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.
Delete unless mentioned. Searching for "Original recipe burger" -wikipedia on google returns a full page of results about a KFC product so this is definitely a thing, although possibly not everywhere (I only looked at page 1, but all the results seemed to relate to Australia, Singapore or Malaysia, even a page on uk.style.Yahoo.com gave prices in $ and was written by an author many of whose other articles related to Singapore). However with no mention of this anywhere on Wikipedia, any redirect would be misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it looks like a new, genuine product in Singapore: [1], [2] Though the fact it's not mention in target article (or anywhere on en.wiki) is a valid reason to delete the redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:47, 17 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.
Delete. Google tells me this is an Irish family name, an electronics retailer in Singapore, a PC case, and a Chinese company whose website is currently broken. None of these appear notable. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 16 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 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 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.
Delete per nom and Eviolite. I fully expected this to be an ancient leftover from the earliest days of Wikipedia, but it's less than a week old and even WP:Dusty articles postdates namespaces by several years. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 18 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 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.
RetargettoBear attack#Polar bears per Eviolite and Joseph. This particular attack may have been the most searched topic associated with that phrase at the time, but there are other notable ones occurring as well, both in and out of Svalbard. We don't want to risk ASTONISHing readers by redirecting them to this specific polar bear attack. Regards, SONIC67818:35, 16 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.
Keep. Users are entitled to user their own userspace for testing, regardless of whether it serves a purpose that is obvious to others or not. Unless you can provide evidence of this being harmful in some way there is no benefit to the encyclopaedia from deleting it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which indicates that they know about {{G7}} and so could have tagged this redirect for deletion had they wanted to. In the absence of any indication that they desire this redirect deleted, the only justification for deletion would be if it is harmful and no evidence of that has been presented. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, being harmful isn't the only justification for deletion. While I agree userspace should be sacred and unspoiled for test edits, the problem with this redirect is that it does not solely occupy userspace where special private knowledge would be required to access a non public-facing test edit. Unconstructive test edits are forbidden and routinely deleted as a natural course of action on most public-facing projectspace. It just so happens that this unconstructive test edit also occupies public-facing projectspace that doesn't require any special private knowledge for any public member to access, making it an unconstructive test edit that would very easily normally be forbidden and deleted if it did not also occupy userspace. Really, I was hasty in posting this here for discussion as it would have been a better candidate for CSD instead . Huggums537 (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Huggums537: How exactly is this a part of projectspace? The only way, when viewing a page, to see what redirects to it is to use Special:WhatLinksHere. The redirects don't appear anywhere in the text of the page itself, unless it's the "redirected from" someone sees after having followed the redirect in question. I could redirect every page in my userspace to WP:N and it would still have no effect on the reading experience of people browsing projectspace. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)23:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the edit is not just simply a private test edit on some obscure userpage that nobody will ever find or know about, but rather it is attached to a very high profile public-facing project page. Just because it is not easily seen in the general "reading experience of people browsing projectspace" does not mean that editors don't go on to continue policing the backend of things for vandalism, unconstructive test edits, or other undesirable material. Otherwise, what would be the point of deleting any redirect at all according to the logic you presented? If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, then the same thing could be said for any redirect whether it resides in userspace or not. Are you actually really suggesting that we shouldn't delete any redirects at all simply because they "would still have no effect on the reading experience of people browsing projectspace"? Huggums537 (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think that if you redirected every page in your userspace to WP:N that it sounds really nifty on paper, but in reality there would most likely be enough people that would have a problem with that kind of behaviour to enact sanctions against you... Huggums537 (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Huggums537: I haven't presented any logic. I'm questioning your own logic. You're saying that this redirect having a high-profile target somehow makes it itself high-profile. How? Like please give me an example of how this redirect's existence could inconvenience someone who is interacting with the page Wikipedia:Notability. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)01:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that this redirect having a high-profile target somehow makes it itself high-profile. How? I found it by patrolling the back-end of a high profile page. Anyone else could easily do the same. Inconvenience or convenience has nothing to do with the fact that unconstructive test edits are not allowed even on the back end. Huggums537 (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Test edits are allowed in userspace. Patrolling the back end of a high-profile page is unnecessary. "A solution looking for a problem" isn't an ideal I usually endorse, but in this case it looks apt. