This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 19, 2020.
Ernie Newton (bass plyer)
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.
We all may have plyed played the bass or been a champion basketball playe player in our lives, but I'm not sure we need these two redirects, especially since they're questionably plausible misspellings (although I can see someone forgetting to press the A and/or R key, and "
ply" is used as a verb-meaning different things-and "playe" an obsolete spelling of "play"), and they don't seem to get a lot of pageviews these days. Regards,
SONIC67823:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
We don't need to keep
Ernie Newton (bass plyer) as I only had the page at this wrong name for 19 minutes due to a typo in the move. I usually leave these errors (move to error, move to correct) lying around for a while so that double redirects can be followed or fixed.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
00:10, 20 April 2020 (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.
Federacion uruguaya de basketall
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 Spanish name is definitely a plausible search term, but I don't know about it with "basketall"...the correctly spelled "basketball" will appear in the search bar in most cases if the user types in this word. Regards,
SONIC67823:35, 19 April 2020 (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.
Trumpdemic
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.
A hashtag that doesn't seem to have been picked up in reliable sources yet. It's in some degree of usage, but not in sources that would be consider reliable - use on Reddit doesn't mean we need to create a redirect for this.
Hog Farm (
talk)
23:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete both - These appear to be political neologisms with no purpose other than to attack. I agree. They shouldn't be kept. We do indeed sometimes accept non-neutral redirects, but they have to be helpful and these really aren't.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
20:20, 22 April 2020 (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.
Driving in canada
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.
Surgical Strike India 2016
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.
Weak keep - While this is an odd redirect, it still takes the reader to the exact right page for the topic. I don't see particular harm in keeping this.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
13:11, 13 April 2020 (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 to
Hluk#Niob. Very, very weak consensus for this option, but since no one voted for Keep this seems preferable to a no consensus close. signed, Rosguilltalk02:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Could conceivably be a misspelling of
Niobe instead of niobium, or a
WP:FORRED from the German name for the element. I'd recommend a weak retarget there if this misspelling seems reasonable, or otherwise deletion.
ComplexRational (
talk)
18:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Very weak delete; I don't think Niob is that too common a misspelling of Niobe.
This seems a slightly better place to land the reader. — J947(
user |
cont |
ess), at
19:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget - This should go to '
Hluk#Niob'. The business appears notable, but I'm not sure about expanding that article given the language barrier (perhaps Czech users could be contacted here somehow). I don't support deletion in any case.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
11:01, 11 April 2020 (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.
Dangerous global warming
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 existing redirect for first two only and replace, per nom. However, I think the last two are fine to be redirected to the conference, as the titles are very similar, and a link to
Climate change mitigation is already at the top of the article on the conference. That said, perhaps the wording of that notice could be changed to "Dangerous climate change" redirects here. For the concept of avoiding climate change, see
Climate change mitigation.?
Domeditrix (
talk)
11:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget the first and second to
Global warming, and keep the third and fourth. For the first and second redirects, the word "dangerous" does not imply to me that the target should concern "mitigation". I agree with Domeditrix that the third and fourth redirects are similar enough to the existing target. --
Bsherr (
talk)
19:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete the first two, for sure. @
Shhhnotsoloud,
Domeditrix,
CoffeeWithMarkets, and
Bsherr: For the latter two I have started an RM at
Talk:Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (2005 conference)#Requested move 15 April 2020; your participation is highly appreciated. Please note that the keeping the current situation on the fourth one is not permissible, as a primary redirect to a parenthetically disambiguated version of itself. The possible options are: 1) move the conference to 4 and redirect 3 to 4 (my preferred option); 2) move the conference to 4 and redirect 3 to
Climate change mitigation (or similar) per
WP:SMALLDETAILS; or 3) don't move the conference and redirect 3 and 4 to
Climate change mitigation (or similar). Personally I would have !voted to delete all four redirects if this conference didn't exist on the grounds that they are unlikely search terms for a general climate change-related article. --
King of♥♦♣ ♠
02:46, 19 April 2020 (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.
Already released "upcoming" redirects
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.
