Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 13

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, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 首页 → Main Page  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RLOTE, no affinity to Chinese. (I assume the high pageviews are bots of some sort, since nobody is looking up the Main Page through the search bar in the first place, let alone in a different language.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Old RFD added. See the メインページ nom for other thoughts for now. Skynxnex (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Tagged for {{Db-g4}} since this redirect was explicitly mentioned and deleted via the linked RfD. Steel1943 (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't speedy delete. Given the objection to deletion in the almost identical discussion below (which would seem to apply equally here), this should not be deleted without discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete RFORIEGN not useful on English Wikipedia; If it is needed, it should reside in WP:projectspace and softredirect to www.wikipedia.org -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per me in 2015 in the previous RfD, and WP:FORRED and as a redirect that would have been eligible for WP:G4 if it were tagged first instead of being brought here. Steel1943 (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:24, 20 September 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. asilvering (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• メインページ → Main Page  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RLOTE, no affinity to Japanese. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Users can navigate from jawiki to enwiki purely by changing "ja." to "en." in the URL bar, because we both have our Main Pages in mainspace. This redirect gets quite a lot of pageviews – 443 just last month – so it is WP:IAR more helpful to readers to just leave it there. Yes, I know it's an RLANG violation, but RLANG is an essay explaining a guideline, and in this case I have no compunctions about invoking IAR and saying keep. Cremastra (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason to not merge this with the adjacent RFD for 首页 immediately above? If not, I may do so. I have also added a link to an RFD from 2015 that closed as delete that included both of these. Even with that, I am not sure what is actually the best action since Cremastra's suggestion that users switch between languages by just adjusting the host name is plausible... Skynxnex (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Skynxnex: No opinion there ... but that is a reason to tag this redirect with {{Db-g4}} ... which I will do here shortly. But ... I would not be surprised if my tag gets denied due to the "keep" votes and WP:CCC, though technically, the tag should be honored. Someone's gotta WP:IAR here. Steel1943 (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Steel1943 I've declined the speedy deletion. Good faith objections to deletion mean deletion is not uncontroversial and it is thus ineligible. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Cremastra's explanation. Changing the language in the url is something I have done before and it isn't harmful in anyway. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete may easily confuse people by landing them on en when looking for ja. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete RFORIEGN not useful on English Wikipedia; If it is needed, it should reside in WP:projectspace and softredirect to www.wikipedia.org -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I read the original 2015 discussion, and found Steel1943's comment there convincing: ... Unless a reader is looking up these terms with the intention to find the version of the Main page for the language of Wikipedia which that language refers. That seems more likely then Cremastra's hypothesis. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per me in 2015 in the previous RfD, and WP:FORRED and as a redirect that would have been eligible for WP:G4 if it were tagged first instead of being brought here. Steel1943 (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cremastra, under the "it's useful to someone" keep rationale, invoking WP:IAR if necessary. Ease of navigation between the languages is a valid use case. It demonstrably gets used. Don't break someone's workflow for no reason... this is harmless to anyone not using it, and useful to those who do use it. It is a net benefit to the project, and we should not delete it out of a sense of "tidyness" or rote adherence to an essay. WP:RFOR is appropriate in more than 99% of cases, but this should be an exception. Fieari (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is not how we do redirects. Seems more likely to imply the Japanese main page. And WP:RLANG. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:24, 20 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025 UK general election → 2024 United Kingdom general election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2025 United Kingdom general election → 2024 United Kingdom general election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible Redirect Blethering Scot 22:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Made slightly more sense when the date wasn't announced. Doesn't make sense anymore. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of United Kingdom general elections. Deletion would be fine, too. The only truly bad option is the current situation. On the off chance that there was a general UK election in 2025 (which is possible, if unlikely, as I understand it), this would be even worse! —mako๛ 12:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The most recent general election had to be held in or before January 2025, and there was much media speculation that it would be held at the latest possible date. This people searching for this title is entirely plausible. When to call a general election is (for practical purposes) entirely the prerogative of the prime minister, as long as one is held within 5 years of the most recent one, i.e. 2029 (although there is a minimum notice period, I think its about 25 days, for logistical reasons). This means that we cannot say there will not be a general election in 2025 until in theory 1 December 2025 as UK elections are always held on a Thursday and 25 December is the last Thursday in 2025 - although as there would have to be some truly extraordinary reason to hold an election on Christmas Day in reality the deadlines would be at least 1 week earlier. This does leave a problem of where best to target this redirect, and I think that unless and until a general election is called for 2025 (which currently looks unlikely, but a week is a long time in politics) that retarget to List of general elections in the United Kingdom#21st century is the best we can do. Someone will learn there that the isn't currently one scheduled for that year and find a link to the 2024 election if that is what they looking for. Ideally there would also be a link to Next United Kingdom general election, but there isn't currently. