The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Internal contamination → Committed dose  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is mentioned in the target article, but it seems it is mentioned in a way where it is not synonymous with the subject of the target article, but rather as a general concept that could be applied to other subjects. In addition, searches for this phrase on third-party search engines seem to return results for a nonexistent subject named Inner containment. Steel1943 (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see a potential target and there are several mentions in articles that are better served as search results. There is Radiation protection#Internal Contamination Protective Equipment which briefly says what it is, but this section is very specific to equipment. Jay 💬 16:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's a plausible redirect for this topic, though I'm unsure if making this a redlink would be better so as to ensure article creation. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 consensus to keep the redirect with its status quo ante target, Goat#Reproduction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Goat sex → Goat#Reproduction  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Same issue. Extremely unlikely search term, and likely originated as an immature prank. Probably delete. TNstingray (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: History shows that it was a stub article regarding the shock image website called goatse.cx that was quickly turned into a redirect. The redirect lasted from October 2004 to February 2007. In February, a user turned it into a disambiguation page. This disambig lasted from February 2007 to October 2022 with significant vandalism causing brief disruptions. In October, the disambig was changed back to a redirect, this time to the Goat article. So, we have a long term link that was created to describe a meme, that has been a redirect for just under three years combined, and as a disambig for over fifteen. Additionally, the link has over 32,000 page views to date. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to DAB page with suggestion to protect against vandalism. Based on Super Goku V's comment, I think that this is ambiguous term which should not have been redirected. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The target does indeed discuss goat sex. I don't see the problem here. Neither of the other commenters have made any attempt to refute the edit summary when the disambiguation page was changed back to a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither of the other commenters have made any attempt to refute the edit summary... For myself, I am technically neutral with regards to what happens to this. The only intent I had was to refute the proposer's statement by clarifying the history of the link. The outcome of the discussion doesn't matter to me on this topic. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• First preference is to keep (per Pppery) as any ambiguity with goatse.cx is handled by the hatnote. Otherwise the dab page can be restored. Definitely don't delete as this is a completely valid search term for two topics discussed on Wikipedia. And of course WP:NOTCENSORED. A7V2 (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The WP:PTOPIC for goat sex in the long-term view is going to be the place on Wikipedia where we talk about the sexual reproduction of goats, not an internet meme that is not commonly referred to this way. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Goatse.cx. A lot of editors agree with the retarget. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Goatsex → Goat#Reproduction  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Extremely unlikely redirect, and likely an immature prank. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to goatse.cx to which I think this is a perfectly valid and likely search term. If the above redirect (Goat sex) is turned into a dab page then I'm neutral between retargeting this to goatse.cx or to that dab page but I think it's difficult to see this being a likely search term for the current target without the space. A7V2 (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to goatse.cx per A7V2, which is a notable subject that is pronounced equivalently to this. BlackholeWA (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The WP:PTOPIC for goat sex in the long-term view is going to be the place on Wikipedia where we talk about the sexual reproduction of goats, not an internet meme that is not commonly referred to this way. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Blackhole. Agree with A7V2 that without the space, this is not equivalent to "goat sex". Jay 💬 08:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above. I think the lack of a a space does make a difference here. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Consensus is that the current target is the correct primary redirect target. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The redirect Wagner currently points to Richard Wagner, which last was the consensus in 2016 in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 6#Wagner. Since then, the Russian military company Wagner Group has vastly increased in notoriety, being frequently referred to as 'Wagner' in media and public perception. In light of this, I suggest we move Wagner (disambiguation) to Wagner and list both Richard Wagner and Wagner Group on top of the page as most commonly sought-after. Mirrortemplar (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. More than 500 articles call Wagner and mean the composer. I believe it would be a disservice to readers and editors to change that. Editors of Classical music often just use Wagner, Verdi and Mozart, and have relied on these redirects to work for more than a decade. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak move Wagner (disambiguation) to Wagner per all of the above. I'm "weak" on this since I'm not sure if the notability I am finding via search engines regarding the notability of Wagner Group is potentially temporary or not. Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The "keep"s have convinced me this is a WP:SNOW situation, so I'm out. Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Gerda Arendt. This is recentism; the military company will no doubt fall into obscurity as time goes on. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Richard Wagner has been around for 210 years or so, and is the subject of innumerable books and articles, (apart from the 500 on WP which mention him). Wagner Group around 8 years or so. Nominator claims Wagner Group "frequently referred to as 'Wagner' in media and public perception". No evidence to support this claim as far as I am aware. The only links in the Wagner Group article that use just 'Wagner' for the mercenary group seem to be Ukrainian in origin. But this is English WP, not Ukrainian WP. Let's bring this topic up again in a century or so.--Smerus (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Okay, to substantiate my above claims a bit: Recent (past 12 months) page views for Wagner Group have generally been 2-3x of the page views for Richard Wagner, disregarding spikes (arithmetic mean seems to be about fivefold). I entirely agree that this is recentism, but having sustained threefold page views imo warrants seeing both as the primary topic (and therefore moving Wagner (disambiguation) in place of Wagner). Mirrortemplar (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. Clear case of "recentism". Antandrus (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. Let's hope the current situation is very temporary. I doubt "Wagner" is often used at first mention - Wagner Group would be normal. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Sadly, we don't have WikiNav for just "Wagner". WikiNav for Richard Wagner shows that there were 474 clicks on the hatnote out of a total of 73 thousand incoming links (<1%). Now, that mass of incoming traffic definitely comes as a result of Richard Wagner's overall significance, and makes this an unfair comparison, but still, it's an issue for this argument. We can also look at monthly page views for just Wagner and see there were 2453 visits there in December (same month as WikiNav shows), so the ratio might be ~20%. This is still moot, but I wouldn't be disinclined to support disambiguating it for a couple of months and see the WikiNav results afterwards, as mass views for all Wagner topics indicates a possibility of there being a long tail of traffic that is being effectively hidden from the casual readers behind a hatnote. Ultimately, if it's disambiguated and the WikiNav stats still show 80% of people come for Richard Wagner, then the case for a primary redirect by usage will be abundantly clear. --Joy (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  During your suggested try-out, the 500+ links that now go the composer would have to be changed, or we frustrate our readers. You can't say Der fliegende Holländer is by Wagner, and then send them to a dab page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that is perfectly doable. We've done much larger changes in the past, manually and/or with bot assistance. Also, you apparently used a bad example, as that article clearly says it's by Richard Wagner, it doesn't use the redirect. --Joy (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course a quality article won't use a redirect, but writers of singer bios mention the piece, and have in more than a decade learned that the redirect works, and will use it in the future without looking. - Would you consider moving Beethoven if there was some Beethoven Group? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wagner with nothing else should not go to this random person, imo. BhamBoi (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's hardly a random person, it's about someone with a very clear long-term significance and the article is good enough that it's a featured article. Perhaps it would be more prudent to reconsider your appeal to point out we're short-circuiting navigation to a single person versus so many other eponymous people (to borrow a phrase - random people? :) ). While we're at it, that list of people includes Richard at the top (2.6k/day) but soon after there are Jill (2k/day), Lindsay (1.9k/day) and Alex (1.8k/day) and then numerous others, which could be a reasonable argument against short-circuiting navigation as well. --Joy (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  None of the other names seems to have such a wealth of connected articles as ((Richard Wagner)). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Article links we can modify, that is par for the course. A stronger argument might be for example if you said that in the preponderance of human knowledge, a mononymous reference to "Wagner" is so universally associated with Richard Wagner that all the other uses of Wagner pale in comparison. Although, that would still be a claim that should be supported by a rationale stronger than a mere assertion. --Joy (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Not just because of the mercenary group but also numerous other uses of Wagner. Linhart.stephen 17:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is of course a hatnote to the various disam pages. But how likely is it that people searching for eg Wagner Lake will just put in "Wagner" as the search term? Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Gerda Ardent. The WP:PTOPIC, when taking the long view, is going to be Richard Wagner. And it seems to be what the vast majority of visitors are looking for when they search "Wagner", per the hatnote analysis by Joy. If we are going to serve our readers best, keeping this redirect would be most appropriate. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't know if it's the vast majority, the statistics don't actually say that. We can infer the ratio to be about 80 : 20 right now but if we changed navigation and presented a slightly different format, the actual results might well differ, one way or the other. --Joy (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rosebud Primary School → Rosebud, Victoria#Schools  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per my comment in the freshly-concluded DRV, there is another Rosebud Primary School mentioned on the site. In my opinion, a dab page should be created at Rosebud School to cover all the schools mentioned, and this redirect be targeted there. While the information on these two primary schools for example is minimal, the little information they have is in my opinion helpful to a high enough extent to merit the creation of a comprehensive dab page. J947 † ^edits 06:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - we shouldn't be keeping redirects to list entries, especially when there's more than one possible target. I also disagree with disambiguation, especially at the suggested target given that both of the schools are called exactly Rosebud Primary School. Which bare list entry would we link to on such a dab page? Rosebud, Victoria#Schools or List of government schools in Victoria, Australia? Tsuen Wan#Education, List of schools in Tsuen Wan District#Primary schools or List of primary schools in Hong Kong#Tsuen Wan District? I think better to leave it to search here. See also a similar recent discussion Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 3#Hampton Primary School. A7V2 (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for not being clear – was envisioning Rosebud-Lott High School, Rosebud High School, Rose Bud High School, etc. being included. J947 † ^edits 06:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Create dab at Rosebud school. The question of if we should have redirects to list entries aside, it makes sense to have a dab, and to have this redirect target it. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 16:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Search will find 5 mentions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because of the ambiguity and per the others. Disagree with the titles of the dab suggested, whether the 'school' is uppercase or lowercase. There is no "Rosebud school". I would not mind disambiguating Rosebud High School though. It is currently a redirect pointing to a section while we have an article on Rose Bud High School. Rosebud-Lott High School, being a partial title match, can go to the See also. Jay 💬 05:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 💬 09:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Milan Gajić (footballer born 1991) → Milan Gajić (footballer, born 1996)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading, clear error. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not useful (and in fact harmful probably) to have. No incoming links, no page views in past 90 days other than triggered by this RfD. Skynxnex (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete given pageviews have calmed down. J947 † ^edits 22:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As far as I can tell, I'm not seeing a reference in the target article that cites the subject's birthday at all. Steel1943 (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't matter as to this RfD – given he represented Serbia at multiple age-group levels which would be impossible were he 5 years older. J947 † ^edits 10:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a reasonable search term, nor a useful redirect. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Presumed consensus → Wikipedia:Consensus#Through editing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is not a defined term. Should not be a defined term, as there are already an excessive number of terms for qualified consensus. The target does not define “presumed consensus”. I have just removed circular referencing that looked like a definition. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Before this nomination, it had no incoming links. It had no pageviews during its month of existence, except for two on the day it was created. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you please provide a few of the excessive terms for qualified consensus (with links, if possible)? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Andrewa/Consensus is consensus
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Types+of+consensus&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns118=1&ns119=1&ns710=1&ns711=1&ns828=1&ns829=1&ns2300=1&ns2301=1&ns2302=1&ns2303=1

  - SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong consensus
  • Clear consensus
  • Rough consensus
  • Weak consensus
  • Silent consensus
  • Implied consensus

  SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. I'm thinking that "presumed" consensus is the same as "implicit" and "silent" consensus. Are you in favor of eliminating wp:IMPLICIT as well? Or, perhaps, should you and I join forces, pick a preferred term (I like implied consensus), and do our best to replace the other two terms with that term? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t care for WP:IMPLICIT either. It’s harder to delete now, now that it has a handful of uses and gets a pageview every four days. Creating multiple shortcuts for the one section that already has recommended shortcuts in the WP:LINKBOX hinders, not helps, discussions. I think Wikipedia should avoid creation of terms of art, as they become a jargon and a barrier to newcomers. It’s better to use words for what they mean. “Silent” has a pseudo special meaning as the first word of the respected supplement-essay WP:Silence and consensus, but fortunately, “silent consensus” is more awkward than impressive.

  I don’t think either term is worth bluelinking, unless you do it by writing an essay. I think it is no so helpful, and sometime unhelpful, to make a term as a redirect to a policy section that doesn’t really elaborate on the meaning of the term. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So for you the goal is not to reduce terms but to eliminate them altogether - to have no term for the consensus that arises from silence. Do I have that right? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A redirect does not create a defined term. The term "presumed consensus" is in use and the redirect to wp:EDITCON helps editors unfamiliar the phrase to find the meaning when they type WP:PRESUMED CONSENSUS into the search box. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If the target has always piped "Presumed consensus" to WP:Silence and consensus, then shouldn't that be the proposed target? Jay 💬 18:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm okay with that. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I tried to close this but got stuck on it not being clear whether Butwhatdoiknow has a preference for keep vs. redirect and whether Jay was expressing support for retarget over deletion or simply identifying what the !delete option should be. Other editors are invited to participate as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My intention too was for others to provide opinion on my "alternate nomination", and any arguments for or against the retarget. For now, I would go with retarget per Red-tailed hawk. Jay 💬 16:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to WP:Silence and consensus, which this is a reasonable search term for. If the policy itself is piping this to the explanatory supplement, then that's a good reason to just make this link to the explanatory supplement. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and retarget. I don't have a preference but I'm fine with this outcome, which seems to be the consensus.- Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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