Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 24

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) Qwerfjkltalk 13:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tourism in North America → wikivoyage:North America  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Shouldn't this point to Economy of North America#Tourism? Not sure why we'd point to Wikivoyage when this is an encyclopedic topic we have a section about. Hog Farm _Talk 19:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambigute/set indexify/listify (not really sure what this would fall under). The template at the bottom of page shows that we have a lot of encyclopaedic content on this topic, but it's organised by country rather than continent. I think this title would make a reasonable list of articles, which could also include links to wikivoyage and other projects. 192.76.8.95 (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the best choice among a bunch of bad options. Economy of North America#Tourism is a single unreferenced paragraph. Pointing it to Category:Tourism in North America would be a disorienting WP:CNR. Listifying wouldn't provide information beyond what's provided by the category or the navbox. The information most likely to be helpful to readers is at Wikivoyage. The best outcome would be an article on the topic, so I suggest tagging the page as a {{r with possibilities}}. - Eureka Lott 23:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A redirect to Wikivoyage with a navbox is not something I've ever seen before, but I think here it gets the job done better than any proposed alternative. Keep but set navbox state to expand just to emphasize our own offerings a bit more, without prejudice against any future editor boldly retargeting to Economy of North America#Tourism if that section is expanded to have a significant amount of well-referenced encyclopedic content. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep – certainly an unconventional choice, with the soft redirect and the navbox, but I think it's fine. I support Tamzin's suggestion of expanding the navbox. Also support retargeting to Economy of North America#Tourism if that section is improved. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• String vest → Sleeveless shirt#A-shirt  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

None of the historically proposed redirects here fit the subject matter. This is a unique subject and should be redlinked until such point as an article is written for it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Very surprisingly (to me) we appear to have all-but no content about this topic. There is a sentence at Colin Bertram, but redirecting to a biography of someone who was just "involved with" its invention would be a major WP:SURPRISE. Undershirt (the American English term for what British English speakers call a vest) or less-specifically Undergarment should make better targets, but nether of them mention it. We don't even seem to have any images on Commons. Also a courtesy ping to Overlordnat1 who commented on this back in January and Rothorpe who did so in 2013. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing my attention to your suggestion of removing the redirect of string vest to sleeveless shirt. I think this article should actually be several different articles: sleeveless t-shirts, sleeveless ‘undershirts’ (‘vests’ in my British English), sleeveless tops/dresses, ACTUAL sleeveless shirts (ordinary shirts without sleeves) and perhaps ‘string vests’ (though this could be included in a sleeveless undershirts/vests article along with ‘A-shirts’). Also pictures of sleeveless t-shirts (aka ‘muscle shirts’), actual sleeveless shirts and string vests would be good - though there might be copyright issues with pictures from Google Images of shirts without sleeves or images of Rab C Nesbitt in a string vest. In short, I agree that the redirect of string vest to sleeveless shirt, as the article currently stands, is pointless and should be removed (or the main article improved). Delete.Overlordnat1 (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Granadan nationalism → Andalusian nationalism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Granada is one of the eight provinces of Andalusia. The existance of an exclusive "Granadan nationalism" seems WP:OR to me, or should it exist, it is probably a very fringe movement. This redirect was created seemingly for no reason (no pages link to this redirect, no edit summary was provided) not too long ago. Super Ψ Dro 17:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to be honest, the redirect is confusing. If Granadan Nationalism were a thing I would expect it to be a movement that would want Granada to be its own country, not a support of Andalusian Nationalism, which would not result in Granadan independence. It would be like redirecting Orkney nationalism to Scottish nationalism. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 23:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete by Liz under criterion G7. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Chicago Fire ommissioner → List of heads of the Chicago Fire Department  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

