Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 22

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn/bold retarget to

(non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Howl-O-Scream (Busch Gardens Williamsburg) → Busch Gardens  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2022 (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

(non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Baby reading → Reading#Age to introduce literacy learning  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirects to a now-nonexistent anchor, not even sure if this is a real thing/plausible search term or just some

• Re-refine to § Optimum age to learn to read, which contains the phrase early (baby) reading. Even if this is fringe, redirects from fringe terms are allowed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine per Tamzin. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2022 (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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. I withdraw my nomination.

(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Megan (2023 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

High-maintenance redirect - it will need to be deleted in a few years. No links. Qwerfjkltalk 13:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as redirect from a page move. The target was at this title from August 2021 until it was moved today. Unclear how it is a high-maintenance redirect. There is no reason to delete in a few years too. Jay (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The film will no longer be upcoming. ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, likely to be searched up by readers and linked externally. Even if it should be deleted in a few years, it is extremely unclear how the solution to the problem of that maintenance is to harm readers and cause a high maintenance cost anyway by bringing it to RfD. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 03:12, 23 January 2022 (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, WP:ER, retarget WT:ER I had to manually carry this out as with the closure, the closure tool wanted to put an RFD notice on the project talk page. Should this notice be removed? I'm relatively new to closing deletion discussions. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:ER →
  talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

• Wikipedia talk:ER →
  talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

Support Per nom, pending input from others. Signed, IAmChaos 01:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this means supporting targeting the talk page to Edit requests. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, can someone add Wikipedia:ER to the nom? I can't figure out how to add a second set of links below. I'm tagging WP:ER right now for RfD. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Skarmory: Added the Wikipedia:ER redirect as requested. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (target WT:ER to Wikipedia talk:Edit requests) per nom. Veverve (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:59, 23 January 2022 (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 no consensus. Editors remain divided on whether it is appropriate to usurp a redirect for an active project, with only minority support for deletion or disambiguation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:AAR →
  talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

Shortcut has very little use compared to other ones. Upcoming use in the new board Wikipedia:Administrative action review, which is currently split between AARV and XRV (neither of which make sense). Not only will 99% of people be looking for this and not random wikiproject it will have more use here and more clarity, and be primary Naleksuh (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget, as the proposed target is more useful to the en.wp community as a whole. I have left notices of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles and Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget, because "and" (in Amphibians and Reptiles) makes for not-so-strong an acronym. This is not an amazing acronym for "Amphibians and Reptiles", and it's a very good acronym for Administrative Action Review; analogously and precedently, MR is the most used acronym for Move Review. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget, please; I caused confusion by using this for Administrative action review today. I can't imagine it's not the primary usage going forward. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Aw, leave the poor herptologists alone. It's used 208 times to refer to their wikiproject, and been used once to refer to the new XRV. Perhaps rename the review board to WP:Review of Administrative Responses (WP:ROAR). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose.
  WP:AAR has been the redirect name to the project for the past 15 years...if anything, it would be simpler to change the name of the brand-spanking-new review board. bibliomaniac15 21:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Floquenbeam: My opinion on it is that there are retargets for shortcuts used tens of thousands of times (a bot can move them if needed) and comparatively 208 is not a lot. This problem will still exist X years from now but be "ground in" then, it is a new board right now. So now may be a good idea to retarget. Also, is the roar thing serious or joke? Not sure which. Sorry if I am being unclear, I have multiple COVID symptoms right now :( Naleksuh (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a lot compared to tens of thousands, but it's a lot compared to one. The ROAR thing was the worst of all worlds, text-based semi-serious. But more seriously, we use "RV" for "review" elsewhere (

