Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 16

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 in the absence of any objection to the nomination. ~ mazca ^talk 13:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Realme X2 → Realme  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This does not have a section at the target title, and from a quick search, this seems to be different from the Realme X2 Pro, on which we do have a separate article. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:42, 16 January 2021 (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 in the absence of any objection to the nomination. ~ mazca ^talk 13:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Realme X50 → Realme  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This does not have a section at the target title, and from a quick search, this seems to be different from the Realme X50 Pro, on which we have a separate article. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:39, 16 January 2021 (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. Unmentioned but perhaps relevant, no consensus for any particular action has developed here. Revisiting the old disambiguation page in the history as a set index is an interesting option, and certainly not excluded by this discussion. ~ mazca ^talk 13:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Alta Vista, California → Mesa, California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Alta Vista, Inyo County, California → Mesa, California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of "Alta Vista" at Mesa, California, and I can find no mentions elsewhere other than at Template:Inyo County, California. Note that Alta Vista, California was formerly a disambiguation page with only one valid entry. I suggest delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Alta Vista seems to be part of Mesa, and a google search returned some results. CrazyBoy826 19:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Alta Vista, California" 's 2009 version could be converted to a set index, with reference to the two placenames. Additional Alta Vistas in CA could be added thusly. One of these should be the namesake of the DEC AltaVista search engine. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2021 (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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Most liked video → List of most-liked YouTube videos  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Most liked video" does not only refer to most-liked YouTube videos. Sun8908──Talk 09:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is too ambiguous. CrazyBoy826 19:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete There are many other websites with videos besides Youtube 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The only other potential target I see is List of most-liked TikTok videos, and the YouTube list has been viewed almost twice as often over the past 30 days. Not opposed to putting a hatnote on the YouTube list. - Eureka Lott 01:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep most people who search it will be looking for the YouTube page. Sahaib3005 (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add a hatnote at List of most-liked YouTube videos. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to an obvious primary use, though I second Elliot321 on hatnotes. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2021 (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 British Rail Class 57#Virgin Trains West Coast in the absence of a particularly enthusiastic consensus for anything. Contributors are basically agreed that there isn't a particularly ideal target that mentions these in as general terms as we would like, but this target is felt to be the best mention currently available. If better, more general mentions of the concept are added to a new or existing article, this discussion definitely doesn't exclude a future retargeting or discussion. ~ mazca ^talk 13:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thunderbird locomotive → Bank engine#Thunderbird  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

My change of target to British Rail Class 57 with edit summary "Change target to article with mention" was reverted by an IP editor. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment British Rail Class 57#Virgin Trains West Coast is the best place we have currently, but it's not great. I'm actually tempted to restore assisting engine as a broad concept article (it was boldly redirect to Bank engine by user:Moabdave as unreferenced and duplicative) and target it there or turn this redirect into an article about rescue locomotives specifically. The current target is not good, as there is no mention of thunderbirds there (and nor should there be). I'll drop a note at the UK Rail Wikiproject. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I agree with Thryduulf that the concept of a rescue locomotive as distinct from a helper locomotive is probably worthy of a stand-alone article and that would be the best target, assuming there are sources. Absent that, I do think British Rail Class 57#Virgin Trains West Coast is the best available target. Mackensen (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• They're certainly not bank engines in the conventional sense of the term; a bank engine is one stationed at the foot of an incline (a "bank") which is regularly ascended by heavy trains that routinely require assistance; the Lickey Incline in England still uses bank engines. Thunderbird locos - named after the 1960s Gerry Anderson TV serial - are stationed at strategic locations so that should a train become immobile at any location, the nearest Thunderbird loco can be summoned to the rescue. Their use is irregular and it is not possible to predict the next time that it is necessary to make use of them. In this sense they are akin to breakdown trains, although they don't have any special equipment (other than the coupling) and so cannot carry out many of the functions of a breakdown train, such as rerailing. Whilst the term "Thunderbird" for such locos dates back only to circa 2002, the concept is much older, and at one time a loco kept ready at depots or larger stations in case a disabled train required assistance was known as a "standing pilot". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am the IP who edited the redirect. Some time ago the page Assisting engine contained a mention of thunderbird locomotives. I have previously used this redirect to navigate to that page. Assisting engine then was redirected to Bank engine, which resulted in Thunderbird locomotive being retargeted to Class 57, which has a mention of these locomotives. However, Class 57s are not the only type of loco used as thunderbirds, so I reverted. Then (after this RFD nomination had been created) I realised that Bank engine actually does not talk about thunderbirds. 122.60.65.44 (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2021 (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. The discussion increasingly centered around the policy basis for userspace essay shortcuts overall, which is rather beyond the remit of RfD. Participants made the key points that essays userfied by MfD should remain in userspace (which is fairly self-evident) but also that there's no particular policy generally preventing WP-space shortcuts to userspace targets. Certainly RfD would be competent to determine that an individual redirect from WP-space to userspace is worth deleting, but that discussion has not really taken place here.