unlikely typo SecretName101 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pig/Rhino (zodiac) → Pig (zodiac)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Pigs (now referring specifically to the domestic variant per a recent RM) and Rhinos are very different from each other. So, this redirect does not make sense and should be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The redirect was created due to vandalism from a joke article move. There is no evidence of Rhinos being involved in any zodiac. Dl2000 (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as confusing. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: implausible redirect that is not expected to be used as a search term. Venkat TL (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 00:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Michael de Leon → Cincinnati Reds minor league players#Triple-A  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Michael de León → Cincinnati Reds minor league players#Triple-A  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer with the Reds organization so redirect is not necessary Spanneraol (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't have a strong opinion right now, especially since he's still mentioned on the target page, but I'm also adding Michael de León here. Regards, SONIC678 15:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. As usual, no prejudice against attempts at an article. --BDD (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Cutting head → Cutter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as unhelpful nonsense. Nothing links to this redirect. Coastside (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This title seems nonsensical. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Tunnel boring machine where the "cutting head" or "cutter head" is the business end of that machine. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There appear to be quite a few tools we describe as having a "cutting head". The thing is, they're of such a wide variety that I don't see a suitable article to target that would cover them all, while disambiguation wouldn't make sense since these aren't different things called "cutting head", and I don't think there's enough material for a broad-concept article. My current thinking is that the best approach is to delete and let the search results take care of it, but if anyone can think of a better solution, please ping me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Softredirection to Wiktionary the cutting head is the rotating portion of a device that cuts (like a weedwhacker, a drillsaw, a drill rig, a tunnel boring machine, etc), so create an entry on Wiktionary for it. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that Wiktionary wouldn't consider it purely sum of parts (a head that cuts). Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hrm, when I originally made by comment, I was thinking of all the rotating cutting heads, now that I examine it, I was thinking too narrowly, so indeed, I am mistaken, and it would be rejected by Wiktionary, as some cutting heads don't rotate. If it were just rotating heads, then it would probably pass spec on Wiktionary. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no wiktionary entry for cutting head. Coastside (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said create an entry for it. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Per point by Thryduulf, I have withdrawn my opinion, after further thought. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bit heterodox, but now what I'm wondering if we should do is point to Head (disambiguation)#Technology and have an intentionally WP:DABONE-violating entry that lists the various tools in the search results I linked. That section does already link Recording head, which mentions cutting heads for creating phonograph records. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another possibility would be to create a set index of tools/other things that have cutting heads. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • An SIA makes more sense than listing in a dab. These are really partial title matches more than disambiguated topics called heads. To me it's not really a matter of Cutting Heads, though, but more about Tool heads. Lots of tools have working ends called heads. Some of these tools cut things. The issue here is that the term head refers to the head of the tool. There are lots of terms with more specific names, including "cutting heads", and they are ambiguously referred to as heads, but listing them all in a dab isn't the right way to address that. It might make sense to create a set index article for Tool Heads rather than for Cutting Heads, and then the latter would be a subcategory for Cutting Tools. If there were such an SIA, then an entry at Head (disambiguation)#Technology for Head (tool) that redirects to the SIA would make sense. I did notice that there is an SIA for screwdriver tool heads already: List of screw drives. The article belt grinding refers to grinding head and regulating head. The Pulaski (tool) has two tools in one head - an axe and an adze, which are more "chopping" tools than "cutting" tools. Coastside (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an ambiguous expression with no one suitable target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why disambiguation and set index pages are a thing. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, put I'm not going to create one, and neither are you it seems, so an opinion of "create article" doesn't much help the closer, does it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Katarina Du Couteau → League of Legends  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target; otherwise only used in a passing mention at Tara Platt, as well as entries also linking to the current target at the Couteau disambiguation and Katarina (given name) pages. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. By the numbers there's a pretty strong majority for dabbing here (including a delete !vote that effectively defaults to disambiguate per Paradoctor's argument that we can't have an X (disambiguation) page when X is a redlink), and that contingent makes the strongest arguments. There's a lot of discussion of whether an article should be created/restored, but RfD is not, at its core, a content forum. @Wiki-psyc: If you would like for your draft to be at this title, I would suggest moving it to something like Draft:Megalomania (personality trait) and submitting it for AfC (which is usually a good proxy of whether an article would survive AfD). If it's accepted, you can open an RM to make it the primary topic. As to any issues with the DAB itself, those can be resolved as a normal content matter. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not mentioned at target, proposing deletion to allow the creation of an article on the subject matter. Loafiewa (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that megalomania is mentioned at narcissistic personality disorder, so that might be an appropriate redirect. Loafiewa (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: this was an article until it was unilaterally merged in 2016. Since then it has been, at various times, a redirect to Grandiose delusions, Narcissistic personality disorder, and its current target. - Eureka Lott 16:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More specifically, it was merged to Narcissistic personality disorder. --Xurizuri (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This needs to have its own article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does it satisfy WP:GNG? I have yet to see signficant, in-depth coverage of the specific term. As Xurizuri pointed out, there seems to be nothing solid out there upon which to build an encyclopedic article. Paradoctor (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a disambiguation page listing a number of uses of the term, so deletion is out. Paradoctor (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Narcissistic personality disorder and tag with {{R with possibilities}}. We should keep to maintain attribution for the merge and this is where we currently have the most content, unless someone can make the case this is an {{R from alternative name}} for some other article (possibly grandiose delusions). Meanwhile, anyone remains free to create an article in place of the redirect. Moreover, we can't delete this because there is Megalomania (disambiguation) which currently has the mental disorder as the primary topic; if we decide there is no good content on WP about the mental disorder then the situation should default to moving the dab page to its base name instead of deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Delusion of grandeur.

