and 'consequential') that have no more affinity than any other for the subject at hand), unless a strong case with a well-sourced mention can be materialized. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:35, 18 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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Folk punk. Jay 💬 13:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Acoustic punk → Acoustic music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I disambiguated acoustic punk with links to acoustic music, folk punk, antifolk, and gypsy punk, however, it was restored to its original redirect, and there appears to be some confusion on the acoustic punk talk page, so am listing it here to get consensus on whether the redirect or disambiguation page is more appropriate. I feel like the disambiguation page would work better because folk music is acoustic, and folk punk, antifolk, and gypsy punk can be performed acousticly sans electric amplification. Moline1 (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on the talk page, this could perhaps be a broad concept article, but not a disambiguation page at present. None of these articles are ambiguously titled with the term "acoustic punk" and at present, none of them even so much as mention the term. If the articles are updated to provide some indication as to why they are suitable for inclusion on a dab for "acoustic punk", that could work as well, but otherwise a broad concept article is needed to provide context for these unambiguously titled articles. older ≠ wiser 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to disambig - A disambiguation page is more helpful than being redirected to a more general page (ie. Acoustic music). Users who want Acoustic music can click on that link, users who are looking for a more specific acoustic punk subgenre are presented with a list of them to chose from. The previous DAB was lacking a clarifying introduction though. BugGhost🪲👻 09:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  At present, none of the articles contain any indication that they are ambiguous with the term. These articles may be conceptually related topics, but strictly speaking the current titles and content of the articles are not ambiguous. older ≠ wiser 10:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Moline isn't suggesting that articles like Folk punk and Celtic punk etc are ambiguous - they are saying that the term Acoustic punk is ambiguous, which is evident seeing as we are disagreeing on the topic. Seeing as that term is ambiguous, we should disambiguate it. BugGhost🪲👻 11:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that at present there is no existing article that addresses that ambiguity. Why should we direct readers to articles like folk punk or celtic punk that say nothing directly about "acoustic punk"? older ≠ wiser 12:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ... because they are punk subgenres that focus heavily on acoustic elements? The target articles do not need to express an ambiguity, because they are not the ones being disambiguated. Either way, I think you and I have sufficiently clarified our positions - let's put a pin in this comment thread and see what other editors say on the topic. BugGhost🪲👻 13:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, except that's not really disambiguation -- that is more like saying we don't have an article on "acoustic punk" but here are some articles that might have some conceptual overlap. older ≠ wiser 16:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Folk punk (of which celtic punk and gypsy punk are sub-genres), with which it is fairly synonymous (some sort of sourcing should be possible and a mention may be added; otherwise, {{r without mention}} for now). Hat note to antifolk, if desired. No need to do include the general concept of acoustic music in any form. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Would be happy with this - better target than acoustic music in general. BugGhost🦗👻 11:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Folk punk per Godsy PersusjCP (talk) 02:08, 19 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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. ✗plicit 11:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Moscow City → Moscow International Business Center  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Are we sure that Moscow International Business Center is the primary topic for "Moscow City" (not hyphenated, but capitalised), as opposed to Moscow? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Known as such in reliable sources [3] [4]. There's a hatnote in place for those who may have somehow typed "Moscow City" to look for Moscow. 162 etc. (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "X City" or other similar noun prefixes generally doesn't refer to a settlement unless there is a country or state with the same name such as Mexico City or New York City. Look at Manchester City and Ipswich Town for example. However there is Mezhdunarodnaya (Moscow Metro) so I'd probably suggest disambiguate, either a separate DAB page or redirecting to Mexico (disambiguation). Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Moscow City should be the primary topic ahead of the metro station named for it. The existing hatnote is fine. See Empower Field at Mile High / Empower Field at Mile High station, Powell Street / Powell Street station, etc... 162 etc. (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK keep then. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Moscow Even with capitalising "C" in the word "City", the city of Moscow is still the primary topic. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on retargeting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the Moscow International Business Center is known as Moscow-City, I'd say WP:DIFFCAPS is enough to keep this one. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Moscow per the IP above. Moscow-City already exists and is appropriately targeted to the business center; it is important to consider that, according to the article, this is a romanization of a Russian term. This begs the question of how widespread usage of this term is in English usage. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Moscow and add a hatnote. Google results make it clear that general uses of the city are the primary topic, the business centre/district is second but that doesn't support being the redirect target. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That could be because Google is treating "City" as a qualifier rather than part of the name. I'd question if someone typing "Moscow City" are looking for the city its self. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Searching instead for "Moscow City" -wikipedia (in an attempt to strongarm Google into giving me replies for "Moscow City" as a phrase instead of results for "the city named Moscow") made it bring up a lot more hits for Moscow International Business Center, though some results for Moscow itself (through phrases like "Moscow city government") did manage to leak through. People ARE calling Moscow International Business Center "Moscow City"-- and more importantly, given Google needs to find phrases like "Moscow city government" to bring up results for Moscow itself, people AREN'T referring to Moscow as Moscow City.

  I'd chalk up the far smaller *number* of results simply to the fact that a single business center is never going to be as notable as the capital city of Russia itself. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per evidence provided above that this is the WP:PTOPIC for the WP:DIFFCAPS version specifically. There should be (and already exists) a hatnote to Moscow. Fieari (talk) 01:24, 17 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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Shape. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Geometric Shapes → Geometric Shapes (Unicode block)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Similar reason as Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Kangxi_Radicals: Retarget to Shape, or move the target to the base title? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to shape which is the primary topic in my view. BugGhost🦗👻 10:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to shape, which I wish was a better article than it is, but regardless of that it's still definitely the WP:PTOPIC over the unicode block by a landslide. Fieari (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to shape as most plausible synonym. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:12, 17 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's talk page or in a deletion 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Youre disgusting head → Dave Eggers#Humor books  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misspelled redirect, correct version exists already. Apollogetticax|^talk 04:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unlikely double spelling mistake BugGhost🦗👻 10:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. the correct word is "your're" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably not "your're" but "your"? Apollogetticax|^talk 17:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  what do you mean it's not "yro'ue"? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, although the correct version appears to be "Your" per Dave Eggers#Children's books (which is the section this redirect should target if it isn't deleted). Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Redirect gets roughly 9 uses a year, historically. Not sure if that's enough to support a WP:CHEAP argument or not, so just leaving it as a comment. Fieari (talk) 07:15, 17 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's talk page or in a deletion review).