The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 05:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Abkhazian State University which clearly states that it is the only university in Abkhazia. Taking the searcher to the only entry in a list of 1 is better than implying we have no information on the topic.
Thryduulf (
talk) 15:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. No such list exists. --
Tavix(
talk) 15:26, 8 February 2019 (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.
Lunarian
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
Moon people. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 05:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not so sure if this redirect should exist. For one, there is no life on the
Moon. (Yet.) For two, this term also refers to a fictional race of characters in Final Fantasy IV.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
There are other fictional uses. See the
search results. Sending users there or disambiguating would be more useful than keeping or retargeting to the Final Fantasy usage. Ultimately, it would be good to have something at
Moon in fiction on this.
Wiktionary accepts this as a general term for fictional denizens of the moon. --
BDD (
talk) 22:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Moon people, which is a disambiguation.
Venusian disambiguates to the planet and its inhabitants. It can also house a Wiktionary box.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 18:04, 8 February 2019 (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.
Earth and Moon
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 delete Per above, I'd expect that "Moon" is a better target than "Earth" since the discussion is more likely to be at the Moon article than Earth but I agree its still XY.Crouch, Swale (
talk) 18:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Based on the information below I lean towards refining it. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 17:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep and refine per BDD. The Earth-Moon system is exactly where I would expect this redirect to take me; and discussing both the Earth and the Moon it avoids any XY issues.
Thryduulf (
talk) 15:26, 8 February 2019 (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.
Earth's natural satellites
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The redirect essentially claims that both Earth has multiple
natural satellites and that the target article is about multiple natural satellites that Earth has, both of which are untrue.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep As functional as things like Prime Minister of the United States. The first sentence even says "Earth's only permanent natural satellite", which addresses the error. (Have we ever had temporary natural satellites, though??) --
BDD (
talk) 22:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
CommentClaimed moons of Earth might also be a suitable target if the redirect is suggesting the presence of multiple moons, though that would redirect a title connoting truth to a list of proven falsehoods, which is probably not ideal either.
ComplexRational (
talk) 02:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep per above.
Deryck C. 18:09, 15 February 2019 (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.
People from St Helens
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 05:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is ambiguous, given the number of places called St Helens at
St Helens.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 20:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as above. Multiple places, no primary topic
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 21:38, 6 February 2019 (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.
@
Polyamorph: Firstly, I wouldn't be too certain about the synonymy; cf. e. g.
[1] vs.
[2]. In addition, one would also still have to find a proper way of including the concept "Computer studies" within
computer ...--
Hildeoc (
talk) 16:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I only noticed the one redirect in my first post, so to clarify they both should redirect to
Computer science. Polyamorph (
talk) 22:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Target both to
Computer science, which is described as the study of computers. It is not be at all difficult to find sources using the phrase, "Computer studies" (in both capitalizations) to describe the concept covered under computer science.
bd2412T 19:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
BD2412: Then it should be taken care that the term "Computer Studies" or "computer studies" is mentioned there (in boldface) as per
WP:R#PLA.--
Hildeoc (
talk) 17:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:Computer studies was not tagged until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 18:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Target both to
Computer science: Having taught Computer Studies, Computer Science and Information Technology I have a clear idea of where one starts and one ends. We have some interesting issues here- firstly Computer Science has never been a science it really is a technology, information technology has never been a technology either. In the UK schools sense- lower school (to 16) studied computers doing Computer Studies, and upper school carried on and did Computer Science which was a university application subject. When Computer Studies was made compulsory- there was a massive shortage of teachers with analysis and programming skill- so that element was ripped out and the resulting Microsoft Office studies course that remained was called Information Technology or just IT. We have an inclusion issue here- the many have heard of IT and computer studies but never of computer science. For search purposes the redirect is correct, it is a common term that leads the reader to the correct term.
ClemRutter (
talk) 20:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget both to
computer science as the most common phrasing of CS. Information technology is mentioned several times in that subject.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 17:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Hildeoc: There are some places on Wikipedia where no same man should venture! You just directed me there! I looked at
Computer Science#Education to see whether the near synonyms were in bold. Me, who have been teaching CS to eleven year olds since 1981 see that: Since computer science is relatively new, it is not widely taught in schools. I now understand your comment. I can go in and edit that section but there will be knock on effects. The correct thing to do however is to place the redirect and fight it out on the landing page. I will put a target link in the education section- and copy across some of the comment I made above.