It may be worth clarifying this policy overall via an RfC, as this is far from the only example. As far as the scope of this discussion goes, there is no consensus that this individual redirect is causing a problem. ~ mazca ^talk 11:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:CHURNALISM → User:Northamerica1000/Churnalism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Deletion

We had a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Churnalism back in August, 2017. It closed as userify.

There are a handful of user essays that are the target of redirects that make them look like essays in the wikipedia namespace. In my opinion no user essay should have a redirect that makes them look like essays in the wikipedia namespace.

Half or more of those misleadingly redirected user essays seem to be honest mistakes, where the author hasn't fully thought through the drawbacks to this kind of redirect.

But, in this particular instance, the author created the redirect AFTER the MfD closed as userify.

Redirects from userspace essays into the wikipedia namespace should be disallowed for the same reason we don't allow redirects from article space to draft space or userspace. Essays in the wikipedia namespace are held to higher standards. Essays in the wikipedia namespace enjoy an implied assumption that more than one person holds the opinion in the essay. If this wasn't true MfD wouldn't close as choosing to downgrade essays into userspace.

In addition, WP:Userspace and other wikidocuments state or imply that contributors should be allowed to exercise a measure of ownership over essays they started, so long as they keep them in userspace. If an author decides their userspace essay is ready to sit with the big boys and girls in the wikipedia namespace, they have to be ready to accept that other contributors may modify their essay so that they no longer completely agree with it. But, if they keep their essay in userspace, with only a redirect into the wikipedia namespace, they enjoy the WP:OWNERSHIP of total control over the content, combined with the extra credibility that, to casual readers, it appears to be in wikipedia space. Geo Swan (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: for the same reason we don't allow redirects from draft space or userspace into article space. We actually do (e.g. WP:RDRAFT and WP:SRED). Did you mean the other way around (i.e. things covered by R2)? — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for seeing through what I wrote, and understanding what I meant. I amended my original text. Geo Swan (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete by policy. If there's a longstanding redirect and the target is userfied, that's one thing. Creating a new redirect in the Wikipedia space to a user essay that's been explicitly moved out of Wikipedia space is never okay. SnowFire (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is no policy or guideline against Wikipedia space redirects to user essays and precedent at RfD is that most are fine, so any attempt to introduce such a policy or guideline needs to establish explicit consensus for it first. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, if you think the precedent at RfD supports conflating the distinction between wikipedia space essays and userspace essays do you think you could help this discussion by linking to the clearest of those precedents?

I am going to highlight passages from some wikidocuments:

From Category:User essays

An essay here may be moved categorically by its author into the Wikipedia namespace, Category:Wikipedia essays, if it is frequently referenced, as evidenced by becoming an evolving expression of multiple editors, or if the user wishes to relinquish editorial control of it to the community (and the essay was not userspaced as the result of a community decision).

So, doesn't that say a community decision, like an MfD, demotes an essay to userspace? Doesn't that mean then turning around, and creating a redirect to the wikipedia namespace looks like an attempt to, well, circumvent the consequences of the community decision?

