[go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 9

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GoneIn60 (talk | contribs) at 08:56, 11 October 2024 (→Universal Studios: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

October 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 9, 2024.

Lists of Pokémon

Is this ambiguous or should it be retargeted to List of Pokémon? Web-julio (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While title-wise it's not exactly correct, the end result is pretty harmless; the page Lists about Pokémon starts with a link to the proposed target (List of Pokémon, before listing off quite a few methods of drilling down to more specific Pokémon (i.e. lists by generation), et cetera. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. the Lists about Pokémon is a recreation with other additions, the old page didn't include non-species Pokémon lists. Guessitsavis restored the redirect and I restored the list back and moved to make it less ambiguous. Whether the redirect should be restored or not would be a discussion for AfD, right? Or a merge discussion. Web-julio (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tenorite (typeface)

Not mentioned at target, meaning it's a somewhat misleading redirect for someone searching for the term expecting to find information on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially retarget to Aptos (typeface), which DOES have information on Tenorite-- what it is, where it came from, and its ultimate fate (in that it was passed over for the role of successor to Calibri in favor of the Bierstadt/Aptos font). I could also, for the record, see a Deletion as per WP:REDLINK; that said, I'm not sure Tenorite is notable on its own in any context other than the fact that it was a potential successor to Calibri and lost to Aptos. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joker persona

Delete this is not a parenthetical disambiguator. The target is incorrect. There are multiple articles on personae named Joker listed at Joker (disambiguation), where the normal course would be to have "Joker persona" in a sentence not refer to the "Persona" videogame series. Instead it would say refer to the alternate persona of the character Jack Napier or Arthur Fleck; even "joker persona" is also covered under this redirect, and that could easily refer to the common meaning of joker, a jester, a practical joker. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasoning. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:William Cilium

Delete - Can't seem to find any relation to the subject? estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4C Untitled Flatiron Nonfiction Summer 2023

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Retarget - The only google search results relating this redirect to the subject indicate that it was rumored this was an untitled book rumored to be about Swift, later revealed to be about BTS. For that reason I wouldn't say Swift is the appropriate target, if this redirect should be kept at all. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Next king of Denmark

Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid I of Norway

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next king of Norway

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haakon VIII Magnus

Delete per this discussion [2] Also no evidence he'll use this name. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

🆓

Free is a DAB, don't see a reason for the emoji specifically to have a PTOPIC. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 20:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the DAB page as most helpful to the reader. Cremastra (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cody, WY μSA

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 withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the characters used, this seems like an unlikely search term. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Third Lebanon War

No evidence that this conflict is known as the "Third Lebanon war", and it isn't even mentioned at target either. CycloneYoris talk! 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of sources are referring to this as the Third Lebanon War so I'd imagine its a reasonably common search term, besides there is not exactly any other war that could be considered a third lebanon war so anyone searching that is looking for what we redirect them to. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot of places say invasion and we don't have an official name for it. Don't want people to mix it up with other events because we gave it a name ourselves, that's not the role of Wikipedia. Maybe at some point in the future there will be a name used across the board, but it's not like we have a crystal ball to see that future. I propose that until then we just use the same description in the majority of outlets instead of selective snippets that could be seen as biased. Similar logic was used when discussing "War in Afghanistan" being proposed as 'Afghanistan War' aswell as being used against proposals for the "Covid Recession" being called a bunch of other names and there are more examples in naming of other current events but I dont want to get too far off topic. My point is that right now it's far too early to think about this kind of move and/or redirect. Dasein (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is not about what the name of the article is or should be, it's solely about whether "Third Lebanon War" is a useful search term for anything, and if so what it is a useful search term for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's about redirects, redirects using alternate names. I mean anybody can search for anything using any term or description. The important part is whether or not it's reasonable. I'm making the case that this isn't a relevant term to use for redirects atm. A few niche news articles alongside the rest (which describe it very differently) doesn't seem like it's enough. Besides shouldn't a war have a separate page to this rather than be a redirect? Dasein (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So yes, I stand by my point even if wording could've been handled better. I feel the same reasoning would apply here. If it was a useful search term then it'd be so for anything that follows the invasion, right? Where relations/wider conflict is one thing, current invasion would be an event in said wider conflict, and any subsequent war (not that we have crystal balls) would be another thing with its own page and more apt for having a redirect like this (if it's a commonly used/reasonably assumed search term at the time anyway) I refer back to what I said about the sources used to initially justify it also being an issue which is why I don't think it's a good fit at all right now. Hence my stance currently being Delete. Dasein (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reliable sources have described the conflict as such. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but lean retarget to 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Otherwise a reasonable search term. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A new target is being proposed. Notified of this discussion there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon where it is already mentioned in the lead. And it isn't just Israeli sources, look at, say, The Guardian (Third Lebanese War. Cremastra (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger protest in Nigeria