In the UK Computing has been obligatory for children over four since 2013 (
National curriculum) By 2013 there were serious doubts whether the KS4 NC could be achieve due to the 30% shortage of CD rather than IT teachers.
Michael Jones Report is helpful. By co-incidence I was teaching CS/IT at his school around 2001.
ClemRutter (
talk) 15:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
ClemRutter: Thank you for your reply, but, since I'm not a native English speaker, I have to ask you for some clarifications: What exactly do mean by "no same man"? What does "CD" refer to here? And regarding the text you added in "Computer Science": What exactly is meant by the assertion that "provision was fractured" in the States?--
Hildeoc (
talk) 23:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep.
Deryck C. 18:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as redundant. A better redirect already exists. No need for grammatically incorrect caps.
Paper LuigiT •
C 12:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Neither redundancy nor incorrect capitalisation are reasons to delete a redirect and the current target is the best I can find.
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 17:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 05:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Redundancy is not a reason to delete a redirect, and redirects from plausible other capitalisations (such as this) are a Good Thing. Readers are not required to know our capitalisation conventions.
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
This is an implausible typo, though, not just an alternative capitalization. CHEAP might apply, but in no way is this redirect a good thing.
Sideways713 (
talk) 17:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, too many errors to be useful. --
Tavix(
talk) 14:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator comment: If this redirect is fine, but unnecessary (as seems to be the consensus so far), then that opens the door for an endless directory of unnecessary redirects with typos and grammatical errors based on TV episodes. In this case, the proper redirect target would be to a specific episode or at least a specific season. Any time the target's title is modified, all redirects that point to it would also have to be modified to point to the proper target or be broken. I nominated this to lighten the workload.
Paper LuigiT •
C 22:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Spelling error + lack of spacing + capitalisation variant + missing punctuation = implausible. Any one of those is a good reason for a redirect, but maybe not any pair of them, and definitely not all four at once.
Nyttend (
talk) 21:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 17:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as
WP:RTYPO multiple typo issues to make it less plausible. Correct spelling will show up in search.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 17:44, 6 February 2019 (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.
THEORY OF SOCIAL RESPONSE: COMPUTERS ARE SOCIAL ACTORS
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 05:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, bizarre phrasing and caps. --
Tavix(
talk) 15:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 17:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Theory of social response isn't the formal pre-title of the phrase, but only used in some non-notable youtube video.
[3] I'm removing that from the lead sentence.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 17:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 05:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Wrong space bar of 1E100 may be confused with other things of
E100B dash (
talk) 16:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 05:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at target page. Also they've discontinued adding 'Vevo' after the names of YouTube channels since last year. Its useless clutter.--
NØ 11:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Completely pointless. I doubt anyone uses them to search for the artists.
Erick (
talk) 04:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment. I've added
AdeleVEVO and
EminemVEVO which should complete the set unless there is any I missed. --
Tavix(
talk) 16:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete As long as they are not used anymore in YouTube, I think that its fine.
Delete all as above obsolete, like retaining old website links.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 17:35, 9 February 2019 (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.
E Agta
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 05:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The term "E Agta" not mentioned in it's targeted article. Implausible search term, as seen by the page views of the redirect.
Jovanmilic97 (
talk) 11:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete it's not clear what the E means in E Agta. Is it an extinct language, as in
Languages of the Philippines, of which some variants of Agta are classified as E, or an external language (
E-language). Or is there an Eastern Agta? Or is it something to do with Gem AGTA Codes?
[4]AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 02:26, 7 February 2019 (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.
Goel Ratzon
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 05:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Not even mentioned in the targeted article.
Jovanmilic97 (
talk) 10:55, 6 February 2019 (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.
Infinite Zero albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.
Deryck C. 14:28, 14 February 2019 (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.
MAS 78
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.
Term not present in target article.
PamD 10:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
because FAMAS first use in 1978, so they may be called MAS-78, just like MAS-49
Scout MLG (
talk) 10:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Then mention in target article with reference. · · ·
Peter Southwood(talk): 19:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: At this time, the redirect is not mentioned in the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 03:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep The name really should be mentioned, but straight synonyms are one of the few cases an {{
R without mention}} is acceptable, IMO. A reader familiar enough with gun culture should be helped and not surprised by this; one who isn't but reads something like "Bob was shot with a MAS 78" shouldn't be confused. If someone's wondering "why do they call it a MAS 78" we'll still fail them. --
BDD (
talk) 17:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Killiondude (
talk) 06:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I tend to agree with BDD here.
