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.
Can be used in many contexts, and the current target never says "not real" at any point. Unreality disambiguation discusses several options which are infinitely more suitable from my perspective, i.e. derealization, an r from antonym to the reality, or just going to the disambig page if it has to, if anywhere at all. It's impossible to pin down a target I'd think.
Delete as per above, especially Cogsan's comment-- the Unreality dab isn't sufficient. The best retarget that I can think of would actually be the Real DAB, but the idea of 'not real' redirecting to 'real' is a bit on the silly side. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 14:22, 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 article for GameSpy currently links to Wiimmfi, which then links to Mario Kart Wii#Legacy, a subsection that doesn't exist. Nowhere in the current Mario Kart Wii article does Wiimmfi ever get mentioned. Either a proper article for Wiimmfi should be made, or this redirect should be deleted and the link to it from GameSpy should be removed.Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what became of the Wiimmfi mention (which had already been merged with another section before that). It is currently the last sentence of the #Reception section and no longer mentions Wiimmfi directly. *this is not a vote* – 143.208.236.146 (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the third: Edited my previous comments. Also, Jay's idea does make sense to me, given GameSpy#Shutdown does seem to be where most to all information on Wiimmfi is on Wikipedia. Hope it's OK that I changed the sig on the nomination post to myself, given it... very definitively was me. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 02:43, 4 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 consensus. After nearly a month at RfD and no comments following two relists it's clear that another relist will not be worth our time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - clearly a name used to refer to this (see for example, [1]), but it may be ambiguous with generic "graffiti" style Ss. But I think someone searching this is more than likely looking for the current target. A7V2 (talk) 23:49, 19 February 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 consensus. With no new comments after the second relist, participants remain evenly divided. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 15 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 consensus. No comments since the second relist, so further relisting doesn't seem likely to be helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paintspot (creator). The target already provides a source. External search for "Pointy S" shows the S which enwiki refers to as the Cool S. If there are alternate targets such as serif(?) fonts (I didn't find any other suitable target), they may be hatnoted. Jay 💬06:35, 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.
Request to delete this redirect. Checking through the page history of the target page, it seems the editor who moved the article to the now-redirect title was put off after discovering the Paramount Television Studios (PTS) article that it may have a link to the target's actual name (TIS) when a reputable source in-page actually reveals the contrary. PTS doesn't have or never had any international division since formation as their output is rather/instead handled by Paramount Global Content Distribution. Intrisit (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Presidentman. There are still 8 incoming links which need to be fixed, probably why we're still seeing pageviews. Jay 💬03:09, 11 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.
A bundle of pages missing parenthesis after their disambiguation. In all of these cases, there is an identical version to this title, plus a closing parenthesis, that already exists. These redirects' entire histories have existed as just redirects, without any past content. Pageviews for all of these titles are low according to massviews. These titles are all implausible due to the missing parenthesis, cannot be predicted to exist, and will not be sought normally. Utopes(talk / cont)18:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, Wikipedia shouldn't need extra redirects to cover the shortcomings of external websites. (I know this is already covered by WP:RTYPO, but maybe an essay specific to this sort of thing wouldn't hurt. WP:RCLOSING or something. ...If I wrote my own essay on this, where would I go to talk about it and stuff?) Nevermind, it exists at WP:UNNATURAL and I'm a silly. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Wikipedia shouldn't (and doesn't) need such pages, but is there any harm in having them once they've been created? I suppose there could be; is there a non-negligible increase in server costs associated with them existing? Zezizzebezt (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the redirect exists, it's because somebody was dumped onto that page instead of where they were trying to go because some external source (search engine or embedded link or whatever) left off the closing parenthesis and they fixed that problem with a redirect so that it went straight to the correct page. It's not as if the lack-of-closing-parenthesis redirect page would ever be used for anything other than a redirect, so why get rid of it if one or more people have accidentally landed there? ErdrickLoto (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only possible reason for this sort of redirect to exist is because of an external page that mishandles parentheses. We shouldn't need to bloat our wiki with an extra redirect for every single page- and every single redirect- that includes a closing parentheses at the end of the title. Instead, the other sites should fix their link handling in a manner that un-breaks the link. Thus, whenever one of these redirects shows up here in RfD, they typically end up deleted, as per WP:UNNATURAL. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that "redirects are cheap", a guiding principle of RfD, says the opposite of this - [r]edirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth; therefore, it doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. WP:RDAB & WP:UNNATURAL do not explain why these redirects are costly enough to warrant deletion. (To be clear, I'm not proposing the creation of an extra redirect for every single page here - just that the ones that already exist don't need to be deleted.) All the best, —a smart kitten[meow]10:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RDAB and WP:UNNATURAL point to a section of WP:COSTLY. The full article explains in great detail why bad redirects are costly. Indeed, while I'm not the biggest fan of parts of this article (WP:PANDORA in particular is admittedly against WP:WHATABOUT), it is a very necessary article. After all, if RfD were meant to never ever delete any redirects ever... are we only here to retarget redirects??? Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are definitely many redirects that need deleting, and I'm definitely not arguing that no redirects should ever be deleted - the redirect guideline lists possible such reasons for deleting. The section of WP:COSTLY that contains WP:RDAB and WP:UNNATURAL starts off [t]here is no need to redirect from. To me, this doesn't explain why the listed redirects are costly or warrant deletion - just that, in the opinion of the essayist, these redirects don't need to be created in the first place. However, that is a very different thing to deciding to delete a redirect that already exists - which, as far as I can see, the essay doesn't provide any reason to do. (I would argue that part of WP:COSTLY actually argues in favour of keeping these particular redirects - Wikipedia:Redirects are costly § Incoming traffic is cheap notes that [o]ne valid reason for retaining an older redirect is that it is linked to from outside Wikipedia.) All the best, —a smart kitten[meow]22:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Honestly, imo WP:COSTLY just straight-up needs a rewrite lol. Incoming Traffic Is Cheap is confusingly written to the point where it seems to contradict the rest of the article, WP:PANDORA goes against WP:WHATABOUT... Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per my comments above. Furthermore, any redirect being found useful by anyone is a reason for keeping specified in the Redirect guideline - WP:R#K5. In the absence of conceivable harm that would warrant deletion (& outweigh the reason to keep them given by K5), my !vote is to keep. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow]10:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Missing parenthesis probably, originally generated by a typo. Highly unlikely to be useful to anyone and presents a slightly dangerous example. Also, I suspect that the mere existence of the typo page will be found by search engines on partial entries and that will amplify its use when it should be being supressed. Ex nihil (talk)16:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the compelling arguments by Lunamann and a few others above. I appreciate Kitten's comments, though, as some good counterpoints are brought up. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me20:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest listing it as its own RfD. While an argument could be made as to the idea that if these redirects are deleted, Spectre (security vulnerability should be deleted as well for the same reasons, there's already been a rather extensive discussion on the matter that didn't take into account that redirect. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see the result of this discussion and I would probably speedy delete Spectre (security vulnerability if this discussion closes as "delete all". Myrealnamm(talk to me) 19:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Myrealnamm:, and apologies for the delay. While it may seem like there's consensus to delete these, the fact that people have !voted to keep means that these titles are certainly not uncontroversial. I purposely did not include Spectre (security vulnerability in this nomination, as the pageviews that it receives is in a higher threshold than the rest here (the nominated pages are all specifically low views), and the title you mention ranks 43rd in viewcount in this category. Pages such as Genie (feral child have previously been kept at RfD on the basis of its viewcount, so I've been incrementing the limit with each bundle to determine the permissible limit, if there is one. So far these types of titles have been getting deleted, but there is no guarantee that all will be. As for your CSD proposal, no speedy deletion criteria applicable to Spectre (security vulnerability, which was intentionally created in 2018, not in error. Utopes(talk / cont)04:23, 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.
Keep: SWANA is a less Eurocentric term that is increasingly widely used for the region (I get 2,690,000 Google hits for "SWANA", for example). We do have "West Asia and North Africa (WANA)" in the lead, which I've not come across before. I'll add or '''South West Asia and North Africa''' ('''SWANA''') to the lead now, but we should probably reword the article to make it cover both / all 3 terms better than being an article about MENA that happens to mention the less Eurocentric terms. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk)09:42, 4 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.
This page was created as a duplicate of Reminisce (rapper), containing only the first sentence of this article from its previously POV-heavy state at the time, having been tagged as "written like an advertisement". In any case, the edit was immediately reverted and converted into a redirect before an hour had passed in its existence. The missing parenthesis makes this an implausible title to refer to the subject. Utopes(talk / cont)17:58, 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.
Redirect missing a closing parenthesis. The page history contains an identical copy of the Robbery Under Arms (1943 radio adaptation) contents, which was created at the typoed title unintentionally. The article here was created in one edit, and converted into a redirect with the next. The lack of the closing parenthesis makes this title an unlikely term for the subject. Utopes(talk / cont)17:51, 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.
An acid redirect that is missing the closing parenthesis. This issue has since been fixed, as there is now a correct version in existence at Nitrilotris(methylenephosphonic acid). Still though, the remaining search term is unlikely to be referred to with the unclosed brackets. Utopes(talk / cont)17:46, 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.
