Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 12

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. Well, quite clear current target is bad. Considering those wanting redirect were split in the target, and more in favour for disambiguation, disambiguate. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mythical being → Cryptozoology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm fairly certain that the redirect is not exclusive or has affinity with its current target, or even the term "cryptid". I'd say there has to either be a clearer/better target out there somewhere, or this redirect probably qualifies for deletion per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Mythology would be a far better place to redirect. --tronvillain (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig The current target, Mythology, Legendary creature, List of mythological creatures, Category:Mythological peoples and possibly others could be what is being looked for. Lists of deities might be appropriate as well, (possibly as a see also). Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Mythology, which would be the overarching article that encompasses "mythical beings". No need to disambiguate when it is covered by a single article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig per Thryduulf. The Mythology article has little on mythical beings save through the long list of links in its see also section. --Qetuth (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator comment/opinion: Thus far, of the options presented, "Retarget to Mythology" seems to be the most helpful option for our readers. Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Directing Mythology related pages to Cryptozoology seem like an attempt to delegitimatized WikiProject Cryptozoology. It really doesn't fit with that particular project and it's notable enough to be its own article. All it needs is some cleaning up and, expanding, given proper citations.--Paleface Jack 16:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  Keep? The page mythical being has redirected to cryptozoology since it was created in 2005. This is about changing that. --tronvillain (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Paleface Jack: Could you clarify? Your comment seems like you're opposed to keeping? Or did you mean "deleting" instead of "directing?" ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I say Keep.--Paleface Jack 21:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)— Duplicate vote: Paleface Jack (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. Oops, didn't mean to look like this was me voting twice. It was a reply to Amorymeltzer. I was meaning KEEP since it's notable enough, all it needs is some cleaning up and possible clarification.--Paleface Jack 19:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig by far the best option. Too many potential targets, from mythical creatures to deities, none of them a clear primary topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Legendary creature. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig "Being" is overly vague and does not necessarily refer to mythical creature. It can be disambiguated between deities, creatures, etc._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Uranium and other radioactive substances → Uranium  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:XY: Other radioactive substances, such as radon or cobalt-60, have separate articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:XY, as well as the vague use of the word "other" in the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the points Steel1943 made. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or retarget. This redirect (which has existed as a redirect to the present target for 10½ years apart from its' first 20 minutes) is has been consistently getting 5-10 hits every month since November 2016 (and was getting up to 35-40 a month before that). There are no incoming links from article space so there is a very strong likelihood that deletion will break links from outside Wikipedia (see WP:LINKROT for why this is a bad thing). If retargeted then List of elements by stability of isotopes is probably the best target I've found as it contains a list of radioactive substances, a good prose introduction and several hatnotes to other possible topics. Thryduulf (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Thryduulf's page view assessment which shows this is implausible. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you on about? My page view assessment demonstrates the exact opposite of implausibility! Five to ten people every month use this redirect and so benefit from its existence - deletion would be harmful to the project. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page views show the level of use, but they do nothing to prove whether those who use it are helped by where they end up. Uranium gets 2,500 hits per day, so the use from this redirect is negligible—hence my claim of implausibility. Keeping it, however, would be harmful as the nominator helpfully pointed out. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The target not being ideal does not indicate implausibility - if the redirect were implausible it would be getting much less than half the traffic it does. The "other" in the title is not vague at all - it clearly refers to radioactive substances that are not uranium, so we know what people are looking for: The class of radioactive substances that includes uranium. The chances are very high that with this level of traffic the redirect would have been retargetted or discussed somewhere in the preceding 10½ years if it were not serving the needs of the people using it - but there is no evidence of that. The search results (should people be lucky enough to be taken straight to them rather than having to hunt them down) would not really be helpful here so deletion is the most harmful thing we can do. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that a highly misleading redirect flew under the radar for so long is more evidence that it has not been well used, in case the page view statistics did not already make that abundantly clear. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I really don't understand where you are comming from with your comments regarding page views - they demonstrate that the redirect is well used not the opposite as you are claiming. You can say that people are getting where they want to go (I disagree, but there is rational discussion to be had) but when 5-10 people a month are using the redirect it is empirically well used and it is not credible to claim otherwise. It is also not "highly misleading" because people are searching for radioactive substances including uranium and get taken to an article about uranium that has links to other radioactive substances - nearly the exactly thing they are looking for. "Highly misleading" and "nearly matching the search term" are extremely far from being the synonyms you claim them to be. Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is your opinion that it is well used, just like it is my opinion that it is not well used. And yes, it's highly misleading to tell people the target is also about "other radioactive substances" when in fact the scope of the article is just "Uranium". -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  There's also no way of measuring the "curiosity factor", where a user sees a term suggested in the search box and follows it—not because it's what they were originally searching for, but because they wonder where it will lead. (This is how I came across Toad the fancy little mushroom from mario, when I was looking for Toad the Wet Sprocket.) Pageviews are an important metric, but can never tell us the whole story. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  People discovering articles they weren't necessarily looking for by being curious is a Good Thing. People will only indulge the curiosity when they have both the time and the inclination, so we are not depriving them of what they are looking for unless the redirect is in the way of something else (which this is not). At worst the redirect is entirely harmless, and at best it is beneficial to people finding content that educates them. Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, yes, but if they see "Uranium and other radioactive substances", we don't really indulge their curiosity by simply taking them to uranium. If you'll indulge me a metaphor: if someone orders a burger and fries, you shouldn't only give them a burger because it's the most important part, and hey, they got food, why should they be upset? If you won't give them a burger with fries, "burger and fries" shouldn't be on your menu. --BDD (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  What we offer isn't just a burger though, it's "here is your burger, when you want the fries just click the link." alternatively we could link to List of elements by stability of isotopes which offers burgers, fries and all the condiments they may want but didn't explicitly list. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Simultaneously useless and misleading. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my comments above this is objectively useful and not necessarily misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Operative tactical → SWAT  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. The term (if it is valid at all) does not occur in the article. Tactical operative is a redlink. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Google is showing lots of uses, but they all seem to be parts of various larger phrases or lists or auto-generated from the title of this Wikipedia page. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mara Romero Borella → List of current UFC fighters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target PRehse (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, nominator's statement is incorrect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True. I withdraw the nomination and fixed the links in the target.PRehse (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Crazy bad → Pollution in China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No valid reason for this redirect to exist. No one is going to come and search "Crazy bad" in hopes that it redirects them to "Pollution in China". Considered a WP:G1 but this works too. -- Dane ^talk 04:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as misleading. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, nonsense. Gotitbro (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Could "Crazy Bad" be mistaken for "Bad Crazy", a somewhat notable television episode? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a likely search term. Also, definitely not what the editor was thinking when they made the page in 2011 (2 years prior to that episode). -- Dane ^talk 21:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it referred to a type of air pollution level back in 2010, so needs to be evaluated for WP:NOTNEO standards. [1] [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is largely based on a single comment from the US embassy back in 2010. It doesn't seem to be used in such context outside of that incidence. Gotitbro (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems to be a joke redirect --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.