Another bundle of "upcoming" redirects for movies that have already been released...why would they still be "upcoming?" Regards,
SONIC67820:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all (and to any other such redirects bundled with this nomination after this comment) per nom. Also,
Sonic678, just a heads up on nominations like these: You will want to check for incoming links for such redirects and bypass them to avoid broken links in articles. Luckily, this time,
there was only one, but just a heads up.
Steel1943 (
talk)
22:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Basically, you should have used *: in the original instance. A good rule of thumb is to copy the indentation of the person you're replying to and then add * or :. — J947(
user |
cont |
ess), at
00:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Regardless of how many views they get, if a film is not upcoming a title "Foo (upcoming)" in not only incorrect factually but also possibly misleading. There should be a special place in wikihell for editors who create Foo (film) without deleting Foo (upcoming film).
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
11:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete most of them. "Hobbs and Shaw" has a sequel in preproduction, so could target the sequel sectoin. The others are just misleading, especially "Emma", as a new film seems to be in pre-production all the time, due to it being an Austen novel. --
65.94.170.207 (
talk)
16:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment – Barely anyone is going to search these up – and if they do, they'll get to the place they want to go anyway. Are people seriously opining that we should
severely inconvienienceover 1,000 readers a month to save partial confusion for the extremely occasional person who searches this up. The pageviews for one of these redirects are literally more than twice as much as the
Parliament of New Zealand gets. Precedent should not be considered a significant enough rationale in this scenario. — J947[cont]23:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:WP:INVOLVED relist to close oldest (as of this comment) log day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk)
18:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
No, of course I can't. I'm just saying that people are referring to precedent, and a better thing to refer to is what will gained by deleting the redirect. — J947[cont]01:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Except the whole point is that the many, many good statements of what will be gained for deleteing thse have already been spelled out in the many prior discussions for identical redirects, as would be clear from a read of any of the discussions at the links helpfully provided by LaundryPizza03.
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
01:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The points raised in the previous discussions are that the redirects are "inaccurate" and "useless". As I have demonstrated above, the redirects are not useless due to the high presence of old links, and that their inaccuracy does not matter due to the very low number of readers who search this term up. Over many discussions, I have still yet to see a rebuttal to this. — J947[cont]03:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all - I know that there's a whole big debate here, but I still think that these are inappropriate. Yes, editorial consensus can change, but I don't see a really compelling reason to try and do that. Being perhaps slightly helpful doesn't change the fact that these are misleading.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
16:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all. Factually incorrect, misleading, and a potential waste of editorial time. Should
WP:RS sources say that a new film is planned under any such title, a new article will be needed. The way to show that is by having a redlink not a confusing bluelink pointing to the wrong place which a puzzled editor will have to check out.
Narky Blert (
talk)
06:54, 21 April 2020 (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.
World Café
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose disambiguation page (Keep redirect): "World Café" is not a proper spelling of the radio program World Cafe (
https://worldcafe.npr.org). The conversational method, on the other hand, is widely referred to by both capitalized forms "World Café" and "World Cafe" on the web. (For that reason "World Cafe" would be the better disambiguation page, not "World Café", but I would oppose any disambiguation page for reasons given below.) The definitive book on the conversational method, The World Café: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter, uses the capitalized form "World Café". The Wikipedia article on the conversational method follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style and does not capitalize the term because it is not a proper noun—but most readers would be familiar with the capitalized form outside of Wikipedia, therefore the redirect from "World Café" to "World café" is entirely appropriate. The existing hatnote at the top of each article is sufficient to guide whatever very low number of readers happens to land on the wrong article. A disambiguation page would add an unnecessary layer of decision-making and clicking for too many readers. This a situation where any few mislinks that pop up just have to be corrected manually when they are noticed. There are currently no mislinks to either article.
