Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 15

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. ✗plicit 00:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• President of the Internet → Randall Munroe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a joke Plantdrew (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a real thing, borderline vandalism. eviolite (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could understand if this was a widespread nickname for Munroe, but the target article does not mention 'President of the Internet' anywhere (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 23:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This isn't a notable nickname that gets thrown around. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:29, 20 May 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• RS Management Consulting House → RS  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. "RS Management Consulting House" is not mentioned anywhere in Enwiki and the current target is not helpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:29, 15 May 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rothenburg displaced persons camp → Rothenburg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The disambiguation page at the target is not helpful. Scouting in displaced persons camps refers to "Rothenburg displaced persons camp, Rothenburg, a camp for Latvian displaced persons" with a 2 piped links to Rothenburg ob der Tauber but there's nothing in that article. I think if Enwiki has nothing to say about the subject, the redirect should be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no info available on enwiki and there don't seem to be any reliable sources on the topic. eviolite (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There was no mention in the target when this was created either. A7V2 (talk) 06:28, 16 May 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 delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Neither Rodrick nor Roderick deal with "Roderickson", and there is no mention elsewhere in Enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The nearest matches I see are Rodríguez (surname), which has the only mention of Rodericksson and Rodney Erickson, which is where Rod Erickson points. I don't think either of those are close enough to justify retargeting, though. - Eureka Lott 16:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree. There's nowhere to put this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if the old introduction is restored. It read "[The surname] Rodrick or Rodricks is a shortened form of the name Roderick or Roderickson and may refer to: " See, e.g., A dictionary of English and Welsh surnames - page 624, column 1. --Bejnar (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom et al. There's no mention of this surname anywhere on Enwiki. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:22, 23 May 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:B → WP:Bots  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Similarly to WP:S (currently also at RfD), this shortcut is ambiguous. It has a fair number of existing uses intending the bots page, but the majority appear to be for other topics, like WP:Bold, WP:Block or WP: B class – see this search (which excludes user talk pages: there are just over 4,000 of them that feature the shortcut as part of an alphabet soup [1]). – Uanfala (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per nom -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep massively used shortcut from time immemorial (4000 times without user talk page apparently, and it's used several thousand times on user talk pages too well over 4000 times, including user talk pages and no alphabet soup). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Uanfala mentions that the majority of those uses are not for the current target -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • See [2] Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are 4,129 instances where this shortcut appears in an alphabet listing of all single-letter shortcuts [3] (this had been used in one of the new user welcoming messages, that's why it's so widespread) – this usage is without context and is agnostic about the redirect's target. The uses where the shortcut is piped to the word "bot(s)" are 67 [4], which is less than a quarter of the 361 total uses in a piped link [5]. – Uanfala (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The vast majority of which are clearly about bots if you look on where they are used. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm looking at how they're used and I'm not seeing that. There are, for example, 33 uses piped for "(be) bold" [6], 14 for "blocking" [7], 8 for "bureaucrat" [8]... – Uanfala (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've just found out that 169 out of the 361 total piped uses are for "Wikipedia bots", but then I realised that all but 2 of those are due to an ancient wording in the boilerplate message by Suggestbot [9]. – Uanfala (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: At a skim of the first few pages, I see uses split between WP:Bots, WP:B-Class, and WP:Be bold, all piped to WP:B (in the latter two cases, incorrectly). But some of these are template transclusions, and as you go down the pages some are bot-posted messages (and the bot-posted messages are using WP:B correctly, to mean the bots page). So trying to look at a sample of 20 entries doesn't seem likely to lead to accurate results. If indeed the same bot mesage was posted to, say, 500 talk pages, that would be a dominating usage. I agree with the nom that WP:B is ambiguous and, in theory, should be a dab. But changing shortcuts with this many usages can lead to some old links no longer making sense as the authors intended (though the risk is less problematic if we're changing to a dab, vs usurping the shortcut for another use). At the same time, if there are a lot of errors in current usage anyway, then changing to a dab could actually make some uses clearer. Neutral myself, but food for thought. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate or just delete and salt. It's way too vague, poorly used, the current usage is only debatedly its best use, and in reality it's hardly used, other than in the old template. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:IAR. It's used well over four thousand times and it would simply be a waste of editor time to go back and change it. If we were starting from time immemorial, then perhaps it would not have been the best location, but the current location works and we should ignore rules when they would harm our ability to keep Wikipedia well-maintained. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate Aside from rare cases like WP:N and WP:V, most single letters simply don't have any clear meaning to Wikipedia editors, as seen here by the numerous incoming links not intended for the current target. Using terse, unclear, and rare shortcuts wastes the time of your fellow editors, since they have to follow the shortcut to have any clue what you're trying to say; making this into a disambiguation page will hopefully discourage such wastes of time. (FWIW, a few years ago there was a similar discussion about WP:2, WP:4, WP:7, WP:8, and WP:9, which ended with a "retarget" outcome, though in that case the targets were much more confusing than the current case, and there didn't seem to be anything to disambiguate). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it is disambiguated, it can no longer be used as a shortcut. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, if it's disambiguated, it can no longer be used in an incorrect or misleading way. A dab page is a clear improvement over a shortcut that for most of its users goes to the wrong page. – Uanfala (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, the current target is certainly not incorrect nor misleading. As for linking, any such use would be incorrect if it's disambiguated. A better solution for anyone who guesses wrong would be Wikipedia:B (disambiguation), which can exist without disrupting its long-standing service as a shortcut. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean it's not incorrect for references to the "be bold" principle [10] or to the block policy [11] to instead lead to the bots info page? – Uanfala (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That signifies that the user is incorrect, not that the shortcut is incorrect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But if so many users are "incorrect" that's a clear indication that the fault lies with the shortcut. – Uanfala (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that the problem is as widespread as you make it out to be, and I recognize that the proposed solution is much worse than the status quo. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Where is your cut-off point though? What is the maximum percentage of incorrect uses that can be tolerated before we do something about a shortcut? – Uanfala (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am in favor of retargeting to whichever page would be most sought when using the shortcut. If that happens to be Wikipedia:Blocking policy, for example, I would support retargeting there. I will never support disambiguating a shortcut because then 100% of uses will be incorrect—anyone who uses the shortcut will not end up where they wanted to go and it will therefore cease to be useful as a shortcut. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So you'd be happy if the "incorrect" uses are twice the number of "correct" ones as long as there's no single "incorrect" target that gets more uses than the "correct" one? – Uanfala (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely. Doing otherwise would inconvenience those who do use the shortcut correctly. Disambiguating would inconvenience everyone. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate, so that people don't confuse other users, by linking to the wrong policy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate, multiple reasonable targets Indagate (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Projectspace shortcuts are ambiguous by their very nature. This long-standing (i.e. since 2004) single letter redirect should not be tampered with through retargeting or made to lose its function through disambiguating. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Longstanding redirect and a simple dab link at the top of WP:Bots can resolve the issue. I don't see a need to complicate it. --B (talk) 10:57, 17 May 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 Duck, duck, goose#Drip, Drip, Drop. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Drip Drip Drop → Bambi#Songs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apparently this is the opening line of the second track listed, "Little April Shower". To me what comes to mind first is Duck, duck, goose § Drip, Drip, Drop, the only thing referred to in the encyclopedia's voice as "drip drip drop". I would suggest a retarget there (indifferent as to hatnoting back), second choice deletion and let the search results handle it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Duck, duck, goose#Drip, Drip, Drop; second choice is deletion. My decision is per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate between the two. Dronebogus (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Duck, duck, goose#Drip, Drip, Drop, the only encyclopedic topic by this name, per nom. eviolite (talk) 21:34, 15 May 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Antigua-Barbuda-Redonda → Antigua and Barbuda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Antigua Barbuda Redonda → Antigua and Barbuda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  Added. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redonda is a separate island which is under the sovereignty of Antigua and Barbuda. Peter Ormond 💬 04:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to it's own page. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 07:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Redonda. Not a hugely likely search term but at least an unambiguous one. A7V2 (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't considered the obvious possible interpretation given by Guettarda below. I'm now not sure. A7V2 (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the only entity that encompasses these three islands is the country of Antigua and Barbuda. Guettarda (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added Antigua Barbuda Redonda to this discussion for the same reasons. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Almost all of the usages I was able to find in sources had them separated by a comma (i.e. they were referring to three distinct entities rather than a single entity), so this somewhat a WP:XY case. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget only hyphenated version to Geography of Antigua and Barbuda, as the term does seem to be mentioned a few times but only as a biogeographical region ([12], [13] for example). Delete non-hyphenated version as a WP:XY scenario rather than an actually-used term. Second choice is to delete both per above. eviolite (talk) 21:38, 15 May 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fish-hook theory → Christus Victor  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Fishhook theory → Christus Victor  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of fish or hooks at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: apparently it is a political theory about how those on the political spectrum interact with each others, similarly to the horseshoe theory. Therefore, delete per nom. and WP:REDYES. Veverve (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep as the expression is now mentioned in the article. Veverve (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. See Wiktionary. Sources here, here, and here. Many others could be adduced. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or add information about the fish-hook theory into the article: I landed here trying to find information on the political theory and was very confused when there was no fish-hook theory at all in the article I was redirected to. The redirection would at least make sense if there was information in the article redirected to about the theory. As it is, it makes no sense at all. Karmyx (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added the information to the article. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that it is mentioned. eviolite (talk) 21:40, 15 May 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.