Deryck C. 14:26, 14 February 2019 (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.
American Studies Journal
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c) 14:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Based on their
self-description, I would say they do. It's got a relatively long history (1960, as the American Newsletter, then American Studies Newsletter from 1983+, then American Studies Journal from 1996+), with circulation in the 20,000. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 00:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 03:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
It could be, but redirected there would still be a bad redirect per
WP:REDLINK. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 09:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Killiondude (
talk) 06:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. The redirect might cause confusion. Any future stub/article could then occupy the title.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 08:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think it's plausible to call a journal named "American Studies" "American Studies Journal". Until the other journal gets an article, I see nothing wrong with the current set-up. --
Tavix(
talk) 20:31, 17 February 2019 (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.
Direwolf
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.
Should be changed to redirect to
Dire wolf as a
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I'm not sure it's obvious to most people that the spelling without a space refers to the Game of Thrones creature and not the real one. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 04:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Is there any indication that people are spelling the real creature without a space (to make it the
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT)? "I'm not sure it's obvious" is not one of the primary topic criteria. --
JHunterJ (
talk) 16:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Dire wolf as above since that already has the hatnote to Song of Fire and Ice as well as the dab.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 18:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Same question: while the hatnote does indeed exist, is there any indication that people are spelling the real creature without a space (to make it the
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT)? The status quo also serves reader navigation, and possibly better. And if readers primarily use the non-spaced version for the GoT creature, the improvement would be to retarget
Direwolf to
List of Game of Thrones characters#Animals as the
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and add hatnotes to that section. --
JHunterJ (
talk) 13:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
If someone made a fictional monster and called it the Cavebear, would we also redirect it to the fictional monster and not
Cave bear? I think some
WP:COMMONSENSE is warranted in this situation where the real creature should take priority if it even so much as a chance of being confused with the fake one.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 14:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
There's nothing counter to
WP:COMMONSENSE being asked, so we needn't beg the question. If someone made a fictional monster and called it "cavebear", would the readers who have so far made it to
cave bear without touching the redirect from
cavebear[5] suddenly be seized with the desire to omit the space? --
JHunterJ (
talk) 18:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Consider that the direwolf is named after the real dire wolf and is defined as a larger relative of the wolf
https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Direwolf Also the redirect to GoT characters does not go to a page where they explain what the heck a direwolf is. The reader is left to guess that perhaps direwolf in GoT is similar to a dire wolf.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 16:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)reply
JHunterJ, I think it would help the case if the direwolf in GoT is actually defined somewhere in the opening of the characters list paragraph or in
Westeros, like "A number of characters retain wolf-like pets called direwolves."
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 20:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The things you suggest to consider do not consider what the reader is seeking when they enter "direwolf" in the search bar and go. The addition of information might indeed change the case either way, but given the current information, the question still remains "Is there any indication that people are spelling the real creature without a space (to make it the
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT)?" --
JHunterJ (
talk) 20:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, I am calling for the addition of that information. It's like if someone made up a fictional race of creatures called "vam paires", which are essentially vampires. Doing general searches would assume they are looking for vampires or vam paires in equal proportions. If the result is a link to the characters list, and the only thing it said was "JHunterJ is a vam paire", "Angus is a vam paire", then we're not getting any more knowledge about the creature, so might as well just look at the vampire page. With GoT, people search for direwolf and want to know how it differs from dire wolf or whether they are essentially the same. A presented definition would be better than no definition, and would even sway searches to look for direwolf as GoT primary topic with hatnote pointing to the dab.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 03:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
As a followup to this, I attempted to add "direwolves" subsection with an explanation to the List of GoT characters page.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 18:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep (i.e. continue pointing to the dab page) per JHunterJ. I don't see any evidence
Dire wolf is the
WP:PTOPIC for "Direwolf".
feminist (
talk) 14:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c) 15:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep given lack of indication to retarget. --
JHunterJ (
talk) 20:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Per cursory Google searches, I think that the prehistoric creature is more of a primary topic than the GoT version. We can always a hatnote anyways. --
Lenticel(
talk) 01:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I think based on the comment that you intended to !vote Redirect? Regardless, "we can always hatnote anyways" is a valid option with the current arrangement, with retargeting to the GoT creature as primary topic, and with retargeting to the prehistoric creature. But a cursory Google search would indicate retargeting to GoT, not to the prehistoric creature.