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of general elections in the United Kingdom#21st century per thryduulf. (I've bundled 2025 United Kingdom general election into this RFD - this was previously discussed at RFD with a no consensus - but this was discussed before the election took place). BugGhost🦗👻 12:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The current target discusses that the date was potentially to be in 2025. Oppose retarget to List of United Kingdom general elections#21st century, that list does not contain any information about a (potential) 2025 general election. Next United Kingdom general election does not even mention the year 2025. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try - delete, retarget or keep as is?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 22:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Tavix talks with sanity on this point Not intended to disparage other participants in any way! Just that I feel Tavix has the right approach. I do way more reading than editing, so let me provide a reader's perspective on how I (and, I suspect, others) interact with Wikipedia as readers. I live in the UK so I know full well the year of the election, but let's imagine I didn't: Perhaps I live somewhere far away, or perhaps the year is 2034 and I just can't remember. I come across an article discussing the possibility of a 2025 election, such as this one in the New Statesman. To put what I'm reading into its appropriate historical context the first thing I wanna do is find out when the election was actually held. What do I put into the Wikipedia search box? 2025 UK general election seems like a decent bet. Not only does this redirect take me to the information I want, the page it leads to does in fact contain a discussion about the timing with an entire section called "Date of the election". Perfect, just what I as a reader am looking for. My only question is if we would be best to leave the redirect exactly as it is, or should we retarget it specificallly to the date section? 78.149.135.163 (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 78...163. Cremastra (talk) 23:25, 13 September 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 23:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

"purice" is romanian for "flea", and this is... some variant of the name, i think. fleas don't seem to have any particular association with romania cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. This is apparently Romanian for "fleas", which is actually mentioned on en.wp at Noise (video)#Names but those metaphorical fleas are no more associated with Romanian than literal fleas. Ștefan Purici is Romanian historian/academic who has written sources used on en.wp, gets a couple of passing mentions and who might be notable but who has no coverage sufficient to sustain a redirect from his full name let alone just his surname. A Roman Purici gets a singular mention in the table at International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions#IFLA/OCLC Fellows by Year as one of the fellows for 2006, but they're barely at dabmention levels of coverage let alone this redirect. So as the current target is not appropriate and there aren't any better alternatives we're left at delete. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Thryduulf. --Un assiolo (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RFOR. Fieari (talk) 01:43, 18 September 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 keep. Notably, the source used in the article calls this name "Sonderjyllands Fkyvelselsskab", and not "Flyveselskab". (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sonderjyllands Fkyvelselsskab → Cimber_Sterling#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This re-direct has a spelling error - I therefore created a new redirect page (Sonderjyllands Flyveselskab) so I propose the old re-direct is deleted. Ydemark (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mhm. delete per nom. k isn't anywhere near f or y on a qwerty keyboard cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mistake here is replacing a "l" with a "k", which are right next to each other on a standard qwerty keyboard. Keep, very plausible spelling mistake, and the existing redirect isn't doing any harm. BugGhost🦗👻 21:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BugGhost. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 14 September 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 14:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pokemon and description → List of Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

target is missing the "description" part. while the more focused lists of pokémon for each generation have those, i find it unlikely that someone searching for this would be looking for any specific gen cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The "and" makes the title an odd WP:XY issue since Description is a separate topic. Steel1943 (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:45, 16 September 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Pokemon by species → List of Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

what are different pokémon, if not different species? does this count as redundant, or...? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The target is a list of Pokémon species (as opposed to individual Pokémon), so this seems plausible, albeit we don't have any other lists of Pokémon. Like a "List of people by name". 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plausible, doing no harm, not ambiguous. We gain nothing from deleting redirects just for the sake of it. BugGhost🦗👻 21:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per both above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 14 September 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 14:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Devon scope → Gameplay of Pokémon#Items  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

