< January 19
January 21 >

January 20

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 20, 2017.

Automobile

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) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would make more sense if retargeted to motor vehicle. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2017 (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.

Vospers Oak Villa F.C.

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 - per WP:R#KEEP point 5, some people clearly find this useful. Yes they are a very low level team, but it does no harm. If there became a time where Sport in Plymouth was gummed up with hundreds of little sentences about very small clubs with redirects pointing there then perhaps there would be a reason to remove from the sport article and delete the redirects for the sake of cleaning up the main article, but that is not the case now and is therefore not a valid argument to delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A benefit of a redlink is that you can tell immediately that it's a non-notable club which has never played at a notable level. All current links to the club are in articles which already explain which league they're in, such as individual season articles. Highly likely not to be updated accurately, therefore giving false information. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is exactly the opposite. WP:RED says "It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable.". Red links encourage article creation; redirects discourage article creation. The Whispering Wind (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"too low level, doesn't merit a redirect" is not a policy ground for deletion. Please see WP:RHARMFUL. No harm here ergo we keep. The Whispering Wind (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Whispering Wind: see WP:N, it's kinda key. GiantSnowman 09:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: No; not only is WP:N not key it is irrelevant. Redirects are simply search terms and notability guidelines are not applicable. It is routine to redirect nn entities to somewhere where there is something about them. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For this delete !vote to be considered by the closing amin you need to specify a policy-based rationale and "per Bretonbanquet" is not that because they haven't either. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed back to retarget — Iadmc♫talk  10:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope everyone advocating adding a sourced sentence about this non-notable club in another article will be happy to advocate it for the other hundred or so redirects for non-notable clubs, created by the same editor. The reason these clubs are not notable is intertwined with the fact that obtaining reliable sources for them is very difficult. Plus, by this token, every non-notable club in the country should have a redirect, and there are literally thousands. This is just creating a lot of work for no useful purpose. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If notability is not relevant here, then I can create a redirect for every Saturday and Sunday League pub football team in Plymouth, put a sentence about it at Sport in Plymouth#Team sports and that would be OK? There has to be a cut-off point for talking about extremely minor football clubs in Wikipedia articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be comprehensively missing the point. To justify deletion a policy-based rationale needs to be provided and you have not provided one. Please read WP:RFD. Notability has no relevance to the existencce of redirects - as I state above It is routine to redirect nn entities to somewhere where there is something about them. Also it does not help your case by making silly extensions. This is not a "Saturday and Sunday League pub football team" it is a team in the national league structure, significant enough to have features in the Plmouth press. It is not notable, or it would have its own article but it is as significant as many of the other sporting teams mentioned in the article. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's you that is missing the point. We have a non-notable football club and you are advocating redirecting the zero searchers looking for it to an article "where there is something about them". There are no articles with anything about them. You're advocating writing something about them somewhere in order to make sense of your rationale for changing the redirect. If you think what I said is a "silly extension", it's because you can't answer the question. All Saturday teams (including pub teams) are in the national league structure, and there are thousands of them. All of them are covered by local press. What you are advocating will set a precedent for all and any of them to be inserted (probably unsourced) in articles about sport in whatever area. I suggest it is prudent to avoid this by using notability criteria to control the number of Level 11-15 football teams pointlessly mentioned here, there and everywhere. If you want a policy-based rationale, how about #10 - the club technically could be the subject of an article, providing it passed WP:GNG, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject (and it still won't even after someone has added a sentence about it). There are dozens of redirects like this one waiting to be dealt with in the same way if you fancy it. As I say, a lot of work. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there is sourced information about this football team in the target article. The mention there is proportionate and on-topic for the article. If there are thousands of other similar teams about which sourced information can be added to a relevant article then that information should be added. This is completely independent of whether there should be a redirect to them, but if they are the primary topic for a given title and there is information about them in the target article then I see absolutely no reason why redirects should not be created. In the case of this redirect, it got 28 human views in the 30 days prior to this nomination (a lot more than the 0 you claim) and indicates that people are searching for this club. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the short sentence added after this RfD, naming their ground? That's it? And you're advocating adding a similar (almost useless) sentence about thousands of other teams. Well, we can start with all the other redirects created by the same editor. 28 views, several of which were me - well, that figure is at least higher than their average attendance. I wonder if any of those people would have been satisfied by being told nothing other than where the team play. Oak Villa doesn't even have a website. This is adding trivia and no doubt ultimately, fancruft, to articles just for the sake of protecting a redirect. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2017 (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.