[6] --
JHunterJ (
talk) 14:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 23:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget per nom. --
BDD (
talk) 14:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
dire wolf as primary. I don't think it's fair to say that "dire wolf" = the extinct canid and "direwolf" = fictional creatures. Searching an external search engine for "direwolf" minus Game of Thrones and Song of Fire and Ice gave me plenty of references to the
dire wolf. --
Tavix(
talk) 19:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Looks like new opinions are coming in, so relisting this to explore those options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 03:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not suggesting "direwolf" = fictional creatures. I'm saying it can be either the extinct species or the GoT creature, and neither is the PTOPIC, so the dab page is the best option.
feminist (
talk) 03:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
dire wolf. The extinct species is the primary topic and the hatnote covers the other. On an aside, I always presumed the direwolves present in Game of Thrones were simply a fictional extant version of what is extinct in the real world. —
Godsy (
TALKCONT) 21:11, 12 February 2019 (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.
Alabama (band)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. But reverse the redirect from "Alabama (band)" to "Alabama (American band)".
(non-admin closure)B dash (
talk) 03:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)reply
This redirect was recently retargeted to
Alabama (disambiguation) as an incomplete disambiguation (due to the existence of
Alabama (Canadian band)). I reverted the change as undiscussed, as there were incoming links. I have since resolved all incoming links, and bring this here for the appropriate discussion. My opinion is that the American band is the primary topic of the term either way, and perhaps
Alabama (American band) should be moved back to
Alabama (band). Precedents for this would be
Nirvana (band) and
Kiss (band), both at those titles despite other bands by those names in other countries. Alternately, the recent retargeting could be restored. It seems like an incorrect half-measure to maintain the redirect pointing to the further disambiguated title.
bd2412T 13:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Reverse redirect.
Alabama (band) should be the article title of the American band because it is definitely the primary topic for bands named Alabama. --
Tavix(
talk) 16:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Reverse redirect per Tavix. The American band is clearly primary among bands, and as noted there are many other examples where one article is not primary overall but is primary within a topic area.
Thryduulf (
talk) 17:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Alabama (disambiguation) as a {{
R from incomplete disambiguation}} since
Alabama (Canadian band) exists. A reader forced to land on a certain band page when there are multiple notable bands of the same name can potentially be harmful of the reader arrives at the wrong article. Considering that there are multiple notable bands makes "Alabama", readers who look up this term would be better served by arriving at the disambiguation page to determine what subject they are attempting to locate.
Steel1943 (
talk) 06:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to disambiguation page. I don't think the argument for primary topic is sufficiently strong here.
Deryck C. 18:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: involved relist in order to close an old log page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Tavix(
talk) 21:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Reverse per Tavix and
WP:TWODABS: The Canadian band has one album and two singles, and just barely meets
the notability threshold. The American band is much better known. --NYKevin 17:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. The current setup allows the vast majority of readers to reach the band they want, and also shows them that there is more than one band named Alabama. Compare
Thriller (album). My second choice would be to reverse redirect.
feminist (
talk) 08:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Move target article over the redirect (i.e., reverse). The hatnote means someone looking for the Canadian band is one page away, regardless of whether they go first to a disambiguation page or one about the American band, and someone looking for the American band goes straight there. --
BDD (
talk) 15:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep as is, with no massive objection towards the reverse proposed (even though it's partial disambiguation, it seems like people don't hugely have an issue about that with bands, just see Kiss/Nirvana/Oasis for some examples.) Pointing to the DAB page does nothing but hinder readers.
Nohomersryan (
talk) 01:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep/Reverse. No particular objection to where the article page is, as long as the primary redirect goes there. Clear primary topic here, and a hatnote is enough. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 03:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Reverse retarget as above. American band is primary topic. Twodabs and disambiguation can apply.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 17:53, 6 February 2019 (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.
Crap Muzik
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 15:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Can't see for the life of me why this redirects there. Perhaps an attack redirect. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 02:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not an alternative name for the target.
Steel1943 (
talk) 03:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete could refer to any kind of crappy music.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 02:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - It indeed looks like an attack redirect to me, a baffling way to criticize a well-known album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs) 17:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 05:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Abkhazian State University which clearly states that it is the only university in Abkhazia. Taking the searcher to the only entry in a list of 1 is better than implying we have no information on the topic.
