Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 1

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 FIFA (video game series)#2020s. Jay 💬 14:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Piemonte Calcio → Juventus FC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Name not used in media referring to the real club. Only present in FIFA video games until a few years ago. Other clubs have a different name in FIFA/EA FC video games but we don't have such redirects. 14 novembre (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to FIFA (video game series)#2020s as it's discussed there. FIFA 20#Licenses would also work but since it occurred in multiple years for FIFA the series article might be better and it's mentioned both (and a few other places but these seem best: [1]. Skynxnex (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Skynxnex  Done 14 novembre (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @14 novembre do you consider this RfD withdrawn? If so, someone else can close it. Normally one doesn't retarget during an RfD but since no one else has offered a different opinion, this can probably be closed. Skynxnex (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you can consider it closed 14 novembre (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as above. GiantSnowman 18:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm really confused as to what this request is based on the page history, but the redirect, if there is one, should go to Juventus FC, as it did until 23 February. SportingFlyer T·C 22:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why? This is a fake name from a video game. GiantSnowman 15:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to FIFA (video game series)#2020s or keep the current target at Juventus FC? Relisting since one of the participants has objected to the retargeting proposal, and their concerns were brought up quite late in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as per Skynxnex. WP:MINNOW 14novembre for jumping the gun and pulling the trigger early, but nothing more. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 23:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Chicks on the Right → WIBC (FM)#Local news and talk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Hasn't been mentioned at the target since March 2022. No longer helpful to the reader. Star Mississippi 18:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicks on the Right (August 2020) was closed as delete without prejudice to a redirect. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicks on the Right (2nd nomination) (April-May 2022) was closed as redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia and I'm struggling to find sources that suggest it should be mentioned (in 10 minutes of searching I found only one bit of coverage that was clearly both independent and in-depth (from 2013 so available to both AfDs) and one piece (available to the second but not first AfD) that was in-depth but of unclear independence. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Thryduulf. If something noteable does show up regarding Chicks on the Right, WP:REDLINK applies anyways. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 Moot. Can be moved to an updated title. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Federales (Argentina → Federalist Party (Argentina)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect contains the history of a student article moved to mainspace, who's topic duplicates an already existing topic. The fragmented history is not ideal, as the article had already existed 11 years prior with much more relevant history than this, which was written solely by one person for WikiEdu. The missing closing-bracket makes this title an unlikely search term, so I'd suggest either re-userfying to preserve the history, or deletion Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 14:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Return to userspace as per Utopes, though perhaps user:Msfinkel would/should have some input there... that being said, 2017 was like 7 years ago, and while I'm not sure how to check someone's edit history, their user page still lists them as a student editor from back in 2017... they might not be present for comment. In any case, we really don't need the redirect here. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it could also be worthwhile to vacate Federales (Argentina) which came from a page move, and move this title there, as there are no other edits at the closed-parenthesis version. Userfying is probably not ideal if it was the author's intent to move their edits into mainspace, on second thought. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. Jay 💬 14:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Emomon → List of generation V Pokémon#Zorua and Zoroark  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Emochu → List of generation V Pokémon#Zorua and Zoroark  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

