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. It looks like this was almost-mentioned in the target at the time of the 2007 RfD, but it's plain ol' not-mentioned now, and has faded from relevance. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)04:41, 1 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.
While trigraphs like кӏу and пӏу are mentioned at the target, this specific two-letter combination is not explained anywhere, and a "Ӏ" section, to which the redirect initially pointed, does not exist at this point either. ~~~~ User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)20:39, 29 October 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.
Not mentioned at the target, internet search suggests that this is a government tourism position, but unless it's mentioned at the target a redirect is not particularly helpful. Delete unless a duly-sourced mention can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk19:30, 29 October 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.
~" South Dakota State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts "[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.
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.
While this is a symbol for the sound described at the target, the article about the character itself is located at Turned h, which also describes its usage in the IPA among other alphabets. Thus, I suggest retargeting this to the article about the letter, which appears to be the primary topic. ~~~~ User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)18:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do a lot of work on articles for Unicode characters, so my instinct is to say that any character should always redirect to the article about that character. However, I think IPA characters present a much more subtle problem where a link to a bare character has a significant chance of being about the phonetic phenomenon, rather than the actual "letter". I don't even know whether there is a technical limitation on this, but should we maybe default to upper-case links redirecting to the character page, while a lower-case link would redirect to the phonetic description? VanIsaac, MPLLcontWpWS (previously unsigned) — Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO capital IPA letters should rd to the article on the letter, if there is one, and to Case variants of IPA letters if there isn't. It would be weird to have the u.c. and l.c. rd to different articles, but indeed the IPA usage is far more prevalent than orthographic usage for many of these. On the other hand, how do people find the article on the letter if the l.c. rd's to the sound page instead? We should perhaps consider a dab page, but I suspect that solution would be quite annoying to a large number of readers. I'll ask at wikiproject linguistics. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which names would we want to use? There's some weird camel-case capitalization and punctuation in the Handbook, such as "T-Curly-tail-C ligature", and some labels that aren't even jargon, such as "Left-tail M (at right)". Pullum might have better labels in some cases. We certainly don't want to use Unicode character names. I suspect we might want to create our own labels for a few, as most IPA letters don't really have names. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think in most cases a form of Unicode name should serve pretty well. Obviously want to drop "Latin Letter" from the character name, but other than that, it should be fairly descriptive. There might be a few times where we'd want to go another direction, but I would think you'd want to handle that on a case-by-case basis. VanIsaac, MPLLcontWpWS04:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The IPA symbol is lc only. As was noted, one cannot differentiate in an enwiki title. A DAB page typically opens with "Aora can refer to ..." (iow, a DAB-page covers both cases). The IPA entry line can specify it is about lc turned h.
@1234qwer1234qwer4: I think you mean the disambiguation page? That makes sense (I came across it while patrolling new pages, checked where Ɥ went, and came here). I didn't realise it was that new, though. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:02, 1 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.
Retarget this back to Caller (dancing), the original use when it was created in 2005 until Tulio17 took it to the current target in 2009. I get it, people might confuse it with "CUER," but that doesn't really warrant a change of the target in this case, especially if it's potentially WP:ASTONISHing. Regards, SONIC67823:00, 29 October 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.
Like below the target article does not cover the entire scope of the subject as well as Crusading movement. The current target doesn't mention many of the campaigns from the campaign box and largely peters out in the 14th century whil crusading continued in a variety of forms until the 18th or even 19th centuries. The Crusade article is still well sign posted from Crusading movement in any case.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think someone typing in "The Crusades" is likely to be looking for the medieval expeditions to the Holy Land, rather than information on crusading in general, the crusading movement or on other expeditions which aren't usually referred to as "The Crusades". Hut 8.518:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Even if there is an issue with the article content, that would be an issue with the article and not the redirect, and that still would not mean the redirect should be changed to a target which would be a big WP:SURPRISE to the readers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 31 October 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 previously had the target Crusades. That article does not cover the complete scope of crusading, instead it is largely MILHIST. Crusading movement is a better fit as it covers those who were crusaders but did not fight, the wider time frame, geographies and definitions of crusading. Crusades is signposted from this article as well. Action required is the confirmation of this target as the most appropriate. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Crusades. This is part of an effort to supplant our longstanding main article on the topic (Crusades) with a new one of Norfolkbigfish's creation (Crusading movement), despite a failure to gain consensus on the talk pages. Now, links in navigation templates and many redirects are being changed to rapidly create a large number of links to the newer article instead of the old one. It is the nom's interpretation that 'Crusading movement' is the main or broader topic. I do not believe that describes the consensus—if one can even be said to exist—on the scope and purpose of that page. Srnec (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore original redirect per Srnec. This was a bold redirect which was reverted, but then Norfolk reverted again, without achieving consensus for it. Given that Crusades is the logical, longstanding main article on the topic, there is no reason for this to redirect anywhere but there. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:59, 31 October 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.