Biogeographist (
talk)
15:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Café and Cafe both redirect to
Coffeehouse. To say that either is a misspelling of the other is kind of ridiculous. The distinction is not meaningful. If "World Café" is entirely appropriate then calling it a miscapitalization is inappropriate; hence I made
this edit. But, as I found the eight links to the radio program listed on
Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations de-flagging them as miscapitalizations removes them from that maintenance list without fixing the mislinks, and leaves the door open to creation of more undetected mislinks in the future. Making this a disambiguation replaces /Linked miscapitalizations with
WP:Disambiguation pages with links as the mechanism for resolving this problem. Without that there is no way for gnomes to "notice" the mislinks. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
17:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Now I see that your goal is to have relevant mislinks show up at
WP:Disambiguation pages with links. But there are some other things you are not considering. First, your example of café/cafe/
coffeehouse is irrelevant because they all refer to the same common noun, the same class of things. In contrast, the name of the radio show World Cafe is a proper noun; it can be misspelled, and it is not the same thing as the conversational method. Second, if you want to catch mislinks you will need both "World Café" and "World Cafe" to show up, because the mislinks can go either direction. Does a redirect to a disambiguation page also show up at
WP:Disambiguation pages with links? If so, then: Third, the better disambiguation page would be "World Cafe", because, as I said above, "World Café" and "World Cafe" are both used (even by experts on the subject) to refer to the conversational method, but "World Café" is never correctly used to refer to the radio show. So it would be better to move the current article
World Cafe about the radio show to something like
World Cafe (radio show), replace
World Cafe with a disambiguation page that says "World Cafe may refer to:", and redirect
World Café to the new disambiguation page at
World Cafe. This would not be perfect, but it would be the better way to reach your goal.
Biogeographist (
talk)
17:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)reply
At 01:18, 8 January 2015
Fbell74 moved page The World Café to World Café (conversational process) (This title is slightly incorrect. It refers to a conversational process known as World Cafe rather than The World Cafe. while the other refers to a radio program. These changes will help to clarify)
At 00:47, 30 October 2017
SMcCandlish moved page World Café to
World café over redirect: Per MOS:CAPS (this is not a proper name, but a general concept)
The previous article moves listed above do not seem to have considered the current goal: to have relevant mislinks show up at
WP:Disambiguation pages with links. So rearranging the articles seems justified given the new consideration. How does this sound:
Move
World café to
World café (conversation): This would match the title of the somewhat similar subject
Fishbowl (conversation), and would address the objection of
SMcCandlish (in the previous redirect discussion linked above) to the huge parenthetical string in the title World Café (conversational process). Retain lowercase "world café" because the term is used as a general concept and common noun, as seen in that article's lead: "A world café (styled as World Café) is..."
Do it Biogeographist's way. That's a good solution. For point 5, redirect rather than delete, or people will just end up creating more redirects (or worse, like accidental forks). —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:53, 11 April 2020 (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 PER ABOVE. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO USE THE ⇪ Caps Lock KEY TO TYPE CAPITAL LETTERS, WHICH I CAN SEE THEM FORGETTING TO TURN OFF. REGARDS,
SONIC67819:37, 19 April 2020 (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.
Sseasons, seassons, and so forth
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.
Ssome of thosse pagess were moved to their correct titless, annd they donn't sseem to get very many pageviewss compared to their targetss. Nnot ssure what use they are nnow, ssinnce the correctly formatted versionnss exisst. Regardss,
SSONNIC67816:41, 19 April 2020 (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 Tomorrow Never Days (video game)
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.
Ozonator
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.
Spankenburg
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This was created with an edit summary asserting that this is a common misspelling. Searching online, virtually all results seem to be of people named Spankenburg. With no page history other than the day it was created, I think that this redirect is better off deleted. signed, Rosguilltalk19:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. A Google search turned up a few people with the surname (none of whom so far as I can see has an article in any WP) and a typo (SV Spankenburg for
SV Spakenburg) in Hungarian WP, now corrected. Spankenburg strikes me as an unlikely alternative spelling in either Dutch or German.
Narky Blert (
talk)
21:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. Two instances in 120 years is hardly common. We don't need to perpetuate this; if we do, we'll be giving credence to an undoubted misspelling and it'll be around for ever.
Narky Blert (
talk)
07:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Even if you don't have
this at the back of your mind, the misspelling should be quite plausible. The complicating factor is that it's also conceivable, though less plausibly, as a misspelling for
Spangenberg. –
Uanfala (talk)16:18, 9 April 2020 (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.
Tiburones Rojos de Coatzacoalcos
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.