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits03:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for creators input This is a page in userspace which users are entitled to use for testing purposes. Only the creator knows why he created this page. Assuming that this guy wants this page gone is a HUGE mistake which could set dangerous precedent for wanton deletion of userspace pages. Unless the creator tags the page with G7 or comments here then leave it alone. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 02:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just noting for the record that I reverted a close that was in my view extremely premature as the RfD has not even been open for a single day and because nobody suggested the outcome (blanking) at all. eviolite(talk)03:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trout nom for wasting RfD's time. A lot of "waste of time" RfDs at least have the saving grace of being "technically correct", but this one does not. I'm shocked that an experienced user needs to be reminded this, but yes, test pages are allowed in userspace, and the fact that you choose to patrol the WhatLinksHere for a projectspace page does not somehow abrogate that basic aspect of WP:UP. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)04:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have linked to WP:UP, but Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages? expressly forbids things such as redirects in userspace. WP:UP#NOTSUITED says no Wikipedia content not suited to userspace things such as Categories and templates intended for other usage, in particular those for articles and guidelines. This would include redirects. Categories, templates that add categories, and redirects are specifically and expressly not allowed. While test edits are allowed, redirects to projectspace are not, so go trout yourself for not actually reading what you link to. Huggums537 (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That right there is a candidate for "Most Selective Interpretation of Policy of the Year". Didn't I say I wasn't wasting any more time on this? Okay, there's an exception for this then. I don't think this redirect could possibly be intended for other usage, even if redirects are under categories and templates. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits08:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No selective interpretation going on and no special exceptions for this redirect either because I forgot to mention the guidance very clearly and distinctly allows only two specifically named kinds of redirects in user space and those are soft redirects and main space redirects. All other name space redirects including project space redirects have not been named as ones that are allowed. If any of them were allowed, then they would have been named with the other two. Huggums537 (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lists of things allowed and not allowed on user pages are explicitly examples and not comprehensive. That userspace to project space redirects are not explicitly mentioned as allowed does not mean they are prohibited. The reason they are not mentioned is that this is the first time anyone has ever questioned their appropriateness - I've been an RfD regular for the best part of 15 years, if there was consensus that they were not allowed it would have come up here before and it never has. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try. Anybody can manipulate the assumptions about what the guidance doesn't say to fit whatever argument they support. For example, I could just as easily say the guidance does not explicitly say that all redirects are allowed or that any other redirects are allowed other than the ones mentioned. A rather convenient trick because what the guidance doesn't say is an infinite blank slate you can fill with whatever thoughts and ideas you wish to change perception with. Yet, according to the assumptions you have put forth, we are somehow expected to believe that the guidance intended that all redirects are allowed unless explicitly mentioned as not being allowed, but then it really makes one wonder exactly what the point would be for the guidance to give two very specific "examples" of what is allowed (to the exclusion of all others) if the assumption is that all are allowed anyway? The answer is that it doesn't make any sense unless you conclude that they mentioned two to the exclusion of all others because their obvious intention was to exclude all the others.
The reason they are not mentioned is that this is the first time anyone has ever questioned their appropriateness - I've been an RfD regular for the best part of 15 years, if there was consensus that they were not allowed it would have come up here before and it never has. There is a first time for everything and it has come up now. Look, I didn't write the guidance, I'm only interpreting it as I see it written. If all of you want the guidance to say that users have the right to redirect their own pages to any and all WP:Namespaces they want to, then any one of you can WP:Boldly go make the edit to guidance to make it say that and I will shut the f**k up, but right now it doesn't say that. Huggums537 (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? How have you been here since 2008 and not learned that policies are descriptive and what is allowed in userspace is flexible and depends on circumstance? The guidance is not, nor is it intended to be, a definitive list of what is and is not allowed on user pages, because such would be impossible - because what is appropriate and inappropriate depends on context. The examples of things that are allowed and not allowed are exactly that, examples. The two mentioned have come up before, many times, and so it's worthwhile mentioning what the consensus regarding them is. If you weren't an editor in good standing I would have a hard time believing you weren't trolling. Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to force feed me into accepting the guidance says what you want it to say without actually going and making it really actually say it by implicating me as being a troll isn't going to get you very far. Huggums537 (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point is the guidance does say what I quote it as saying, for example (emphasis mine in all cases):
[This page] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
considerable leeway is allowed in personalizing and managing your user pages
There is no fixed use for user pages
Besides communication, other legitimate uses of user space include (but are not limited to) [...] Useful links, tools, and scripts, [...] Experimentation
Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia.
