Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 9

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) 03:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Euroleague Basketball Manager → Euroleague Basketball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in its targeted article.

• Delete - Not currently mentioned and isn't a commonly searched term. If it's added to the parent article though I would say keep. CrimsonFox ^talk 12:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The game series is clearly made by the governing body - https://www.euroleague.net/fan-corner/eb-video-game. But it's developed by U-PLAY Studios. Arguably, the main article could easily have some information on these released games, and in such case, the redirect would be suitible. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the original AfD closed with the redirect, as there was a non-notable article before this redirect. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euroleague Basketball Manager (Dec 2016) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing more frustrating than being redirected to a page with no mention or relevant information about the search term. Redirect can be re-recreated if someone ever deem it
  WP:DUE to be mentioned in the target.—Bagumba (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 per

(non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Congential → Birth defect  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misspelling of "

• Keep: redirects from misspellings are useful to find typos such as this and to keep the link working until the typo is spotten. Certes (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a very plausible typo/misspelling, and will help readers find the article they are looking for. Examples in notable sources include University of Nebraska Medical Centre, British Medical Journal, University Hospital Southampton, Pediatrics (Pediatrics (journal)) and many others. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 10 March 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) 03:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Exo-orbit → Orbital spaceflight  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm nominating this on behalf of Geoffrey.landis, who last month wrote that "the page that this redirects to does not include the term, which is in any case not notable enough for an article". I would add that no other article uses this term, and that most of the Google results refer to a song by Gemma Ray, which is not mentioned in her article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:54, 9 March 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. Nothing to be disambiguated, as

Generic term. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Generic term (disambiguation) → Generic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Actually not a dab, but a superfluous redirect to

• Keep. The target is a disambiguation page which lists non-primary meanings of "generic term", I don't understand what the issue is? Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Won't the dab page at Generic name be a better target? – Uanfala (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly. If retargetting there is the consensus, the hatnote at Trademark distinctiveness#Generic terms will need updating. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  Generic term redirects to Trademark distinctiveness#Generic terms which has a hatnote to Generic. The redirect Generic term (disambiguation) is an orphan, and as the nom suggests, superfluous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. "Generic term" appears to not be ambiguous, so why are we directing a reader to a disambiguation page that proceeds to list no other instances of the phrase "generic term". —Xezbeth (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Generic name, a dab page that disambiguates between several meanings that also reasonably apply to "terms" rather than "names". – Uanfala (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Could always move Generic name to Generic term (disambiguation) as an option then. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:32, 15 March 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 disambiguate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Salem-Keizer, Oregon → Salem, Oregon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Salem-Keizer → Salem-Keizer Volcanoes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Salem and Keizer are two separate cities. Should either be deleted per

• Comment: I have added Salem-Keizer given the nomination statement. To me, it just makes sense to also discuss the aforementioned redirect now since it seems to be affected by this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per
  WP:REDLINK. After discovering an additional two pages that start with "Salem-Keizer", the article Salem-Keizer School District and the redirect Salem-Keizer Transit, it seems that there needs to be an article written about such a "Salem-Keizer" metropolitan district to help readers identity what "Salem-Keizer" is and encompasses. Steel1943 (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Retarget both to Salem Metropolitan Statistical Area since that is essentially the {{R from incorrect name}} for a metropolitan area named "Salem-Keizer" per below, and represents the geographical area for all other subjects starting with "Salem-Keizer" mentioned thus far. Steel1943 (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it may be another name for the Salem Metropolitan Statistical Area, because Salem and Keizer are the two most populous cities in that MSA. PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 12:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it does appear that some have used "Salem-Keizer" to refer to the Salem MSA, among other things. Maybe disambig with Salem Metropolitan Statistical Area, Salem-Keizer Volcanoes, Salem-Keizer School District and Cherriots (Salem-Keizer Transit). PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 15:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per PorkchopGMX. feminist (talk) 13:15, 17 March 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 retarget to

talk) 12:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• The Greatest Generation → Greatest Generation (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Where should this redirect point? See Talk:The Greatest Generation (book)#Requested_move_20_February_2019 for the dirty details. I am fully neutral. Red Slash 19:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to

G.I. Generation and then add a dab to that page. --Philip Stevens (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect to Greatest Generation (disambiguation) because at this point it seems unclear whether the cohort or the book is the primary subject. We will then be able to see if one article gets significantly more page views than the other. The disambiguation page should be edited so that the book is not listed as the primary subject, but the book and cohort should be listed first. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A title can not redirect to its own "Foo (disambiguation)" title; either this needs to point to an article, or the disambiguation page needs to be moved here. bd2412 T 04:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a different title because of the word "The"? I'm not sure which title is better for the disambiguation page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Generation also redirects to Greatest Generation (disambiguation), so this needs to be sorted. --Philip Stevens (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both
  G.I. Generation because it is the primary topic, and hatnote to Greatest Generation (disambiguation). -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Redirect to Greatest Generation (disambiguation). As said above by Kolya Butternut, "at this point it seems unclear whether the cohort or the book is the primary subject." Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to
  The Greatest Generation). The book term has mostly outgrown the book overall, however. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: For background, there was a Requested Move discussion over moving G.I. Generation to The Greatest Generation (and moving the book article). Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've carried out the move request for Greatest Generation (disambiguation) to move to Greatest Generation, so (if this consensus goes to that disambiguation page), that would be the new target. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Dang I was right about to say that... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Move
  WP:THE, I don't believe the generation itself is the primary topic for "The Greatest Generation," which as an article title implies being the title of some work. It makes sense for the disambiguation page to reside at the page which contains the majority of titles it is disambiguating. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]