Thryduulf (
talk) 15:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. No such list exists. --
Tavix(
talk) 15:26, 8 February 2019 (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.
Lunarian
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
Moon people. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 05:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not so sure if this redirect should exist. For one, there is no life on the
Moon. (Yet.) For two, this term also refers to a fictional race of characters in Final Fantasy IV.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
There are other fictional uses. See the
search results. Sending users there or disambiguating would be more useful than keeping or retargeting to the Final Fantasy usage. Ultimately, it would be good to have something at
Moon in fiction on this.
Wiktionary accepts this as a general term for fictional denizens of the moon. --
BDD (
talk) 22:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Moon people, which is a disambiguation.
Venusian disambiguates to the planet and its inhabitants. It can also house a Wiktionary box.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 18:04, 8 February 2019 (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.
Earth and Moon
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 delete Per above, I'd expect that "Moon" is a better target than "Earth" since the discussion is more likely to be at the Moon article than Earth but I agree its still XY.Crouch, Swale (
talk) 18:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Based on the information below I lean towards refining it. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 17:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep and refine per BDD. The Earth-Moon system is exactly where I would expect this redirect to take me; and discussing both the Earth and the Moon it avoids any XY issues.
Thryduulf (
talk) 15:26, 8 February 2019 (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.
Earth's natural satellites
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The redirect essentially claims that both Earth has multiple
natural satellites and that the target article is about multiple natural satellites that Earth has, both of which are untrue.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep As functional as things like Prime Minister of the United States. The first sentence even says "Earth's only permanent natural satellite", which addresses the error. (Have we ever had temporary natural satellites, though??) --
BDD (
talk) 22:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
CommentClaimed moons of Earth might also be a suitable target if the redirect is suggesting the presence of multiple moons, though that would redirect a title connoting truth to a list of proven falsehoods, which is probably not ideal either.
ComplexRational (
talk) 02:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep per above.
Deryck C. 18:09, 15 February 2019 (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.
People from St Helens
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 05:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is ambiguous, given the number of places called St Helens at
St Helens.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 20:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as above. Multiple places, no primary topic
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 21:38, 6 February 2019 (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.
@
Polyamorph: Firstly, I wouldn't be too certain about the synonymy; cf. e. g.
[1] vs.
[2]. In addition, one would also still have to find a proper way of including the concept "Computer studies" within
computer ...--
Hildeoc (
talk) 16:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I only noticed the one redirect in my first post, so to clarify they both should redirect to
Computer science. Polyamorph (
talk) 22:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Target both to
Computer science, which is described as the study of computers. It is not be at all difficult to find sources using the phrase, "Computer studies" (in both capitalizations) to describe the concept covered under computer science.
bd2412T 19:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
BD2412: Then it should be taken care that the term "Computer Studies" or "computer studies" is mentioned there (in boldface) as per
WP:R#PLA.--
Hildeoc (
talk) 17:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:Computer studies was not tagged until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 18:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Target both to
Computer science: Having taught Computer Studies, Computer Science and Information Technology I have a clear idea of where one starts and one ends. We have some interesting issues here- firstly Computer Science has never been a science it really is a technology, information technology has never been a technology either. In the UK schools sense- lower school (to 16) studied computers doing Computer Studies, and upper school carried on and did Computer Science which was a university application subject. When Computer Studies was made compulsory- there was a massive shortage of teachers with analysis and programming skill- so that element was ripped out and the resulting Microsoft Office studies course that remained was called Information Technology or just IT. We have an inclusion issue here- the many have heard of IT and computer studies but never of computer science. For search purposes the redirect is correct, it is a common term that leads the reader to the correct term.
ClemRutter (
talk) 20:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget both to
computer science as the most common phrasing of CS. Information technology is mentioned several times in that subject.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 17:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Hildeoc: There are some places on Wikipedia where no same man should venture! You just directed me there! I looked at
Computer Science#Education to see whether the near synonyms were in bold. Me, who have been teaching CS to eleven year olds since 1981 see that: Since computer science is relatively new, it is not widely taught in schools. I now understand your comment. I can go in and edit that section but there will be knock on effects. The correct thing to do however is to place the redirect and fight it out on the landing page. I will put a target link in the education section- and copy across some of the comment I made above.