Unrelated content includes, but is not limited to:
The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines
Traditionally, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit.
you have wide leeway to edit your user pages
Given all that, I genuinely don't understand how you could sincerely believe that the guidelines are prescriptive and something not explicitly mentioned is prohibited. I don't think you are trolling, and explicitly said so, but if a user with no track record of good contributions were making the arguments you are making here then this discussion would likely have been speedily closed. Thryduulf (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Considering the fact that you just took several portions of the guidance and quoted them out of context and left them open ended for readers to use their imagination to fill in the blanks, I would say criticizing my arguments in such a way is really calling the kettle black. Anyway, you seem to be really driving the point home that we have unbridled freedom to do whatever the hell we want with redirects in our userspace. If this is true, then you still haven't offered a satisfactory explanation as to why in the world the guidance would specifically name mainspace redirects and soft redirects when they could have just as easily said "all redirects are allowed" if they were going to bother mentioning redirects at all. They didn't do that. There was a reason. You claim the reason involves "comprehensive lists" and "explicit examples", but this is just smoke and mirrors since there is no need for examples or lists of what is ok and what is not ok if everything is supposedly ok because if everything was supposedly ok then all you would have to do is say so. In all of these examples you have provided you claim that everywhere else in the document it does say so. This ignores the fact that the places where redirects are actually being discussed it really does not simply say so.Huggums537 (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness, the most controversial RfD of the day is a test redirect from userspace to a project space page? Keep to discourage future similar nominations and because no convincing reason for deletion has been presented. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely nowhere on that pages does it say you are not allowed redirects to projectspace from userspace. The only thing it says about redirects is: User talk pages should not redirect to anything other than the talk page of another account controlled by the same user. However, redirects from userspace subpages to mainspace are common and acceptable. Soft redirects are allowed on userpages. (emphasis mine). This is not a user talk page so the first sentence isn't relevant, only the second is. The portion I bolded is also repeated later on in the context of draft articles. If redirects from user subpages to mainspace are allowed why on earth would they not be allowed to project space? Indeed there are 77 redirects in userspace that transclude {{R to project namespace}} and there are many, many more that don't. e.g. I have some in my userspace, mostly from when I drafted project space pages there first. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, I could easily say the same thing that absolutely nowhere on that pages does it say anyone is allowed redirects to projectspace from userspace. That is not an argument. It's a thought game. If somebody changes the guidance to say users have these rights, then I will shut the hell up and we can just all agree to keep this stupid redirect, but as it stands, the guidance doesn't even hint or imply users have the rights. OTOH, I have pointed out many implications that they don't. It would have to be clearly codified that they expressly have these rights. Huggums537 (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have posted many things, not a single one implies anything close to redirects like this one being even mildly problematic, let alone prohibited. Nowhere on the page does it say that you may have a guestbook in your userspace, yet they are allowed, similarly many other things are allowed even if not explicitly mentioned, including drafts of things other than articles. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument makes sense. However, the difference between me arguing that "nowhere on the page does it say userspace redirects to projectspace are allowed" and you saying, "it doesn't need to say it", is that we know it is allowed because it is covered in other documentation. See WP:Guestbooks for an example. If you can show me where redirects from userspace to projectspace are allowed in some other documentation that would obviate the need for it being mentioned on the WP:UP then I will shut the hell up and we can all agree to keep the stupid redirect. Huggums537 (talk) 03:54, 18 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 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.
Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Is Getting Problematic[edit]
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.