From WP:USERESSAY

Writings that contradict policy are somewhat tolerated within the User namespace. The author of a personal essay located in his or her user space has the prerogative to revert any changes made to it by any other user, within reason.

As I wrote, above, the essays in the wikipedia namespace are collaborations - can be edited by any contributor, while the original authors of userspace essays get to exercise OWNERSHIP over their essay. Geo Swan (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time right now to search for the old discussions but none of what you wrote above supports your contention that such redirects are never appropriate. I can only recall one case of a WP shortcut of an essay moved to userspace after an MfD being discussed here, I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head (it was several years ago) but that essay (including the shortcut) was being actively used to mislead with regards to policy. IIRC the shortcut was explicitly mentioned at the MfD and there was a borderline consensus against it there prior to the deletion at RfD. Regardless though, 1 discussion does not make a binding precedent either way. Issues of WP:OWNERSHIP of essays are at best tangiential to whether there is a Wikipedia shortcut to that essay. I haven't looked at this essay in detail, so I currently have no opinion whether this WP shortcut is appropriate. I am simply pointing out that long-standing consensus is that some Wikipedia → user essay shortcuts are acceptable. If you think this one is not then you need to focus your arguments on why this shortcut specifically is not acceptable for reasons other than simply being a shortcut to a Wikipedia essay. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't have the time, right now, to look for the discussions you saw support your position? Well, I took a couple of hours, a couple of months ago, and looked for redirections from wikipedia to userspace essays. Such redirections are rare.
• You write "I am simply pointing out that long-standing consensus is that some Wikipedia → user essay shortcuts are acceptable..." Hmmm, is it all right with you if I assume there are no discussions that concluded creating redirects to circumvent MfD closures was ever acceptable?
• As for those redirections created by individuals whose essays have always been userspace essays - both Category:Wikipedia essays and Category:User essays explicitly say an author can unilaterally promote an essay from user space to the wikipedia namespace, whenever they think it measures up to the stricter scrutiny implied in that namespace. Surely you would never claim that an explicit move to the wikipedia namespace, is significantly less convenient than creating a redirect? Geo Swan (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have always been on the liberal side of the court when it comes to shortcuts from the projectspace to the userspace. They are convenient and I do not think they lend much of an air of authority because many essays are hosted project-side as well; anyone following the link will quickly know in what space it resides. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because we allow thousands of shortcut wikilinks to section headings in our wikidocuments most contributors are unaware of whether their favourite wikispace wikilinks go to actual policies, or guidelines and MOS, or wikipedia space essays, or rogue user essays misleading redirected through a wikipedia space redirect. Could you clarify what you mean by "many essays are hosted project-side as well..." if you mean there are other wikipedia namespace redirects to user essays, I challenge your assertion that there are "many". There are others, a couple of dozen, vastly outnumbered by user essays whose authors never made a misleading redirect.

Most of the few dozen redirects from wikipedia to userspace essays seem to have been made by authors who failed to recognize how doing so was misleading and unfair to those essay authors who complied with the rules. Only a fraction of those redirects where the essay had been explicitly userified.

