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.
AN/I may be a cesspit sometimes, but none of us want it to be. Let's not encourage calling it that by having this redirect. If it's a joke, it's not funny, and what purpose does this redirect serve other than to spread negativity? The CESSPIT redirect contributes to the problem rather than doing anything to help improve things. Levivich (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we should be allowed to make jokes or express opinions about Wikipedia away from article space, including by creating redirects like the above. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the redirect was recently blocked from all Wikimedia technical spaces and mentioned this shortcut here. You didn't know that? Sorry. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - having indirectly caused the latest drama there (though that wasn't my goal), I can confirm that it is a cesspit, and the redirect is very much appropriate. LilianaUwU(talk / contribs)22:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This and GREATDISMALSWAMP/etc have always been frustrating because they're just injokes from experienced users about how one of the few tools available to new and semi-experienced users is worthless. Not every user has friends with advanced permissions, or groups of like minded editors they can go to when they run into problems. If you think a place is a hostile cesspit, you'll act like it is when you're there. Maybe instead of spreading this weird meme these veteran editors, especially admins, should consider that they could actually work to make it useful and productive. Parabolist (talk) 02:01, 15 October 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.
Keep. Pageview statistics show it is accessed 5-20 times per day. (Oddly/interestingly, the rate seems to have significantly decreased over time.) Either it's a common misspelling, or a common typo as "i" and "u" are adjacent on the keyboard, or they people searching for something else and we're linking them to the wrong page. It's it's the last option, that's a keep-and-convert-to-disambiguation-page if and when someone identifies another relevant page. Alsee (talk) 08:15, 20 October 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.
This is less a nickname than a thing mentioned in a 2008 post on TNR that gained essentially no traction. There's under 100 ghits for "Sir Rock Obama" and only 10 if ignoring wikipedia. It also has a total of 3 pageviews this entire year. Deletion seems the way to go. TartarTorte19:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pageview statistics shows less than one access per month over the last 7+ years, and platform statistics suggests that most of those accesses are likely bots crawling pages indiscriminately. So unlikely search term, term not mentioned at target page, and potentially incorrect target as people may be looking for Barack Obama or Dwayne Johnson. Alsee (talk) 08:29, 20 October 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.
Delete: It seems that a place called Forth Junction was located in southern Red Deer per forthjunction.ca; however, it is not mentioned here. Forth Junction is mentioned at a few different articles, but mostly just passing mentions and also this is just Forth not Forth Junction. TartarTorte18:18, 14 October 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.
Delete both. These could refer to either subpage or subtopic, so delete to avoid miscategorized redirects and encourage use of the only slightly longer, specific rcat template names. There were only 3 uses in mainspace, which I have now bypassed, so these can be safely deleted. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 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.
Delete. Unlikely search term. I had to work to discover that this was an Acute accent Unicode U+0301. Pageview statistics show several dozen accesses to the page over the years, consistent with occasional bots that indiscriminately crawl every accessible page. Alsee (talk) 08:45, 20 October 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.
Pink Friday II Roman Reloaded appears to be occasionally used (although without the colon), and is the kind of redirect I personally would not create but also would not RfD. However, none of those nine hits contain a colon, and more importantly the parenthetical does not appear anywhere (if ostensibly part of the title) or is nonstandard as a disambiguator (if intended that way). Created by a user with a history of hoaxing, but I think falls shy of G3. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)15:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlikely search term. Google gives zero hits (other than Wikipedia itself) for "Pink Friday II Roman Reloaded The Sequel", and the multiple additional punctuation makes it utterly implausible. Also pageview statistics show only a few dozen page accesses over the years, consistent with occasional bots indiscriminately crawling every available page. Alsee (talk) 08:51, 20 October 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.
