Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 11

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• RISM (identifier) →
  talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

Delete: unlikely disambiguator in the redirect title: RISM is already an unambiguous redirect. The redirect was apparently created for an (in the mean while failed) experiment. Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Puzzling qualifier which doesn't help the reader select between articles at all, especially when RISM is unambiguous. Not even worth keeping as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Narky Blert (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The redirect from the abbreviation
  RISM (identifier) serve two completely different purposes - this is by design, not by error: The former is a redirect used in "normal" article linking, the second one is a redirect only used in links from manifestations of RISM IDs in articles, typically invoked through templates like {{RISM}} (see [1]
  ), citation templates or the like. The parenthetical disambiguator (identifier) is reserved for this specific usage.

The main reasons to deliberately route such occurences through identifier redirects is that there are typically many invocations (up to hundreds of thousands as in the case of identifiers like ISBN). They completely pollute "What links here" to a point that it is no longer usable. Routing them through this redirect, people doing normal article work who are only interested in normal links to the target article, can easily mute them in "What links here" and concentrate on those links they are actually interested it, instead of having to sift through an endless list of links they do not care about at all. Likewise, other people may want to carry out reverse lookup of only those articles which contain manifestations of a particular identifier (while doing research or wanting to maintain articles including a particular identifier). They can narrow the scope to only these incoming links as well. People, who don't care about a specific class of incoming links, can continue to recursively traverse through all incoming links like before and won't miss any articles, as the network of incoming links remains intact (unlike to what would happen in some other proposed solutions to this longstanding problem that have been discussed in the past) as only the grouping of incoming links changes. Also, in some cases, going through the redirect helps to keep the link from being displayed in (undesired) boldface.

Among other places, this was discussed at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_64#choosing_identifier_redirects and it is highly desirable to remain consistent in the naming conventions here, hence this switch to use the identifier redirect rather than linking directly.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "is reserved for this specific usage" – all very unhelpful idiosyncratic system. Please take your experiments elsewhere, this isn't helpful by any stretch. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything idiosyncratic it is your abuse of the |postscript= parameter (Talk:An_Wasserflüssen_Babylon#RISM). If you want to be considered, you should work collaboratively with other users (including trying to understand their reasoning) and avoid using words like "unhelpful" so frequently even when extensive help is being offered.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Matthiaspaul's explanation makes a lot of sense, but does this practice reflect established consensus? It seems that this is really a workaround for the longstanding Wikimedia bug where template transclusions can't be filtered out from What links here. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "...does this practice reflect established consensus?" – No, it doesn't. It's also a (well-intentioned but) botched hack: on mouse-over one gets

RISM (identifier)") instead of RISM (i.e. "Répertoire International des Sources Musicales

"). This may make possible to sort "what links here" lists, which is of interest for very few users, while the large majority of users would simply want to know what the abbreviation stands for when steering the pointer of their mouse over it – for which "RISM (identifier)" is about as unhelpful as the abbreviation itself.

In other words: Matthiaspaul failed to get consensus for the system they're pushing. For the {{RISM}} template and wherever they wanted to use the "RISM (identifier)" redirect, the damage has been reverted & repaired, remains the unhelpful redirect to be deleted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Francis is confusing things. It is his abuse of a citation template parameter that is causing (easily fixable) problems, not the use of identifier redirects.

He has joined discussions at Help talk:Citation Style 1 only recently (and only after the discussions regarding the switch to identifier redirects). But instead of reading up on the topic and getting some background on this long-standing usability problem of polluting "What links here" for which there were complaints and discussions for years, he started to loudly oppose, revert and even edit-war in various places (see f.e. Help talk:Citation Style 1#Link to ISMN not going through identifier redirect).