As for the convenience of reaching user essays... I would encourage the authors of userspace essays who innocently created redirects from the wikipedia namespace to explicitly move their essay to the wikipedia namespace. Alternately, if they lack confidence over whether their essay will be challenged with an MfD, if were in the wikipedia namespace, or they just don't want anyone else editing it, leave it in userspace and delete the redirect. Geo Swan (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with extreme prejudice. Completely inappropriate to mislead folks with a WP namespace shortcut to a userpage, especially one that was recently MfD'ed and userfied. It makes no logical sense to make a shortcut from the shared, collaborative WP namespace to a user essay that has by consensus been deemed non-community. This should also be eventually made policy. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Community consensus has long been that some WP shortcuts to userspace essays are acceptable. If you think this one is not appropriate explain why you think that with reference to this specific redirect and its target rather than the general class of similar redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is no policy based reason for this request. Calling such redirects "misleading and unfair to those essay authors who complied with the rules" is without any basis because there are actually no such rules as far I know and I have none seen cited here. In fact, those in favor of deletion readily admit there is no actual policy or guideline that forbids such redirects. As Thryduulf points out, neither page cited in support (which are both not policies or guidelines) forbids such redirects. Category:Redirects to user namespace lists at this moment over 900 such redirects that have existed for years without any fuss. I don't think RFD is the right place to basically create new policy out of nowhere. If you believe such redirects should generally be forbidden, then first start a discussion to amend the redirect guideline as such and then, if there is such consensus, nominate them for deletion. Not the other way around. At this time, WP:R#KEEP explicitly states However, avoid deleting such redirects if: [...] 5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. [...]. This is the case here. I find those redirects very useful and I am often using them regardless of target. On a side note, there is no risk of people actually thinking an essay has more "worth" if it has a "WP:" shortcut because they practically all start with It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.. Regards SoWhy 09:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SoWhy, Category:User essays says "An essay here may be moved categorically by its author into the Wikipedia namespace, Category:Wikipedia essays, if it is frequently referenced, as evidenced by becoming an evolving expression of multiple editors, or if the user wishes to relinquish editorial control of it to the community (and the essay was not userspaced as the result of a community decision). Additional essays may be found in the WMF-wide meta:Category:Essays. For non-Wikipedia-related essays, as article topics, see Category:Essays."
  • Well, this redirect had been userified. That is my policy basis.
  • I also think it is implied that any contributor who wants to promote their essay from sole authorship, in user space, to the wikipedia namespace, to take advantage of the increased credibility, and implied aura that it is the work of more than a single individual, should follow the instructions in Category:User essays, I quoted above - ie actually move it, don't create a redirect.
  • Category:User essays also says "...you should generally not edit essays that reside in someone else's userspace without the user's permission..." AGF, I am willing to assume that most people who maintain a user essay, where they enjoy sole ownership, yet have one or more wikipedia space redirects to it, did so without realizing that the practice was misleading.
  • Nevertheless, it is misleading.
  • If they want their essay to continue to be accessible through a link in the wikipedia namespace all they have to do is actually move it to the wikipedia namespace.
  • If they want to maintain sole WP:OWNERSHIP, slap a WP:CSD#G7 on their redirects. Geo Swan (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: Repeatedly claiming it to be "misleading" does not make it so. There is no policy or guideline that says WP:-shortcuts are limited to pages residing in Wikipedia:-namespace and hundreds of examples to the contrary exist and have existed for more than a decade (e.g. WP:JIMBOTALK (redirecting to a user talk page), WP:HELP (redirecting to Help:-namespace) etc.). Category:User essays is not a policy or guideline. It's just something a couple of people have written without any real discussion and I'm pretty sure that based on the page views that most editors are not even aware of this or have looked at it before you pointed it out here. The current wording is the result of this 2018 edit for which there was no discussion as far as I can tell.

The actual guidelines here are WP:R and WP:SC, the latter of which explicitly states

Shortcuts are created for the convenience of editors. It is possible to create a shortcut for any page at all. The existence of a shortcut does not imply or prove that the linked page is a policy or guideline. (emphasis added)

Correspondingly, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Adherence clearly says:

On discussion pages and in edit summaries, shortcuts are often used to refer to policies and guidelines. (For example, WP:NOR (no original research), WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) and WP:BLP (biographies of living persons)). Similar shortcuts are also used for other types of project page like essays and how-to guides. Thus a shortcut does not necessarily imply the page linked to has policy or guideline status or has been widely accepted by the community. Additionally, the shortcut is not the policy; the plain-English definition of the page's title or shortcut may be importantly different from the linked page. (emphasis added)