Feels like an implausible way to search for this album specifically, as well as an impractical way to search for anything of the type generally. If there were something else in front, a listing like Number Two, Part Two, Volume Two would work well enough as a new target, which the album could then potentially also be added to... but there isn't. Absent such a something, 2 (disambiguation) would be the closest equivalent, but using that seems pointless at best. The most useful thing that occurred to me is that "2 of 2" is commonly written as "2/2", as there happens to already be a dab page there, which could be broadened. None of the current entries really use it in a sense close to this one, though, so the match would be on the clumsy side of things. FWIW, I also looked for corresponding redirects at 3 of 3 thru 9 of 9 in hopes of a nice precedent, and didn't find any, but drew the line at trying number pairs like 2 of 3. Obviously some are going to exist due to having some special significance, such as 7 of 9, but I doubt there's anything to be gleaned there... - 89.183.221.71 (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find nothing specific we have coverage of called "2 of 2" or "Two of Two", it's far too ambiguous to be a useful disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 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.
Retarget to What Happened. Google tells me that this is the title of a song they released last year, but it isn't (and apparently hasn't ever been) mentioned at the current target or Jack & Jack discography. This is however a very plausible search term for the title without a question mark. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 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 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.
This can be confused with the entirely unrelated game Oink! (video game) as the terms "computer game" and "video game" are used almost interchangeably. There is not much to say about the game Oink! in the Beagle Bag collection as it is, and this redirect has no incoming links. Retarget to Oink! (video game). JIP | Talk18:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as nominated. Keep the hatnote added by Shhhnotsoloud. If someone wants to split out the other Oink! into a separate article, then we can discuss which prong of WP:TWODABS applies, but given that it currently is just a section in another article, I think it is reasonable to assume that the full article is more likely to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --NYKevin06:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the current and proposed target talk pages. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬06:11, 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For further input on the retargeting suggestion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk!05:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'd be opposed to a hatnote. Particularly with that wording, it gives validity to the idea that feature films are considered "long films" which they are not. No topic on Wikipedia is called a "long film", to my understanding. Utopes(talk / cont)17:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A hatnote implies nothing about what something is called, only that people might be searching for a different topic using a title that leads here. Feature films are indeed long"in comparison to short films so it's not an unreasonable description. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that "long film" is not a useful search term for any individual article outside this list. Hatnotes are good for search terms where people who type something in, may have wanted to end up some place else. That's fine and good but the issue is that there needs to be a level of practicality, which is totally absent. Any film's a long film if it's longer than a short film, and not a term that will be used to refer to a topic due to there being no topic among its inherent vagueness. Utopes(talk / cont)03:57, 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 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.
Released last July by Cleveland and is still a minor league free agent. While this is the the draft space, there is no substantive content to be worried about, as this has always been a redirect. Hog FarmTalk01:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CHEAP. I can't think of a single element of WP:COSTLY that applies to draft space. Hooooold on, took another look at the history here. This didn't start out in draft space, it was moved there. Not entirely sure why? Huh. Pulling my vote for now, in case THAT ends up relevant. (For the record though, if this had stayed in mainspace I'd suggest deletion as per WP:REDLINK.) Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That move of a redirect from article space to draft space by Yankees10 is indeed very odd. I don't recall seeing that being done before, and I can't immediately think how it benefits anybody? If the redirect is good it needs to be in article space, if isn't it should be retargetted or deleted. In draft space it just makes it harder for someone to start a draft article at that title. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right. Redirects aren't articles in themselves-- they can carry the history of past BLAR'd articles, but they themselves aren't articles, they're more like... behind-the-scenes gadgets. Unlike an article, the text in a redirect isn't truly notable or useful on its own and doesn't warrant preservation. What makes them useful is the title (which can be searched for or linked to), and whatever page they point to. Moving a redirect to draft space screws up that first half of the redirect, the title-- if Caleb Simpson were notable, I could see someone typing his name in, but I couldn't see someone appending "Draft:" to the front. That immediately makes a draft-space redirect useless in a way that a draft-space article (done to perhaps preserve the text) couldn't ever be.The more I think about it, the more I've come to support the idea of Deleting this. Not sure if any preexisting guideline or essay really applies here since I don't know if anyone's written about the idea of redirects in draft/userspace before-- maybe WP:COSTLY applies here after all?? Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RDRAFT deals with redirects in draft space, but it only considers redirects created by page moves out of draftspace (explicitly only to articlespace, but draft → user would be within the spirit, although I don't recall any such redirects being discussed). In that case the redirect is there to maintain links and discourage the creation of a draft that duplicates an article. None of that is relevant here. I'm going to hold off making a formal recommendation on this one for a bit as I'd like to hear what Yankees10 has to say first (it's possible there is something relevant they're aware of that I'm not). Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'm going to just hand you this WP:MINNOW and call it a day lol. In all seriousness, my recommendation for Deletion stands-- as already noted, it's the course of action I would have recommended were this redirect still in mainspace, and Thryduulf already mentioned that the draft-redirect's existence makes it harder for users to make a draft with that title. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 19:47, 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 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.
Released by the Guardians in July, not currently with any team per MiLB's website. There's nowhere for this redirect to point to. Hog FarmTalk01:50, 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).