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 19, 2020.
Ernie Newton (bass plyer)
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.
We all may have plyed played the bass or been a champion basketball playe player in our lives, but I'm not sure we need these two redirects, especially since they're questionably plausible misspellings (although I can see someone forgetting to press the A and/or R key, and "
ply" is used as a verb-meaning different things-and "playe" an obsolete spelling of "play"), and they don't seem to get a lot of pageviews these days. Regards,
SONIC67823:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
We don't need to keep
Ernie Newton (bass plyer) as I only had the page at this wrong name for 19 minutes due to a typo in the move. I usually leave these errors (move to error, move to correct) lying around for a while so that double redirects can be followed or fixed.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
00:10, 20 April 2020 (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.
Federacion uruguaya de basketall
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 Spanish name is definitely a plausible search term, but I don't know about it with "basketall"...the correctly spelled "basketball" will appear in the search bar in most cases if the user types in this word. Regards,
SONIC67823:35, 19 April 2020 (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.
Trumpdemic
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.
A hashtag that doesn't seem to have been picked up in reliable sources yet. It's in some degree of usage, but not in sources that would be consider reliable - use on Reddit doesn't mean we need to create a redirect for this.
Hog Farm (
talk)
23:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete both - These appear to be political neologisms with no purpose other than to attack. I agree. They shouldn't be kept. We do indeed sometimes accept non-neutral redirects, but they have to be helpful and these really aren't.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
20:20, 22 April 2020 (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.
Driving in canada
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.
Surgical Strike India 2016
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.
Weak keep - While this is an odd redirect, it still takes the reader to the exact right page for the topic. I don't see particular harm in keeping this.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
13:11, 13 April 2020 (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 to
Hluk#Niob. Very, very weak consensus for this option, but since no one voted for Keep this seems preferable to a no consensus close. signed, Rosguilltalk02:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Could conceivably be a misspelling of
Niobe instead of niobium, or a
WP:FORRED from the German name for the element. I'd recommend a weak retarget there if this misspelling seems reasonable, or otherwise deletion.
ComplexRational (
talk)
18:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Very weak delete; I don't think Niob is that too common a misspelling of Niobe.
This seems a slightly better place to land the reader. — J947(
user |
cont |
ess), at
19:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget - This should go to '
Hluk#Niob'. The business appears notable, but I'm not sure about expanding that article given the language barrier (perhaps Czech users could be contacted here somehow). I don't support deletion in any case.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
11:01, 11 April 2020 (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.
Dangerous global warming
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 existing redirect for first two only and replace, per nom. However, I think the last two are fine to be redirected to the conference, as the titles are very similar, and a link to
Climate change mitigation is already at the top of the article on the conference. That said, perhaps the wording of that notice could be changed to "Dangerous climate change" redirects here. For the concept of avoiding climate change, see
Climate change mitigation.?
Domeditrix (
talk)
11:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget the first and second to
Global warming, and keep the third and fourth. For the first and second redirects, the word "dangerous" does not imply to me that the target should concern "mitigation". I agree with Domeditrix that the third and fourth redirects are similar enough to the existing target. --
Bsherr (
talk)
19:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete the first two, for sure. @
Shhhnotsoloud,
Domeditrix,
CoffeeWithMarkets, and
Bsherr: For the latter two I have started an RM at
Talk:Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (2005 conference)#Requested move 15 April 2020; your participation is highly appreciated. Please note that the keeping the current situation on the fourth one is not permissible, as a primary redirect to a parenthetically disambiguated version of itself. The possible options are: 1) move the conference to 4 and redirect 3 to 4 (my preferred option); 2) move the conference to 4 and redirect 3 to
Climate change mitigation (or similar) per
WP:SMALLDETAILS; or 3) don't move the conference and redirect 3 and 4 to
Climate change mitigation (or similar). Personally I would have !voted to delete all four redirects if this conference didn't exist on the grounds that they are unlikely search terms for a general climate change-related article. --
King of♥♦♣ ♠
02:46, 19 April 2020 (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.
Already released "upcoming" redirects
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.
