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 02:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ernie Newton (bass plyer) → Ernie Newton (bass player)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• NBL (Australia) Most Efficient Playe → NBL Most Efficient Player Award  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

We all may have plyed played the bass or been a champion basketball playe player in our lives, but I'm not sure we need these two redirects, especially since they're questionably plausible misspellings (although I can see someone forgetting to press the A and/or R key, and "ply" is used as a verb-meaning different things-and "playe" an obsolete spelling of "play"), and they don't seem to get a lot of pageviews these days. Regards, SONIC678 23:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't need to keep Ernie Newton (bass plyer) as I only had the page at this wrong name for 19 minutes due to a typo in the move. I usually leave these errors (move to error, move to correct) lying around for a while so that double redirects can be followed or fixed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• For NBL (Australia) Most Efficient Playe, it existed as an article for a month in 2005. Also some other web pages outside Wikipedia are referencing it as an example, (probably totally useless ones). It could be history merged to NBL Most Efficient Player Award, but really attribution is not actually required as the same editor did a copy paste move of their own work from the candidate to the valid page name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unambiguous errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - I agree. Neither of these seem worth keeping at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Federacion uruguaya de basketall → Uruguayan Basketball Federation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Spanish name is definitely a plausible search term, but I don't know about it with "basketall"...the correctly spelled "basketball" will appear in the search bar in most cases if the user types in this word. Regards, SONIC678 23:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It doesn't help that this is not in English. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Implausible misspelling, searchbar clutter when Federacion Uruguaya de Basketball and Federacion uruguaya de basketball already exist. Narky Blert (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unambiguous error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As stated above, this is useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Trumpdemic → Coronavirus pandemic in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Trump pandemic → Coronavirus pandemic in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