Too vague. I highly doubt that there has been more than one hunger protest in the history of Nigeria. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just as nom stated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Cosmo

still not the biggest columbohead out there, but from a couple days of looking around, i haven't found any relation between this name and columbo (or columbo). is this something from later episodes that just hasn't been mentioned anywhere yet, or...? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Uncle Cosmo was a nickname sometimes used, as is correctly indicated by the "R from nickname" template used in the redirect. Please do your homework prior to making nominations, because this is easily destroying carefully created infrastructure and costs time which could be better spend on improving or adding contents. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This could've been caught by simply plugging in "Uncle Cosmo" Columbo into Google. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i did that before, and got one result saying it used by his nephew in one episode (episode 60, to be specific), and never again by anyone else, and that result was in page 2 of 2, in a suspiciously old-wikipedia-mirror-shaped site, unsourced, mentioned in passing, and buried among unrelated uncles named cosmo seemingly related to people seemingly known as "colombo". looking again, it's the same case, but now there are also reports of some "rfd" thing started by someone named "cogsan". no idea who that is, but he sounds like he'd be a total wonk
    i would withdraw based on this, but the fact that there are no sources, reliable or otherwise (google told me there was something around quora, but i didn't find it there) that even imply anything about this (nick)name's existence aside from up to this diff which another site seems to have yoinked by accident, while "frank" and "philip" have a citation each (yes, i know the latter is false), leads me to question if it's worth keeping, as the only mention i found outside of fancruft in the target's edit history was still circular
    if you two found something i didn't, i would appreciate it cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Checking myself, you're right-- I'd initially seen the first result being Quora and went, "Okay, this is a known answer.' In reality, it... was not. Whops. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to Regnery Publishing

No mention of any of these titles at the target. Note that I tested the waters with a nomination of a single redirect to this target, found here, in early September. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe if someone searches something that there should be relevant information at the target. In these cases, there is not, as such, I believe they're better left as red links to encourage creation. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the list of publications was deleted, there would be no search results. Not even a red link. Is there a policy or guideline that requires the title be discussed in the target article? I suspect this category of books may be targeted for deletion as part of the ideological bias on Wikipedia. I'm open to deleting the redirects provided a list of the publications exists so that users at least get a result when searching.GobsPint (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GobsPint: It's mostly about common sense. If there's nothing at the target about the redirect (the books), then it's somewhat misleading to somebody who is searching for them and hoping to find relevant information. To be clear, are you implying that I personally have some type of bias in this case? If you'd like to know more about how I came upon these redirects, it's based on my regular WP:NPP work, which is largely centered on redirects. Based on some quarry queries that I run, you had the highest number of unreviewed redirects and the target (Regnery Publishing) had the most unreviewed redirects by target in the queue. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not mentioned at the target. I don't think we want to start redirecting non-notable books to the articles about their publishers without a good reason – there are a lot of non-notable books out there. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned (and not an alternative name for the target article's subject) = not helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete the Donald the Caveman ones (Donald Drains the Swamp, Donald Builds the Wall, and Donald and the Fake News), which have been getting a surprisingly large number of pageviews in their short time of existence even if they're no longer mentioned at the target (but regardless they would still potentially mislead readers). Delete the rest, however—not only are they not mentioned, they also haven't been getting a very large number of pageviews since they were created. We don't want to mislead readers into thinking there's info about these books on the site when there isn't, and it's a huge amount of clutter to create tons of redirects from non-notable book titles. I second Mx. Granger's argument above mine. Regards, SONIC678 06:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will (sociology)

The word "will" does not even appear on the page, and it's not obvious what it's referring to. Batrachoseps (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Stadium

Appears to be ambiguous based on Category:Sports venues in Boston. The target is also a stadium located in Foxborough, Massachusetts, which is about 35 km southwest of Boston. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Stadium

Appears to be ambiguous based on Category:Sports venues in Toronto. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Stadium

Seems ambiguous to me based on Category:Sports venues in Dallas. The target is also in Arlington, Texas, not in Dallas. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PVTTIMHALL

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Deleted as a WP:CSD G7 request. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid, stupid mistake on my part. The abbreviation in question is PVTTIMHLL, which I have created. This is an incorrect acronym, because none of the amino acids that start with A are essential. Please speedy delete. TNstingray (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you could have tagged it as g7, which i did cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Gamma squeeze

Either delete the redir or fix the content of the redir target article. The Short squeeze article currently has no mention of "gamma" or "gamma squeeze" whatsoever. N2e (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quran Afghanistan

Very general term; this Quran doesn't come up in the entire first page of google results. I'm not seeing a primary topic here. Rusalkii (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise Quran in Afghanistan . 19:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusalkii (talk • contribs)
I've added that to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 11:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as classic WP:XY. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an XY situation at all, as the redirect only refers to a single topic. It may or may not be vague or ambiguous, but it isn't XY. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too ambiguous; there are probably hundreds of Qurans in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isometry (mathematics)

Since the primary topic Isometry is already a mathematical topic, I don't think this should be a redirect to the disambiguation page (which also seems to consist of a lot of WP:PTMs). (Note that there is also Isometry (mathematics) (disambiguation); not sure how much precedent there is for such redirects.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subcarpathian Polish Athletic Association

No mention at target. Only hit on google is MOSiR Stadium (Stalowa Wola). Cremastra (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Still no mention at the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N3rd

Probably ought to be a dab page as can conceivably refer to White N3rd of LuvBug or N3RD Street (which really ought to be at N3rd Street). Am I missing something? Launchballer 11:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i am not sure how this eneded up being a redirect from n3rd street, my bad! It should be it's own standalone musician page for N3rd (he changed his name from White N3rd and yes is a part of Luv Bug who have their own wiki page already) Tommonovisio (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi is it possible to assist me please, so that the N3rd page can exist but we fix the issue where it became a redirect? @Launchballer Tommonovisio (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Tommonovisio:. I can advise that I redirected N3rd back to LuvBug as none of its claims were backed up by reliable sources; after removing them, the article did not assert why he was important or significant. If you can provide sources to back up your claims, feel free to try again, but consider starting in draftspace (i.e. Draft:N3RD).--Launchballer 00:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks I will try to find references to verify the accolades/claims! Tricky thing is that he mostly writes tunes for other people which have had success, more so than his own releases.. Tommonovisio (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate? Or retarget to Nerd (disambiguation)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the dab per the ip editor. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a hatnote to LuvBug if you want. The street is pretty clearly primary here (since it actually has its own page), and there's only WP:ONEOTHER possible target, so this is the ideal setup. No one searching 'n3rd' specifically is going to be looking for any other extant uses of the term. A second hatnote to the dab page would probably be overkill, but still preferable to redirecting there outright. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, this is a little more complicated than I first realized...I missed some of the history and the repeated recreation/deletion of White N3rd. But I still think the street is primary here. And with only two possible targets, one primary, redirecting to the big dab page would be very unhelpful. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yonama dialect

