Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 13

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 Dwindle Distribution. This is actually not a partial-title match, because the company can commonly be called simply "Dwindle". --BDD (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dwindle → wiktionary:Special:Search/dwindle (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I see no reason for this arbitrary soft redirect. Doesn't fit the rationale given at Template:Wiktionary redirect for creating a redirect to Wiktionary. Also, for what it's worth, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 25#Dwindled. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just tagged this as a speedy delete as it is an invalid target. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 23:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrfrobinson: I had to contest your speedy since the target does exist on Wiktionary. Steel1943 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the closest target that I got is Dwindle Distribution which is a partial title match. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Comment: Per the above-referenced template that is used on this "redirect", apparently, for the template to be valid, the title has to match this criteria:

  "...It is only for dictionary definitions and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created."

  From what I see, content at this title has been deleted only once. Steel1943 (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• comment the template has also long been used at titles which are likely to be recreated (whether they have been or not) and/or are, or are likely to be, common search terms without an encyclopaedic target. Thryduulf (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• retarget to Dwindle Distribution. While that is a partial title match, it is consistently referred to in the article as just "Dwindle" so it is an appropriate target, and a hatnote to Wiktionary would serve those looking for information on the word just as well as the current soft redirect. Reading the previous discussion, that was about "dwindled" (past tense) and my opinion was that that should not redirect to the company, but the infinitive form should (i.e. if "dwindled" was to be kept it should point to a soft redirect at "dwindle"). Si Trew appeared to have misunderstood that comment as suggesting the opposite. Thryduulf (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2015 (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. There is a clear distinction between suitability for an article title and as a redirect. WP:RNEUTRAL is also relevant. Just Chilling (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Islamic State (militant group) → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

the name Islamic State has been repeatedly rejected by users for the article and referencing the group Legacypac (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Without evidence, that's just a bald assertion. Si Trew (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D8, "very obscure synonym for an article name". Si Trew (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My bald assertion is backed up by many failed move requests to Islamic State (whatever). Legacypac (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The "Islamic State" is a militant group, and there are references to "ISIL militants" in the target article. The nominator's assertion that this has been rejected as the article title don't address why it's also unacceptable as a redirect. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BDD. It turns up in a google search as a common possibility. The redirect is to bring one to the appropriate article titled appropriately. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, plausible search term Siuenti (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since ISIL is the only Islamic state that is known as a militant group. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 14 January 2015 (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. --BDD (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Return of Donkey Kong → Donkey Kong (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Donkey Kong no Ongaku Asobi → Donkey Kong  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Donkey kong no ongaku asobi → Donkey Kong  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

All of the redirects listed in this nomination represent the topic of the first redirect: Return of Donkey Kong. Apparently, this game was a game that was to be developed for the Nintendo Entertainment System, but was then cancelled. It seems that at some point, it was merged into the target page, but at this point, no material from the merge remains at the target article. So, the redirects are potentially misleading since the topic is not mentioned anywhere at the target, and I am unable to find any suitable retargeting options. Steel1943 (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, it seems that at on point, this title was considered to be listed on List of Donkey Kong video games, but it may have been either not added or removed possibly because the redirects' topic is a game that was never released. Steel1943 (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Return of Donkey Kong" feels to me like an alternate/badly translated name for Donkey Kong Country Returns (simply Donkey Kong Returns in Japanese). According to jawp ja:ドンキーコングJR.の算数遊び, "Donkey Kong no Ongaku Asobi" = ドンキーコングの音楽遊び was a scrapped sequel of Donkey Kong Jr. Math, once teased in flyers. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 06:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hisashiyarouin: The main issue I see with retargeting this redirect (well, either target as mentioned in the comment you added above) is that it sort of enforces the fact that these titles do not specifically refer to any existing subject on Wikipedia, but rather, it's a subtopic that is not described or mentioned in any article. In other words, it seems that per other search engines, these terms have such a notable connection to a topic that does not have a Wikipedia article that redirecting the terms elsewhere, even as an {{R from incorrect name}}, could be seen as harmful. I mean, let's say I find this term in a search engine, try to look it up on Wikipedia, which then redirects me to an article that does not refer to my intended subject (not even a subject that matches its name), then read the article as if it is the same subject as the one I looked up. At that point, I now believe in misinformation since the article I read was not the topic I was looking for, but since I could not tell the difference, I now think that the two topics are the one and the same. Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2015 (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. However, I will be retargeting to List of breakfast cereals, because no editors seem to favor keeping the redirect as is. --BDD (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Donkey Kong Crunch → Donkey Kong (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

It seems that the subject of this redirect was a cereal that was made in the 1980s by a company that eventually merged into Ralston Purina. However, it is not mentioned in the target article, nor the aforementioned article. Steel1943 (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that it is mentioned in List of breakfast cereals, but just as a list item, and not in any other detail of the such. Steel1943 (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "Krunch" is listed as a character at List of Donkey Kong characters#''Diddy Kong Racing'' characters. Si Trew (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure how valuable of a retargeting option that is, given that it's spelled "Krunch" instead of "Crunch", the "Crunch" spelling specifically refers to the cereal, and the phrase "Donkey Kong" (in this case) should probably be a disambiguator instead of partied the title before the subject's name. Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably "Krunch (Diddy Kong Racing)" would be better, but I'm not suggesting we bother to create it; I just noted it in case "Crunch" is perceived as a misspelling (though it would be rather bizarre that the misspelling is the correct spelling and vice versa...) Si Trew (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of breakfast cereals per WP:CHEAP. I vaguely remember seeing this cereal (or ads for it) in the 80s but it's very unlikely we'd ever write an article about it. In the list, the link is piped to Donkey Kong (video game) anyway, as is "Donkey Kong Jr. Cereal" (to Donkey Kong Junior). Ivanvector (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ivanvector: The issue I see with retargeting this redirect to List of breakfast cereals or even List of breakfast cereals#D is that at the present time, the only incoming redirect that List of breakfast cereals has is List of cereals. If this redirect is targeted there, in order to make it all consistent, all cereal names mentioned on that page which do not have their own article would need to be redirected there too. Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only really suggested that because that seems to be the only place it's mentioned on Wikipedia at all. The redirect doesn't have a lot of value but it's a plausible search. I don't think retargeting there necessitates creating all of those other redirects, unless someone really wants to. Also, I don't think you've made a suggestion for what to do here, unless I'm misreading. Ivanvector (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Per my initial rationale, I would go for "delete", but that's just if the usefulness of it retargeting somewhere else can be justified, but I just don't see the value of the redirect targeting List of breakfast cereals since that article doesn't describe the topic other than listing its name and what company made it. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that "its name and what company made it" is literally all of the information we have on it, and probably all we will ever have. I don't think it hurts to target there, because at least it's something, and I don't see value in redlinking it, i.e. if we expected an article to be written about it in the future. To be honest I don't feel strongly about it either way. Ivanvector (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2015 (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.