A hashtag that doesn't seem to have been picked up in reliable sources yet. It's in some degree of usage, but not in sources that would be consider reliable - use on Reddit doesn't mean we need to create a redirect for this. Hog Farm (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same user also created Trump pandemic I think it’s similar enough that it should be added.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Delete as non-neutral term not mentioned in the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: scarce usage beyond sporadic hashtags. It is unnecessary and non-neutral. --MarioGom (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - These appear to be political neologisms with no purpose other than to attack. I agree. They shouldn't be kept. We do indeed sometimes accept non-neutral redirects, but they have to be helpful and these really aren't. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Driving in canada → Speed limits by country#Canada  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure if this is a good target for this page. Interstellarity (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is more than one article about specific aspects of driving in Canada, but no general overview of the topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to encourage article creation, consistent with Driving in Canada. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agreed. I believe that WP:REDLINK applies here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --MarioGom (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2020 (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 no consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Surgical Strike India 2016 → 2016 Indian Line of Control strike  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Does not seem like a likely term to be used for searching, main article is 2016 Indian Line of Control strike Ravensfire (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - While this is an odd redirect, it still takes the reader to the exact right page for the topic. I don't see particular harm in keeping this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2020 (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 Hluk#Niob. Very, very weak consensus for this option, but since no one voted for Keep this seems preferable to a no consensus close. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could conceivably be a misspelling of Niobe instead of niobium, or a WP:FORRED from the German name for the element. I'd recommend a weak retarget there if this misspelling seems reasonable, or otherwise deletion. ComplexRational (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Niobe (disambiguation) as ((R from misspelling)). Narky Blert (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I initially missed that disambiguation page, so just to note, I'd support retargeting there as well. ComplexRational (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak delete; I don't think Niob is that too common a misspelling of Niobe. This seems a slightly better place to land the reader. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 19:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Now that I've used J947's link I'd say retarget to Hluk#Niob, as this is actually named like that. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget - This should go to 'Hluk#Niob'. The business appears notable, but I'm not sure about expanding that article given the language barrier (perhaps Czech users could be contacted here somehow). I don't support deletion in any case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2020 (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 consensus to delete the first two, no consensus for the last two. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dangerous global warming → Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (2005 conference)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Dangerous climate change → Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (2005 conference)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Avoiding dangerous global warming → Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (2005 conference)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Avoiding Dangerous Global Warming → Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (2005 conference)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Are these redirects appropriate for a conference that didn't have that title, or is a better target Climate change mitigation? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete existing redirect for first two only and replace, per nom. However, I think the last two are fine to be redirected to the conference, as the titles are very similar, and a link to Climate change mitigation is already at the top of the article on the conference. That said, perhaps the wording of that notice could be changed to "Dangerous climate change" redirects here. For the concept of avoiding climate change, see Climate change mitigation.? Domeditrix (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I would delete the first two and then retarget the latter two but to 'climate change mitigation'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget the first and second to Global warming, and keep the third and fourth. For the first and second redirects, the word "dangerous" does not imply to me that the target should concern "mitigation". I agree with Domeditrix that the third and fourth redirects are similar enough to the existing target. --Bsherr (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the first two, for sure. @Shhhnotsoloud, Domeditrix, CoffeeWithMarkets, and Bsherr: For the latter two I have started an RM at Talk:Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (2005 conference)#Requested move 15 April 2020; your participation is highly appreciated. Please note that the keeping the current situation on the fourth one is not permissible, as a primary redirect to a parenthetically disambiguated version of itself. The possible options are: 1) move the conference to 4 and redirect 3 to 4 (my preferred option); 2) move the conference to 4 and redirect 3 to Climate change mitigation (or similar) per WP:SMALLDETAILS; or 3) don't move the conference and redirect 3 and 4 to Climate change mitigation (or similar). Personally I would have !voted to delete all four redirects if this conference didn't exist on the grounds that they are unlikely search terms for a general climate change-related article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @King of Hearts: (and @CoffeeWithMarkets:) "Global warming" and "climate change" aren't the same thing: the fourth one is not a primary redirect to a parenthetically disambiguated version of itself. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shhhnotsoloud: Good catch! I misread the nomination. What this means is we need to add 5) Avoiding dangerous climate change and 6) Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to the RfD. Replace what I just said with: Please note that the keeping the current situation on the sixth one is not permissible, as a primary redirect to a parenthetically disambiguated version of itself. The possible options are: 1) move the conference to 6 and redirect 5 to 6 (my preferred option); 2) move the conference to 6 and redirect 5 to Climate change mitigation (or similar) per WP:SMALLDETAILS; or 3) don't move the conference and redirect 5 and 6 to Climate change mitigation (or similar). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the above comment, I've revised my thinking and would keep the last one. I'm unsure about the next to last one, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• None of these should point to the conference page, which is about something totally different, viz, a conference. If they all get deleted I wouldn't care. Some could perhaps simply be repointed at global warming William M. Connolley (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad Education (upcoming film) → Bad Education (2019 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Onward (upcoming film) → Onward (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Manmarziyan (upcoming film) → Anurag Kashyap  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Enter the Fat Dragon (upcoming film) → Enter the Fat Dragon (2020 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Downhill (upcoming film) → Downhill (2020 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Greed (upcoming film) → Greed (2019 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Elephant (upcoming film) → Elephant (2019 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Emma (upcoming film) → Emma (2020 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• La Llorona (upcoming film) → The Curse of La Llorona  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Hobbs and Shaw (upcoming film) → Hobbs & Shaw  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another bundle of "upcoming" redirects for movies that have already been released...why would they still be "upcoming?" Regards, SONIC678 20:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all (and to any other such redirects bundled with this nomination after this comment) per nom. Also, Sonic678, just a heads up on nominations like these: You will want to check for incoming links for such redirects and bypass them to avoid broken links in articles. Luckily, this time, there was only one, but just a heads up. Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Steel1943: OK, I'll remember that next time. Got it. Regards, SONIC678 22:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sonic678: Please read MOS:LISTGAP. Thanks, — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 23:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. Got it. Is this here format *::: better? Regards, SONIC678 23:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Basically, you should have used *: in the original instance. A good rule of thumb is to copy the indentation of the person you're replying to and then add * or :. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 00:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for pointing that out, J947. I wasn't aware of this rule before. Regards, SONIC678 02:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and recommend withdrawal of Bad Education (upcoming film) as a huge case of K4 (click the link). — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 23:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Emma (upcoming film) too per a good case of K4. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 23:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enter the Fat Dragon (upcoming film) as well. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 23:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Downhill (upcoming film) too. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 23:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Greed (upcoming film) for the same reasons. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 23:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep La Llorona (upcoming film) less so, but still has decent views. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 23:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Elephant (upcoming film) as it still has a non-trivial viewcount. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 23:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on Onward (upcoming film) per the views. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 23:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on Manmarziyan (upcoming film) for the same reasons. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 23:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Hobbs and Shaw (upcoming film) as falls into clutter territory. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 23:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, keep the latter threetwo (not the last one; see below) too to simplify this nom per K4 and RHARMFUL. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 01:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the IP, refine somewhat tentatively Hobbs and Shaw (upcoming film) to Hobbs & Shaw#Sequel. — J947 ^[cont] 23:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Enter the Fat Dragon (upcoming film). Regards, Pierrewee (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved here for clarity Pierrewee. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 03:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Regardless of how many views they get, if a film is not upcoming a title "Foo (upcoming)" in not only incorrect factually but also possibly misleading. There should be a special place in wikihell for editors who create Foo (film) without deleting Foo (upcoming film). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my query at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Upcoming films. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most of them. "Hobbs and Shaw" has a sequel in preproduction, so could target the sequel sectoin. The others are just misleading, especially "Emma", as a new film seems to be in pre-production all the time, due to it being an Austen novel. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Barely anyone is going to search these up – and if they do, they'll get to the place they want to go anyway. Are people seriously opining that we should severely inconvienience over 1,000 readers a month to save partial confusion for the extremely occasional person who searches this up. The pageviews for one of these redirects are literally more than twice as much as the Parliament of New Zealand gets. Precedent should not be considered a significant enough rationale in this scenario. — J947 ^[cont] 23:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all There is long-standing consensus to delete outdated redirects. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per longstanding consensus, which in fact qualifies them all for G6 housekeeping speedy deletion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Referring to precedent should not be considered enough; consensus can change. Should we really inconvienience so many readers? — J947 ^[cont] 00:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are saying you can singlehandedly change consensus? I don't think you understand how consensus works. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, of course I can't. I'm just saying that people are referring to precedent, and a better thing to refer to is what will gained by deleting the redirect. — J947 ^[cont] 01:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except the whole point is that the many, many good statements of what will be gained for deleteing thse have already been spelled out in the many prior discussions for identical redirects, as would be clear from a read of any of the discussions at the links helpfully provided by LaundryPizza03. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The points raised in the previous discussions are that the redirects are "inaccurate" and "useless". As I have demonstrated above, the redirects are not useless due to the high presence of old links, and that their inaccuracy does not matter due to the very low number of readers who search this term up. Over many discussions, I have still yet to see a rebuttal to this. — J947 ^[cont] 03:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - I know that there's a whole big debate here, but I still think that these are inappropriate. Yes, editorial consensus can change, but I don't see a really compelling reason to try and do that. Being perhaps slightly helpful doesn't change the fact that these are misleading. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Factually incorrect, misleading, and a potential waste of editorial time. Should WP:RS sources say that a new film is planned under any such title, a new article will be needed. The way to show that is by having a redlink not a confusing bluelink pointing to the wrong place which a puzzled editor will have to check out. Narky Blert (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2020 (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 implement Biogeographist's suggestion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• World Café → World café  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Replace with this disambiguation. Pageviews do not indicate a clear primary topic. The line for the radio program briefly crosses the line for the conversational process. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We have WP:SMALLDETAILS issues when the only difference between:
  • World Café and World café is the capitalization of the c
  • World Café and World Cafe is the diacritic on the é