Disambiguate to Delusion of grandeur (as primary). The American Psychological Association relates Megalomania to delusion of grandeur. See definition here. "Megalomania as a highly inflated conception of one’s importance, power, or capabilities, as can be observed in many individuals with mania and paranoid schizophrenia. In the latter, megalomania is often accompanied or preceded by delusions of persecution. See delusion of grandeur."

SEE NEW COMMENTS BELOW Wiki-psyc (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delusion of grandeur is a redirect to Grandiose delusions, so I assume you mean retarget there? I would be fine with that, but this needs to be mentioned/defined at target to make it clear readers have arrived at the right place. Then tag with {{R from related topic}} and {{R with possibilities}}. It looks like half of the relevant hatnote got left behind when it was targeted away from there, so that should be fixed too. Mdewman6 (talk)

• Note. My first, and strongest, opinion: it does not have possibilities. I'm saying it here rather than responding to individual comments because it's been mentioned in 2 places. It's not mentioned in DSM5, ICD10 or ICD11. It comes up on an Ngram search, but nowhere near as much as narcissistic. It lacks a clear (or any) scientific definition. Megalomania belongs as a separate topic in a dictionary, but this is an encyclopaedia. It isn't a separate academic, medical, or lay concept. Genuinely, read the lead of the megalomania article pre-redirect.
  Which brings me to my opinion on the way forward: Disambiguate. This term can refer to many different related concepts. And I noticed that we already have Megalomania (disambiguation). The disambiguation page should be moved to Megalomania, and then it can point to grandiose delusions, narcissism, malignant narcissism, NPD, etc. No reader confusion, no ongoing retargeting. That being said, if anything out of those options raised here is the primary, then its narcissistic personality disorder per the checks on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Pointing to NPD is reasonable. I would still say the term is excessively ambiguous to choose one over the other given the medical context, however. --Xurizuri (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the disambiguation to Megalomania makes sense, but if there is going to be a primary, I would think "Grandiose delusions" makes the most sense. This is what we have on the disambiguation page currently and what is stated on Wiktionary and as mentioned earlier, the American Psychological Association. If we are seeking better option than "Grandiose delusions", I don't think "Narcissistic personality disorder" should be primary. Narcissistic personality disorder is a very specific clinical condition. Megalomania is an archaic clinical term that has been re-purposed as a criticism of very powerful, who have made unpopular or uncaring decisions. Bertrand Russell differentiates the narcissist and megalomaniac as one who want to be adored vs. one who wants to dominate. Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. In this recent revision of the page, there are ten full title matches and three WP:PTMs which should be included. Narky Blert (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note:There were a series of edits that changed the redirect into a disambiguation page while this discussion is ongoing, which was then reverted. I have added the content from the most recent version of the disambiguation page below the redirect content as a draft dab page. Also, I'd like to point out that Meglomaniac is a redirect to Narcissistic personality disorder; that and possibly other redirects may need action depending on the outcome here. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the draft dab page is now just an expanded version of Megalomania (disambiguation), because it was derived from a cut-paste move during this discussion which was reverted. Votes of "disambiguate" here hence are really votes for moving the dab page to the base name and declaring there is no primary topic. If this is the consensus (and we don't want to rehash things at an RM), then those improvements should be made to the existing dab page prior to moving. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to delusion of grandeur. The delusion is clearly the primary topic, pretty much all of the others are named after it. The current target is clearly wrong, megalomania is not the same thing as narcissism at all. JIP | Talk 01:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate There are several topics with this exact title, so the only question left is if there is a primary topic. Seeing as there are different psychological definitions of the term in use, there is no clear target. E. g., the APA definition linked by Wiki-psyc is clearly different from the one in The Cambridge Dictionary of Psychology (2009) ISBN 978-0-511-63157-3: "An extreme form of grandiosity and self-centeredness in which all things are believed subservient to one’s self and are seen only in relation to one’s self".