Wikipedia:Cómo se edita una página

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) 13:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the Spanish? Wikipedia. (WP:FORRED.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2017 (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.

Wikipedia:Current wildfire

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 27#Wikipedia:Current wildfire

Popcore

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) 13:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, so the connection is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2017 (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.

Neopunk

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 2#Neopunk

Alt-punk

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) 02:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, so the connection is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2017 (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.

Cali punk

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 (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, so the connection is unclear. There are a few references in the article about this genre originating in California, but no citing of the use of the redirect as a term. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment term might be valid. Not sure about this one therefore — Iadmc♫talk  21:07, 20 January 2017 (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.

Pseudo-punk

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. No prejudice against recreation if the connection can be clarified via a sourced mention. -- Tavix (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, so the connection is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2017 (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.

Buzzpop

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) 13:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, so the connection is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2017 (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.

Pop punk rock

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 2#Pop punk rock

Hardcore pop

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) 13:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly WP:XY since Pop music and Hardcore punk are two separate articles. Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2017 (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.

Easy hardcore

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) 13:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of WP:XY, including easy or hardcore "what"? Steel1943 (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2017 (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.

Contemporary pop punk

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) 13:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is currently mentioned once in the target article, but the phrase is not defined. Due to this issue, readers trying to find did civic information via this redirect will be led to no specific information about the subject of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this search ignores the word contemporary after the first non-WP hit so it doesn't appear to be a subgenre of pop punk. The YouTube hit is likely using that word in its literal sense, anyway. And define "contemporary"... — Iadmc♫talk  21:22, 20 January 2017 (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.

Pop hardcore

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) 18:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, and seems like a WP:XY term as it seems to be a mix of Pop music and Hardcore punk. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2017 (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.

Contractors (film)

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. I'm performing an WP:INVOLVED close given the obvious consensus and backlog. -- Tavix (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb actually shows two unreleased films with this name. A retargeting option may be Contractor, a disambiguation that lists another two films titled "Contractor" (note the singular), but I'm unsure if this would be a plausible redirect for those films. -- Tavix (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2017 (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 Grackle

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. I'm performing an WP:INVOLVED close given the obvious consensus and backlog. -- Tavix (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This is still "in development" 4 years after the redirect was created, so I assume it's in development hell or unofficially cancelled. -- Tavix (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2017 (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.

Mall punk

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) 18:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2017 (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.

Bubblegum punk

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) 18:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not mentioned in the target article. However, in the infobox, it seems that a related music genre is bubblegum pop. However, the redirect in its current state and without a mention in its target article makes it seem like a WP:OR mashup of terms. Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well what do ya know... "Bubblegum punk". last.fm. And I thought the term was so contradictory it hurt... Anyway, delete as not necessarily being an alternate name for Pop rock (no claim in article) — Iadmc♫talk  18:59, 20 January 2017 (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.

Faux-punk

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) 01:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, so connection is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What-what? False-punk? Well, its a plausible alternate name for pop punk. But no claim of that in article: Delete — Iadmc♫talk  19:02, 20 January 2017 (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.

Easycore

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 2#Easycore

Arch-Linux

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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No particular affinity for this stylization. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2017 (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.

สนามบินเกาะไม้ซี้

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 delete. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. สนามบินเกาะไม้ซี้ is unlikely to be typed in any time soon on en:WP — Iadmc♫talk  08:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add: the target article Koh Mai Si Airport was been PRODded on 13 January 2017. I have only just noticed. Therefore, my request may become moot very soon (perWP:G8) unless the Prod is challenged — Iadmc♫talk  12:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The typical practice at RfD is to either assume the target will continue to exist until it doesn't or withdraw the nomination until the outcome for the target is clear, renominating if the article is kept. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: Ah. This was a double redirect... I forgot that. you've fixed that and speedied the original target. I've speedied the final target so this should be resolved very soon. Thanks for that! I closed so I could use Twinkle to add the CSD but you've sorted that issue too. Again, thanks — Iadmc♫talk  15:47, 21 January 2017 (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.