Mislinks to the wrong topic which I corrected, prompting my desire to change this to a dab: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight... wbm1058 (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose disambiguation page (Keep redirect): "World Café" is not a proper spelling of the radio program World Cafe (https://worldcafe.npr.org). The conversational method, on the other hand, is widely referred to by both capitalized forms "World Café" and "World Cafe" on the web. (For that reason "World Cafe" would be the better disambiguation page, not "World Café", but I would oppose any disambiguation page for reasons given below.) The definitive book on the conversational method, The World Café: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter, uses the capitalized form "World Café". The Wikipedia article on the conversational method follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style and does not capitalize the term because it is not a proper noun—but most readers would be familiar with the capitalized form outside of Wikipedia, therefore the redirect from "World Café" to "World café" is entirely appropriate. The existing hatnote at the top of each article is sufficient to guide whatever very low number of readers happens to land on the wrong article. A disambiguation page would add an unnecessary layer of decision-making and clicking for too many readers. This a situation where any few mislinks that pop up just have to be corrected manually when they are noticed. There are currently no mislinks to either article. Biogeographist (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed World Café (Ron Korb album), which may justify the creation of a disambiguation page at World Café (disambiguation), which could be added to existing hatnotes, e.g., For other uses see World Café (disambiguation), but pageviews for the album are so low that I would still oppose replacing World Café with a disambiguation page. Biogeographist (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Café and Cafe both redirect to Coffeehouse. To say that either is a misspelling of the other is kind of ridiculous. The distinction is not meaningful. If "World Café" is entirely appropriate then calling it a miscapitalization is inappropriate; hence I made this edit. But, as I found the eight links to the radio program listed on Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations de-flagging them as miscapitalizations removes them from that maintenance list without fixing the mislinks, and leaves the door open to creation of more undetected mislinks in the future. Making this a disambiguation replaces /Linked miscapitalizations with WP:Disambiguation pages with links as the mechanism for resolving this problem. Without that there is no way for gnomes to "notice" the mislinks. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that your goal is to have relevant mislinks show up at WP:Disambiguation pages with links. But there are some other things you are not considering. First, your example of café/cafe/coffeehouse is irrelevant because they all refer to the same common noun, the same class of things. In contrast, the name of the radio show World Cafe is a proper noun; it can be misspelled, and it is not the same thing as the conversational method. Second, if you want to catch mislinks you will need both "World Café" and "World Cafe" to show up, because the mislinks can go either direction. Does a redirect to a disambiguation page also show up at WP:Disambiguation pages with links? If so, then: Third, the better disambiguation page would be "World Cafe", because, as I said above, "World Café" and "World Cafe" are both used (even by experts on the subject) to refer to the conversational method, but "World Café" is never correctly used to refer to the radio show. So it would be better to move the current article World Cafe about the radio show to something like World Cafe (radio show), replace World Cafe with a disambiguation page that says "World Cafe may refer to:", and redirect World Café to the new disambiguation page at World Cafe. This would not be perfect, but it would be the better way to reach your goal. Biogeographist (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At 05:24, 31 October 2015‎ Tbhotch moved page World Cafe (radio program) to World Cafe over redirect: The hatnote, and the article "The", already help to distinguish them.