Another bundle of "upcoming" redirects for movies that have already been released...why would they still be "upcoming?" Regards,
SONIC67820:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all (and to any other such redirects bundled with this nomination after this comment) per nom. Also,
Sonic678, just a heads up on nominations like these: You will want to check for incoming links for such redirects and bypass them to avoid broken links in articles. Luckily, this time,
there was only one, but just a heads up.
Steel1943 (
talk)
22:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Basically, you should have used *: in the original instance. A good rule of thumb is to copy the indentation of the person you're replying to and then add * or :. — J947(
user |
cont |
ess), at
00:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Regardless of how many views they get, if a film is not upcoming a title "Foo (upcoming)" in not only incorrect factually but also possibly misleading. There should be a special place in wikihell for editors who create Foo (film) without deleting Foo (upcoming film).
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
11:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete most of them. "Hobbs and Shaw" has a sequel in preproduction, so could target the sequel sectoin. The others are just misleading, especially "Emma", as a new film seems to be in pre-production all the time, due to it being an Austen novel. --
65.94.170.207 (
talk)
16:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment – Barely anyone is going to search these up – and if they do, they'll get to the place they want to go anyway. Are people seriously opining that we should
severely inconvienienceover 1,000 readers a month to save partial confusion for the extremely occasional person who searches this up. The pageviews for one of these redirects are literally more than twice as much as the
Parliament of New Zealand gets. Precedent should not be considered a significant enough rationale in this scenario. — J947[cont]23:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:WP:INVOLVED relist to close oldest (as of this comment) log day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk)
18:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
No, of course I can't. I'm just saying that people are referring to precedent, and a better thing to refer to is what will gained by deleting the redirect. — J947[cont]01:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Except the whole point is that the many, many good statements of what will be gained for deleteing thse have already been spelled out in the many prior discussions for identical redirects, as would be clear from a read of any of the discussions at the links helpfully provided by LaundryPizza03.
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
01:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The points raised in the previous discussions are that the redirects are "inaccurate" and "useless". As I have demonstrated above, the redirects are not useless due to the high presence of old links, and that their inaccuracy does not matter due to the very low number of readers who search this term up. Over many discussions, I have still yet to see a rebuttal to this. — J947[cont]03:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all - I know that there's a whole big debate here, but I still think that these are inappropriate. Yes, editorial consensus can change, but I don't see a really compelling reason to try and do that. Being perhaps slightly helpful doesn't change the fact that these are misleading.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
16:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all. Factually incorrect, misleading, and a potential waste of editorial time. Should
WP:RS sources say that a new film is planned under any such title, a new article will be needed. The way to show that is by having a redlink not a confusing bluelink pointing to the wrong place which a puzzled editor will have to check out.
Narky Blert (
talk)
06:54, 21 April 2020 (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.
World Café
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose disambiguation page (Keep redirect): "World Café" is not a proper spelling of the radio program World Cafe (
https://worldcafe.npr.org). The conversational method, on the other hand, is widely referred to by both capitalized forms "World Café" and "World Cafe" on the web. (For that reason "World Cafe" would be the better disambiguation page, not "World Café", but I would oppose any disambiguation page for reasons given below.) The definitive book on the conversational method, The World Café: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter, uses the capitalized form "World Café". The Wikipedia article on the conversational method follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style and does not capitalize the term because it is not a proper noun—but most readers would be familiar with the capitalized form outside of Wikipedia, therefore the redirect from "World Café" to "World café" is entirely appropriate. The existing hatnote at the top of each article is sufficient to guide whatever very low number of readers happens to land on the wrong article. A disambiguation page would add an unnecessary layer of decision-making and clicking for too many readers. This a situation where any few mislinks that pop up just have to be corrected manually when they are noticed. There are currently no mislinks to either article.
