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. The other redirect needs to be nominated separately. ✗plicit 23:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need this? It seems highly unlikely that anyone would type in this exact string of characters. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree...the meme has fallen out of popularity within the 2b2t community. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also another redirect titled "Two bee two tee dot org." Partofthemachine (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, alongside the second redirect. SWinxy (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not needed. Gusfriend (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as implausible. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:26, 9 August 2022 (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 23:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline unnecessary WP:BLP violation. I don't think this phrase in this exact wording was ever said during the incident. Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This phrase hasn't been used pretty much anywhere in discussion of the incident either, so it's a pretty unlikely search term. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:11, 4 August 2022 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete firstly created by an unapproved automated process. Second listing all the victims like this is undue emphasis on their death, and just allowing a text search will allow a more wholesome view of any information on these people's lives. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only created redirects for those people that didn't already have an article to their name, of course. Thus, there is no information to their lives on WP, other than that they were killed in a notable event. That's not undue emphasis; that's just all that's notable about them. My thinking in creating them was that searching for their name and being directed to the List of fatal victims of the September 11 attacks was a worthwhile improvement to Wikipedia.
That their creation required prior approval is neither clear in the policy, which applies specifically to content pages, and links to its original discussion in which redirects were explicitly excluded, nor is it consensual (as was evident in the discussion at ANI).
What's in discussion here is whether redirects to non-notable entries in notable lists are to be kept or deleted from WP, regardless of how they're created. If they're to be kept, even if, for any reason, a (semi-)automated process is ruled out, similar redirects could be manually created to the names of victims of other smaller massacres. If they're to be deleted, then currently existing redirects to the names of non-notable people in notable lists—e.g. Mary McKinney, Grace Nelsen Jones, Mary Margaret Smith, Margaret Skeete—ought equally to be deleted. Personally, I don't think redirects to non-notable entries in notable lists are, nor should they be, ruled out by WP:POLICY, but if they are, then the policy ought to be applied consistently across the board.
Three additional thoughts. 1) As BilledMammal said in the Deletion Review, the redirects might be confusing to readers who are searching for other individuals without Wikipedia pages: "Robert Chin. A man by that name was one of the victims in 9/11, but a different man by the same name was a candidate in the 2020 Jamaican general election. A redirect should not go to the list of 9/11 victims, because it will confuse and surprise readers looking for the election candidate." There is also an open question about how the redirects might affect Google results. 2) Because the names are included in the list, they can easily be searched (and indexed). Thus, the "need" for a redirect is minimal. 3) WP:OSE. --Enos733 (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid {{R from list entry}}, but care should be taken to resolve ambiguities before restoring the rest of the redirects. That seems to be where a lot of the angst is coming from, because this has to be done case-by-case instead of via a mass creation bot. Other arguments I see are actually arguments against the list itself, but since the list has been kept that's a bit moot now. --Tavix(talk) 19:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
R from list entry is just the procedure for linking a redirect of a non-notable subject to a list, not whether the redirect should be created. I continue to assert that these redirects will cause confusion (see WP:R#DELETE) and many of the names on the lists are common names (or are listed with their middle name, which reduces their utility). As one example, there are two DenisBuckley's with wikipedia pages - and a redirect of "Dennis Buckley" to the list of fatal victims is problematic. If this is kept, yes, care will be needed to create redirects on a case-by-case basis, but we will be left with the situation where some victims will have redirects, and others will not, leading to a sub-optimum solution. Again, searching for the name will always lead readers to the article, even without a redirect. - Enos733 (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As one example, there are two DenisBuckley's with wikipedia pages - and a redirect of "Dennis Buckley" to the list of fatal victims is problematic. Easily solved with a dab page, no? E.g.:
Pointing out the question of who/what should be included on a DAB page is currently being discussed at WP:NOT. In that discussion, there are many who believe the current policy/guidance would generally prohibit inclusion of non-notable individuals on DAB pages. - Enos733 (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the non-ambiguous ones, Retarget the ambiguous ones. The non-ambiguous ones are WP:CHEAP, but the ambiguous ones should be sent to a more appropriate target and probably don't need hatnotes as they likely aren't notable and are only on a list. CLYDEFRANKLIN 21:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, naturally for I created the redirect, and am not yet convinced that it is, or should be, ruled out by WP:POLICY. — Guarapiranga☎ 22:24, 7 August 2022 (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 keep. WP:CSK#4: Nominated by a blockedorbanned user in violation of their block or ban. All participants in the discussion support keeping the redirect. (non-admin closure)FAdesdae378 (talk·contribs) 00:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a disagreement about where this expression should redirect to. I think that the DAB War in Donbas is better target. upd: while I was opening this request User:Крывіч already changed it back. But still let us discuss. Waltermaid (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)WP:STRIKESOCK. --Tavix(talk) 19:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, it’s literally the same name only with minor alternate spelling. Can’t think of a reason in the world not to redirect it there. —MichaelZ. 14:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to dab. Waltermaid did seem to use socks to get their way (Крывіч and Waltermaid are both tagged as socks of Dolyn), but I think that a misspelling of a phrase without a primary topic shouldn't have a primary topic, and IDOH's change was bold without consensus. CLYDEFRANKLIN 00:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No opinion on what the primary topic (if any) is for the title War in Donbas, but this redirect should target War in Donbas whether it is an article or a disambiguation page. A7V2 (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is per A7V2. I think that War in Donbas (2014–2022) should be moved to War in Donbas as no other entry on that dab is an actual war (or is referred to as such), but that's probably outside the scope of this discussion. ansh.666 19:27, 9 August 2022 (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 1922 and 2012 to their respective "Year in film" titles, and keep 2002 since it already targets "2002 in film". (non-admin closure)CycloneYoristalk! 07:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of consistency, these redirects should either target 1922 in film, 2002 in film, and 2012 in film respectively, or 1922 (disambiguation)#Arts, entertainment, and media (there are multiple films titled "1922"), 2002 (film), and 2012 (film) respectively. My preference is retarget to the "YEAR in film" titles since disambiguation is a Wikipedia invention, but ensure there are hatnotes on those articles referencing the other set of articles respectively (in either of the aforementioned presented options). Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget 2002 film to 2002 (film); Delete 1922 film; Keep 2012 film: I think that for consistency's sake it makes sense to pick one convention, and from my view someone typing 2012 film or 2002 film is more likely looking for the movie by that name than that year in film. The reason to delete 1922 is to maintain consistency. As there is no proper target to maintain consistency, that should be deleleted. TartarTorte 20:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retargat 1922 to 1922 (disambiguation)#Arts, entertainment, and media, 2002 to 2002 (film) and keep 2012. If someone is searching for the title of a film followed by the word film, we should always take them to the article about the specific film with that film or, if there are multiple films with that name, to where they are disambiguated. Hatnotes can and should be used to the much less plausible (but not implausible) year in film articles. What we should absolutely not do is delete, because that offers literally no benefits to anybody while making it harder for people to find every target they could be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"If someone is searching for the title of a film followed by the word film" - only if the film is also a year and shares its title with a topic related to that year, or should it be the same for any film title? Any reason a search for the ambiguous "2002 film" should go straight to a specific, and not well known, film whereas "Empire of the Sun film" doesn't, and there isn't even a hatnote from Thin filmtoThin (film). The redirect of 1922 film to a page with no link to 1922 in film was not an improvement. If there is consensus that these are more likely to be film titles, there should be a bot that creates redirects from "[name of film] film" and "[name of film] movie" for every film and adds hatnotes or disambiguation pages where the title is not a redirect. Peter James (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget all to "XYZ-year in film" as common sense meaning, since it isn't "the film named 2012" or "the film 2012" it is "2012 film" which means "film released in 2012" which is found at "2012 in film" -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget "YYYY film" is a topic or category with valid grammar, while a film with that name is inherently ambiguous. Retarget to "YYYY in film" and make actual improvements with the concerns Peter James raised in mind. Louis Waweru Talk 10:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 06:29, 4 August 2022 (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.
Redirect Form of government ⟶ Political system. A 'form of government' is not a 'government'; it's more a synonym for political system, which is a related topic for which we have an article. (Some forms of government/political systems are: monarchy, republic, totalitarianism, democracy, theocracy, dictatorship, etc.; the article covers a few of them.)
Otoh, there is a lot of stuff in the Government article about 'political systems', so much so, that based on content alone one might wonder about whether a merge with Political systems was appropriate. However, based on the definitions, the topics are not the same, so maybe the Government article just needs some refactoring; but that's an issue which should be addressed there.
This discussion also applies to 'Forms of government' and 'Forms of Government', and any variants I may have missed. Mathglot (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The current target is relevant, explicitly names the target, and covers the topic of the target in better detail; it's adequate as it is, but could be made more specific by targeting the relevant section of the current target: Government § Forms. Otherwise, I don't think it needs changing.
The term "form of government" (often synonymous with "system of government") is a subset of "political system"; the latter is a broader topic not a synonym. Forms of government are an aspect of governments, so it is appropriate that the main article about governments covers that aspect of the topic. List of forms of government would also work as a target, but I think it's generally better to link standard articles rather than lists and the list article is linked at the top of Government § Forms so if that's what someone is looking for they would find it easily on Government. – Scyrme (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (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.
No mentioned in article. "Patriots in control" seems to be the name of a podcast, but the term is not used in the article nor anywhere else in the encyclopedia. Delete. MB 04:39, 4 August 2022 (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.