I don't follow what The World Cafe is about. Is there a specific world café properly named "The World Cafe" or "The World Café"?

At 20:23, 25 May 2013‎ Nplanchon moved page The World Cafe to The World Café: Standard spelling

At 01:18, 8 January 2015 Fbell74 moved page The World Café to World Café (conversational process) (This title is slightly incorrect. It refers to a conversational process known as World Cafe rather than The World Cafe. while the other refers to a radio program. These changes will help to clarify)

At 15:22, 10 February 2017‎ Kaihsu moved page World Café (conversational process) to World Café

At 00:47, 30 October 2017‎ SMcCandlish moved page World Café to World café over redirect: Per MOS:CAPS (this is not a proper name, but a general concept)

I would be OK with moving back to World Cafe (radio program) and World Café (conversational process) / World café (conversational process) – wbm1058 (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The previous article moves listed above do not seem to have considered the current goal: to have relevant mislinks show up at WP:Disambiguation pages with links. So rearranging the articles seems justified given the new consideration. How does this sound:

1. Move World Cafe back to World Cafe (radio program).
2. Move World café to World café (conversation): This would match the title of the somewhat similar subject Fishbowl (conversation), and would address the objection of SMcCandlish (in the previous redirect discussion linked above) to the huge parenthetical string in the title World Café (conversational process). Retain lowercase "world café" because the term is used as a general concept and common noun, as seen in that article's lead: "A world café (styled as World Café) is..."
3. Create the disambiguation page at World Cafe.
4. Redirect World Café and World café to the disambiguation page World Cafe.
5. Either delete The World Cafe and The World Café and World Café (conversational process) or redirect them to the disambiguation page World Cafe. The World Café is the title of the definitive book on world cafés, but the book is itself is likely not notable.
6. Fix new mislinks.