  WP:HERP, but that feels yucky). Seeing that AARV is easy to understand and easy to explain and easy to form a habit around, I don't know why we would want to cause grief for a wikiproject that has been using the redirect for 15 years, and is involved with actual content, instead of another dramaboard. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  We also use "R" for "review" when we use MR for Move review more frequently than MRV. DRV as opposed to DR is only a thing because DR means dispute resolutoin. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ...and AAR means amphibians and reptiles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd think keeping the RV scheme for WP:AARV would be best, but if AAR is going to be retargeted, I'd say that WP:HERP would be the best shortcut. bibliomaniac15 20:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Alalch Emis. "and" is never really abbreviated. Neel.arunabh (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. The vast mahority of those 208 references were in a series of usertalk mass messages. I don't see any evidence that a large number of people have been using this abbreviation in practice. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose I should find another hill to die on, but it certainly strikes me as disrespectful and diminishing to tell the members of AAR "Yoink. I know you've been using this for 15 years, but there's a brand new page that's a couple of weeks old, and we want it." Just seems the epitome of putting project people over content people. I seem to be in the minority, so maybe I'm wrong, maybe they don't actually use it. If they don't care, I shouldn't care. But if actual AAR members show up and object, I think we should defer to a content-based wikiproject over a brand new dramaboard. I'll desist from commenting here unless AAR members show up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget specifically because I think the wikiproject has a better alternative available in
  WP:HERP. The term "herp" is already used in the relevant zoologic communities (citation: personal experience and Herping); cc Floquenbeam as this addresses one of his previous concerns. If "AAR" was optimal for "Amphibians and Reptiles", I would oppose, but I don't think "AAR" is a particularly good shortcut. The noticeboard certainly has a stronger claim syntactically, as noted above (the word "and" usually not being part of an abbreviation). I also don't see a better name for the noticeboard; I'd change my mind if there was one, I suppose. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  (I said I wouldn't reply until AAR people showed up, but this is in small font so doesn't count). What about AARV? to mirror DRV, which this board is apparently supposed to be a kindred spirit to? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Qualified oppose I kinda agree with Floq. I've proposed usurping a redirect before, but that was to a direlict venue. This is an active WikiProject, so unless its members are okay with giving up the redirect I'm inclined to feel that usurpation is inappropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm qualifiedly sympathetic to this argument. We could come up with an alternative name for the project. AAR is not an amazing acronym for "Amphibians and Reptiles", so we can be safe that the project wouldn't be at any loss, objectively speaking, as long as a reasonable, at least not worse, alternative is found. So...

WP:AMR (reuse from failed proposal), WP:AMREP (name of company), WP:AMREPT (not bad)? Any resonance? — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I was gonna go with

WP:WPAR but it looks like that's already in use for Wiki Project Animal Rights. I'm not a member of this WikiProject but "WP:WPAAR" and "WP:AMREPT" seem alright. Naleksuh (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose - let's not reduce the effectiveness of a Wikiproject that actually produces content by changing their well-established redirect to point at another noticeboard about internal administration. The noticeboard is brand new and I wish it all the best, but it can settle in people's consciousness under any acronym we choose. As examples, ANI, ACN, DRV aren't particularly intuitive but we all know what they mean. And with due regard for "otherstuffexists," the prime real estate of
  WP:A/R. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Retarget. AAR doesn't invoke "Amphibians and Reptiles" intuitively and could be put to better use. I see that WP:AMPH is red. JBchrch talk 14:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. We should always be extremely cautious about retargetting shortcut redirects as old uses, linked and unlinked, will be broken and there is the potential for new uses to continue to go to the old place causing confusions. "Amphibians and Reptiles" is an equally plausible use of "AAR" as "Admin Action Review", so by virtue of getting there a long time beforehand and still actively using it the Wikiproject has the rights to continue using it. Other potential shortcuts exist for the new board, which is still finding its feet and not really even properly active yet. Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget A pirate sound is clearly the best indicator for the administrative review area. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as if we do this, we will need a redirect hatnote at XRV to AAR. BilledMammal (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No we wouldn't. Naleksuh (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If this is retargetted then yes we would have a hatnote at the new target saying something like "WP:AAR redirects here, for the WikiProject see

  Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and reptiles", just as if it isn't retargetted the WikiProject should gain a hatnote to XRV. This is not a reason to support or oppose retargetting though. Thryduulf (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I see it as something to be avoided if possible, but I also oppose per Euryalus. BilledMammal (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget a hatnote can be used to address any confusion as is done with other changed redirect targets. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget with hatnote, to avoid confusion. ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, mostly because
  I don't like it but also because I use the acronym to easily navigate to the project. Get your own sandwich! (and leave the acronym in place for the existing AAR project). Loopy30 (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no agreement on whether this should be retargeted or kept…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would defer to the wishes of the editors involved in the Amphibians and Reptiles WikiProject. If they agree with retargeting the redirect, great; otherwise, leave it with its current target. In that case, if the administrative action review process is unpaused, then I suggest adding a disambiguation note in a prominent location on the WikiProject page. isaacl (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Ambiguous, and therefore a poor shortcut for any purpose. Use of ambiguous shortcuts makes things much worse. Best to delete and prevent ongoing confusion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If not deleted, it should certainly point to the WikiProject as it did for so long. The new idea for the target has clearly locked to to a preference for

  WP:XRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It's not really all that clear. For one, pages do not have preferences, people do. Second, a lot of people have voiced their confusion on it and many people also use AARV. And part of that is why this TFD exists in the first place. Naleksuh (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is clear. You are displaying confusion. Preference data is seen in pageviews. Very few are using AARV, many are using XRV. This is not TFD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I thought it was TFD. It's not like T and R are right next to each other on the keyboard or anything. Naleksuh (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Create a disambiguation page per all the mixed votes above. Also, deletion doesn't help anyone or the incoming links to the title, so I oppose that. Steel1943 (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Making it a red link is the surest way to discourage its use, and clicking on the red link will bring up the deletion log pointing to this discussion, which is sufficient disambiguation. Deletion will help. Creating a shadow space of bad shortcuts and shortcut DABs is unproductive, making more work than help. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither deletion nor disambiguation help readers wanting to use the longstanding redirect (who will be disadvantaged for no good reason by any outcome other than keep) nor does it help those wanting the new project who will have to use a different shortcut in both those scenarios so it is literally the worst of all worlds. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Wikipedia:AAR. No one uses this shortcut. No one wants to use this shortcut. No one needs to use any shortcut, the page title is perfectly fine. Shortcuts that no one uses, that go to obscure things, serve no good purpose and this is best deleted. This is not a worldly weighted matter, this is a poor shortcut that in the real world would have grown over very quickly. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  150-300 hits a year, which the redirect has received for several years, is extremely far away from "nobody uses this" and the target is not obscure. If we took "nobody needs to use any shortcut" seriously then we would delete every single one of them. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The vast majority of hits are post Dec 2021. You can move the pageviews dates back to 2015. Pre Dec 2021 it was just noise.

  Shortcuts are for convenience, not need. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) Fair enough. My disambiguation vote is primarily an assessment to find a middle ground between all these votes; but of course, that's for the discussion closer to decide. I'd also agree on "weak keep" per the redirect targeting what it has targeted for over a decade, so thus retargeting it would break incoming links, as well as links in edit summaries that cannot be changed. Steel1943 (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose retargeting as a redirect that has been used for 15 years and gets enough uses per year to be considered used. AARV/XRV work fine for the new board. Skarmory (talk • contribs)

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 reverse redirect to restore the status quo ante bellum. Further discussion regarding the name of the article can be conducted by filing an

RM. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Zhang Jue Long  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a {{R from move}}. The article was at this title from 2016 to December 2021. The reason Underbar dk gave for the move to this title was "his English name". Theeditors2019 did not give a reason for moving it back, nor did they give a reason for removing the English name in this 2019 edit. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore name and revert move English-language Internet coverage of this individual is minimal (since his career seems to have peaked before most Malaysian newspapers were online), but this was verifiably the English name he was using back when he was on the judges' panel for the 2013 AIM Chinese Music Awards [1] (article from
  WP:RS verification that he uses the name Zhang Jue Long in English. FWIW he is listed as Gordon Teoh on Spotify [2] and Shazam (application) [3]. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Refer to
  WP:COMMONNAME to BLPs is complicated. (We're probably overdue for another RM for Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam, the canonical example of an article intentionally kept at an old name.) This is the kind of determination better made at RM than at RfD. What matters for RfD's purposes is whether it's a valid alias for the subject, which it appears to be. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]