those names don't seem to have ever been attributed to either of them. google and bulbapedia gave me nothing (besides a fakemon named emochu, that's neat), and looking for any mentions of the names on talk pages around here gave me a single instance of a passage of some sort of literature? not sure what it is, but it's in french. can't have been names from other languages because they're some of the few pokémon that have the same name in every language cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. 'Emomon' could refer to a crapton of Dark-types (the first ones right off the bat being Absol and, of course, Zorua and Zoroark) or Ghost-types (Misdreavus line?). Meanwhile, Emochu denotes a Pikachu, Pikaclone, or something mistaken for Pikachu (see: Pikablu). Either way, none of it is helpful whatsoever. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 Grosvenor Picture Palace. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The footage → Pattern Recognition (novel)#The footage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target section no longer exists, very vague. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nowhere suitable in the current target to point this, and as a search term it's far too generic to be suitable for a disambig. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Grosvenor Picture Palace to align this with The Footage. - Eureka Lott 17:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per EurekaLott, makes sense to align the two. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:85F9:5354:1730:FAF8 (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Grosvenor Picture Palace per EurekaLott --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no target for "The footage", and "The Footage" ia a different thing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Grosvenor Picture Palace as an r from diff caps. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with a strong oppose to retarget to Grosvenor Picture Palace, the WP:DIFFCAPS seems too important here. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per all above per diff caps, and especially because of the "The". Jay 💬 07:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:DIFFCAPS is only applicable if there's another topic on Wikipedia that is referred to by the lowercase name. Because there are no other existing topics that "The footage" can be confused with, I don't see any problem with keeping it on the Palace until there is something to distinguish it with. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. Jay 💬 09:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• John Derham (politician) → John Derham (businessman)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is nothing about the person being a politician in the Australian Dictionary of Biography reference. An alternative might be to retarget to John S. Durham (ambassador)/ -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose proposed retarget to John S. Durham, as- if someone presented this redirect with that target instead- I'd recommend deletion as an implausible typo (looking at Derham/Durham there). As an alternative, I'd suggest to Delete this. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence Derham was a politician and oppose redirecting to the ambassador per Luna. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Derham/Durham is not a plausible typo but it is a plausible misspelling given that they can have the same pronunciation (at university I had an acquaintance who spelled their surname "Derham" but pronounced it "Durham"), however neither article makes it clear that "(politician)" is a plausible disambiguator. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. Jay 💬 09:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bart Schultz (policitian) → Bart Schultz (politician)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible typo, but can't be speedied because it isn't recent. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Detele as per nom. Very much an Wikipedia:RTYPO situation. (Hm. Wasn't expecting Convenient Discussions to expand WP to Wikipedia there. Eh, it links to the same place, it's fine lol.) Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RDAB due to the implausible typo. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Masohpotato (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. Jay 💬 09:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Josef Steger (politican) → Josef Steger (politician)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible typo, but can't be speedied because it isn't recent. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to misspelled modifier --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Lenticel and WP:RTYPO. Just go ahead and toss it in the politi-can. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It is a typo, that's the whole reason I moved the page. This redirect should not exist.

TheBritinator (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RDAB due to the implausible typo. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. Jay 💬 09:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Estonians in Sweden → Estonians  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

misleading. Two correct solutions possible: redirect to Estonian diaspora (still missing article) or standalone article (compare et:Eestlased Rootsis). Hence, currently I suggest to delete this redirect Estopedist1 (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only content I can find we have related to this is a short sentence ("A sizeable community from the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) arrived during the Second World War.") that appears at both Demographics of Sweden and Immigration to Sweden which is not enough to make this a helpful target for the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and Thryduulf. This is very much a WP:REDLINK situation. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; qualifies for WP:REDYES. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. Jay 💬 22:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Betria → Beta Trianguli Australis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Gatria → Gamma Trianguli Australis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Both names are not mentioned in their target articles, and there is no evidence that they are used for these stars: There are no pages linking to Betria and Gatria (see the Special:WhatLinksHere of Betria and Gatria) and there is no mention of these names on Wikipedia (see the search query for both pages here and here.) Searching Google Scholar, i could not find any results that are related to both stars.— Preceding unsigned comment added by InTheAstronomy32 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. It's obviously just a contraction of the name (Beta Trianguli Australis, or a more pronounceable form of β TrA [which is in the article]). It doesn't seem to get used as much in English as I'm seeing in other languages. I find it in this Spanish-language source. This website indicates that they're nicknames. This Swedish book lists the name, but I'm not sure that it's a reliable source (I wouldn't even be able to reliably identify a Wikipedia mirror in that language). IMO it's not horrible if we keep these, but perhaps not much of a loss if we delete them, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These redirects were not tagged for RfD until today. Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If these really are only found in other-language sources, then I'd say WP:RLANG says delete. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. Jay 💬 08:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wriggle room → Journalese  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect is not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. In addition, third party search engines seem to consider this redirect an alternative/incorrect version of "Wiggle room", which currently does not exist on the English Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The third party search engines aren't the only ones that come to that conclusion. Not only did my own brain decide to auto-correct the redirect in question to 'wiggle room' (rather easy, considering I only had to skip over a single R), but also, Wiktionary says they're synonyms. Can't think of a better source to ask than our own sister project. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. Jay 💬 22:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 Ceres in fiction → Asteroids in fiction#Ceres  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target page mentions Ceres (dwarf planet), but doesn't go into detail about its use in fiction. In addition, the aforementioned linked article does not seem to contain that information either. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are also Ceres in fiction, Asteroid Ceres in fiction, and Ceres (dwarf planet) in fiction, all of which likewise redirect to Asteroids in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Adding Ceres in fiction to this discussion could cause a WP:TRAINWRECK since Ceres exists. The others would probably share the same fate as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Asteroid Ceres in fiction is a {{r from merge}}—see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asteroid Ceres in fiction. It probably needs to be retained. - Eureka Lott 18:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think so. Comparing the last version of the redirect page prior to redirection to the edit adding material to the target page, it seems what happened was that a handful of works were picked for retention as examples, but the descriptions of those works were not copied—rather, fresh descriptions were written. TompaDompa (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "1 Ceres" is the minor-planet designation of "Ceres" and Ceres (dwarf planet) is linked from the current target (any lack of detail is a content issue for that page). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth: I'm working on expanding Asteroids in fiction. When I'm finished, Ceres might be mentioned as part of a couple of examples, but there still will not be any detail about how Ceres in particular has been depicted in fiction; no such analysis of overarching trends appears in the sources. That is to say that because the sources do not cover that particular WP:ASPECT of the topic, the lack of detail in the article about the specific depiction of Ceres in fiction is a feature rather than a bug. TompaDompa (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/unrefine per Shhhnotsoloud. The current target is appropriate, but the linked section no longer exists. - Eureka Lott 17:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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) Queen of Hearts ^she/_they^talk/_stalk 20:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:DONOTDISRUPT → Wikipedia:Disruptive editing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think this redirect should be retargeted to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, as I feel that almost anyone who types in 'WP:DONOTDISRUPT' is looking for the disrupt to prove a point guideline, and not the general Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this seems more apposite. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  