I commented at Talk:World café § Move proposal, April 2020 and Talk:World Cafe § Move proposal, April 2020 notifying of this discussion. Biogeographist (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Do it Biogeographist's way. That's a good solution. For point 5, redirect rather than delete, or people will just end up creating more redirects (or worse, like accidental forks).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Change it all up - I agree with the proposal by Biogeographist as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2020 (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 WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 05:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• THE WHITE HOUSE → White House  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:RCAPS. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a common stylization of the White House, as seen, for example, in the White House seal. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The redirect is not ambiguous, uses caps in various sources, and is frequently mentioned with "The" at the beginning. Steel1943 (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sometimes used, not insane, and consistent. Don't see a good reason to delete. Hog Farm (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is how some presidents, I mean users, type.Polyamorph (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP PER ABOVE. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO USE THE ⇪ Caps Lock KEY TO TYPE CAPITAL LETTERS, WHICH I CAN SEE THEM FORGETTING TO TURN OFF. REGARDS, SONIC678 19:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tavix. [1]. — J947 ^[cont] 20:46, 19 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2008–09 Wisconsin Badgers ice hockey eason → 2008–09 Wisconsin Badgers men's ice hockey season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2004 cincy reds sseason → 2004 Cincinnati Reds season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Hart of Dixie (eason 3) → Hart of Dixie (season 3)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 1922–23 Al-Mokhtalat SC seasonn → 1922–23 Al-Mokhtalat SC season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Iranian Club Football Seaon by Season Top Goalscorers → List of Iranian club football top goal scorers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2006-07 NHL seaon → 2006–07 NHL season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2014-15 Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball seaso → 2014–15 Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2016-17 CCHL Seasson → 2016–17 CCHL season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ssome of thosse pagess were moved to their correct titless, annd they donn't sseem to get very many pageviewss compared to their targetss. Nnot ssure what use they are nnow, ssinnce the correctly formatted versionnss exisst. Regardss, SSONNIC678 16:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unlikely typos unlikely to be helpful. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom housekeeping. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, implausible misspelling. Hog Farm (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. These are unambiguously errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - None of these seem to have any worth. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there's nothing to be gained by deleting these redirects. — J947 ^[cont] 23:22, 26 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Tomorrow Never Days (video game) → Tomorrow Never Dies (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible redirect, as I don't think it's a common error to warrant it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree. This seems useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, unlikely multiple errors "The" and "Days". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:52, 19 April 2020 (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 Ozone#Production. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ozonator → Ozone#Consumers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Term not mention in the target article (WP:R#ASTONISH). Concept is possibly notable ([2]) but that redirect is not helping anyone. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I believe that WP:REDLINK applies here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine target to Ozone#Production which is where ozone generator redirects now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added term to the ozone article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine target per AngusWOOF, it's mentioned there now. Hog Farm (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2020 (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. (non-admin closure) buidhe 21:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was created with an edit summary asserting that this is a common misspelling. Searching online, virtually all results seem to be of people named Spankenburg. With no page history other than the day it was created, I think that this redirect is better off deleted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A Google search turned up a few people with the surname (none of whom so far as I can see has an article in any WP) and a typo (SV Spankenburg for SV Spakenburg) in Hungarian WP, now corrected. Spankenburg strikes me as an unlikely alternative spelling in either Dutch or German. Narky Blert (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This spelling does seem to occur, such as in this book published in 1901 and this Dutch-language webpage for a taxi service. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Two instances in 120 years is hardly common. We don't need to perpetuate this; if we do, we'll be giving credence to an undoubted misspelling and it'll be around for ever. Narky Blert (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hardly so, and never so if we tag it with ((R from misspelling)). — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 23:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if you don't have this at the back of your mind, the misspelling should be quite plausible. The complicating factor is that it's also conceivable, though less plausibly, as a misspelling for Spangenberg. – Uanfala (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This redirect is a misspelling and the meaning is ambiguous, so it may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't recall any mentions of Spangenberg in the Google search for "Spankenburg". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. LaundryPizza03's evidence is enough for me. --Bsherr (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm persuaded that this is logical enough. We have ((R from misspelling)) for a reason. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tiburones Rojos de Coatzacoalcos → C.D. Veracruz Premier  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These are two seperate teams. Tiburones Rojos de Coatzacoalcos existed from 2006-08, playing in the second-tier Primera Division A. C.D. Veracruz Premier existed from 2015-18 in the third-tier Liga Premier de México. JTtheOG (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As stated above, these are two different entities. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2020 (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.