No search hits on the target page or on Google. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The placename Yonama (与那間) in Tokunoshima actually exists, so it's probably an undocumented dialect that's only extracted by the existence of the toponym. If that's the case, it can be deleted.
My redirects were taken from a .xlsx spreadsheet concerning metadata of Ryukyuan dialects, which is located in the .zip below.
https://repository.ninjal.ac.jp/records/2000162 Chuterix (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtack for guitar hero world tour

This is the final one of the questionably plausibly misspelled "soundtrack" redirects I'll be listing here for now. This thing used to be a stub article about the soundtrack (the initial version of which can be found here) for seven minutes on July 28, 2008 until it was turned into a redirect for the relevant section of the game's article, then about a month and a half later it was taken to the present target. It also hasn't been getting very many pageviews nowadays, so I'm not really sure we need to keep it lying around. Regards, SONIC678 06:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the metaphor "lying around" doesn't apply. If you hadn't raised this TfD, this TfD would have got no views, no votes, taken no disk space. It's so much cheaper to leave things like this than to have a discussion about them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per WP:CHEAP and Rich Farmbrough; save for the lack of capitalization (which isn't necessarily an error, given this redir would also scoop up "Soundtack for Guitar Hero World Tour" requests), this redirect has only one error, being, the word 'soundtrack' is missing one letter. We really don't need to worry about this one. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rich and Lunamann (welcome back LM!) - a redirect should really only be deleted (in my view) if it's pointing to the wrong place or actively doing harm in some way - just being slightly non-standard or unpopular isn't enough justification for deleting a redirect, as they are cheap and could help someone. BugGhost🦗👻 13:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Le métro de Tony Hawk

Apparent mistranslation of the game name into French, possibly intended as a joke. The videogame is not about an underground in the sense of a subsurface rail network. The game was released with the English title in France, and the frwiki article uses the English title. Belbury (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Tony Hawk: Sous Sol / Tony Hawk: Souterrain / Tony Hawk: Rapid Transit / etc -- bad translations for Tony Hawk: Demimonde -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per WP:FORRED. This does get hits, but almost all of them appear to be shopping sites (ebay, amazon marketplace). That many (but not all) of them also use "cube de jeu" rather than GameCube (the fr wiki article is at fr:GameCube and doesn't include the phrase "cube de jeu") makes me think this is overenthusiastic automatic translation. [4] is different, in that it is a news article, but I think it's translating instragram comments so the same may apply. However, whether it is accurate or not, there is no particular affinity between this game and the French language so there is no benefit to a French language redirect on the English Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Even if it was a proper translation I don't see the relevance of a proper translation. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what's next, allowing Réseau Ferroviaire to be redirected to Network Rail or even Ferroviaire d'almagne to Deutsche Bahn, especially when both articles in French Wikipedia use the local untranslated names. (anyone may reply with the correct spellings as they are of the top of my head). JuniperChill (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ß-carotin

I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a redirect for ß (German Eszett) to β (Greek beta), which we have with ß-carotene (not part of this nomination), but that incorrect letter combined with these other misspellings are highly implausible. Delete all. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree on that idea. It's like "Pokemon"-- while Pokémon is clearly the correct spelling, plenty of English-speakers on the Internet will consistently spell it "Pokemon" due to not having easy access to the é character. (If I'm talking about ポケモン using Windows 10, spelling it with an e is one keystroke, spelling it with a é requires a two-key stroke to pull up a menu that I then need to scroll through to find the character. I ain't doin' that shit every single time I want to talk about Pokemon.)
Similarly, the people using the eszett character in place of the beta character likely have easier access to the eszett than the beta, presumably due to having a German keyboard. Such a replacement is not a mistake; it is a fully intentional replacement meant to save time typing the word. The same could easily be said for omitting the hyphen (as in ß carotene)-- do you really think a layman would think that the hyphen would be necessary to reach the intended page?
Stacking these intentional spelling replacements made to make typing easier, with misspellings, is, in some ways, more plausible than having the misspelling be on the original, as with β-carotin-- after all, to get the original beta character, you're probably copying the text from somewhere else, not typing it yourself. (Although I will point out that someone using a Greek keyboard would have easy access to β.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lunamann above, who makes a very convincing argument. The English wikipedia is not only for people using American QWERTY keyboards. Fieari (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lunamann, noting that linux users with English keyboards also have easier access to ß than β as the former is part of the default compose key sequence (compose+s+s) whereas the latter requires you to configure a "dead greek" compose key (something I've literally just learned about researching this) or add custom sequences (easy to do when you know how, but most people never have a need to add sequences so have no reason to learn; the only ones I can remember adding in over two decades of using linux are ↓ and ↑). Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lunamann, convincing argument. BugGhost🦗👻 13:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Srishti

Not mentioned at target (not now, and not when a hatnote was added). Looking at Special:PrefixIndex/Srishti, there's a name (Srishti Kaur, Srishti Rana, Srishti Jain), Srishti (film), Srishti Manipal Institute of Art, Design and Technology, and the partial title matches of Srishti Madurai and Srishtidnyan. Looking at the pageviews, I'm unsure whether the name is the primary topic, or if there's no primary topic; I think it might depend on whether the other uses are all derived from the name. It would also help if I had any idea why it was redirected to Hindu units of time; I'll ping Vinay Jha in case they remember. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Jungers