Elongata

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) 01:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Elongata is a specific name for over 100 species and should not redirect only to C. elongata. It was deleted in 2009 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rostrata.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from non-zoology-expert since a page can "redirect only to" precisely one article, then the rationale is incorrect. C. elongata is a disambiguation page which contains more articles and therefore more species—unless we need D. Elongata, E. Elongata, etc (or whatever), in which case Elongata itself should be the dab page) — Iadmc♫talk  08:18, 20 January 2017 (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.

Tylenol

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. I've read through this entire discussion several times now, over at least three days, and that's perhaps the only "obvious" conclusion that can be made here. That being said, I've gleaned several generalities from this discussion that can be used to figure out what has transpired and, perhaps more importantly, where to go from here:
  1. The question presented was a binary one, whether "Tylenol" should redirect to paracetamol or Tylenol (brand) (which several participants correctly pointed out that would result in Tylenol (brand) being moved to Tylenol).
  2. Most opinions were split along that binary, with all participants but one expressing an opinion corresponding with one of those two options. While recognizing that this discussion is WP:NOTAVOTE, the numbers by my count are evenly split 10-10-1.
  3. A major argument was advanced by both sides to the effect of: "this is what readers are looking for when they search 'Tylenol'". This is an appeal to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, particularly the "primary topic in regards to usage." The way this is typically measured is via page view tools. However, it has been argued that page views aren't definitive in this case (see the discussion below CFCF (aka Carl Fredrik)'s !vote).
  4. Another main argument I noticed in favor of keeping "Tylenol" as a redirect to paracetamol is the fact that it's standard practice to redirect brand names to the generic name. Reasons for doing so include consistency and to discourage non-notable brand articles from developing.
  5. Those in favor of moving Tylenol (brand) over the redirect largely acknowledged this standard practice, but argued that "Tylenol" should be an exception. Reasons for doing so include the notability of "Tylenol" as a brand name and its history and prominence.
  6. Finally, arguments in favor of converting "Tylenol" to a disambiguation page have been considered. It was suggested as a compromise simply due to the fact that it's a middle ground between the two main positions. Expanding upon that, the purpose of a disambiguation page is to resolv(e) conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous (WP:D, first sentence).
  7. Several participants noted that they'd like to see a specific guideline either created or clarified to address this case and those like it. Some feel that the MoS pages (eg: WP:MEDMOS & WP:PHARMMOS) don't adequately cover that "standard practice" and/or want clarity as to when a brand name should redirect to a generic name (eg: always? when a brand name isn't notable? etc.) This includes clarifying (an) existing section(s) or creating (a) new section(s) to the aforementioned MoS pages.
  8. Normally, when a discussion is closed as "no consensus", it's generally best practice to revert to the status quo ante. However, the status quo ante has been disputed in this discussion (see discussion below Steel1943's !vote), making it difficult to figure out what to default to.

Now it's time to put all this together and figure out a solution. Because of an unclear status quo ante (8), I don't feel comfortable closing this as "do nothing" without good reason. However, both sides made strong arguments and I don't see either side having an advantage (3-5). Since the numbers were also equal (2), I can't even use that as a "tiebreaker", if you will. So, I'm considering the crux of the question, which is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (3). The question of "long-term significance" was fairly well addressed but the question of "usage" remains cloudy. Therefore, I've devised a solution that is intended to clarify the "usage" question while also appealing to the argument that a disambiguation page should be used as a compromise (6). I'm going to convert "Tylenol" to a disambiguation page, but instead of linking directly to Tylenol (brand) and Paracetamol, I'm going to pipe the links though "test redirects" that are implausible search terms. That way, we can hopefully be satisfied going forward that those redirects are being used solely from the disambiguation page and we can directly compare the page view stats of those two redirects in order to determine which is used more. I anticipate that the empirical evidence gathered from this experiment will help determine whether a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC exists in a future discussion.