This was created as a redirect to the ANI discussion thread about the Article Rescue Squadron, which has since been archived. The redirect is unused and unnecessary. From what I can tell, there are no other instances of project-space redirects to specific ANI discussions, and it is unlikely to become useful in the future. DanCherek (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This isn't the first time a redirect like this has been created, and from memory what normally happens is that they mostly get retargetted to the archive or to a follow-up discussion somewhere, but they aren't common. If the latter exists for this discussion (I know it was suggested, but I've not looked to see if it has happened) then that would be my weak preference here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless anyone can show me evidence that this discussion is something that is or will be referred to as a significant precedent. Or retargetto a follow-up discussion if one can be shown to exist. feminist (+)03:13, 15 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.
This redirect ought to be deleted. Quite simply it points to a page that in no way relates to what laundry marks were, and in some places still are. Moreover, I can find no appropriate wikiarticle to which to change the target of the redirect. A laundry mark is a mark made by a commercial launderer on a garment, tablecloth, etc., to indicate either where and when it was laundered, or for whom it was laundered. It is not a care symbol. Here are three things which illustrate this:
"What is a laundry mark?". The Straight Dope Message Board. The Straight Dope. November 2000. Retrieved November 15, 2021. [A] laundry mark is a mark made on clothing to identify it when it is laundered (in a commercial laundry, not in a personal washing machine or laundromat){{cite web}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
Chaddock, Don (May 23, 2018). "1870s stagecoach bandit Black Bart reforms, learns job skills". California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Retrieved November 15, 2021. On the handkerchief was a laundry mark, which was the means of securing his arrest. … The investigators found a launderer with that mark in San Francisco on Bush Street. From there, they discovered the owner of the handkerchief was 'C.E. Bolton,' who was staying at a nearby hotel. … … It was a long chase but Black Bart was finally run down with the aid of a simple laundry mark.
I should add that the redirect is "harmful" because it takes one to an article that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic and, consequently, will serve primarily to create confusion (deletion reason D2). Also, there is only one article linked to this redirect (verify). Thanks! — SpikeToronto11:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support either redirecting to Wiktionary or deleting. My preference is in that order. I notice only one article links here; but in searches, there are several mentions of a laundry mark that could benefit from a link to the redirect. --Mindfrieze (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I relisted this discussion because I thought that it needed more input. But I immediately undid the relist per nominator's request, who explicitly stated that it was unnecessary. These were the comments that were added after the relist was made: CycloneYoristalk!00:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: There is absolutely no reason to re-list this. The consensus was abundantly clear: Redirect to Wiktionary. The comments were 100% in favour of that disposition. It was unanimous. @CycloneYoris: if you hadn't beat me to it, this discussion would now be closed. Instead we are all having to wait another week to get it done. There will be no "more thorough discussion and clearer consensus" on this matter: This is a thoroughly unimportant topic that died almost 60 years ago. Few, if any, people are interested in it. Question: Is there any way to undo this relist action and close this discussion out exactly as the unanimous discussion had intended it to be closed, with a redirect to Wiktionary? — SpikeToronto00:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I have, per @Eviolite's terrific suggestion, redirected to Wiktionary. (verify). Thank you to everyone for your participation in this discussion. Thanks especially to Eviolite and CycloneYoris for their assistance in this, my first RfD nom. Thanks! — SpikeToronto01:44, 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.
Oppose. Anything "Roman Catholic", at least in British English, invariably refers to the Catholic Church tout court which is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in view of the relative significance of the articles here. Any confusion is already addressed by the hatnote on Catholic Church article.—Brigade Piron (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I am in favour in keeping in redirecting to Catholic Church. While I understand the will to use a more precise terminology, in this case I do not see the need to. Moreover, the Catholic Church often calls itself using some expressions very close to "Roman Catholic Church", e.g. "Catholic Apostolic Roman Church". Veverve (talk) 21:38, 19 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.