As long as there is no proper article / section specifically on the term as used in psychology, we have little more than a WP:DICDEF to point at, so there is no primary topic, and the dab page should occupy that slot. Paradoctor (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good discussion. While the APA and Cambridge Dictionary of Psychology are both similar and different, it could be argued that both would suggest that Delusion of grandeur / Grandiose delusions as primary. [Science Direct] defines Megalomania as Grandiose delusions. I think either way (with primary or without) is reasonable, though. Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Sam Vaknin, megalomania is a historic name for NPD^[1], so there is that. I'd say this makes "megalomania" a clear case of WP:XY, i. e. no primary topic. Paradoctor (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. I am persuaded by the discussion that the content at Narcissistic personality disorder seems to describe a historical use of the term, whereas Gradiose delusions seems to describe the closest thing to a modern use of the term, so these two meanings should be disambiguated. There is a draft dab page underneath the redirect as I describe above. If disambiguation is the consensus, procedurally the easiest thing would be to keep the draft dab at Megalomania and then blank and redirect Megalomania (disambiguation) there, but that would technically involve keeping a cut-and-paste move. It might be better to just move the existing dab page to the base name and then improve as necessary. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SetidexifyDisambiguate or update/create article. The problem with "disambiguating" or making there be no primary topic is all the incoming links, many of which are trying to link to some sort of psychiatric content.The simplest way around this is to create a WP:SETINDEX which could differentiate between and link to Delusions of grandeur and Narcissistic personality disorder, among other things. A draft of this could be created underneath the redirect in place of the draft updated dab page. I would be okay with restoring and improving the article as suggested below, but agree it would need a lot of work and improvement. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"differentiate between" That process is called disambiguation.

A set index is not appropriate here because, best I can tell from the sources presented so far, "megalomania" is either used in a non-technical sense to mean a desire for "greatness", or as synonym for two distinct concepts that have their own article.

"trying to link to some sort of psychiatric content" I doubt that. I most cases, the term is used in the non-technical sense, and no link or a link to Wiktionary is the appropriate solution.

In the cases where one of the technical meanings is intended, the incoming links need to be disambiguated, rather than pointing them at a list, and letting the reader guess which entry was intended by the article.

Set index articles are useful when the encyclopedic content can be collected in one place. But in the case of megalomania, the content exist in two different articles, which a set index article would merely replicate. This creates maintenance issues, as we'd have to maintain both the standalone articles and what amounts to a merge of the two. Paradoctor (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, links in articles should not point to disambiguation pages. If the consensus is to disambiguate, that's fine, but someone would need to manually go through all the links and decide whether to delink or link/pipe to NPD, grandiose delusions, or somewhere else.However, pointing to a setindex where the different potential meanings are not just disambiguated but are described would be an acceptable solution, at least in so far as the RfD is concerned. Later discussions could always occur to improve things further. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdewman6 You could just soft redirect Megalomania to wikt:megalomania and create the dab page at Megalomania (disambiguation). ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdewman6: "someone would need to manually go through all the links" It doesn't have to be someone. This is Wikipedia, after all. Also WP:WIP.

"an acceptable solution" Not at all. For the purposes of linking to it, there is no difference between a disambiguation page and a set index. Either a link goes directly to the specific meaning of the term, or it goes to topic (disambiguation), to show that the link is intentional, like Mills Creek and Mills Creek (disambiguation). Paradoctor (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl: "soft redirect" That's a hard No. WP:NOPRIMARY: If [...] there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page.