I'd recommend those who have participated here to come together and workshop a guideline solution that can be used from here on out (7). I'd also like to caution that I do not intend for this decision to be binding (ie: to create a status quo or precedent). Instead, I'd like for a guideline to be decided upon by involved parties that can and should be used instead. If that fails to come together, I'd invite anyone who is unhappy with this set-up to initiate an RfC asking if there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Tylenol" and what would happen with the title if there is one (eg: redirect to paracetamol, move the brand name to the base title, etc.). I'd recommend waiting at least six months to give ample time for the page view tool to gather data on usage.

Finally, I'd like to thank everyone who participated in this discussion. Despite strong opinions on both sides, this discussion has remained civil, and I appreciate and admire when that is able to happen. Respectfully, -- Tavix (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should this target Tylenol (brand) or paracetamol (the active ingredient; commonly known as acetaminophen)? Disambiguation would become unnecessary if this targeted to the brand.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*retarget brand to generic name--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa: your suggestion is already the status quo. --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep status quo(I apologize, and thank for heads up HyperGaruda...long night) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzie10aaaa (talk • contribs)
Also, most people on this page seem to be medical professionals. Other people may be looking for business info, info on the widely known poisonings, or other non-pharmaceutical information. Natureium (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear to be unusual. There is Ibuprofen brand names, separate from Ibuprofen. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A few more can be found in Category:Drug brand names, most notably the History of Benzedrine (which should be more appropriately called Benzedrine, considering the contents) vs Amphetamine (to which Benzedrine currently redirects). --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, editors are indeed citing the guideline at WP:MED, and pointing out that the brand page is clearly linked from the medical page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What guideline? WP:MED is WikiProject Medicine's home page. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. I should have written: [8]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. I should have written "official guidelines/policies". WikiProject Pharmacology's style guide is but an informal essay, as can be seen from the disclaimer at the top, and thus has no authority to overrule Wikipedia's official rules. See also Whatamidoing's comment from 17:31, 14 January. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fair, although I would consider guidelines (more so than policies) to be subject to editorial judgment, and thus, not really "official rules". As noted by other editors above, other projects such as MilHist also have content-specific conventions, and I think it's reasonable that some kinds of specific content might be treated in specific ways. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ex-Lax does not have a specific article at all but redirects to laxative as it should. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I think WP:DRUGLIKE should be updated to specify how to deal with generic trademarks (or borderline) and drug brands that are notable enough for their own article. And also whether there should be redirects for dabs and such terms such as "Tylenol generic" "Tylenol drug", "Tylenol active ingredient" which should go to the drug. It's difficult to determine whether searchers want information on the drug or the brand. I also think if someone's typing in "Tylenol PM" or "Tylenol MAX" or the specific brand products then they are probably looking for the Tylenol brand page and want information on what the differences are or the brand's history. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In response to some others -
I agree with NickCT's intuition that COMMONNAME applies here. The rationale is that Tylenol is not a type of paracetamol, but instead a name for paracetamol. Boghog and AngusWOOF say that this situation is like Coca-Cola, but I disagree. Coca-Cola is a type of soft drink, and not an alternative name for soft drink which might refer to Maaza mango drink or Asahi canned coffee. Tylenol and paracetamol are alternative names for the same thing, and the COMMONNAME in research and across national borders is paracetamol. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The FDA does not consider them the same thing. Drug product (Tylenol; active ingredient + formulation) ≠ drug substance (paracetamol; active ingredient).
  • "CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21". United States Food and Drug Administration. Drug substance means an active ingredient that is intended to furnish pharmacological activity or other direct effect in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease or to affect the structure or any function of the human body, but does not include intermediates use in the synthesis of such ingredient. Drug product means a finished dosage form, for example, tablet, capsule, or solution, that contains a drug substance, generally, but not necessarily, in association with one or more other ingredients. Boghog (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boghog I understand what you said, but now I think I am not sure why you said it. I now see that I misspoke when I said, "generic and branded drugs are the same...", because I think that is a distracting side issue. Now that I look again, I do not see this as a generic/branded drug issue or as a drug product/drug substance issue. Instead, I think that right now, this discussion is about differentiating a drug substance from a corporate brand.
Tylenol (brand) does not contain any drug product information. Do you think that it should? If we were differentiating drug substances from drug products, then that might be different, but I am not aware of Wikipedia routinely having both of those types of articles.
The FDA also seems to post health information while not making a sharp distinction between the effects of active ingredients and formulations including active ingredients. At Acetaminophen Information, they only talk about acetaminophen, but I presume all of this applies to Tylenol products containing those amounts of active ingredients. I am not sure how separate drug product/drug substance pages would look. Are you proposing that these should be distinct? Could you show an acetaminophen page and a Tylenol page at the FDA or anywhere else which could be models for how Wikipedia could differentiate these topics? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote in my first post to this thread, Tylenol is an unusual case as the brand is unusually notable. In the vast majority of cases, a separate article on the brand is not justified. What differentiates this brand is not its pharmacological activity but rather its marketing and how the reputation of the brand was defended. The article currently does not contain any specific information on the formulation, nor should it, unless the formulation is some how notable. But that is besides the point. The Tylenol article falls more within the scope of WP:MARKETING than WP:MEDMOS, hence WP:COMMONNAME is the more relevant guideline. Boghog (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC) It is logical if we have an article about the brand, the redirect from the brand name should point to that article. Boghog (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boghog I can agree that COMMONNAME applies. I do not think we have all the information necessary to make a perfect determination of the intent of majority of users who search for "Tylenol". I see some people here with opinions that they want the brand, but I do not see evidence supporting that. I also do not have evidence, but my opinion is that people wanting information about Tylenol care about the drug and not the brand. I do not feel that Tylenol has branded their products as "the type of acetaminophen called Tylenol", especially not in the marketing sense that Xerox famously wished that people would make photocopies with a Xerox brand photocopier instead of using "Xerox" as a term for any photocopier. Tylenol has sought to make the word "Tylenol" synonymous with acetaminophen. In general, all drug brands can be presumed to use a marketing strategy which seeks to present their branded drug as a synonym or replacement in the public mind for the name of a thing. This is not like any soda marketing strategy, or the marketing strategy of many other sectors of products.
I am not prepared to believe without further evidence or explanation that brand loyalty to Tylenol is stronger than the consumer loyalty to acetaminophen, and on that basis, I say the common name is whatever generic term is used. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with loyalty, but rather brand notability. Within the scope of WP:BRANDS, Tylenol is independently notable because it is frequently used as a case study in crisis management. Boghog (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the Paracetamol article has a section on available forms, which discusses the fact that paracetamol is often combined with other drugs, including codeine: see Paracetamol#Available_forms. There is nothing special about Tylenol in this regard either. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Steel1943. I guess that's one way to split the baby, but I tend to think that it makes things worse than having mutual see-also hatnotes at the top of each page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: I tend to agree with that. But, as shown above, I'm not even sure that a "no consensus" close would default to "keep". That, and I'm more than certain based on the above discussion, if I had closed the discussion to "disambiguate" without commenting in the discussion, it would have been perceived as a WP:SUPERVOTE and the close would probably have been sent to WP:DRV. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there would be no way to close the discussion so far as "disambiguate" or any other positive action, and I'm not sure what "no consensus" would default to. Since it's relisted, let's sit back and see if other editors come up with a good solution (and if not, perhaps it would be best to close it as "no consensus" defaulting to taking no action at this time). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect has changed several times over the years, so the status quo ante is not clear. The article started out as a redirect to acetaminophen in 2002, then converted to a brand article in 2004. In 2015, Tylenol article was disambiguated and new redirect from Tylenol to paracetamol was created. The redirect to paracetamol was changed back to the brand in 2016 and then back to paracetamol in 2017. Hence its history as a brand (4194 days) has been about four times as long as a drug (1043 days). Boghog (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do things slightly differently for medications than many other commercial products. The reason we do this is to prevent duplicating the "medical uses", "side effects", "mechanism of action", etc across the 1000s of brandnames that exist for paracetamol. You use Wikipedia long enough and you know that if you type in a brand name it will take you to the generic name. The current set up is the least surprising. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: Is there any other case where a standalone article about a singular medicine brand name exists (in the form of "X (brand)"), where the undisambiguated title redirects to the drug, that demonstrates this specific pattern? From what I can find, Tylenol seems to be unique in that sense. Ibuprofen brand names exists, but that is a list of brands. Bayer exists (which I anecdotally associate with aspirin), but they make many other drugs.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should merge with Paracetamol_brand_names Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The reason that most drug brand names are redirected to the generic is that there is nothing particularly notable that distinguishes one brand from the next, not because it would duplicate "medical uses", "side effects", "mechanism of action". Tylenol (brand) contains none of this information, nor should it. What distinguishes Tylenol from Calpol, Panadol, etc. is Tylenol's unique history. Tylenol is sufficiently independently notable to exist as a stand alone article whereas Calpol, Panaol, etc. are not. Hence Tylenol should not be merged into Paracetamol_brand_names. Finally Tylenol is more within the scope of WP:BRANDS than WP:PHARMA, hence WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:MEDMOS is the relevant naming guideline. Boghog (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a straw man. I don't think anyone is saying that an article on Tylenol should substantially duplicate the paracetamol article, any more than Orange soft drink means there's nothing independent to say about Sunkist. There's only one thing called "Tylenol"; it's not a case where everyone was calling something "tylenol" and one company just swooped up the name (is it?). --BDD (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do this to help people to find the content they are most likely looking for. And to prevent spam. Tylenol (brand) is a subpage of the acetaminophen article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This case is unique, which I demonstrate above, so it can't be said that "we do this". Moreover, we don't know what people are looking for, though we could test it as described by Boghog and WhatamIdoing in their replies to Bkonrad (i.e. older ≠ wiser) above. Tylenol (brand) isn't a subpage.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To prevent spam is a specious argument. We do not censor nor hide notable articles because their existence might encourage less notable articles. Echoing Godsy, the scope of Wikipedia is wider than WP:PHARMA, it also includes WP:BRANDS, and within the scope of the later project, Tylenol is not on a subpage, it is the main article. Boghog (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Godsy and Boghog, I'd like to say that the status quo reminds me of WP:EASTEREGG. And who designated Tylenol (brand) a subpage? Was there any consensus for that? Besides, WP:Subpages gives a completely different definition of the word, so the concept Doc James has in mind does not even apply/exist. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2017 (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.