Biogeographist (
talk)
15:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Café and Cafe both redirect to
Coffeehouse. To say that either is a misspelling of the other is kind of ridiculous. The distinction is not meaningful. If "World Café" is entirely appropriate then calling it a miscapitalization is inappropriate; hence I made
this edit. But, as I found the eight links to the radio program listed on
Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations de-flagging them as miscapitalizations removes them from that maintenance list without fixing the mislinks, and leaves the door open to creation of more undetected mislinks in the future. Making this a disambiguation replaces /Linked miscapitalizations with
WP:Disambiguation pages with links as the mechanism for resolving this problem. Without that there is no way for gnomes to "notice" the mislinks. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
17:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Now I see that your goal is to have relevant mislinks show up at
WP:Disambiguation pages with links. But there are some other things you are not considering. First, your example of café/cafe/
coffeehouse is irrelevant because they all refer to the same common noun, the same class of things. In contrast, the name of the radio show World Cafe is a proper noun; it can be misspelled, and it is not the same thing as the conversational method. Second, if you want to catch mislinks you will need both "World Café" and "World Cafe" to show up, because the mislinks can go either direction. Does a redirect to a disambiguation page also show up at
WP:Disambiguation pages with links? If so, then: Third, the better disambiguation page would be "World Cafe", because, as I said above, "World Café" and "World Cafe" are both used (even by experts on the subject) to refer to the conversational method, but "World Café" is never correctly used to refer to the radio show. So it would be better to move the current article
World Cafe about the radio show to something like
World Cafe (radio show), replace
World Cafe with a disambiguation page that says "World Cafe may refer to:", and redirect
World Café to the new disambiguation page at
World Cafe. This would not be perfect, but it would be the better way to reach your goal.
Biogeographist (
talk)
17:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)reply
At 01:18, 8 January 2015
Fbell74 moved page The World Café to World Café (conversational process) (This title is slightly incorrect. It refers to a conversational process known as World Cafe rather than The World Cafe. while the other refers to a radio program. These changes will help to clarify)
At 00:47, 30 October 2017
SMcCandlish moved page World Café to
World café over redirect: Per MOS:CAPS (this is not a proper name, but a general concept)
The previous article moves listed above do not seem to have considered the current goal: to have relevant mislinks show up at
WP:Disambiguation pages with links. So rearranging the articles seems justified given the new consideration. How does this sound:
Move
World café to
World café (conversation): This would match the title of the somewhat similar subject
Fishbowl (conversation), and would address the objection of
SMcCandlish (in the previous redirect discussion linked above) to the huge parenthetical string in the title World Café (conversational process). Retain lowercase "world café" because the term is used as a general concept and common noun, as seen in that article's lead: "A world café (styled as World Café) is..."
Do it Biogeographist's way. That's a good solution. For point 5, redirect rather than delete, or people will just end up creating more redirects (or worse, like accidental forks). —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:53, 11 April 2020 (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 PER ABOVE. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO USE THE ⇪ Caps Lock KEY TO TYPE CAPITAL LETTERS, WHICH I CAN SEE THEM FORGETTING TO TURN OFF. REGARDS,
SONIC67819:37, 19 April 2020 (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.
Sseasons, seassons, and so forth
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.
Ssome of thosse pagess were moved to their correct titless, annd they donn't sseem to get very many pageviewss compared to their targetss. Nnot ssure what use they are nnow, ssinnce the correctly formatted versionnss exisst. Regardss,
SSONNIC67816:41, 19 April 2020 (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 Tomorrow Never Days (video game)
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.
Ozonator
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.
Spankenburg
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This was created with an edit summary asserting that this is a common misspelling. Searching online, virtually all results seem to be of people named Spankenburg. With no page history other than the day it was created, I think that this redirect is better off deleted. signed, Rosguilltalk19:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. A Google search turned up a few people with the surname (none of whom so far as I can see has an article in any WP) and a typo (SV Spankenburg for
SV Spakenburg) in Hungarian WP, now corrected. Spankenburg strikes me as an unlikely alternative spelling in either Dutch or German.
Narky Blert (
talk)
21:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. Two instances in 120 years is hardly common. We don't need to perpetuate this; if we do, we'll be giving credence to an undoubted misspelling and it'll be around for ever.
Narky Blert (
talk)
07:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Even if you don't have
this at the back of your mind, the misspelling should be quite plausible. The complicating factor is that it's also conceivable, though less plausibly, as a misspelling for
Spangenberg. –
Uanfala (talk)16:18, 9 April 2020 (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.
Tiburones Rojos de Coatzacoalcos
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.