Keep redirecttoCelsius. Regardless of it being an exact match or not, the original topic is far more relevant and I'd argue that the vast majority of people who type this misspelling intend to search Celsius. @162 etc.: The same applies for Lamberghini; it should stay as a redirect to Lamborghini but you changed it to include a song which I can say with cetainty most people did not intend to search. Most of these obscure topics exist in the disambig page of these more important articles (Celsius (disambiguation) and Lamborghini (disambiguation) respectively). Wretchskull (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc.: You cannot revert, you need consensus to keep the edit per WP:BRD so we don't edit war. Anyways, regarding the redirect, it is just common sense to prioritize readers. It is extremely obvious that 99.99% of people spelling it in this manner intend on reaching the primary topic. As I stated above, these obscure topics exist in the disambiguations of the primary topics. It just feels unfruitful if we go back and forth because I feel like this should be uncontroversial. I just hope you understand why my position is this firm. Cheers - Wretchskull (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't feel we are getting anywhere. I am just making an analogy to support that people obviously intend to search for the primary topic and not otherwise. Not sure how one can cite sources to support that; if this isn't hyperbole and you mean that there might be a tool for seeing what gets the most clicks, idk honestly. I'm trying really hard to understand your viewpoint but I still have no clue how such a disambig aids readers compared to the redirect. It's not really that big of a deal if it was an isolated incident but if this happens with many articles then there is a problem imo. I have no idea how I can convince you that it is common sense to me that people want to search the primary topic. Wretchskull (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc.: Bingo! This isn't really a wikipedia tool, but I have something which might change your mind. Take a look at this Google Ngram viewer. Look how the growth of "Celcius" is correlated with the growth of Celsius. Celsius is a highly searched word, right? And yet "Celcius" is still a visible dent, meaning many misspell it like that, and it was during the 1960s when it started growing along with Celsius, showing that the word is associated with Celsius and not Celcius (album). Did the music album promote this growth? No, it didn't exist back then. I hope this convinces you? Wretchskull (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listened to the song, and that was what started playing in my mind when I saw "Lambergini". But I ask, it doesn't have RSes or doesn't even seem to meet the notability criteria, so why is it here anyway? —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})09:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just from a quick and superficial look at some Google results, I think the more productive course of action here would be to just take the album article to AfD. Alas, the incredibly potent early-2000s energy radiating from that cover image may yet prevent me from doing so... Dr. Duh🩺 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 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.
Apparently, this acronym is ambiguous in regards to where it should target. Apparently, the acronym stands for "Young Money Cash Money Billionaires", and it represented a joint venture between its current target and Cash Money Records with no clear preference on which subject the redirect has more affinity towards. Steel1943 (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe, and I could be wrong on this both from memory and some research I have done, that this term was largely used when Young Money was a subsidiary of Cash Money so anyone, at the time, who was Young Money was also Cash Money. It seems to me that as, at the time all Young Money artists were also Cash Money but not vice-versa, that this should stay where it is. TartarTorte13:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that TartarTorte explains it well. To add to this, YMCMB as an acronym is a reference to Young Money, not Cash Money. The acronym includes the words 'Cash Money' because Young Money was originally founded as an imprint of Cash Money, thus the initial success of Young Money helped propel the success of Cash Money to billionaire status (hence the acronym "Young Money Cash Money Billionaires"). However, it was never used in parlance to refer to Cash Money in any capacity, only Young Money, and though that use has become deprecated in the wake of the split between Young Money and Cash Money, it is still used sparingly, and in those cases primarily as a reference to the Young Money aspect of the partnership, as well as the business conflagration that led to their mutual success. Criticalus (talk) 02:46, 19 October 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.
Retarget the 1992 one has 7,533 views but the 2008 one has 1,261[[1]] which probably isn't enough for a PDAB, also this RFD is probably not needed as I don't see this as being controversial. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:13, 15 October 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.
Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the target and the redirect unclear. This redirect has a rather interesting edit history: It was originally created to target Phaseolus lunatus (which was later moved to Lima bean), but the word "prolific" isn't mentioned at Lima bean. The redirect's phrase is not mentioned in Bean either. Steel1943 (talk) 08:33, 14 October 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 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.
Redirects that differ only in punctuation and capitalization, should all redirect to the same place, and the "Orbit of the Moon" article isn't the right destination. Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added Earth-Moon System and Earth–Moon system to the discussion in the event future comments in this discussion oppose their current target. (Not saying it is going to happen, but rather than they should already be tagged and as part of this discussion in the event it does.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 14 October 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 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 to Don Young#COVID-19: Don Young is who called it the "beer virus". I added the mention of him calling it that. I also don't really have an issue with deletion. The current target is not particularly helpful without an explanation and I cannot imagine in 2022 anyone knowing the name "beer virus" but not COVID-19, so targeting to an explanation of the phrase could be helpful. Otherwise, just delete. TartarTorte02:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Don Young#COVID-19 per TartarTorte, at the time of creation the target mentioned beer but no longer does and using the search box with "Beer virus" the Don Young article is the only mention of "Beer virus" on Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:20, 15 October 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.
Worldwide International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium & Exhibition
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 symposium and exhibition is not mentioned on wikipedia. This has always just been a redirect to Electric vehicle. At the time of creation of this redirect 2009, the article did mention this; however, it had just been added by the creator of this redirect and it was an external link within the article body that was removed in 2010 in an edit that "reduce links". With no mention for around 12 years and a potential WP:XY as this is also about hybrid and fuel cell cars makes me think deletion is the best option. TartarTorte00:02, 14 October 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 October 21#Queen Kapau
