Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 24

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

February 24

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 24, 2024.

Oink! (computer game)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3#Oink! (computer game)

Wikipedia:FALSETITLE

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 as moot. Since the target was changed immediately after this nomination was made.
(non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

As User:Popcornfud/The problem with false titles is not a page in the Wikipedia: namespace, we should not redirect to it with a Wikipedia: redirect or WP: shortcut. NebY (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've moved the essay to WP namespace, alongside another style essay I created,
    WP:ELEVAR. Popcornfud (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Given the essay has now been moved, this issue may be moot - however, there are a large number other redirects that exist from projectspace to userspace (see e.g. a lot of the entries in
    WP:SILENTCONSENSUS has formed that shortcuts from WP-space to userspace can be acceptable. (As has been noted at previous RfDs - e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 26 § Wikipedia:RSCASTE, there is no blanket prohibition on pointing WP-space shortcuts to userspace essays.) As such, I wouldn't personally !vote to delete this redirect if the only reason for deletion was because it was a WP:-shortcut to userspace. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 17:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep The redirect makes it easier to mention this useful essay in edit comments. Until now, I've been pointing to false title, which describes the phenomenon, but doesn't argue why false titles shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. --Macrakis (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't believe any such "silent consensus" exists mentioned by A smart kitten, but it's often more trouble than it's worth to hunt down, in general, for why these sometimes slip by. WP redirects to user-space essays should be very rare, reserved for user pages both famous and harmless ideally. This guidance appears to be controversial as well, although that isn't my main issue (I'd still !vote delete for pretty much any essay). SnowFire (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as moot. No longer an XNR. Nothing in
    WP:SC explicitly states that these are verboten anyway. No other plausible targets have been presented. Etc. --NYKevin 09:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The principle may be a moot point (BrEng) – I do fear we risk giving a misleading impression of the status of user-space essays and am surprised there are so many other such redirects – but now that the essays's been moved, this nomination is indeed moot (AmEmg). As nominator, I'm happy for this to be closed with no action. NebY (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as moot and because there is no blanket prohibition on userspace essays having WP shortcuts. Not all (probably most) such essays should not have such shortcuts, but that is something that needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If NebY, Snowfire or anyone else wants to introduce such a prohibition they need to actively seek consensus to do so given the status quo has a long history. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Whatever makes the essay an actual rule throughout the site I'm all for. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:NYKevin. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, regardless of the current or former location of the target - Cross-namespace redirects are innapraopriate from the mainspace to, for example, the userspace or wikipedia namespace. However, this prohibition does not usually apply in other areas or ways. There are many redirects from the wikipedia namespace to the userspace and this is generally considered okay; see
    The existence of a shortcut does not imply or prove that the linked page is a policy or guideline.") confers no more or less authority to the content of a page. @Popcornfud: There is seemingly no issue with you keeping this in your userspace (as a userspace essay) and maintaining this wikipedia namespace shortcut, if you so desire. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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
).

Pokemon hitmonlee

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. signed, Rosguill talk 05:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

implausible search, also apparently created as vandalism!? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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
).

Polygonz

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 05:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

implausible typo and wrong pokémon cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of generation IV Pokémon#Porygon-Z as a plausible misspelling, especially considering perception of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese speakers. Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike the very similarly named
    PolygonZ redirect would automatically fix and correct for those searches. If people make that spelling, and look up to see where they came from, most people would see the capital Z and immediately understand "oh, that's why I'm here". Without the capital Z, genuine polygon searchers may be validly confused about why they ended up on a list of Pokemon, especially because "Polygonz" is nowhere to be found at this new page. Because this redirect's lowercasing leaves it rendered like a regular word and not like a Pokemon, this exactly spelling and casing I don't think would make for a useful redirect, to either target, per WP:XY. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Someone not being sure how to capitalise the Pokemon name seems a much more likely use for this search than a typo for Polygons, but if the latter is actually common then we can add a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not knowing how to capitalize the Z would get automatically corrected by the search bar, so people that use this term are already going to the Pokemon article. As the people that make this typo end up here, when they check above and see "PolygonZ", they'll absolutely know why due to the uppercase Z. This title, on the other hand, makes it unclear due the bold claim that "Polygonz" is more equivalent in meaning to "Porygon-Z" than it is to "Polygons", which is already several-assumptions-deep to even get to that point.
To be talking about the Pokemon, you already have to be A) spelling it incorrectly in multiple ways and B) lacking its most defining characteristic (the capital Z). The good news is that the latter is fixed automatically, so this redirect doesn't need to exist to enable that search, as its already enabled. But with the lowercase Z, it's far more plausible to be one keyboard button slip from
polygons, a redirect which is now at 200 hits a month, than it is for Porygon-Z, to which none of the misspellings receive more than 5 hits, and Porygon-Z is only at 17. This is one of the few times that deletion adds information to readers, because reaching this page from an automatically-corrected "PolygonZ" redirect is leaps and bounds more useful than coming in from "Polygonz", which literally just looks like the word "Polygons" and does not look like a Pokemon name at all (which its already multiple-misspelling away from.) Utopes (talk / cont) 04:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Not knowing how to capitalize the Z would get automatically corrected by the search bar only in some circumstances does this happen, and whether it does or not depends on multiple factors. This means that it cannot be relied upon to take readers to the content they are looking for. -z is a very uncommon way to pluralise words in English, so unless you have evidence to the contrary it seems significantly less plausible than using standard English capitalisation rules for a non-standard capitalisation - especially as Wikipedia article titles routinely do not respect non-standard capitalisation styling of proper names. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and let Search find the non-Pokemon mentions (that don't deserve a redirect). I would delete
    PolygonZ too. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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
).