Displace edit history to Astra (Marvel Comics) that was merged to the list article, and repoint "Astra (comics) to Astra (disambiguation) ;;; There are multiple comics topics called "Astra" and this leads to an enormous list, so would be better served to point to the disambig page where one can find the other non-Marvel topic link easily instead of being lost on the page. As this topic was not notable enough to have its own article, it should point to the disambiguation page. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support that seems fine to move the edit history as requested above. BOZ (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoAstra#Entertainment (+ the history move as suggested in the nomination). ("Astra (disambiguation)" is currently a redirect, so we can't target there directly.) Note that the disambiguation page currently links to the Marvel Comics characters via this redirect, and thus will need to be changed, presumably to go via Astra (Marvel Comics). --ais523 16:25, 4 August 2022 (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.
Draft:Production of Avengers: The Kang Dynasty and Avengers: Secret Wars[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 result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per this recent RfC for the mainspace redirect and this discussion which both agreed it is too early for an article to be had for these two films with not enough support for them being produced back-to-back. This redirect should be deleted, and was reverted back to a user sandbox that was repurposed, as happened with the prior draft of this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus at prior discussions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussion and that consensus. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2022 (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.
Redirect from a domain with a space in it seems unnatural/implausible. AbeBooks.com is fine, but the space makes this seem to me to be an implausible search term. TartarTorte 18:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as implausible. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It depends, when one vocally being notified the existence of a bookselling platform of "abe books dot com", this redirect might be what people would type to reach their target. From mid 2015 to earlier this year, the page received 162 visitors. C933103 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's around 0.5/week, which to me seems very unlikely. I would not be opposed to Abe books dot com redirect, but I think the combination of form in using a space but using .com is implausible. TartarTorte 20:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep averages more than 1 hit a month -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spaces are not valid characters in domain names. This title does not make sense. * Pppery *it has begun... 02:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plausible way to write this out for someone who doesn't know much about domain names. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 00:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plausible typo to make on a phone or other device with no proper keyboard. Harmless too. —Kusma (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a typo, but not a ridiculous one. I've tagged the redirect as {{R nonprintworthy}} to clarify that it's only a search aid, not an actual topic of its own. --ais523 16:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone who doesn't understand how the Web works could type this in. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2022 (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 Google URL prefixed including the HTTP protocol[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 result of the discussion was keep. Without prejudice to discussing other similar redirects on a separate RfD. (non-admin closure)CycloneYoristalk! 00:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an implausible redirect to include the entire http protocol, especially when http://www.google.com redirects to https://www.google.com, making this an outdated link for anyone to be using to visit google. The page views are negligible and are likely from people accidentally pasting the link into wikipedia instead of the URL bar. TartarTorte 18:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The URL being nominated is causing XFDCloser to lag or stop functioning due to an "http error retrieving page information". The header of this section should be changed. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I might be misidentifying something, because this error also turned up when I visited TfD. Might as well wait it out. (Both times I've had closer script malfunctions were soon after I used ANRFC Lister... last time this happened, it fixed itself the next day.) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, changing the heading did fix the problem. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Figured it was worth a shot. This is actually the second time I changed the title. The first one, given by twinkle, wasn't wrapped in <nowiki> tags making the section header an active hyperlink. I do wonder if the <nowiki> wrap broke it, or a link in general broke it. TartarTorte 22:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – There is no real value in this redirect, nor in the seven other ones Thryduulf listed. It is hard to imagine why a reader would enter a URL into the Wikipedia search bar, nor will these redirects ever been linked in articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (unless this existing is causing some kind of technical problems) - per the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 17#Http://en.wikipedia.org, this is harmless and unambiguous. I think the web address, even including the other junk, is a plausible search term for the article about the website. A7V2 (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per A7V2. There are only two plausible things someone using this search term could be looking for (1) an article about the website, (2) the website. If it's 1 then if this is kept they get taken to the correct place but if it's deleted they see either search results (which may or may not contain the relevant page in the results), a page inviting them to search (the results of which also may or may not be helpful), or the start of an article (depending on the device they are using, the method by which they arrived at the page, and whether they have the ability to create a new article). If however it is the website they are looking for then, if the redirect exists they can either follow the link in the target article (either helpful or no different) or type the URI again in the right place (no different), if the redirect is deleted then they only have the second option. This means that deletion ranges from, at best, no different to at worst significantly unhelpful while keeping ranges from completely helpful to no different. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 00:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, harmless and not implausible. —Kusma (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a completely ridiculous search (people have been known to enter things into the wrong search box in the past), and the correct result page for such a search is obvious, so keep as a search aid. --ais523 14:49, 4 August 2022 (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/2022 August 12#Cereal eating by humans
06:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