  Further to notes below, existing uses (of which there are few) should be repiped to the current destination, unless they are clearly in error. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  

• Support per nom. Sounds reasonable. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, this redirect has been linked around for the past decade on various talk pages. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We should always be very cautious about changing the target of shortcuts. This is because there is always a risk of confusion and misunderstanding - most people don't look at the target every time they read or write the shortcut in discussions (even if there is a link, which there isn't always). For example if person A expects the target to be Wikipedia:X but person B expects the target to be Wikipedia:Y (because those were the targets when they each last followed the shortcut, which might have been literally years apart), then they could be taking very different meanings from the conversation. This is not to say shortcuts should never be retargetted, just that it should not be done without first analysing the context of where it is being used to see both how often it is being used and what target people are expecting it to point to (which is not always the current target). I haven't got time now, and likely won't have until at least Monday, to do that analysis in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with Thryduulf that caution & analysis is needed when considering retargeting a shortcut. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 01:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point already has perfectly serviceable shortcut redirects in WP:POINT and WP:POINTY.

Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really relevant, there is no limit to the number of shortcuts that a page can have and as long as they are reasonably plausible and aren't specifically harmful there is no issue with having a large number of shortcuts. Not all of them need to be advertised on the page, and which to "advertise" is a completely separate discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Pointy editing is one form of disruptive editing and the current target covers all. As Lunaman says, there are already popular shortcuts covering pointy editing. I'm open to change if statistics are provided. Going by the current discussion the words I see areI feel,this seems andsounds reasonable, which are hunches. Jay 💬 07:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Followup comment by nominator: So I'll write a followup here to some of the responses since this RfD is still open. Indeed, the 'need to be careful' part of retargeting a redirect (or especially a shortcut) is the reason why I've taken this to RfD, rather than editing the redirect myself. And also it is correct that this shortcut has been used on a number of discussions in the past. However, if you actually take a look at the "what links here" page for WP:DONOTDISRUPT, it's only been used / linked to on 19 pages, excluding links on this RfD page itself and notifications of this RfD on talk pages. Hence, I wondered if it'd be possible to redirect this without causing much issues; maybe we could use a piped link in those handful of old discussion threads to make WP:DONOTDISRUPT link to disruptive editing if we were to retarget. Also FYI I have now went through and analysed each of those 19 existing uses of this shortcut: a good majority of them are on talk or deletion discussions from 2012 or earlier; half a dozen from 2013, dozen from 2014. I found one use in June 2015, and one use in December 2022 which seems to be the newest use of it. It definitely isn't a frequently used shortcut that's for sure. To sum it up, about 9/10 of the uses of this shortcut are on discussion threads 10 or more years old. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, a lot many incoming links for WP shortcuts are from discussion pages. The kind of statistic that will help is, of the 19 usages, how many use it for the POINTY meaning, and how many for the disrptive meaning in general? Jay 💬 06:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here we go:

So it turns out that there are only 13 actual uses of this shortcut here; the remaining 6 are from transclusions of a page and not from real use.