Not mentioned at target. (As below, Redirects from people seem a little more urgent than most Redirects to an article without mention.) jlwoodwa (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for other mentions on Wikipedia: the set index article Jungers says she's a woman associated with Tiger Woods, and she's described tangentially as one of Tiger Woods' alleged mistresses at Be-Shure § Notes and Dog's Most Wanted § ep6. Be-Shure only cites TV guides for that claim, and the other is uncited. Since there's no good target elsewhere, I think the redirect should be deleted unless a WP:BLP-satisfying mention is added to Tiger Woods. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mindy Lawton

Not mentioned at target. (Normally I just tag these as {{r without mention}}, but I think Redirects from people are a little more urgent.) jlwoodwa (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention elsewhere on Wikipedia either. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grood

Not mentioned at target. Used in various meanings across the English Wikipedia, but apart from "Dr. Grood" at The Lost Planet (serial) and Matthew de Grood, these appear to be passing mentions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete to make up for search results. no fitting targets as of now cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kerrek

Not mentioned at target. There is The Carracks, as well as multiple mentions at Critical Role campaign one. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asplode

Not mentioned at target, but there is a Wiktionary entry at wikt:asplode (which does also mention the full phrase in the quotes). 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retarget asplode to wikt:asplode, delete the other two, don't explode any heads cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 23:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should all three be retargeted or just the first one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KGVC (FM)

Not mentioned at target, highly implausible search term given parenthetical disambiguation. AusLondonder (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment KGVC appears to be another station owned by Radio Free Palmer. It's even mentioned on their website. The FCC site (link 1) states that the radio station is currently silent, and List of radio stations in Alaska lists it as "defunct." I'm torn between deleting to create an article or redlink or simply adding a mention. There's also KGVC-LP, which I guess could theoretically be an alternate target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment the disambiguator is highly plausible for sequences of four letters starting with W or K as many articles about US radio stations are titled this way. As for this series of letters, it's complicated: This was previously the call sign of a radio station in Alaska, that is now defunct (according to KGVC and List of radio stations in Alaska). KVRF (AKA Big Cabbage Radio) was the parent of and/or is the successor to that station and/or now uses that call sign (different hits on google). Complicating matters is that KGVC-LP was also an FM radio station. Ideally I think this would redirect to the KGVC dab page as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} but unless content is added about the former station in Alaska that is just a single-entry dab page, with no other notable uses found by google (it's not an airport, the post-nominals are actually two separate ones: Knight Companion of the Order of the Garter (KG) and Victoria Cross (VC)). While the low-power (LP) station is the only one we have content about, it's the one with the lowest claim to primary topic status based on Google hits. Confusing me even further for a while was Google including hits for KVGC, a radio station in California, in all my search terms. I'll drop a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the Alaska station FID 198603 existed, it nominally was the primary topic, though it never merited an independent article and would have been a redirect to KVRF. The station operated for less than seven years on this license and was functionally replaced by a new facility, KVRK FID 765583 , though Radio Free Palmer at one point intended to move KGVC out to complement its coverage area. (KGVC was shuttered because its tower site was reused for KVRK.) I recommend deleting this redirect, redirecting KGVC to KGVC-LP, and adding a hatnote: "KGVC redirects here. For 91.5 MHz in Glacier View, Alaska (2015–2022), see KVRF." (That article needs adjusting to even mention KVRK.) I also recommend redirecting KVRK to KVRF and instituting this hatnote there: "KVRK redirects here. For 89.7 MHz in Sanger, Texas (2004–2015), see KAWA (FM)." We need in this field to make more use of hatnotes to substitute TWODABS that nobody truly needs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a good solution. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Takoma

Though this redirect is mentioned in the target article, I believe this redirect would be better targeting a non-fictional target: retarget to North Takoma station or weak retarget to North Tacoma, Tacoma, Washington. Otherwise, disambiguation may be necessary. Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate as no primary topic – North Takoma station is an acceptable partial title match, and I don't think a briefly-mentioned fictional place is likely to be primary over a real station with its own article. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Methodist High School

This redirect was created by moving Methodist High School, Kanpur away from the title, but I really don't think the primary topic of "Methodist High School" is this one particular Methodist high school. (One could argue that it's WP:DIFFCAPS, but I'm not sure.) The best target I can find for the general concept of Methodist high schools is Christian school § Methodist, but it's a very short section that doesn't mention high schools in particular. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to DAB page - looks like there's a lot of schools that have similar names with articles, and the Kanpur school is not the primary topic here. BugGhost🦗👻 13:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Studios