thought i nominated this before, whoops. unmentioned, unnotable, and unimportant (unless you really like kecleon or something) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete obscure in game item. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not important enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:30, 15 September 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 article created. Took me less than a minute... (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 23:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yars Rising → Yars' Revenge#Follow-ups and remakes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:REDLINK as the game itself is notable and an article can be created there. Making a redirect will make editors assume it is not in fact notable. As REDLINK says, "please do not 'kill' red links by redirect because their red color (annoying to some readers) seems to scream for a fix. It is easy to turn any red link blue by creating a redirect, but valid red links exist for a reason". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

create yars' rising, and then delete both per nom cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:20, 13 September 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 14:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Turkish Plane Crash → Turkish Airlines Flight 1951  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is far from being the only crash of a Turkish plane or the only plane crash in Turkey. Delete this redirect.Mr slav999 (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if we have a list or category of plane crashes in Turkey that might make an appropriate disambiguating target. List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by location#Turkey exists but does not cover all accidents (e.g. military aircraft). Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in Turkey is a navbox listing all the incidents in Turkey notable enough for a stand-alone article plus a link to List of hijackings of Turkish airplanes. Neither will contain Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 (the present target) as that crash happened in Amsterdam. Turkish Airlines#Incidents and accidents is relevant too, but there are 11 other airlines of Turkey with their own article. Category:Accidents and incidents by airline of Turkey‎ does exist but I don't know how comprehensive it is - and it too only covers airlines. Category:Turkish Air Force contains no obviously titled articles. Thryduulf (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ambiguous (could refer to crashes in Turkey or crashes of Turkish planes). No suitable alternative target per Thryduulf. No incoming links, not a useful search term. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Glaring violation of WP:TITLEDAB. Carguychris (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. it's irredeemably vague. it could refer to a plane from turkey crashing in some indeterminate place a plane of indeterminate nationality crashing in turkey, a plane of indeterminate nationality crashing in some indeterminate place in a manner that could be considered "turkish" (i don't know, crashing while eating börek?), a plane from turkey crashing in turkey, and at least two other combinations of differing definitions of each word, and there would still likely be too many plane crashes (translation: more than one) to warrant a redirect to just one of each kind of incident cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that a similar Rwandan plane crash is a disambiguation page, while Guatemalan plane crash and Iran plane crash are redirects. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Previous and ad hoc uppercase title of the target. Cannot be made a disambig page per Thryduulf. Jay 💬 07:38, 20 September 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. wbm1058 (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bobby Brainworm → Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Appears just to be a social media insult/nickname used for RFK Jr, I do not see any use of this term outside of forums/social media. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: a) Nominator's rationale isn't really enough to justify deletion of a redirect (indeed, admitting usage in social media and forums FAVORS keeping it) , b) RFK Jr having a Brainworm is RIGHT THERE in an article _pbp 04:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is mentioned, but 'Bobby Brainworm' just appears to be a disparaging nickname, see WP:R#DELETE #3. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  R#DELETE #3 contains the caveat: "unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article". Since Bobby's brainworm is discussed in the article, that caveat would clearly apply here _pbp 06:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Per WP:G10. While the fact that he had a worm in his brain was confirmed by sources, this is clearly not a neutral phrase and is more of a disparaging nickname as indicated by its capitalization and the slang version of his name. If it was something like "RFK brainworm" then the "keep" !vote would have more of a point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per Wikipedia policy: Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion _pbp 12:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - And I would argue that WP:G10 absolutely does not apply to redirects as redirects are not user-facing... we expressly allow (and even encourage!) non-NPOV redirects, biased redirects, and so forth as search and navigation assistence. If the term is getting use on social media, someone may stumble upon such use and not understand what it is. A good reaction to not knowing what something is is to type it verbatim into the wikipedia search bar, where it will explain what the thing is. This redirect serves that purpose well, and even explains why the nickname exists even if the article doesn't mention the nickname exactly. Again, redirects are NOT USER FACING. No one will see it who has not already seen it elsewhere and is directly trying to find out what it means. Fieari (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, then where exactly is the phrase commonly used in reliable sources making it required for navigational assistance? Redirects are not commonly based on social media trends, which people can claim to be nearly anything because there's no way to confirm it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is common to base redirects on terms used in unreliable sources, for the reasons explained multiple times in this discussion. Almost all sources are reliable for the words used in that source (similar to how even unreliable sources can be used in an ABOUTSELF way), which is all that is relevant for a redirect, and the use of such terms in such sources is verifiable. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per pbp and WP:RNEUTRAL. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  RNEUTRAL states: 'In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects'. There is no usage of this term in reliable sources so it cannot be WP:Verified. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't need reliable sources to verify it exists as a search term. Indeed, being used in unreliable but not reliable sources is a reason why this redirect is useful as people searching on it will be taken to reliable rather than unreliable information about the subject they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  RNEUTRAL also states: 'However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms.'. Seems quite clearly to imply that non-neutral terms require use in reliable sources to be considered acceptable. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see the point. Google found a mere 48 hits before "we have omitted some entries very similar...." And a few of those 48 were this redirect and discussion. (Total hits, including the dupes, was only 527.) "Bobby brainworm" does not have enough use for Google Trends search term lookup. There has been exactly one use of this redirect in the pageview statistics, and possibly that was the creator or somebody checking out the new addition. Aside from people's possible 'har har' value from seeing a pejorative sobriquet in Wikipedia, this adds nothing. -- M.boli (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The page views are not reliable in this case because views before the redirect was created on the 11 September are not recorded so we have no idea how much it is being used. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A random neologism created by anonymous social media knuckledraggers. Discussing the "brain worm" story at the target article is one thing, and the neologism itself is another. Since the latter is not mentioned at the article (nor should it be), the redirect is unjustified. Zaathras (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please don't refer to other editors as "knuckledraggers". It's rude, unhelpful and against WP:CIVIL. BugGhost🦗👻 07:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I directed no such comment at Wikipedia editors. Re-read and re-attempt to comprehend, please. Zaathras (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom (used online), and per fieari. Yeah, it's a stupid nickname used online and not notable enough to be in the article itself - but that is a different discussion. As a redirect it is justifiable because it helps a reader identify who the term "Bobby Brainworm" is meant to refer to, and so the redirect is a net benefit to wikipedia. BugGhost🦗👻 07:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Regarding WP:R#DELETE condition no. 3, the nickname itself is not discussed in the article (and adding it would be WP:UNDUE), so the exception does not apply. As stated by others, the term is not used in RS, so it should not be kept. --Un assiolo (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems like a degrading WP:BLP issue. Steel1943 (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Just an aside, if kept, this redirect should point to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., not the Redirect page it is currently pointed to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have fixed it. Whether or not the redirect is eventually deleted, there seemed no harm in it being correct. -- M.boli (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no mention of a "brainworm" at the target page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Traumnovelle's responses to Thryduulf. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Un assiolo, WP:R#D3 offensive and abusive, not discussed in article, no reliable sources. Jay 💬 09:39, 22 September 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 Outline of LGBTQ topics#Anti-LGBTQ topics. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Anti‑LGBT → Outline of LGBTQ topics#Anti-LGBT topics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Anti-GLBT → Outline of LGBTQ topics#Anti-LGBT topics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Anti-LGBT → Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Anti-LGBTQ → Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Anti-LGBTQ+ → LGBT rights opposition  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This needs some consistency. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all to Outline of LGBTQ topics#Anti-LGBTQ topics as the most broad overview. The others are too specific to point to. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to Outline of LGBTQ topics#Anti-LGBTQ topics for now, but I think we can have a freestanding article on Anti-LGBTQ activity. BD2412 T 02:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to Outline of LGBTQ topics#Anti-LGBTQ topics for now per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to Outline of LGBTQ topics#Anti-LGBTQ topics, as !voted by others. I was going to !vote to target Homophobia until I saw the previous !votes. The more general list of topics proposed by the others is more suitable than the narrow one (only about attidues) that I was going to suggest. Largoplazo (talk) 14:34, 15 September 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. UtherSRG (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Implausible redirect Largoplazo (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Either WP:RLOTE or just nonsense. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Our article about the dotted I character notes it's used in six languages. I looked at the main page of the Wikipedias in all six of those languages and not one of them use this spelling of Wikipedia (Kazakh and Tatar use the Cyrillic script, the others all start with V). Google is useless as it does not distinguish between "I" and "İ", so despite knowing that Turkish speakers sometimes use the letter when writing English I know of no way to see if they do so in this manner and the redirect is too new to have any recorded page views so that's no help either. The creator does not have a user page, but their contributions show no apparent affinity to topics associated with any of the six languages and didn't leave an edit summary or other explanation when creating it, so there is no evidence to support the redirect being useful. Thryduulf (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pure nonsense. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 07:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is just "Wikipedia" converted to upper case in accordance with Turkish casing rules, so falls vaguely under WP:RLOTE. The search box interprets upper case dotted Is as if they were normal Is anyway (e.g. a search for "FİTBİT", which does not have an equivalent FİTBİT redirect, takes you directly to Fitbit). Rosbif73 (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Vandalism cruft. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nonsense. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:R3. Steel1943 (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• UtherSRG, you might want to close this discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:48, 15 September 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 Slip angle. Creating suggested redirect as suggested. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sideslip angle → Slip (aerodynamics)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Web search mostly brings up content related to slip angle as opposed to the aviation term. Whatever the outcome, a side-slip angle redirect should probably be created with the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree that the term is rarely used in aeronautics, because a definition of sideslip is that it is the angle formed between the longitudinal axis of the aircraft and its velocity vector, so calling it a sideslip angle is kinda redundant. Sort of like saying "cosine angle". (In automotive terms this is called "dog tracking", caused by poor wheel alignment, because that's how a dog walks.) In diagrams it's most often represented as the math symbol theta, as in "slip θ" or "sideslip θ". I have no opinion on what to do with the redirect, because I simply came due to the notice placed at the target article, but thought I'd give my two cents on the matter if it helps anyone decide. Zaereth (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I follow your analogy since a cosine is generally not understood as an angle, but from what I understand from the article, a sideslip can be a qualitative condition while the angle is unambiguously quantitative. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In practical application, such as refraction in optics, sine and cosine are directly translatable into angles. For example, according to the Machinery's Handbook, if sine is 0.707107 then what you have there is a 45 degree angle, regardless of run or rise. Likewise, cosine is a measurement of the opposite angle, which at 45 degrees is also 0.707107. The point is nobody calls it a cosine angle. Likewise, in aeronautic books nobody ever calls it a slip angle, they simply say your slip is 20 degrees, or 30 degrees, or whatever the case may be (because it's a variable). You only see that kind of language being used by amateurs, which is why it doesn't show up as much on google. Zaereth (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The page Sideslip is presently a redirect to Slip (aerodynamics) so nothing is achieved by having a second redirect from Sideslip angle. Dolphin (t) 05:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This phrase is very common according to web searches, so I disagree that we shouldn't have a redirect for this. In addition, if this was to be retargeted to slip angle, then the targets would even be different pages. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Slip angle, as that page expressly has sideslip angle in bold as an alternative name for it in the lead sentence. There is also a hatnote pointing to the aeronautics article as well, so that will catch the rarer use case. I would certainly not object if someone created side-slip angle and pointed it to the same destination. Fieari (talk) 06:49, 13 September 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 03:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pax Softonica → List of Nintendo development teams#Pax Softnica  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted, as it links to a section of the target article which had been removed. It is also a typo redirect of a company which had been deleted years earlier (Pax Softnica), which was demonstrated to be lacking in notability. MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not mentioned at the target article. --Un assiolo (talk) 12:19, 14 September 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 keep (and refine Sideslipping.) (non-admin closure) Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Side-slipping → Outside (jazz)#Side-slipping  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Sideslipping → Outside (jazz)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

May also refer to sideslip. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this has the exact name of the thing being searched, but we can add a hatnote to slip angle and/or slip (aeronautics) to clear things up. We should probably Refine Sideslipping to the subsection as well, to be consistent and also in case the article expands more. Fieari (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added a redirect hatnote to the aviation page. If this RFD is closed as "keep", I intend to add a similar hatnote to the jazz page. Carguychris (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs attention. Yes, of course sideslip or side-slip is a standard alternative term for outside playing in jazz – see, e.g., K. Engelhardt (1996), Young Charlie Parker and Side-Slipping: the Efferge Ware Connection. Jazz Research Papers. 16: 177–188. But it's also used in classical contexts: Grove Music uses it in relation to Bizet, Elgar, Richard Strauss and Vincenzo Tommasini. 1234qwer1234qwer4, you brought this here, but I don't see that you've made any proposal; what are your thoughts? Can you confirm that you are not proposing deletion? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, whenever there is ambiguity I generally imply that the question to discuss is whether the term should be retargeted, disambiguated or hatnoted. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and refine to Outside (jazz)#Side-slipping per Fieari. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm familiar with both aviation and jazz. The term "sideslipping" is sometimes used by pilots, but any ambiguity can be resolved with a hatnote on the jazz page. On the other hand, using the term as a noun ("a sideslip") seems confined to the aviation world to describe the flight maneuver; I've never heard a jazz player use it as a noun. Carguychris (talk) 15:05, 20 September 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

