Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 2

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) 17:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Witcher 4 → The Witcher  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not found on target page. Lordtobi (✉) 22:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2018 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Throbbing → wiktionary:Special:Search/throbbing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:SOFTSISTER does not justify creating a redirect when the creator is the one who previously created the page, see here. The same user responsible for this also created sackful and Blow off, which are being discussed here. I am all for WP:NOTCENSORED but not merely to appease a penchant if that is the case. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have redirected this to Throb (disambiguation). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Comment Nothing at Throb (disambiguation) is a verb, thus it does not help people looking for "throbbing". 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. On balance, I feel the same about this as about sackful, i.e. that while neither are especially likely search terms, or necessarily so unfamiliar as to require a soft redirect, the fact that somebody's seen fit to create this suggests that they're plausible and useful enough. I don't think there are any topics discussed in the encyclopaedia which someone who searches for this could plausibly be looking for, so there's no risk of causing confusion by keeping this (I'd oppose redirecting to the disambiguation page for the same reason). See also my argument regarding WP:SOFTSISTER at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 1#Blow off. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"that some[one has] seen fit to create th[ese redirects] suggests that [the redirects are] plausible and useful." By that logic, every redirect is plausible and useful. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy: No, that doesn't follow at all. The operative word is suggests: there might be myriad other reasons for deleting a redirect, which would cause us to disregard that suggestion, but in this case no such reasons apply. Perhaps it's not the most relevant issue in relation to this redirect though: at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 27#Sackful I was responding specifically to the nominator's description of the redirect as "a very unlikely title to search for". I think that argument ignores the fact that somebody presumably not only searched for it, but also, on finding that it didn't exist, felt the need to create it; but no such argument was made in your nomination here. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a soft-redirect per Arms & Hearts and 59.149.124.29. Thryduulf (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Throb (disambiguation), where the word in a general sense should be defined so readers can navigate to relevant articles such as vibration and/or pulse. There is the added bonus of having the Wiktionary link also present at the disambiguation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is to be retained, I prefer a local target (Throb (disambiguation) is the only one suggested so far) instead of a soft redirect. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:12, 22 September 2018 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Andante (music) → Tempo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

(Context: Andante has now been turned into a disambiguation page.) Andante (music) could be confused with Andante (song), and with Andante (tempo) there is a redirect with the same target as Andante (music) but with a more specific disambiguator. Tea2min (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a situation best handled with a hatnote to the song and the dab at the target of the Andante (music) redirect. The tempo is the most likely thing someone using that search term, or following a link to it, will be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, a generic disambiguator like "(music)" suggests something general, like a musical term or a type of music. I don't think many readers (if any) would expect an article about a proper noun (like the title of a song or an album) to be reachable by such a generic redirect. Nonetheless, there is some scope for confusion, but I don't like the solution of adding hatnotes for the sake of such redirects from parenthetically disambiguated terms. The lesser of two evils would be retargeting to the dab page at Andante as an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}: the one sentence at the top there has all the content that the current target has, or could be expected to have, about the andante (which is the reason the dab page was recently moved to the primary title despite there being a primary topic). The downside is that the redirect could be handy for linking, but it doesn't appear to have been used in this way: it has no incoming links from mainspace despite having been around for over a decade, and – as Tea2min points out – there already exists a better redirect for this purpose. – Uanfala (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget - As stated above, this appears like a solid case of {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. It's logical enough to simply go to 'Andante'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think this is a particularly plausible search term for any of the other articles listed at the disambiguation page; the only possible exception, and it's a bit of a stretch, is Andante (song), but that can be handled with a hatnote. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as (music) refers to the musical terminology first and not specific songs named Andante. Add hatnotes to help. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Andante disambiguation page as R from incomplete disambiguation (My first thought was the Abba song so there are 3 feasible musical entries on that dab page). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2018 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Economy of tThe Gambia → Economy of the Gambia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible typo Reyk _YO! 11:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I'm amazed this is still around - it was the result of pave move following a typo during article creation in 2009. It was prodded twice in 2015 (both correctly declined as redirects are not subject to prod) but nobody has until now followed up on the recommendation to bring it here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Raymond1922 (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:06, 4 October 2018 (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.