In the UK Computing has been obligatory for children over four since 2013 (
National curriculum) By 2013 there were serious doubts whether the KS4 NC could be achieve due to the 30% shortage of CD rather than IT teachers.
Michael Jones Report is helpful. By co-incidence I was teaching CS/IT at his school around 2001.
ClemRutter (
talk) 15:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
ClemRutter: Thank you for your reply, but, since I'm not a native English speaker, I have to ask you for some clarifications: What exactly do mean by "no same man"? What does "CD" refer to here? And regarding the text you added in "Computer Science": What exactly is meant by the assertion that "provision was fractured" in the States?--
Hildeoc (
talk) 23:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep.
Deryck C. 18:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as redundant. A better redirect already exists. No need for grammatically incorrect caps.
Paper LuigiT •
C 12:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Neither redundancy nor incorrect capitalisation are reasons to delete a redirect and the current target is the best I can find.
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 17:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 05:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Redundancy is not a reason to delete a redirect, and redirects from plausible other capitalisations (such as this) are a Good Thing. Readers are not required to know our capitalisation conventions.
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
This is an implausible typo, though, not just an alternative capitalization. CHEAP might apply, but in no way is this redirect a good thing.
Sideways713 (
talk) 17:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, too many errors to be useful. --
Tavix(
talk) 14:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator comment: If this redirect is fine, but unnecessary (as seems to be the consensus so far), then that opens the door for an endless directory of unnecessary redirects with typos and grammatical errors based on TV episodes. In this case, the proper redirect target would be to a specific episode or at least a specific season. Any time the target's title is modified, all redirects that point to it would also have to be modified to point to the proper target or be broken. I nominated this to lighten the workload.
Paper LuigiT •
C 22:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Spelling error + lack of spacing + capitalisation variant + missing punctuation = implausible. Any one of those is a good reason for a redirect, but maybe not any pair of them, and definitely not all four at once.
Nyttend (
talk) 21:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 17:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as
WP:RTYPO multiple typo issues to make it less plausible. Correct spelling will show up in search.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 17:44, 6 February 2019 (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.
THEORY OF SOCIAL RESPONSE: COMPUTERS ARE SOCIAL ACTORS
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 05:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, bizarre phrasing and caps. --
Tavix(
talk) 15:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 17:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Theory of social response isn't the formal pre-title of the phrase, but only used in some non-notable youtube video.
[3] I'm removing that from the lead sentence.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 17:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 05:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Wrong space bar of 1E100 may be confused with other things of
E100B dash (
talk) 16:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 05:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at target page. Also they've discontinued adding 'Vevo' after the names of YouTube channels since last year. Its useless clutter.--
NØ 11:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Completely pointless. I doubt anyone uses them to search for the artists.
Erick (
talk) 04:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment. I've added
AdeleVEVO and
EminemVEVO which should complete the set unless there is any I missed. --
Tavix(
talk) 16:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete As long as they are not used anymore in YouTube, I think that its fine.
Delete all as above obsolete, like retaining old website links.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 17:35, 9 February 2019 (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.
E Agta
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 05:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The term "E Agta" not mentioned in it's targeted article. Implausible search term, as seen by the page views of the redirect.
Jovanmilic97 (
talk) 11:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete it's not clear what the E means in E Agta. Is it an extinct language, as in
Languages of the Philippines, of which some variants of Agta are classified as E, or an external language (
E-language). Or is there an Eastern Agta? Or is it something to do with Gem AGTA Codes?
[4]AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 02:26, 7 February 2019 (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.
Goel Ratzon
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. —
JJMC89 (
T·C) 05:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Not even mentioned in the targeted article.
Jovanmilic97 (
talk) 10:55, 6 February 2019 (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.
Infinite Zero albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.
Deryck C. 14:28, 14 February 2019 (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.
MAS 78
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.
Term not present in target article.
PamD 10:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
because FAMAS first use in 1978, so they may be called MAS-78, just like MAS-49
Scout MLG (
talk) 10:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Then mention in target article with reference. · · ·
Peter Southwood(talk): 19:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: At this time, the redirect is not mentioned in the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 03:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep The name really should be mentioned, but straight synonyms are one of the few cases an {{
R without mention}} is acceptable, IMO. A reader familiar enough with gun culture should be helped and not surprised by this; one who isn't but reads something like "Bob was shot with a MAS 78" shouldn't be confused. If someone's wondering "why do they call it a MAS 78" we'll still fail them. --
BDD (
talk) 17:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Killiondude (
talk) 06:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I tend to agree with BDD here.