術

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.
(non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Lexeme in both Chinese and Japanese. Remsense诉 03:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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
).

Arueus

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) 19:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

implausible typo cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deuete, entirely different letter with entirely different sound (3 vowels), and not a typo worth maintaining. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    oh my god i just noticed what you did cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not an expert on Proto Baltic language. But it does have a mention there. --Lenticel (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an expert either, but I'm not confident that'll be enough to draw the target, leaning not. Based on the article's contents, it looks to be in an example section for how adjectives are constructed, this one meaning the dual locative feminine of the adjective "suitable"... It's an interesting find though, thanks for grabbing the link ^^ Utopes (talk / cont) 05:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget to Proto-Baltic_language#*i-stem_nouns per Lenticel (talk · contribs)'s comment - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 15:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "U" is pretty far from "C" on the standard keyboard and it makes a different sound, making the typo implausible. I don't think it should be redirected, let the search function do its job. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as misspelling to Aureus (disambiguation) and optionally include the Baltic entry there. I have been twisting my tongue trying to pronounce these 🤪 Jay 💬 13:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget as misspelling to Aureus as per Jay. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why would this go to the disambiguation page and not just Aureus as an r from misspelling of that? That's a good find as a more-likely typo than Arceus (therefore retargeting is fine enough), but I'm definitely opposed to adding the Baltic word to the disambiguation page. We have no encyclopedic content about that word, as it's not a subject that receives coverage on Wikipedia, just a dicdef example used to showcase Baltic phonetics. If this is kept as an r from misspelling, it'd be more likely to be a misspelling of the primary topic (Aureus) rather than equally spread out at the disambiguation. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deuete per Utopes above. StaleGuy22AlternateAccount (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no substantive mention anywhere. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Aureus: as {{R from misspelling}}, rather than to the disambiguation page. This is not a plausible typo for Arceus per zxcvbnm. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - with several obscure terms that this could possibly be a misspelling of and far below a pageview per day, I don't see how this could actually be of use to readers. signed, Rosguill talk 05:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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
).

GOOMY

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
Get Out Of My Yard. signed, Rosguill talk 05:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

implausible search initially created as... a redirect for the initials of a song? would re-retargeting it be a better choice, or...? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Steel and Thryduulf, the cheap outcome for this redirect would be to retarget back onto
Goomy" would inhibit the acronym's searchability. Could be worthwhile to target the album and hatnote the Pokemon, if those are the only two that use it. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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
).

Ferrucutus cerastes

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 Styracosaurus#In popular culture. ✗plicit 12:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 25#Unmentioned fictional creatures in King Kong (2005 film) for similar discussion/consensus. Steel1943 (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These names are from the Skull Island book that accompanied the film. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per precedent. These redirects from names mentioned in supplemental material are actively unhelpful to the reader, when they don't show up in the actual article they redirect to. Let's put it in a different light: Say I typed
    Pokémon Red/Blue that had no active mention of Raichu itself and no link to any supplemental articles that might mention Raichu itself, such as List of generation I Pokémon. I'd actually be pretty upset, because I didn't want info on Pokémon itself, I wanted information on Raichu. Similarly, someone who types "Ferrucutus cerastes" into the search bar wouldn't be satisfied by this redirect to King Kong (2005 film), because the target article wouldn't have any information on the species they searched for. ...Unless, of course, someone updated the article to include this information somewhere, but given the lack of notability, I'm guessing that won't happen. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Retarget to Skull Island (King Kong)#2005 remake 2 per FunkMonk. Jay 💬 12:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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
).

Anglican Church

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. A few different redirect targets and a move suggestion have been proposed, but none have gained a decisive following. signed, Rosguill talk 05:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Retarget both to Church of England. These redirs are quite confusing, as they purport by their names to be about the church, an institution, but go to a page about the overall Christian tradition that evolved from the Church of England AKA the Anglican Church.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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
).

HYUNDAI

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! 02:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Could refer to other Hyundai companies not just the motor company Isla🏳️‍⚧ 02:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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
).

Competitiveness

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! 02:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

I do not believe that this redirect has exclusivity to its target in regards to his definition. For example, the article Competition exists, but that article seems to be set up as almost like a broad concept article. In the aforementioned article, Competition#Competitiveness exists, but I'm not sure if that's correct either. Maybe retarget to Competition (disambiguation) and let readers decide, or delete the redirect? Steel1943 (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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
).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_24&oldid=1216131978"