"Universal Studios" is typically used to refer to either Universal Pictures, the film studio (as a nickname/former name), or the various theme parks around the globe named "Universal Studios" that are operated by Universal Destinations & Experiences. The parent company of both divisions is also named Universal Studios, Inc., which is where universalstudios.com points to (versus universalpictures.com and universaldestinationsandexperiences.com). Universal Studios currently redirects to Universal Studios, Inc., making it an unnecessary disambiguation, but a recent RM ended with no consensus for a move. Previously, the redirect pointed to Universal Pictures. I'm not convinced a primary topic can be determined here, given the two- or three-way split, so I would call for turning this redirect into a disambiguation page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best case I can present here is that the number of monthly pageviews Universal Pictures receives dwarfs every other Wikipedia article covering some aspect of the company. Outside of Wikipedia, it's much of the same. When you visit the main company's website, the film IP is front and center. When you visit their theme parks, film is front and center there too. Marketing? Yep, still front and center. The entire company revolves around (and depends on) it's film intellectual property, despite having a presence in other areas. Clearly, "Universal Studios" is a term that is most closely associated with the motion picture division of the company. The only other real competition here is Universal Destinations & Experiences, but per WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate, we simply place that in a hatnote like it is currently at Universal Pictures. If someone really feels a disambig page is necessary, we can add that to the hatnote as well. Simple.
BTW, even if the result is no consensus, the redirect should revert back to its former target, Universal Pictures. There doesn't appear to be consensus for that change either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll preface this by saying that consensus is presumed unless reverted, so we do have four months worth of implicit consensus for Universal Studios' current target, and many years worth of implicit consensus for Universal Pictures' current title.
Now, let me present a counterargument. If you look up "Universal Studios" on any search engine, depending on where you are located, you'll most likely see results for the theme park closest to you. For me, it's Universal Studios Hollywood, but you might get Universal Studios Florida, Universal Studios Japan, Universal Studios Singapore, or Universal Studios Beijing. What you likely will not see is Universal Pictures, the film studio, because the word "Studios" does not appear anywhere in the name "Universal Pictures"; it's simply being used as a shorthand or nickname. If you look at sources that discuss the film studio and theme parks, most use "Universal Pictures" to refer to the studio and "Universal Studios _____" to refer to the parks. I don't dispute the fact that Universal Pictures is more notable/important/popular than Universal Studios (the theme parks), but what's the evidence that readers are likely looking for Universal Pictures (a non-title match) rather than the many other pages whose title contains "Universal Studios" when they search the latter term? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"consensus is presumed unless reverted" – I know you know I'm a longtime editor (15 years in fact), so you don't need to explain implicit consensus to me, probably just like I don't need to explain to you that it's also the weakest form of consensus that only exists UNTIL "disputed or reverted" (either qualifies). It should be clear I've disputed it, but even if that escaped your attention, did you already forget about this revert by Intrisit? Or how about this revert by 162 etc.? Perhaps I should also take a moment to point out that STATUSQUO is just an essay with zero bite, since you've used it as justification in one of those reverts.
"we do have four months worth...for Universal Studios' current target", "many years...for Universal Pictures current title" – Really? Prior to May, we had 7 years for Universal Studios → Universal Pictures! You can't see this in the immediate history, because the redirect was overwritten in December 2023 by a page move, but it had been like that for years following the 2017 technical move I linked above. 4 months doesn't hold a candle to 7 years, but regardless of the comparison here, presumed consensus is non-existent at this point. It's the same deal regarding the "Universal Pictures" article title. The article was previously titled "Universal Studios" for nearly 14 years, nearly double the amount of time it has been titled "Universal Pictures". Arguing in favor of recent presumed consensus while conveniently ignoring the previous presumed consensus that existed for a greater length of time doesn't make any sense. Your "preface" didn't do your counterargument any favors.
"If you look up "Universal Studios" on any search engine..." – I think it's time you move away from this notion of relying on a basic web search for the premise of your argument. You did this in the previous discussion, and I showed back then (as I'll do now) that these are misleading arguments to bring to the table without proper context. The problem with using Google in the manner you are doing so now is that the "top hits" are tailored to advertising. SEO marketers exploit weaknesses in Google's search algorithms, such as PageRank, to game the system and push to the top of search result rankings. The problem continues to get worse each year, despite improvements made by Google and competing search engines. What you are witnessing in the results is bias; a bias toward marketing/selling/advertising. A better test would be to use Google Books, search on "Universal Studios" in quotes, and then on the results page, refine the results by using the dropdown "Any document" and selecting "Books" only (IMO, the other formats are more likely to cover travel and leisure in the form of advertising, skewing the results). Now what you'll find is that the first page is 4 hits movie studio, 6 theme park. There are some Econoguide and other travel-type publication hits on the next couple pages that favor theme parks, but from page 4 through page 10, the hits are predominantly the movie studio, and by a wide margin. I didn't spend time digging beyond that, but feel free, as this is a more reliable result that holds more weight. Do you find that interesting? I certainly did.
In any case, this may not be the so-called evidence required, and a disambig page is still an acceptable alternative, but let's not pretend that the recent change to the redirect back in May has any kind of standing consensus. Should this discussion end in no consensus, you can bet I'll be reverting that change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize implicit consensus is a weak form of consensus; I was addressing your previous statement that there was "no consensus" for the redirect's current target and Universal Pictures' article title — this is not accurate, although there may be stronger consensus for an alternative.
14 years and Google Books are because Universal Pictures used to be known as Universal Studios, not because Universal Studios is currently the common name for Universal Pictures. My search engine example was an effort to put ourselves in readers' shoes and surface what they are most likely looking for. As I noted in the RM, I agree it's not perfect, but it still shouldn't be entirely discarded. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there was "no consensus" for the redirect's current target...this is not accurate" – My statement is entirely accurate, and either you don't seem to fully understand the concept, or you have misinterpreted my statement. Presumed consensus did exist from the time the redirect was changed in May up until the time the recent RM discussion was underway. But it disappeared, poof, vanished, during that discussion as soon as it became obvious that editors disputed the May redirect change. This is why presumed consensus is not worth spending so much time dwelling over or using as a basis for an argument; it is extremely weak. Consensus through editing is no longer presumed when disagreement becomes apparent. As for Universal Pictures, I assume you're referring to the "undiscussed" move comment I made about never getting the discussion it deserved, but I never mention "consensus". You may want to start using quotes to make sure you're getting it right.
"Universal Pictures used to be known as Universal Studios" – I am not following this logic at all in how this relates to 14 years on Wikipedia. Are you trying to draw a correlation between the two that is factual, or just sharing an opinion? Google Books is something concrete we can look at and take into consideration. You're welcome to contribute something as well. The web search, however, is the opposite: flawed and uninformative.