He is reverting my enhancements ([2][3]) of the {{RISM}} template and my fixes ([4]) of his abuse of the |postscript= parameter (see Talk:An_Wasserflüssen_Babylon#RISM). The fix for that problem is to simply move the RISM template from the |postscript= parameter (which was designed to define the leadout character of citations, not to hold some template code or other lengthly strings) into the |id= parameter (which was designed for this very purpose), otherwise my switch to use the Catalog lookup link template will create an error message, and he is using his abuse of the |postscript= parameter as an excuse for reverting my {{RISM}} enhancements. The other reason he cited is that the switch to the identifier redirect is changing tooltips (only for users with Javascript disabled). However, in the previous discussions before the switch to identifier redirects (in which Francis did not participate) this was a topic broad forward but regarded as of only cosmetical nature by all but one user. We even had two possible solutions for it. My proposal for this was to go through identifier redirects using the long-form of the identifier name, but in the discussion users found that not all identifiers have long forms and that it was more consistent and long-term maintainable to use the short forms, so we eventually decided against it. Trappist the monk developed another potential solution for it using HTML spans, which would display the "old" tooltip whilst still going through the identifier redirect. This was demonstrated to work nicely and was considered to be rolled out alongside the switch to identifier redirects, but some users participating in the discussions found that the issue was minor enough and that the tweak might even cause unnecessary astonishment. So, it was decided not to roll out this tweak at this time - but it could still be done if more users would find this useful. Either way, the discussion was an example of fruitful collaboration searching for the best possible solution for everyone, and it resulted in a very good compromise. The fact that Francis has now repeatedly complained about it in various places, indicates that he is not even aware of these discussions and possible solutions.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Matthiaspaul, I see what you're going for, but instead of this one, could you route template traffic through a redirect that's meaningful in its own right? RISM (organisation), perhaps? I really don't want to get in a way of a solution to the WLH problem, but if I had been aware of the March discussion, I would have voiced my concerns as a member of the loose-knit redirect community. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  IMHO

  RISM (identifier). Répertoire International des Sources Musicales ID

  , on the other hand, might work. Compare:

  1. RISM
  2. RISM
  3. RISM

  IMHO #3 is by far the most helpful for someone who never saw the abbreviation (the difference is in what happens when one hovers a pointing device over these links). The first two suggest some (unneeded) disambiguation, while not clarifying anything without clicking the link. The third gives an inkling of what this is about without clicking through to another page. The first two, which are misleading, or at least fake disambiguations, should never exist. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Alternatively, Répertoire International des Sources Musicales – International Inventory of Musical Sources might also work for the redirect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Unnecessary disambiguation is just that—unnecessary, but hardly "meaningless". {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} exists for this purpose. If RISM were ever repurposed, redirects via RISM (organisation) would not need updating (except, of course, if there were competing uses which were also organizations). --BDD (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, if you read up the previous discussions you will see that a scheme like #3 was considered as well (actually, it was one of my suggestions, although not the preferred one). But other schemes were found better for various reasons (including that a scheme like #3, while working fine for some cases, could lead to awkward constructions in the general case and that it isn't obvious which parts of the name represent the original name, and which were added for disambiguation purposes).

Regarding your tooltip remark, a solution to display the expanded form of the name was demonstrated as well, but in the end it was decided not to roll it out at this time (could still happen at a later stage). However, this is not an argument against this redirect, because it could be implemented for this redirect as well.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BDD, "

RISM (identifier)

" for it.

Actually, in the prior discussions we considered various naming schemes, short names, long names, various capitalization variants, and various disambiguation methods and names with and without parentheses. We settled on "(identifier)" because this is quite unobtrusive (Wikipedians are used to this scheme and almost "overlook" it). It naturally separates the actual name from the disambiguation part (instead of having to invent extended names where it remains unclear which parts represent the actual name and which were added for disambiguation purposes only). The "(identifier)" disambiguator is specific and meaningful enough to be mostly self-explanatory and unlikely to clash with other redirect names. At the same time the scheme is generic enough to work for all kinds of identifiers (regardless their name) without looking out of place.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still not impressed by the lack of broad consensus your proposals garnered. Here is a recent quote from a discussion (in which I didn't bother to get involved yet) where a similar proposal appears to be going under: "... there is no one-to-one relationship between [another Wikidata property] and Wikipedia articles, which is what the constraints of Wikidata suggest, but that's a problem there, not here." There's no consensus for any of this, thus, until if and when a consensus develops regarding RISM, the