Deryck C. 14:26, 14 February 2019 (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.
American Studies Journal
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c) 14:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Based on their
self-description, I would say they do. It's got a relatively long history (1960, as the American Newsletter, then American Studies Newsletter from 1983+, then American Studies Journal from 1996+), with circulation in the 20,000. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 00:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 03:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
It could be, but redirected there would still be a bad redirect per
WP:REDLINK. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 09:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Killiondude (
talk) 06:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. The redirect might cause confusion. Any future stub/article could then occupy the title.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 08:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think it's plausible to call a journal named "American Studies" "American Studies Journal". Until the other journal gets an article, I see nothing wrong with the current set-up. --
Tavix(
talk) 20:31, 17 February 2019 (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.
Direwolf
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.
Should be changed to redirect to
Dire wolf as a
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I'm not sure it's obvious to most people that the spelling without a space refers to the Game of Thrones creature and not the real one. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 04:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Is there any indication that people are spelling the real creature without a space (to make it the
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT)? "I'm not sure it's obvious" is not one of the primary topic criteria. --
JHunterJ (
talk) 16:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Dire wolf as above since that already has the hatnote to Song of Fire and Ice as well as the dab.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 18:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Same question: while the hatnote does indeed exist, is there any indication that people are spelling the real creature without a space (to make it the
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT)? The status quo also serves reader navigation, and possibly better. And if readers primarily use the non-spaced version for the GoT creature, the improvement would be to retarget
Direwolf to
List of Game of Thrones characters#Animals as the
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and add hatnotes to that section. --
JHunterJ (
talk) 13:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
If someone made a fictional monster and called it the Cavebear, would we also redirect it to the fictional monster and not
Cave bear? I think some
WP:COMMONSENSE is warranted in this situation where the real creature should take priority if it even so much as a chance of being confused with the fake one.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 14:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
There's nothing counter to
WP:COMMONSENSE being asked, so we needn't beg the question. If someone made a fictional monster and called it "cavebear", would the readers who have so far made it to
cave bear without touching the redirect from
cavebear[5] suddenly be seized with the desire to omit the space? --
JHunterJ (
talk) 18:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Consider that the direwolf is named after the real dire wolf and is defined as a larger relative of the wolf
https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Direwolf Also the redirect to GoT characters does not go to a page where they explain what the heck a direwolf is. The reader is left to guess that perhaps direwolf in GoT is similar to a dire wolf.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 16:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)reply
JHunterJ, I think it would help the case if the direwolf in GoT is actually defined somewhere in the opening of the characters list paragraph or in
Westeros, like "A number of characters retain wolf-like pets called direwolves."
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 20:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The things you suggest to consider do not consider what the reader is seeking when they enter "direwolf" in the search bar and go. The addition of information might indeed change the case either way, but given the current information, the question still remains "Is there any indication that people are spelling the real creature without a space (to make it the
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT)?" --
JHunterJ (
talk) 20:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, I am calling for the addition of that information. It's like if someone made up a fictional race of creatures called "vam paires", which are essentially vampires. Doing general searches would assume they are looking for vampires or vam paires in equal proportions. If the result is a link to the characters list, and the only thing it said was "JHunterJ is a vam paire", "Angus is a vam paire", then we're not getting any more knowledge about the creature, so might as well just look at the vampire page. With GoT, people search for direwolf and want to know how it differs from dire wolf or whether they are essentially the same. A presented definition would be better than no definition, and would even sway searches to look for direwolf as GoT primary topic with hatnote pointing to the dab.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 03:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
As a followup to this, I attempted to add "direwolves" subsection with an explanation to the List of GoT characters page.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 18:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep (i.e. continue pointing to the dab page) per JHunterJ. I don't see any evidence
Dire wolf is the
WP:PTOPIC for "Direwolf".
feminist (
talk) 14:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c) 15:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep given lack of indication to retarget. --
JHunterJ (
talk) 20:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Per cursory Google searches, I think that the prehistoric creature is more of a primary topic than the GoT version. We can always a hatnote anyways. --
Lenticel(
talk) 01:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I think based on the comment that you intended to !vote Redirect? Regardless, "we can always hatnote anyways" is a valid option with the current arrangement, with retargeting to the GoT creature as primary topic, and with retargeting to the prehistoric creature. But a cursory Google search would indicate retargeting to GoT, not to the prehistoric creature.