@Mdewman6: I agree that disambiguation doesn't help readers. I also agree with your issue regarding incoming links. Linking to a disambiguation page that sends readers to other articles that don't define "megalomania" is just sending the reader on a wild goose chase. "Megalomania" is a non-clinical term (like "crazy" or "maniacal") that appears far more often in textbooks of history (and comic books) than in textbooks of psychiatry. And while Freud wrote about the term in the early 1900s, there has been no consensus use of the term in 70-100 years. It seems to me, we either make an article (and clear up all the confusion) or delete it altogether and let readers use a google search if they need a definition. And lastly, I suspect the association of the term to earlier DSM editions and Narcissistic Personality Disorder may have been invented (or at least amplified) at Wikipedia. Wiki-psyc (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki-psyc: "delete it" We cannot delete it. We have multiple notable topics titled "Megalomania", so deletion is out. The only question here is whether there is a primary topic that could usurp the place of the disambiguation page.

"clear up all the confusion" If the sources are confused, we point out the confusion, and that is the most we can do. Anything beyond that would be WP:SYN. We don't decree scientific consensus, we just report on it, or the lack of it.

"make an article" I asked the question before: WP:GNG? We need multiple reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of the concept the proposed article is about. So far, we have only dictionary definitions and examples of use. The term is not used in psychology other than as a synonym for several different topics that already have their own articles. Which is exactly the situation disambiguation pages are for! Paradoctor (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradoctor: I believe it is possible to delete it. All the other uses of Megalomania are songs and we could disambiguate to "Megalomania (songs)" of "Megalomania (music)", or... Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I modified my vote above. I agree a setindex doesn't fit here, as we are trying to differentiate between terms that are not similarly worded. Disambiguating would be fine but my comment about the links still stands. A soft redirect is also a possibility; might be a good compromise, but not sure if it would be best. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki-psyc: I already mentioned it three comments previous: WP:NOPRIMARY: If [...] there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page. Whatever happens, deletion is out. Paradoctor (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradoctor: Our opinions are just opinions and not facts nor rulings and shouldn't be stated as such WP:neutral - let's all stay in bounds and work through this. Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOPRIMARY is not an opinion. It's the community consensus on how to do things. 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of WP:NOPRIMARY is an opinion - and besides, no one is debating it here. Do you have the ability to let it go for the for the greater good WP:LETITGO? I do. Wiki-psyc (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Let go of what? Opposing deletion? That is not merely my opinion, as I pointed out. I did not interpret the guideline, I quoted it verbatim. Unless and until you provide evidence to the contrary, community consensus is the "greater good". Paradoctor (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to July 8, 2013 article This has been an interesting discussion. Megalomania gets 200-250 views a day and there are close to 500 Wikipedia article linked to it. In reconsidering this matter in light of the comments above, I think it is worth considering reverting to the article that was in place in 2013 (created in 2003)and improving it. The article is not bad and I would be willing to help clean it up.