There is also another angle to consider that I pointed out in the RM discussion (which BTW you seem to be avoiding). The pageviews count (1) at Universal Studios, Inc. shot up drastically following the redirect change, which comes as no surprise since we all pretty much agree the redirect change was the wrong move. This is just more supporting evidence of that. It's worth seeing that first and then comparing the pageviews count (2) at the former target, Universal Pictures, you'll notice the 8k+ dropoff that could have happened didn't really happen. A little fluctuation, but not much. The article's traffic essentially holds steady. This implies that Universal Pictures was likely to get that traffic regardless. Kind of an important aspect to consider as well in addition to Google Books and the other points made. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how accurate this is, but according to Universal Pictures' infobox, it was formerly named Universal Studios, so I assumed this is why the Wikipedia article was only moved in 2017 and why some Google Books results use "Universal Studios". If the infobox is wrong, please correct me. Yes, I was referring to your comment on the "undiscussed technical move" of Universal Pictures, and perhaps I shouldn't have paraphrased that as "no consensus", but it seems you were implying that the undiscussed technical move indicates an absence of consensus for the current title.
Regarding the pageviews argument, I no longer claim that Universal Studios, Inc. is the primary topic for "Universal Studios", so I don't contest that Universal Studios should not point to Universal Studios, Inc. I am calling for it to be disambiguated because I don't think Universal Pictures is more "primary" than Universal Studios Hollywood, Universal Studios Florida, et al.
Interestingly, my Google Books results look different than yours. My first page yielded similar results, but pages 4–10 actually had mainly results for the theme parks. Perhaps more telling is that most results for the film studio pertain to the studio's "classic films" (typically the monster movies), i.e. when the studio was (presumably) named Universal Studios. These results were more or less identical when signed out in an incognito tab, so I'm not sure why you got such drastically different results. In any case, while I still don't think we should discard "regular" search entirely (this is how most of our readers navigate the web, not through Google Books or Google Scholar), I took a look at Google Scholar, and the results are similar to Google Books: 5 about the theme parks, 1 about the parent company (hmm, interesting), 3 about the film studio, and somehow the Masterminds production notes ended up on the first page. Second page onward are predominantly about the theme parks, with some monster movies sprinkled in. Google News is virtually all about the theme parks. Are you getting similar results? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"it seems you were implying that the undiscussed technical move indicates..." – Nope, simply saying it didn't get the discussion it deserved, full stop. In that discussion, we would have found out if it had consensus. I'm not claiming to know what the outcome would have definitely been.
"I don't know how accurate this is, but ... it was formerly named Universal Studios" – Company infoboxes, especially when they're collapsed like that, rarely get the attention they need to be accurate. This one has an entry for 1996–2014 that is conflating the company with the motion picture division (you can read this in the body), which actually demonstrates the point I'm trying to make! "Universal Studios" is often used interchangeably to refer to "Universal Pictures". People often do this. Books often do this. Editors on Wikipedia apparently do this (thanks for the example). Just another real-world example of why it's harmless for the redirect to point here.
You're missing the point about the the pageviews data. I already acknowledged we all agree about the parent company. This is what you need to focus on. More than 8,000 monthly hits at that redirect (people navigating to "Universal Studios") were taken away from Universal Pictures, yet this went nearly undetected in the average monthly views on that page. The traffic there essentially stays the same. I don't think we can ignore something like that.
"...when the studio was (presumably) named Universal Studios" – So here's what's going to happen. I'm going to explain this, and you are going to move onto the next perceived flaw you can find and see what you can expose. But nevertheless, the company originally opened as Universal City Studios in 1915. Its film division has always to some extent been known as Universal Pictures (there may have been a "Company" tacked on at one point in the mid 20th century). But what you'll notice is that there are books, newspapers, and magazines published from the 1920s all the way through the 2010s that still state "Universal Studios" when casually referring to either the company or the film studio. Interestingly, even from the very beginning, they preferred to drop "City" from the name in publications. Also, it didn't seem too important to distinguish "Universal Pictures" from the main company name. Seems they were always viewed predominantly as one and the same.
That's my personal understanding based on how the terms are interchangeably tossed around in sources. Only in official business relations or documents (or on screen) is extra care seem to be given to "Universal Pictures", which doesn't make it the common name, nor does it necessarily make it a good article title. As for your Google Books results being different than mine, I'll re-run it and post a list of my results. I don't see why those would be different unless we are running the search differently. Google Scholar is fine, but I think Google News suffers from some of the same bias and should be discounted. It's not a good test for this particular topic/debate. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's say Universal Pictures is often referred to as "Universal Studios" by academic sources (I take issue with this assertion and ignoring other types of sources, but I'm just going to WP:LETITGO and move on at this point). For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the studio is just as common as using "Universal Pictures", which is the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures and therefore recognizable to most readers. But how does this show that the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the film studio is substantially more common than the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the theme parks of the same name? The pageviews argument is interesting, but I think we have convincing evidence that it is also very common to use "Universal Studios" to refer to ... well, Universal Studios. If the parks weren't named "Universal Studios", that would be a different story. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back after stepping away for off-wiki commitments. At this point, the lack of participation from new editors (aside from 2pou) indicates this debate has run its course. I'm actually surprised it's still open, but I will close with this...
Your observation "the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures" relies on non-independent, primary sources. I'm sure you're aware from other discussions that when COMMONNAME is invoked, we seek out prevalence in independent sources. We wouldn't treat a primary topic redirect any differently.
The pageviews argument is just one of several angles given, along with Google Books (despite our experiences diverging in this RfD, which may need further exploration down the road). Then there's the WikiNav data explored below illustrating that guests searching for "Universal Studios" are not immediately jumping to theme park articles as you would expect after landing in the wrong article. The hatnote is right there at the top, front and center, and this might be the most convincing data to date (though you may find a reason to doubt it as well if you are beyond convincing, but if that's the case, why bother debating?). Redirecting to a disambig page isn't the end of the world. Not terrible, not great, not really optimal, but fine for now. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also back after a few days of absence. The portion of my quote you left out is important: the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures and therefore recognizable to most readers (emphasis added). I brought this up because anyone who has seen a Universal picture in the last few decades will likely remember reading "Universal Pictures presents" in front of every film. They won't recall hearing "Universal Studios" anywhere other than (possibly) common parlance or the theme parks ("We're going to Universal Studios!"). This is not advocating for simply adhering to the WP:OFFICIALNAME, I'm making the case that it is the common name precisely because general audiences are so widely exposed to use of the official name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - This seems to have clear WP:X or Y (or Z or XX or XY or XZ or YX or YY...) problems. Using the traffic to determine a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT in this case seems flawed. Traffic is going to be driven up because nearly every film from Universal will be linking there as the distributor, skewing the traffic data. You can actually see this as 60% of arrivals to Universal Pictures is coming from other articles (as opposed to search, other namespaces, external, etc.). I wish the WikiNav clickstream worked for Universal Studios, but I think it does not because it is a redirect. Despite the hatnote, people do not get funneled to the Destinations & Experiences page... likely because people arrive via other articles, and they aren't actually searching for one of the Universal Studios parks in those cases. There are just too many options, so a dab page seems to be the most logical solution.
    Link to WikiNav clickstream data discussed. -2pou (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Just a preemptive apology to the closer for continuing this very long RfD. The following points need to be made, despite that this round of debate appears to be headed to disambiguation (an acceptable option).