[6] --
JHunterJ (
talk) 14:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 23:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget per nom. --
BDD (
talk) 14:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
dire wolf as primary. I don't think it's fair to say that "dire wolf" = the extinct canid and "direwolf" = fictional creatures. Searching an external search engine for "direwolf" minus Game of Thrones and Song of Fire and Ice gave me plenty of references to the
dire wolf. --
Tavix(
talk) 19:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Looks like new opinions are coming in, so relisting this to explore those options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 03:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not suggesting "direwolf" = fictional creatures. I'm saying it can be either the extinct species or the GoT creature, and neither is the PTOPIC, so the dab page is the best option.
feminist (
talk) 03:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
dire wolf. The extinct species is the primary topic and the hatnote covers the other. On an aside, I always presumed the direwolves present in Game of Thrones were simply a fictional extant version of what is extinct in the real world. —
Godsy (
TALKCONT) 21:11, 12 February 2019 (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.
Alabama (band)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. But reverse the redirect from "Alabama (band)" to "Alabama (American band)".
(non-admin closure)B dash (
talk) 03:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)reply
This redirect was recently retargeted to
Alabama (disambiguation) as an incomplete disambiguation (due to the existence of
Alabama (Canadian band)). I reverted the change as undiscussed, as there were incoming links. I have since resolved all incoming links, and bring this here for the appropriate discussion. My opinion is that the American band is the primary topic of the term either way, and perhaps
Alabama (American band) should be moved back to
Alabama (band). Precedents for this would be
Nirvana (band) and
Kiss (band), both at those titles despite other bands by those names in other countries. Alternately, the recent retargeting could be restored. It seems like an incorrect half-measure to maintain the redirect pointing to the further disambiguated title.
bd2412T 13:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Reverse redirect.
Alabama (band) should be the article title of the American band because it is definitely the primary topic for bands named Alabama. --
Tavix(
talk) 16:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Reverse redirect per Tavix. The American band is clearly primary among bands, and as noted there are many other examples where one article is not primary overall but is primary within a topic area.
Thryduulf (
talk) 17:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Alabama (disambiguation) as a {{
R from incomplete disambiguation}} since
Alabama (Canadian band) exists. A reader forced to land on a certain band page when there are multiple notable bands of the same name can potentially be harmful of the reader arrives at the wrong article. Considering that there are multiple notable bands makes "Alabama", readers who look up this term would be better served by arriving at the disambiguation page to determine what subject they are attempting to locate.
Steel1943 (
talk) 06:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to disambiguation page. I don't think the argument for primary topic is sufficiently strong here.
Deryck C. 18:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: involved relist in order to close an old log page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Tavix(
talk) 21:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Reverse per Tavix and
WP:TWODABS: The Canadian band has one album and two singles, and just barely meets
the notability threshold. The American band is much better known. --NYKevin 17:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. The current setup allows the vast majority of readers to reach the band they want, and also shows them that there is more than one band named Alabama. Compare
Thriller (album). My second choice would be to reverse redirect.
feminist (
talk) 08:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Move target article over the redirect (i.e., reverse). The hatnote means someone looking for the Canadian band is one page away, regardless of whether they go first to a disambiguation page or one about the American band, and someone looking for the American band goes straight there. --
BDD (
talk) 15:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep as is, with no massive objection towards the reverse proposed (even though it's partial disambiguation, it seems like people don't hugely have an issue about that with bands, just see Kiss/Nirvana/Oasis for some examples.) Pointing to the DAB page does nothing but hinder readers.
Nohomersryan (
talk) 01:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep/Reverse. No particular objection to where the article page is, as long as the primary redirect goes there. Clear primary topic here, and a hatnote is enough. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 03:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Reverse retarget as above. American band is primary topic. Twodabs and disambiguation can apply.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 17:53, 6 February 2019 (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.
Crap Muzik
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk) 15:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Can't see for the life of me why this redirects there. Perhaps an attack redirect. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 02:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not an alternative name for the target.
Steel1943 (
talk) 03:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete could refer to any kind of crappy music.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 02:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - It indeed looks like an attack redirect to me, a baffling way to criticize a well-known album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs) 17:41, 7 February 2019 (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.