RISM (identifier) redirect should be deleted to prevent a continuation of fait accompli-like dynamics, where those engineering a fait accompli, which affects a large number of mainspace articles, never bothered to make a consensus among less than a handful of editors official by presenting it to the community on a broader scale *before implementing*. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Yeah, I'm sorry, I just can't endorse populating mainspace with such misleading redirects. The discussions linked here to establish that convention don't have much participation. Please use something that doesn't have negative side effects like this. I would even be fine with a cross-namespace redirect from template space, for example. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 19 May 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 delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Aseka-moke → List of cryptids  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia has no content about this subject. Hog Farm (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to
  R from other name}}. I've added the name and a citation there. Narky Blert (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Roy Mackal is not a reliable source for thims topic. Please see Roy_Mackal#Cryptozoology. Mackal was a pseudoscience advocate, as Donald Prothero discusses there. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless we can find reliable secondary sources discussing the topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:58, 12 May 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 delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• List of mass killings of innocent civilians by combatants in wars since WWII → Genocides in history#Post–World War II Central and Eastern Europe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Extremely specific, novel, obscure, etc. Redirects to an even more specific subsection of Genocides in history which is not necessarily equivalent to the redirect's title, which is misleading. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This was left over from a page move, and was subsequently retargeted. Setting aside the page move, neither target would be predictable. No substantial links. --Bsherr (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ambiguous, unhelpful, subjective and non-neutral. How many need be killed for a killing to be a mass killing? Mass killing is not necessarily genocide. Mass killings of combatants can be war crimes. We don't have List of mass killings of guilty civilians by combatants in wars since WWII: innocent or guilty of what, and according to whom? Who decides who or is not a combatant? What about conflicts which according to one side are a war but to the other are terrorism? Narky Blert (talk) 04:52, 12 May 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 three-legged race delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Middle leg → Penis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Sounds like a

• Keep - it's been fairly commonly used for decades as a slang, humorous term for the penis - especially if it's large. It's nowhere near new enough or rare enough to be considered a neologism. Jim Michael (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Michael:I added that it isn't mentioned in the target article. Can you add more to your opinion to talk about that? OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should all of the many terms for penis be on that article? If so, it should be on there. Or should it be on human penis instead? Its Wiktionary article has existed since 2015. Jim Michael (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it matters. Just find a way to properly mention the term in the article. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or soft redirect to Wiktionary since roughly half the human species has a penis, keeps coming up with new euphemisms and dysphemisms for it every generation, and writing has been around for millennia, there are at minimum tens of thousands of alternative names for which we could add a sourced mention at the target. Per
  WP:WEIGHT, basically none of them actually belong there. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. In cricket "middle and leg" often gets shortened to "middle-leg", etc. And of course, many insects have a middle leg (usually two, in fact). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not a new term, and a fairly apparent meaning. Insects have pairs of middle legs. A cricket with a bat would be balls-out nuts. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endangered species? But worth a punt. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

• Option Now appearing at human penis article. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Can you see what it is yet, folks?" Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This redirect is ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Shhhnotsoloud. Utility seems to be limited to those who want to see if Wikipedia acknowledges this joke as an easter egg. --BDD (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I concur with BDD. --Bsherr (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous. An insect has two of them, as does the 4 × 100 metres relay. The middle leg of a triathlon is cycling. A cricketer with a bat might ask for, or a cricket ball might hit, middle and leg. Narky Blert (talk) 05:17, 12 May 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 delete. Where'd all the admins go? A juicy opportunity for an early G7 close was squandered. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Most populous counties → List of the most populous counties in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As the US is not a default option on Wikipedia, I think that this redirect should be deleted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, it could refer to counties anywhere in the world, and the concept isn't exclusive to the United States. In fact, it's used in at least 23 other countries! Regards, SONIC678 04:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. My guess is that the second most populous county is Yorkshire (5.3M in 2011). Narky Blert (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I was the one who made the redirect in the first place. In retrospect that was a bad idea. BanjoZebra (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete speedily via
  G7. — J947 ^[cont] 01:50, 18 May 2020 (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 delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• T:R → Template:R  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Recently created (July 2019), of a type that is strongly discouraged, no incoming links. – Uanfala (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - They are storngly discouraged. However, this one just seems to be a wonderful shortcut and to make a lot of sense. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's a high bar for template shortcuts, in my view. --Bsherr (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Narky Blert (talk) 05:00, 12 May 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 delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Condensed or evaporated milk → Condensed milk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per

