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 Convert to redirect to a single one of the articles. This RfD has been open for a month now with no consensus being gained on the exact way to handle this (whether to make into a disambig, or redirect), but it is clear that consensus is against these forms of soft redirects. As the guidelines for disambiguation pages discourage this sort of disambig page as well, I am going to boldly close this as retarget to Son Goku (Dragon Ball)#Abilities, as identical information is kept in both targets anyway. --Taelus (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Gogeta → Son Goku (Dragon Ball)#Abilities and Vegeta#Abilities (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Vegito → Son Goku (Dragon Ball)#Abilities and Vegeta#Abilities (links to redirect • history • stats) 

These are soft redirects with two targets each, both of them English Wikipedia articles. This new page type is against Wikipedia:Soft redirect. They were changed from normal redirects after a discussion by two editors at Wikipedia:Help desk#Possible redirect would have two equally valid targets. The last paragraph of the two target sections have nearly identical descriptions of Gogeta and Vegito which is a fusion of the fictional characters the two articles are about. I suggest normal redirects to Son Goku (Dragon Ball)#Abilities, the main protagonist of the franchise. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can say that I wouldn't be against single redirects to Son Goku (Dragon Ball)#Abilities; however, I like the concept of two soft redirects. I will wait to see what some other people think to actually !vote. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Target both to Son Goku (Dragon Ball)#Abilities. I see no justification for the unorthodox use of soft redirects since we can handle the situation with normal tools and pointing the reader in two different directions only serves to confuse. Since the content at both targets is essentially identical then redirecting to the main character seems a good way to go. If in the future the content diverged then the redirect could be converted to a disambiguation page by normal editorial means. As a BTW, it should be noted that Gogeta is a former article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-standard and unnecessary to create an exception for this. The resultant page isn't encyclopaedic; it's showing our internal methods; it's not an encyclopaedic page. A normal redirect is written in appropriate encyclopaedic tones, saying "Foo can refer to either / *Foo (Baa), a place in Footown *Foo (Baz), a band"...etc. Whereas *this* page says, "Ability of Son Goku This page is a soft redirect." - what is that supposed to mean, to the average reader? "Soft redirect" is not a normal English term. Point it to one, or the other - or make a Dab, or a stub, or whatever. But this non-standard use isn't helpful to readers.  Chzz  ►  04:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"it's showing our internal methods" No. It directs the reader to sections in two different articles both being valid targets for a redirect because both sections contain information about the redirected term. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Decide DAB or redirect. As I see it, this is really a (badly written) DAB and not a redirect. I am not sure why it is considered a redirect. I would say either properly redirect it to one target (as suggested above) or make it into a page meeting WP:DAB; don't make it a DAB and pretend it's a redirect. Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a DAB page, as it does not disambiguate two ambiguous terms. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It's exactly the same meaning which is mentioned in two articles. I nominated here since Wikipedia:Soft redirect says: "soft redirects should be handled through Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion". PrimeHunter (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and say Redirect to Son Goku (Dragon Ball)#Abilities. I think it was a nice idea but consensus seems to show that it is too confusing for readers and readers will get roughly the same information no matter which way they go. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to disambiguation Since the term can equally well be a redirect to two different pages, it is ambiguous, and thus it's time for disambiguation. Standard disambiguation formatting isn't made for redirects, so we'll have to bend the rules a little, but it's better than either the current format or effectively telling the reader that there's a primary topic for this title. Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Relisting this to gain consensus on whether to IAR and maintain a disambig here, or whether to redirect to a single target. Personally I see there is consensus against a soft redirect, but I would prefer this be closed when there is a stronger consensus on what exactly to turn it into. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. Nothing at WP:SRD prohibits the creation of redirect pages with multiple soft redirects and in this case the sections in both articles are equally valid targets for a redirect. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Vehicle door --Taelus (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sports car door → Scissor doors (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

As if every sports car have scissor doors, my rationale for deletion is NOT all have them, in fact a huge portion have conventional doors. Donnie Park (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not referred to in the target. Delete as confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Vehicle door. Rymatz (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. Redirect needed to document the move. Ruslik_Zero 16:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Ling.Nut/User DGAF2 → User:Cerejota/User DGAF2 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

User apparently vanished, nothing of substance links here. No longer needed as redirect. Cerejota (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 16:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:User CBA → User:Ling.Nut/User DGAF2 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

User apparently vanished, no substantial linking into it. Cerejota (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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, as a small amount of relevant info has been added to the target. Merge discussions are ongoing elsewhere. --Taelus (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Aika Zero → Agent Aika (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• AIKa ZERO → Agent Aika (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Incorrect redirects. The separate article must be written (as there is separate article AIKa R-16: Virgin Mission). The existence of these redirects misleads readers (see WP:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for deleting p.10). As variant, but bad variant, they must be redirected to AIKa R-16: Virgin Mission at least: AIKa Zero is more close to AIKa R16, than to original AIKa (because of character age and series creation dates) - AIKa Zero is direct sequel to AIKa R16 and indirect prequel to original AIKa. But as I have said, it is bad variant - both article Agent Aika and AIKa R-16: Virgin Mission contain virtually no information on AIKa Zero series. Short plot summary or even ((Infobox animanga/Video)) are missing. Alex Spade (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. Agent Aika is actually the better target because this is the original series. "Aika Zero" is a valid search term and iy should direct the reader to an article on the series. Just because there is currently on information about the third OVA in either article doesn't invalidate the need for a redirect. In truth Aika R-16: Virgin Mission should be merged into Agent Aika in accordance with MOS:AM. But that is a different discussion altogether. —Farix (t | c) 20:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Aika R-16: Virgin Mission will be merged into Agent Aika or Agent Aika will be expanded with description (plot, summary an/or infobox) from/about Aika Zero, that will be another situation. But currently Agent Aika contain virtually no information on AIKa Zero series (Reasons for deleting, p.10). Alex Spade (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The solution here would be to expand Agent Aika to include the missing information, not to delete the redirect. Because there is little chance that Aika Zero will be a stand-alone article. —Farix (t | c) 02:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.