2pou: Glad you jumped in and brought up WikiNav. That's where I was going next before getting sucked into off-Wiki commitments. First, I should clarify that I wasn't arguing that Universal Pictures depended solely on traffic from the redirect. This page gets over 100k monthly views, and the redirect is only responsible for approx 6-7k views. My point was that in the 4-month period following the redirect change, its monthly view count remained fairly steady. There was some fluctuation, but not enough to match what the redirect consistently brought to the table. Is it possible that incoming traffic from other sources saw an uptick during the same timeframe? Sure, it's possible, but it's also unlikely.
So getting back to WikiNav data... You were on the right track, except we should be evaluating the redirect target "Universal Studios, Inc.", which is where people land when searching for "Universal Studios". This is a point of interest, because in earlier discussion we've concluded that "Universal Studios, Inc." fails as the primary topic. We'd like to get a glimpse of where outgoing traffic is headed. In theory, there should be a significant number landing there unexpectedly, leading to some portion of outgoing pageviews headed toward other "Universal Studios" articles. So what does the WikiNav data reveal? Universal Pictures is the #2 hit with 1,520 targets, and none of the theme park articles are in the top 10...Wow! In fact, you have to expand the top 20 just to see one, where you'll also see a partial title match named "Universal Animation Studios" ranked at #12 (151 targets). "Universal Studios Hollywood" sits at #17 (62 targets), and "Universal Studios Florida" sits at #19 (56 targets). They're barely a blip on the radar in comparison. The page gets a total of 14k monthly views, which as we discussed above owes a big chunk to the redirect (6k+ redirected hits per month) that changed in May. These two sets of numbers can help us draw a pretty reliable conclusion.
Even more interesting to me is that the very first link in the article appears in the hatnote which reads, "For the theme parks, see Universal Destinations & Experiences", yet it doesn't even register in the top 20 for outgoing traffic! For all this talk about the theme parks being one of the intended targets for those searching "Universal Studios", that doesn't appear to hold any weight whatsoever according to the WikiNav outgoing data. Something should be registering out of thousands of redirects, but we aren't seeing anything. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC) (updated 16:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
@GoneIn60: Sorry; I didn't mean to suggest you were relying solely on traffic. I understood that, I just wanted to make sure we don't just look at the number it spits out without considering those factors because it was going to be a very high number regardless. I did look at the Universal Studios, Inc. clickstream, and I, too, found it interesting that it didn't funnel people to any parks. I was discussing the Universal Pictures info because I was looking closer at the long-term history before the redirect was retargeted. While I think the data for Universal Studios, Inc. was interesting, I'm seeing that the data is a bit older. It says the data was dumped in August 2024, so it hasn't actually captured the incoming/outgoing traffic since the retargeting on September 10. Overall, I do lean towards disambiguation due to the sheer number of options, but I do agree that if it were to remain a redirect, Universal Pictures is the better option. Several articles for older films, actors, actresses, directors, etc. link there intending the (now) Universal Pictures page. (Yes, that can be resolved via clerical edits...)
I didn't realize until now that Universal Studios, Inc. was only "created" (via a split and move of sorts by HeroWikia - legacy company still captured at MCA_Inc.) in April this year. -2pou (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2pou, unless I'm missing something, this all goes back to the redirect change made in May by MinionsFan1998. So the data in August 2024 would be a valid date range to assess.
As for a disambiguation page, I don't disagree there needs to be one. However, I disagree the title of it needs to be "Universal Studios"; instead it should be Universal Studios (disambiguation). We can link to it in a hatnote at Universal Pictures, a common practice described at WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate (and also something I mentioned in my original !vote). Then restore the redirect to its original target (Universal Pictures) based on the evidence provided. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right. I didn't go back through the history far enough when I saw the 10Sep retarget. Thanks for pointing that out.
I don't have super strong feelings about where the dab page goes, but I do have doubts in having Universal Studios, Inc. as the target. -2pou (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I'm with you about the current target. It's the least qualified for sure. My concern with having the redirect go to a DAB page right off the bat, is that there will be quite a bit of work needed to resolve the issues it creates. There appears to be 3,862 Wikilinks from articles using the redirect, and when you look at a lot of those links, they were created with the intention of directing readers to Universal Pictures.
Here's one random example I checked from the list...Piper Laurie. Just read the opening of the Career section and this source (the latter of which was inserted by one of our great copyeditors who sadly is no longer with us). "Universal Studios" is being used in the context of the film studio. We could potentially see many hundreds, if not thousands of these links now land on a DAB page unnecessarily.
We are left with three options:
  1. Keep as is – Worst one. Universal Studios, Inc. is essentially the history of "Music Corporation of America", how it came to be, its 1962 buyout of Universal, and everything post-buyout. Many who land here will be confused, as they expect to be reading about Universal's history.
  2. Retarget to DAB – Better, but far from perfect. Retargeting here will essentially break a lot of these older links that were meant for "Universal Pictures", forcing readers to make an extra hop (and to choose correctly). It will also create the most work moving forward to manually update and correct these links down the road.
  3. Restore original target → Universal Pictures – Best by far given the # of Wikilinks, along with WikiNAV data on the topic phrase "Universal Studios". In addition, we have some loose off-Wiki data from Google Books that seems to support long-term significance in favor of the film studio (theme parks compete but do not overtake the film studio in this space).
Knowing what you know now, 2pou, are you still split between options 2 and 3, or do you have a preference between them? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoneIn60: The "Retargeting [to the disambiguation page] will essentially break a lot of these older links that were meant for "Universal Pictures", forcing readers to make an extra hop (and to choose correctly)" will not be a concern if this redirect is disambiguated, considering an internal Wikipedia project page, WP:DPL, encourages editors to disambiguate links that link to or point to disambiguation pages, and there are several editors who work on this. Seriously, if there is one aspect of Wikipedia I have seen consistent over the past 10+ years, other than article creation, it is the plethora of editors ready to disambiguate links. Steel1943 (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even more interesting to me is that the very first link in the article appears in the hatnote which reads, "For the theme parks, see Universal Destinations & Experiences", yet it doesn't even register in the top 20 for outgoing traffic! The hatnotes (on both Universal Studios, Inc. and Universal Pictures) are new and were added by me on the day I opened the RM that preceded this one. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
InfiniteNexus, thanks for pointing that out. I did not catch that in the history. Looks like you added the hatnote on August 31, and I like how you placed both options in there (the main theme parks article and the film studio article). Hopefully we'll get a chance to see WikiNav update soon to show September's data. Its clickstream data dump usually drops in the first few days of the following month, and from what I gather, this is usually processed and displayed about a week later on the 12th. We'll know shortly if the theme park company link in the hatnote became a factor in September.
It's also worth noting a few things. Using the "Search" box to jump to your next destination will still be tracked by WikiNav in outgoing traffic. Even without the hatnote, WikiNav would have still been capturing searches from that page. So for Universal theme park seekers getting their searches right on the 2nd try   (by being more specific), we would have seen that in the August data. So I'm a bit skeptical we'll see a huge difference, but we'll see. In addition, the version of the article heading into August did contain Universal theme park links in the Takeover section as well as in the navbox at the bottom. To be fair, "Universal Pictures" was more prominent, appearing one section earlier and also in the infobox. GoneIn60 (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MrBro