Wikipedia:WINING

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 per WP:SNOW. Closing "early" per WP:RELIST. I relisted this discussion due to the "retarget" and "disambiguate" options presented, but it definitely looks like it's WP:SNOW-ing now. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning, another equally plausable typo. Pppery 02:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He said if it's turned in to a dab. David Eppstein, what would you like to see happen if it's not turned into a dab? EEng 03:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That it continues to point to the one about whiners. Especially the ones whining about misspelled redirects. Winners can spell correctly, so they don't need the redirect as much. More to the point, the whining redirect is valid as an intentional misspelling or pun (if you're into that sort of thing) while deliberately using the wining link to point to winning would be...whatever that word is that's the opposite of winning. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you've got an even sharper pen than I do. BTW I knew Moon Duchin in passing at Harvard. I recall a talk she gave on the number of colors needed to identify keys on a ring. It was great. EEng 05:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
colored keys
I colored this set with nail polish, not with wine nor a sharp pen. Sounds likely to be for the same problem as Duchin. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was exactly this problem, and I remember being tickled that you need more colors for the early cases with fewer keys. In the subsequent discussion I raised that the red and white emergency lights along the floors of aircraft don't encode which way to the nearest exit, but they could -- what pattern with two colors, what pattern with three, etc. Gleason was there (the group was entirely undergrads + him + me -- he loved undergraduates) and there was a fun discussion. EEng 00:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This all started, apparently, because PPPerry mistakenly thought that WINING is a mispelling of WHINING [9], and therefore (the logic seems to go) why shouldn't it equally be a misspelling for WINNING? But it's not a misspelling of anything, it's exactly what it's supposed to be, so none of this makes sense. Everything's fine as it is. EEng 03:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2017 (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.
More