It's also quite clear that pretty much all uses of this shortcut actually come from the redirect creator themselves, all in the period 2011–2015, save for one usage from a different editor in 2022. It seems apparent that they did mean the general disruptive editing guideline when they created this, and I respect that.

So the usages by the redir creator refer to general guideline while the one usage not by the creator appears to refer to "prove a point".

I just found it confusing and weird how the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing page had no mentions of "do not disrupt" in it, and yet this redir pointed to that page, whereas Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point does explicitly mention "do not disrupt", especially in the title.

It's been nearly two weeks since this thread was opened though and the redir creator hasn't responded here yet (they were notified on their talk page about it), so honestly I don't really feel like 'pushing' this further anymore. I'll leave it to the admins whether to wait some more time for the redir creator to potentially respond, or to close this with no action taken. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redir creator has been inactive since October, I doubt if we'll see a response by the time this discussion closes. Jay 💬 17:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the evidence above that the current target is the one that is intended by those who use this shortcut. Adding a hatnote to point to the proposed target would be a good idea though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a hatnote as per Thryduulf and Jay. While the redir doesn't seem to be in popular use except by its own creator, it also doesn't have the relevant WP:SMALLDETAILS, in that the name of the redirect only says 'Do Not Disrupt', rather than 'Don't Disrupt to Prove a Point'. As I already noted, we've already got WP:POINTY and WP:POINT, perfectly useable redirects to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point that get right to the meat of the matter in the name of the redirect. (I understand that WP:SMALLDETAILS is talking about even smaller details like capitalization and spelling differences, but I can't think of a better redir to use here to illustrate my own point lol) Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: with hatnote per Thryduulf and Luna. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 opinion. There was no participation despite two relists. The nominator also had concern with prior page moves and found it worthwhile to fix them, and there appears to be no opposition to it. Jay 💬 08:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dada (Ultra monster) → Ultraman (1966 TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ultraman Hayata → Ultraman (1966 TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Zaragas → Ultraman (1966 TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Alien Magma → Ultraman (1966 TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Kiyla → Ultraman (1966 TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Chandrah → Ultraman (1966 TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Gamakujira → Ultraman (1966 TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Greenmons → Ultraman (1966 TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Gesura → Ultraman (1966 TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Zambolar → Ultraman (1966 TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Guigass → Ultraman (1966 TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ultraman monsters not listed at the target article, with no substantial history at each. For a lot of these cases, there used to be history at these titles, but many of these redirects were created via page moves, left over from a WP:NOTHERE sockmaster moving the previously-BLAR'd redirects to new titles. Nevertheless, neither the old nor new titles have any mention on the current version of this page. All of these don't seem to have a proper home after the deletion of Ultra Monsters, to which most all of these were redirected and/or BLAR'd to some version of. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 14#Gyango for another such case of a monster redirect created via a page move. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more suitably, it may also be worthwhile to revert all of the moves and to firstly reconsider the outcome for the new titles that got created, as a textbook example of the harms of moving redirects, especially for what used to be previous articles, BLAR'd since 2012 or so, untouched for a decade, and moved without consensus in July 2023. But right now, those new titles have all the page history, which complicates their existence. And none are even mentioned on the page! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Utopes: As there has been no participation, and more importantly, no opposition, I can close this and you can proceed with fixing the moves. Does that work? Jay 💬 15:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me, although this also seems to be having the same problems as the CCFL inverter redirect. As an example, right, Zambolar used to be an article that was BLAR'd in 2013, and a decade later it was moved to Zumbolar for no appropriate reason. Neither Zambolar nor Zumbolar are mentioned at the article, so even just moving it back won't fix the whole issue.

Deletion of this set is the right first step, but my intention is to eventually RfD the other half of these (the pages that do have history). Would it be better to move the histories back to their original titles before initiating the discussion, or RfD the pages where they currently exist at this moment? Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).