Not mentioned at target; only a passing mention exists at Karl Jacobs. (Also, I'm not sure what exactly Cewbot's edits to the redirect were "fixing", but the page has been "reminded" twice of a broken anchor.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Awantipora

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Awantipora needs an individual article, like other branches of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, for example; All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Vijaypur, Jammu Inu06 (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diffusion semigroup

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Year of Science

This is not the only "Year of Science" in existence, and such an WP:XNR can be confusing. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BARTENDER this, rather than relist. Disambig seems correct, IMO, I'm not sure we've come up with enough examples to make a full list. Keeping it here is a no-go. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Alston

The target article mentions John Alston a single time, with no further information on Alston as a subject beyond his being an early colonist of Victoria. John Alston could conceivably be turned into its own page, or if not sufficiently notable, given a full section on tactile alphabet. That section could make mention of his being an early Victorian colonist. I propose deletion of the redirect altogether. While retargeting it to tactile alphabet would be better than the current target (especially if given his own section), as is, it wouldn't necessarily be better than the current redirect. Notably, of a random sampling of the colonists listed on The Explorers and Early Colonists of Victoria, I didn't find others that redirected there (or at all); there's no indication why John Alston has special treatment here. In favour of changing the redirect: Alston is one of 713 colonists in the photograph, whereas he is one of 9 names mentioned in the list of tactile alphabets based on roman letters. At least in terms of proportion, he seems more notable as a tactile alphabet inventor than as an early colonist of Victoria. Sarayourfriend (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reading other discussions about redirects (my first time delving into this part of Wikipedia), I think what I've touched on above is WP:XY and it's best to just delete the redirect. Whether Alston is more notable as a tactile alphabet creator or for his presence in the Early Colonists of Victoria photograph is ambiguous, retargeting the redirect is meaningless if neither page goes into more than a single detail about him regardless. Sarayourfriend (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a stub for less than an hour before being BLARed by a user other than the creator to the target on the basis of WP:1E. It might be worth restoring that article without prejudice to AfD given that the nominator has raised the possibility of this person being notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_9&oldid=1250588557"