• Weak retarget to Dairy product#Milk. While the overall utility of this redirect is questionable, there's a convenient place where both are described and defined. Apparently the process of created condensed milk does involve evaporation. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Indeed, the overall utility is questionable. --Bsherr (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:XY. Narky Blert (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Seems a pretty clear cut case of
  WP:XY. Thegreatluigi (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2020 (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 no consensus. There's a wide variety of opinions with none gaining favor. Since there's some arguments that the current target is at least appropriate, I'll leave it as is. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Philippine Television Network → People's Television Network  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While the target is a television network in the Philippines, this does not appear to be an alternative name used for the target as far as I can tell. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• neutral On one hand, it is a description of several Philippine networks like ABS-CBN and GMA. On the other hand, there are several articles that calls it as such. The Phil. Commission on Audit calls it Philippine Television Network Inc. and the state run newswire Phil. News Agency calls it Philippine Television Network (PTV). --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig between the current target and any other similarly named networks, with see also to List of digital television stations in the Philippines and List of analog television stations in the Philippines. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Disambiguating should only be resorted if there are multiple topics by the title, a retarget to Category:Philippine television networks could be considered but I'd be against such a CNR. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While a disambig would be better than redirecting to the category, both would be significantly more useful for our readers which is by far the most important aspect we should be considering with decisions like this. The rigid application of arbitrary editing guidelines doesn't help anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The fact that there are articles (even the state-run PNA calls it) calling PTV as such is enough justification for a keep. I don't think a disambig would help here, because the redirect's name is proper, not general (like
  Philippine Television Network refers to every TV network in the Philippines. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2020 (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 retarget to With Doom We Come. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Herumor →
  Man (Middle-earth)#Adversaries  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

• Delete, I'd say, NN, but if anyone favours retargetting I'm relaxed about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget, if only because of the very old history at the page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to
  talk) 13:53, 13 May 2020 (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 delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 光环：士官长合集 → Halo: The Master Chief Collection  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems like a clear case of delete per

• Delete Not a Chinese work and the article doesn’t even mention China.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:FORRED. --Soumyabrata ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:RFFL. Narky Blert (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2020 (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 delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Chris Seaver → Conker (series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per another well researched nom. by User:Robert McClenon. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The one issue I see is that the submission for the film director was declined so it may make more sense to wait until it’s accepted before we delete this.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed a misspelling and should not be confused with Chris Seavor. It also appears on the list (while Chris Seavor doesn't) of search suggestions all until "Chris Seavor" specifically is written, explaining that status of the number of hits. It is misleading and useless. —Vipz (talk) 23:19, 12 May 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 delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Carla Cozzolino → Brooklyn 11223#Cast  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Her name isn't mentioned anywhere else on the project[5] and Pageviews are generally 1 every few weeks/months[6], She's only ever starred in Brooklyn 11223[7] so as such with all of these examples I'm not seeing a reason or even a purpose to this redirect existing, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:34, 11 May 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 withdrawn as retargeted by Evrik. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Laguna Creek (Fremont) → Alameda Creek  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Mission Creek (Laguna Creek) → Arroyo de la Laguna  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirects should be deleted (unless someone wants to write an article for the

• Keep, while I don't have the time to check what you say above right now, the creeks exist. Why don't you point them to the correct place? --evrik ^(talk) 04:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're an entirely independent watershed with no wikipedia article. There's nowhere to point them to, and right now, they point to articles on water bodies that are miles away from where they exist, with entirely different watersheds and ecologies. -Tga (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but they all exist. I created
      Laguna Creek Watershed and pointed both redirects towards that article. --evrik ^(talk) 18:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete per nom. I don't at all understand evrik's argument. The current target is wrong from Tga.D's analysis, and there is no other place to redirect them to, so the only option is to delete the redirects, not keep the error. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created
    Laguna Creek Watershed and pointed both redirects towards that article. --evrik ^(talk) 18:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Now you're making sense. I've withdrawn my "delete" opinion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tga.D: how about withdrawing this discussion? --evrik ^(talk) 13:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sure, is there a designated way for me to do so? Or do I just need to say here that I'm withdrawing the discussion? -Tga (talk) 00:28, 14 May 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.