There is a lot of use and a lot confusion about the term. There seems to be, for example, many who believe it was listed in an early version of the DSM and replaced with Narcissistic Personality Disorder - it was never in the DSM. Wiki-psyc (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since December 2003, there have been at least four different merge proposals, and at least two actual merges, both to narcissism, based on the theory that megalomania is a synonym of it. From what I've seen, an article seems defensible. But considering the two decades(!) of to and fro, first we should have a rock solid sourced discussion in the article of the distinction between megalomania, narcissism/NPD, and delusions of grandeur proving the term's notability. Otherwise, the current wasteful chaotic confusion will go on. Right now, the dab page seems our best bet. Either way, whatever is decided here should be stickied on the talk page. Paradoctor (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly valid to ask why the article didn't turn out better after 18 years of editing. I think two things may be contributing 1) the meaning of the term has changed significantly in 700 years; and 2) the term is not often used today and not a lot is written about it. Megalomania was originally used to describe those "obsessed with power" (mega - grandness, mania - obsession). It was also used later used in psychiatry to describe a normal stage of child development development (similar to narcissism, but not narcissistic personality disorder). Still later it was used in psychiatry by describe a pathology (similar to narcissistic personality disorder). But by the first DSM 60 years ago, it was out of use in psychiatry except for occasional hyperbolic use. If you look at the articles linking to it, there are supervillain, historic figures, and songs.Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the meaning of the term has changed significantly in 700 years [...] not a lot is written about it. Which kind of makes my point. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed stub for megalomania (link) - a restart (based on July 8, 2013 version) might help this article (and this discussion). While I agree with your points and have made the same argument in other cases, I think that sometimes an article doesn't come together over years because it started from a weak stub. The Historic examples subheading should attract other famous megalomania events. The history of the use of the term in psychology, should attract the ebbs and flow of the terms definition and be helpful to readers who are trying to understand it in the many contexts that it may be used. Note: The psychology section needs to be cleaned up - I didn't want to invest more time until a consensus was reached here. Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that is WP:SYN at most. Where are the in-depth secondary sources establishing notability? The material in that draft is useful at Wiktionary, no doubt. But I don't see an encyclopedic topic. There is no unifying theme for megalomania that is discussed in a secondary source, addressing whatever literature may exist. When I go through the references, all I see are dictionary entries / definitions, and examples of use.

"sometimes an article doesn't come together over years" Possibly, but here, it seems that there is simply nothing out there that could support it. The various different concepts labeled as megalomania are well served by disambiguation, as opposed to forcing them into a single box. Paradoctor (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Megalomania" ... "there are close to 500 Wikipedia article"

I found only 386, which reduces to 186 after accounting for links from project pages. Sampling a dozen of these, it becomes clear that pretty much all of them need disambiguating / unlinking along the lines of wikt:megalomania.

I wouldn't go so far as to call megalomania an essentially contested concept, but it is definitely in the general vicinity. Paradoctor (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. This is a voting process. I'm explaining my reason for my vote to the group to stimulate the conversation and the thought process. I don't think it is constructive to systematically judge everything another editor writes as wrong and invalid. I don't see this decision as black and white, either. I don't think any of the suggestions above (disambiguate, redirect, or create an new article) would be dead wrong.

One member. One vote. Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"stimulate the conversation" You succeeded. Paradoctor (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be misunderstanding consensus if you think this is about voting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xurizuri (talk • contribs) 00:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would add a further comment that this draft reads a lot like an over-extended dab page, mixed with a dictionary definition. In particular, every example used in the History section is people using their vocabulary to describe a concept, lay-people using one of the dictionary definitions of megalomania, or psychs using megalomania as an outdated term for a modern concept. All of which can easily be captured in a dab page, and mentioned in the history of the modern concepts. And despite all of this, you still haven't actually demonstrated that megalomania is a distinct concept, outside of a dictionary definition. You mentioned before that the meaning of the term has changed a lot - which is pretty standard for normal words just as much as for actual concepts. You also mentioned that not a lot is written about it now. That's true. But what you haven't said there is that there was never much written about it - because if there was, there would be sufficient RS to meet WP:GNG. And yet. --Xurizuri (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Moving heated discussion to more highly visible log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is not much support for the nomination of Deletion. If this is going to be a disambiguation, does it have a primary target? The currently drafted page is a combination of a Set Index and a Disambiguation (a copy of the corresponding DAB page), and would require fixing if we go with either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore article to focus on the historical conception of the condition, while providing adequate links to new, technical terms for what may have been being described by it in the past. If AfD eventually determines a standalone article is not appropriate, then a retarget or disambiguation page can be revisited. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Christianity in France#Oriental Orthodoxy. Jay (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oriental Orthodoxy in France → Religion in France#Oriental Orthodoxy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of Oriental Orthodoxy in France in the page the redirect links to, so the redirect should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Christianity in France#Orthodoxy, since there is a (second) section, referring to the main Oriental Orthodox communities in that country. Sorabino (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sorabino: I split the section into two, as there is no such thing as a common Orthodox movement. I agree on the retarget, but to Christianity_in_France#Oriental_Orthodoxy. Veverve (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Veverve, that would be the best solution, thanks. Sorabino (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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