This redirect (an abbreviation of a species name) should be deleted, as it redirects to the genus (which is not monotypic), and it is ambiguous, as the abbreviation can also refer to Corydalis solida and Cellana solida. A disambiguation page would be a normally better method, but I think dab pages for short-form binomials are generally discouraged on Wikipedia. Esculenta (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguateorsoft redirect to Wiktionary where a list of species by this short name can be built, if we do not build a disambiguation page here on Wikipedia. Since short form species names exist in the wild, they should be viable search terms. As this one is ambiguous, then a disambiguation page should exist. We could just define everything on Wiktionary instead of Wikipedia, and then link back to Wikipedia in the see also section of the Wiktionary page, though I don't see why there shouldn't be a disambiguation page. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig per the ip editor. Readers will encounter this term in the wild and there is no good reason I can see why we shouldn't disambiguate it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate removing the redirect seems accurate, but alot of same-genus-but-different-species wikilinks do it, and it will show a red link, so a new creation mixes the thing up. Normally, i would just link but place the display name different for these type of wikilink.Species-to-genus redirects should be addd if it's the only species in the genus.Leomk0403 (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The convention in scientific literature is that a species is only abbreviated after it has first been written out in full. Species abbreviations do not exist "in the wild" without the full context of the unabbreviated genus. The abbreviation is not a reasonable search term. There are additional species that can be abbreviated C. solida that do not yet have articles on Wikipedia. Assuming somebody is searching for C. solida, how do we know they aren't seeking a subject that doesn't yet have an article on Wikipedia? Include red-links for every C. solida? Outside of the scientific literature, there are a handful of species that do frequently appear in abbreviated form: T. rex (most people know what the T. stands for), E. coli (most people don't know what the E. stands for (or if they do, they may have trouble spelling it)), however E. coli regularly appears in general audience news about disease outbreaks. Then there's C. elegans; it's not well-known to the general public, but may make an occasional appearance as an abbreviation in the science news section of a newspaper. And then there's C. elegans (disambiguation); at 144,178 bytes, it is Wikipedia's largest disambiguation page, and probably includes almost every organism that could be abbreviated as C. elegans. It isn't really useful for navigation; a reader who encounters C. elegans in the wild is better served by reading backwards in the document where they encountered it than by trying to find the appropriate entry on the dab page. User:Caftaric (now blocked) created the C. solida redirect and was responsible (with their other accounts) for the vast majority of edits to C. elegans (disambiguation). Let C. elegans (disambiguation) serve as a cautionary tale; it is a bad idea to create disambiguation pages (or redirects) for species abbreviations. Species abbreviation dab pages either require ongoing maintenance as new articles are added, or else will have many red-links. Species abbreviation redirects are ambiguous more often than not. Plantdrew (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing ALL of them, just the vast majority. T. rex has primary topic, and T. rex (disambiguation) is useful for people who aren't sure how T. Rex (band) is styled. C. elegans has a primary topic, and therefore, as ridiculous as the resulting dab page is, I suppose it should continue to exist (at least to serve as a cautionary tale). I'd also dispute the existence of the vast majority of Category:Redirects from scientific abbreviations, most of which would need disambiguation if keeping and dabbing C. solida sets a precedent. And then there are thousands of additional (usually ambiguous) species abbreviation redirects that haven't yet been categorized. Plantdrew (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment almost all of Plantdrew's objections to a disambiguation page are that the scientific convention means people will not see usage like this in the wild. However that just means they shouldn't, not that they don't. There are countless examples of abbreviations being used in non-scientific contexts and sections of scientific articles seen out of context. That a large number of disambiguation pages will be needed is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 16 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.
Would this be the first such article for a cannon rating? (A "yes" is not necessarily a reason not to proceed.) --BDD (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Setindexify per the IP. Seems like the best solution here if someone wants to draft one up. If not, a dab page would be a good starting point. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A Set Index Page will help. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay(talk)04:07, 16 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 target doesn't mention the series. It is mentioned, without details, in Sky Max. Delete to encourage article creation; or write the article, it looks potentially notable. Narky Blert (talk) 15:54, 8 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 24#MOS:ARABIC
— SpikeToronto 11:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I have, per @Eviolite's terrific suggestion, redirected to Wiktionary. (verify). Thank you to everyone for your participation in this discussion. Thanks especially to Eviolite and CycloneYoris for their assistance in this, my first RfD nom. Thanks!