Both the policy on policies and guidelines as well as the guidelines on redirects and shortcuts allow shortcuts to any essay, not just those in Wikipedia:-namespace. You are welcome to think those policies and guidelines wrong and request a change but RFD is not the place to do so. Regards SoWhy 07:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• SoWhy, you claim precedence. I point out that MfD demote wikipedia essays to userspace as an alternative to complete deletion.
• Perhaps you didn't mean to, but you are evading my main point. WP:Churnalism was demoted to userspace, and then, shortly there-after the WP:CHURNALISM redirect was created.
• I'd appreciate you trying harder to respond to this particular point. Geo Swan (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: It seems you are conflating two different issues here. "Demotion" to userspace applies to the essay itself. No one is disputing that this happened or that there was consensus to do so.

This discussion however is about the shortcut. Said shortcut was created by a move from the essay at Wikipedia:CHURNALISM to Wikipedia:Churnalism in 2016. It existed as a shortcut since then and was also mentioned in the essay's shortcut box before userfication (cf. first version after move, last version before userfication). Therefore saying the redirect was created after "demotion" is simply incorrect, it just pointed somewhere else before. All Northamerica1000 did after the move was to retarget the shortcut to the new place.

My larger point was that the shortcut guideline explicitly allows shortcuts to user space pages. So even if Northamerica1000 had created the shortcut from scratch instead of just retargeting it, that would have been allowed by the guideline as well. There is simply no rule in there that says "you are not allowed to create shortcuts if the target page was userfied before". And there shouldn't be. Why a page came to be is userspace is simply irrelevant because there is no reason to treat those pages differently than those that started out in userspace. Regards SoWhy 08:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – There are presently 925 Category:Redirects to user namespace, many of which lead to user essays, humor pages, etc. Singling out one shortcut while ignoring the others is a backwards approach, in my opinion. I don't view these as misleading at all myself. Obviously some others differ in opinion herein. Perhaps initiate a wider RfC regarding the matter so a consensus can be decided for all redirects to user namespace, rather than for only one, if it is actually really necessary to do so. Another idea is to just let them sit. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 14 January 2021 (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. While one of the key points of the nomination turned out not to be a problem - this is, apparently, a unique postcode - nobody has argued to keep the redirect over the course of a further relist, and the general principle of Wikipedia is not a directory (if not the specific phrasing in the policy article) would seem to discourage this kind of redirect overall. ~ mazca ^talk 11:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ML11 0FS → Lesmahagow High School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apparently, this is the post code for the school. If it is the only location which uses this post code, then this redirect is appropriate. However, I don't think that's the case. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. –Em-em ^talk 22:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this postcode is exclusive to the school - see Royal Mail postcode finder (enter the postcode and it finds only the one address, compare to ML11 0FB which lists over 20). Thryduulf (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in the spirit of WP:NOTDIR. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2021 (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 speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• B11K → Coronavirus disease 2019  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in absence of a rationale, I can't find any even tangentially relevant mention on the internet, excluding a fragment involving a footnote label in a medical paper from November that arranges these characters by happenstance. BlackholeWA (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the UK variant of Covid-19 is "B 1.1.7" so B117 is a reasonable search term for that, but not B11K. The primary topic for "B11K" in my google searches is a model of banjo. The only connection with viruses relates to something to do with Adenoviruses, which based on the article taxoboxes appear to be completely unrelated to coronaviruses. Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'd look at the source. The editor who created the redirect has a history of extensive controversial or disputed edits including getting blocked and criticized by other editors. Just delete it. MartinezMD (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2021 (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. as confusing without a direct mention. A disambiguation was proposed but without any detail or draft - if someone feels it would be useful under disambiguation page guidelines, and wishes to produce one, then that is not excluded by this discussion. ~ mazca ^talk 18:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Anomalous cognition → Extrasensory perception  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Anomalous Cognition → Extrasensory perception  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target article. This could refer to anomalous results in mainstream cognitive science as well as the pseudoscientific usage. It was previously an article but has gone back and forth from a redirect, and has been a redirect for well over 6 years now. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak DABify - Googling the term turns up references to both ESP as well as scientific usages. If there is not enough content to justify a page under this title, DABify to the various meanings where they can be sourced. BlackholeWA (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Telepathy#In parapsychology mentions it in association with Extrasensory perception but there are guidelines ay Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and the nom is right: without a mention it's confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2021 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• William Cather → Willa Cather  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Willa Cather used this name for a very short period of time, and was never notable under it. The use of it in her article has been erased since it was trivial information that is undue for a biographical entry. I think the redirect should go to the more natural William Cather Hook. Urve (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's not confusing and there's a hatnote to William Cather Hook (who it appears has surname Hook and middle name Cather, so a redirect there is not appropriate). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No evidence William Cather Hook ever went by William Cather. Since Willa Cather did use William Cather at one point, I agree that is a better target. Since it's no longer mentioned in the article, it would be confusing without the hatnote, so keep with the explanatory hatnote. MB 02:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• William Cather Hook is a partial-title match, and probably doesn't even merit the hatnote mention. But if Willa Cather used this name, it really should be given in her article. It's just as confusing with the hatnote, if not more so, since it exposes readers who didn't even search on it to the name. --BDD (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MB. There's nothing stopping "William Cather" from being explained in the article if it's the only thing wrong with this redirect. The hatnote is a pointless PTM and can be removed. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2021 (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 Wikipedia:Blocking policy#TPA. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:TPA → Wikipedia:The perfect article  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I have almost never heard this shortcut used except to refer to Talk page access. This should no doubt be re-targeted. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, a hatnote would definitely be warranted for its historical use. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks at "what links here" for WP:TPA and WP:BP#TPA shows "talk page access" gets linked much more often. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 19:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate I have seen quite a lot of links to WP:TPA, so I would weakly oppose a straightforward retarget, but TPA is very commonly used to refer to talk page access, so either hatnotify it, or dabify it. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 19:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget and add a hatnote per nom and JackFromReedsburg. Thryduulf (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per JJP, with talk page access given as the primary target. While talk page access is the most popular use, the current one can't really be subsumed by a better WP: so far as I can tell, at least not one that isn't unwieldy in its own right. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget and add hatnote per nom et al. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. WP:TWODABS applies in spirit, at least. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget with hatnote to Wikipedia:Blocking policy#TPA per above. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:36, 28 January 2021 (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. The only on-wiki mention I see is on one wrestler's page, saying he'll take part in the series. No prejudice against recreation once there's relevant content. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• NXT India → NXT (WWE brand)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of India at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There are tons of news reports from November-December that a WWE Series called "NXT India" was planned to begin this month (January 2021) so it wouldn't surprise me if an encyclopaedic mention could be added to an appropriate article but I know so little about the topic that I'm not sure and I also couldn't say whether the current target is the best place for any such mention if one is due. I'll leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling for someone more knowledgeable than me to opine. Unless a mention is added somewhere though the redirect should be deleted as misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I can say that, during the last months, have been rumour about the creation of other brands similar to NXT UK. NXT Mexico, NXT Japan and NXT India.But as far as I know, just rumors or future plans.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until there is enough to say about NXT India beyond whether it exists or not. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2021 (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 using the draft produced by 61.239.39.90 (talk), in the absence of a good primary target. Wiktionary's page on it is also covered on the disambiguation page to cover the general usage. ~ mazca ^talk 18:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Double Dog Dare → Judge John Hodgman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at current target. Any good place to point this? The entry on the topic at grammarist might be helpful. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate (drafted) for the WP:DABMENTIONed TV show episodes and books, with see also entries for Doubledogdare and wikt:double dog dare. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate using IP's helpful draft - thank you IP. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2021 (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. A reasonable argument is made that cross-project uniformity for an important template like this is desirable. Similarly, a reasonable argument is made that a template redirect as established and widely-used as this should not be disrupted without a very good reason. Given both arguments are very much sensible in isolation, the majority view here is that the heavy usage of the current version outweighs cross-project uniformity in this case. ~ mazca ^talk 18:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This redirect would seem to have far more use retargeted to {{Wikidata property link}}, e.g., {{P|31}}, as it is used on Wikidata and other language Wikipedias, similar to how we use {{Q}} for {{Wikidata entity link}}. This was first discussed in 2014 and subsequently on its talk page in 2018. That discussion was a prelude to a formal discussion, which I think it deserves. czar 03:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep for the same reason that it was kept last time and the same reason why there was no consensus for change on the talk page. There are 5477 transclusions of this template that is intended to be substiuted so any any change will be very significantly disruptive to those who use it (especially those substituting it), and in none of the discussions about it has anybody been able to articulate a good reason why en.wp needs a template for Wikidata properties that is the same as Wikidata. What I said in 2014 still holds true: Why would we need to discuss Wikidata properties on Wikipedia? Surely the place to discuss them is on Wikidata? If we do though, they can easily be discussed by using a different template. The only issue here is that repurposing a redirect has to be done carefully so you don't break things without a very good reason - the bigger the potential breakage the better the reason needs to be. The potential for breaking things here is very high as it is a widely used, substituted template, but I don't see enough benefit here to justify that disruption. Instead of trying to piecemeal change existing redirects on each individual wiki what you should be doing is getting T6547 ("Support crosswiki template inclusion (transclusion => interwiki templates, etc.") worked on.. The 2018 talk page discussion also contains many arguments/questions that those supporting the template did not and/or could not adequately rebut/answer. Nothing has change since then. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per last discussion. Nothing has changed as far as I can tell. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The smiley should be invoked using { { :P }} and not { { P }}, This appears to be an inappropriate use of the Template with the letter P. Walrus Ji (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Walrus Ji: page titles in MediaWiki cannot start with a colon as it is the namespace separator (see WP:NC-COLON). When a colon is used at the start of a template call the software transcludes the page in the article namespace with that name rather than the one in the template namespace, so {{:P}} therefore transcludes the article P rather than Template:P. There is nothing inappropriate about this template. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thryduulf, If that is the case then I will withdraw my comment. Thanks for letting me know. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep as per everyone. There is no reason why this needs to change, and it's good to make it short and easy to smile. Red Slash 18:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - highly used and logical redirect. - Ahunt (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. This template redirect shortcut is capable of the same parameters coded into its target template. So many pages use the unsubbed template with parameters to change the happy face to something else. A change like this would break a lot of transclusions. Nothing to fix here, nothing broken. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-established redirect. Retargeting would cause breakage for not much benefit. Though it is a bit surprising that {{P}} and {{tongue}} hide their tongue. Politrukki (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Politrukki: FYI {{=P}} does not hide its tongue and is also well established. —Uzume (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's the easiest way to show our emotions at this soul sucking encyclopedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheeky. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget I'm with czar on this. I really don't like when template redirects aren't the same across projects. If {{P}} made any sense as a shortcut for {{smiley}}, then sure there's a reasonable arguement for it. However, it doesn't. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  To editor MJL: to understand this, one goes back to Usenet, where the old smileys were extensively used. Back when I frequently visited the newsgroups, there was a smiley that was used to denote tongue-in-cheek that appeared as :>P or :-P and sometimes ;>p or just ;P or some other small variation. When the name, "Template:P" is seen, the ":P" that follows "Template" forms an old TIC smiley, as well. So when Red Slash first made this template back in 2006, it appears that even then it was to symbolize the TIC smiley. On WP, the closest smiley to the old one is , which can be captured as {{P|7}}. In short, the letter "P" has been a part of smileys for a long time now. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is another that depicts TIC... – and another... – many more at {{emoji}}. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 10:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Paine Ellsworth: {{=P}} is a character shorter and more expressive than {{P|7}}. —Uzume (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  To editor Uzume: it's only one character shorter, and it still involves the letter "P". That letter has been around a long time to denote certain smileys. It's important to remember that the {{P}} redirect is used a lot, 5477 transclusions, and it is not substituted, which means that thousands of links, both on and off Wikipedia, would be broken by retargeting it! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Paine Ellsworth: I am well aware of the history of such artistic expressions from emoticons to ASCII art, etc. I have seen much bigger page retargets and I still do not see how "P" differentiates itself to where Template:Smiley is the best meaningful target for it, especially in light of there being quite an array of emoticon/emoji templates to begin with. Why shouldn't it be retargetted to one of the other templates from WP:EMOTE? Not to mention "P" even among emoticons typically represents a "tongue in cheek" smiley and that is not what the redirect is currently assigned to even. So as I see it, "P" does not accurately represent Template:Smiley (an argument could be made to redirect it to {{=P}} but I also do not see that as highly useful) and thus us a poor redirect and could be better put to use elsewhere. —Uzume (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We'll just have to agree to disagree then, Uzume. The {{P}} redirect is like any other {{R from related search term}} or {{R from similar}} template. Redirects do not have to "accurately represent" any particular target, they can also represent similar titles or subtopic titles. That is what "R from similar" means, eh? Even if you are correct, the fact remains that the current template is NOT substituted and has been applied thousands of times, that is, there are thousands of transclusions, NOT substitutions, the shortcut has been transcluded, so there will be thousands of redirects that will be broken if the target is changed! Just doesn't make any sense to have to go to all the trouble of fixing those redirects just because this shortcut is retargeted. A bit silly in my humble opinion. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Paine Ellsworth: No like, I get that :P means , but like it's weird since it's missing its eyes when transcluded properly. Just {{P}} by itself does not mean the emoticon to my knowledge.
  Now that I am thinking about it though, why do we need to send {{P}} to just one target? We could make the template display {{Wikidata property link}} in certain circumstances and make it display {{P}} in others. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Way more than I can understand, MJL, like I don't see where the transclusion comes up with missing eyes, nor do I understand how a redirect can viably target more than one page. Please enlighten me? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 00:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Paine Ellsworth: With the first thing I mean that the eyes (the colon) don't show in the wikicode.
  With the second thing, you pretty much make a wrapper template. If someone does {{P|P8}}, then we know that user intends to output (P8). If someone does {{P|:P}}, then they want it to be . –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  To editor MJL: I can see that being done for similar templates, but not for templates that are so different. Are there any examples on Wikipedia of that sort of usage application? examples where a template like {{Wikidata property link}} is applied using a template that also applies a template like {{Smiley}}? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 01:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Paine Ellsworth: Nope. This is just a crackpot suggestion I had is all. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, yes, I've had a lot of those in my lifetime. Good on you for having the bells to suggest it! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. Perhaps I am bias by Wikidata, etc. but that is how I feel. If the current template is supposed to be subst then one is already going to type more and I do not see how "P" conveys the general concept of {{smiley|face}} or the more specific meaning of the default of {{smiley|smile}}, especially when things like {{=P}} specify a different value (effectively the same as {{smiley|tongue}}). {{smiley}} already has several other more appropriate and useful redirects. I do not see how "P" differentiates itself from Unicode emoticons or other similar templates as listed at Template:Smiley § See also, etc. I personally am a fan of the Japanese term emoji for such things like {{emoji|unicode}} over how {{smiley}} and friends work. —Uzume (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice. The way {{P}} was nominated has pretty much all of its transclusions. Neither of my two edit requests to try and fix that led anywhere. The first one I understand since I was misusing the {{edit template-protected}} template, but after the second one I just am giving up trying to fix it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note everyone mentioning all the transclusions is not mentioning that this template was explicitly labeled as meant for substitution, and it presumably has generally been subst'd far more times than the "mere" thousands of times it shows up as being transcluded. It probably is continually showing up on this wiki even now. I've made thousands and thousands of edits and it gives me no small amount of amusement that my most significant contribution to the wiki was making it easier for people to smile at one another. Red Slash 03:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • here we are smiling at one another in confusèd and psarcastic manners. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:29, 23 January 2021 (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.