I was surprised to end up here - I was expecting a disambiguation or list featuring various different departments with similar names. A quick search suggests that multiple US states including Minnesota, Kansas, North Carolina and Indiana have a Department of Administration, Nepal has a Central Department of Public Administration, Regions of Norway suggests that country also has such a deparment but it isn't linked, there are probably others. I suggest disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have nothing to say about "Department of Administration". We only have things to say about instances of departments of administration. The first sentence of an article about it would start "A Department of Administration is a...". Most of these articles start "The X Department of Adminsitration" or similar. Six is an underestimte, my Wikipedia search led me to at least twenty articles that could be called plausibly departments of administration, and on top of that you have the Department of administrative affairs. To direct to any of them is unlikely to satisfy readers seeking the other nineteen.
What's the point of having a search engine if it is forever being circumvented by redirects that do not say what they mean? I'm all for redirects, I think they are a great way to get readers where they want to be, for that we have to make intelligent guesses. A DAB will simply be populated with "the stuff I found on Wikipedia's search engine": so help the search engine do its job, don't circumvent it. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)WP:STRIKESOCK. --Tavix(talk)02:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What would be here would not be an article but a disambiguation page, "Department of Administration may refer to...". This is the exact usecase for a disambiguation page, so that readers do not have to hunt through search results that contain irrelevant colocations, may be several clicks/taps away (depending on how they are searching/browsing, what device they are using, whether they have permission to start a new article, etc) and may not even contain the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Even though a consensus for disambiguating has already been established, someone still needs to create a draft under the redirect for this to be closed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk!07:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've drafted a set index for "Department of Administration" and similar titles below the redirect, but it needs cleanup and likely other improvement. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 7 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.
Sodium metatitanate and sodium trititanate are two different compounds. Wikipedia does not have a page on sodium trititante yet. Retarget or delete. Keres🌕Lunaedits!04:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is clearly mentioned and described at current target. It is common to have compound names for which we do not have articles or don't merit their own article be redirects to articles for related compounds, as long as they are described there. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no information about the compound at titanate, or even about the trititanate anion. "Sodium metatitanate" is sometimes used (arguably incorrectly) to refer to sodium trititanate, and the text you added to the current target states that and this appears to be the only information on WP. Deletion would be okay, but keeping would at least give searchers the molecular formula and show how it is different from Na2TiO3. I see that you have added a link to the current target and why you would want it to target somewhere else and not be a circular redirect, but there is nowhere else on WP for it to point. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:56, 30 October 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 redirect is a misspelling of the protagonist's name (Merida). I think that this should be deleted because it seems like an unlikely misspelling, although it could also be retargeted to the disambiguation page Merida. Evil Sith Lord (talk) 04:57, 29 October 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 per nom and our 64 friend. A Google search brings up a lot of stuff about the fashion brand Fake London and some fake London movie sets to add on to the latter's point about ambiguity. Regards, SONIC67805:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't require usage in reliable sources to keep redirects, only that they be useful. Still think this should probably be deleted for now as the term more often refers to other things. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:37, 29 October 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 6#Kreuzzüge
Comment:: I have just today retargeted Small capital B to the ʙ article. Considering this is a similar case, should the article be moved to the descriptive title (small capital B) and a dab be created on its place as well? ~~~~
Done, Talk:ʙ#Requested move 1 November 2021 Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