the history says some haiman guy coined the word, but i found nothing on its origin or existence, and haiman is a dab. not sure if it refers to john haiman or some other unmentioned haiman. please pretend this was written in a clever, sarcastic way cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not really a word, Google comes up with just a couple of whimsical coinages of it. We don't want to load up on redirects consisting of every word with every prefix. Largoplazo (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC) Keep Changing mind based on BD2412's observation about Google Books. I see a John Haiman, in linguistic analysis, labels the expression of sarcasm a "sarcastive modality", and others have cited him on this. In addition, an 1847 issue of The Law Review and Quarterly Journal of British and Foreign Jurisprudence describes a John Dunning as a great debater with the gift of "sarcastive invective, superior to most men", and an edition of The Christian Examiner and Church of Ireland Magazine from 1827 describes "the cutting bitter laugh of wounding and sarcastive insult" as something to which the mouth and lips of a Milesian are well suited. So, even if the Oxford English Dictionary has failed to take note of it, the word has both age and currency (even if Haiman was unaware of previous uses and thought he was coining a term!). Largoplazo (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep, as this gets dozens of hits on Google Books, so multiple authors seem to be assigning it meaning relevant to sarcasm. BD2412 T 02:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BD2412. --Un assiolo (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above BugGhost🦗👻 13:05, 14 September 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 Totalitarianism. Restoring pre-2023 redirect target. The article does, indeed, mention an economic aspect of totalitarianism. R from subtopic. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Economic totalitarianism → Compulsory cartel#Types of compulsory cartels  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It was originally an essay, which got turned into a redirect. The redirect target was changed several times until someone finally found an article that actually mentioned "economic totalitarianism", but that mention has since been removed because it was a POV-pushing essay. Hence, there is no plausible target. Un assiolo (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Walter Nash. Paradoctor (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It was used as a bit of political rhetoric in a single memorandum. It is absolutely inappropriate to link there just because of that. There are a few other mentions of "economic totalitarianism" in other articles. They are all similar one-off rhetorical accusations. There is no good target. --Un assiolo (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This was at AfD four times in 2006 and the last mega discussion considered all previous AfDs, and closed as No Consensus. Trialsanderrors converted this to a disambig and reverted it when there was no support at the AfD. Restore this version and AfD again. Jay 💬 15:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No need to clutter up AfD. We can just agree to delete it here. That version has zero chance of surviving AfD. --Un assiolo (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No need to restore if there is support for retarget based on Paradoctor or wbm1058's suggestions. Jay 💬 15:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I would oppose restoring the previous article because it is literally just an excerpt from Capitalism and Freedom. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with Wbm1058's retarget suggestion. My !vote was mainly an opposition to restoration anyway (which I am still against!). -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Totalitarianism, again, as an {{R from subtopic}}. There is a plausible target, as demonstrated by the page history, this was a stable redirect to totalitarianism for nearly sixteen years (November 2006–October 2022). Actually, nearly 17 years, as the 2022 revival was reverted within a day, and kept for nearly another year. Friedman was making a distinction between economic and political totalitarianism – a redundant term, as totalitarianism is a political system. Political democracy is a similarly redundant term. The Totalitarianism article doesn't lack mention of economics. It says, "...the functional characteristics of the totalitarian régime of government are... official economic interventionism (controlled wages and prices)". I was surprised (not WP:SURPRISED, just surprised, LOL) to find that Talk:Economic totalitarianism was last edited in July 2006. The four AfD discussions, plus a deletion-review discussion all happened from May–July 2006, so this was essentially just one extended discussion which closed as "no consensus"... no reason to expect that another trip 18 years later couldn't still end with no consensus. The Google Books hits still appear to show room for expansion; just as nobody has yet expanded beyond quoting a single book excerpt doesn't mean expansion isn't plausible. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  and Economic democracy is a thing, so why not Economic totalitarianism? wbm1058 (talk) 18:51, 23 September 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 03:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 𐼸𐼰𐼲𐼹𐼷𐼰 → Sogdian alphabet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This word means ‘paper’ in Sogdian. It does not make sense to redirect an arbitrary word to an article about the alphabet it is written in. Per WP:RFOREIGN, it would also not be appropriate to retarget it to Paper, because paper does not have any special connection to Sogdian. Therefore, this redirect should be deleted. Gorobay (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible and surprising. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:RFOR absolutely applies here. Fieari (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 11:50, 16 September 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).