November 16

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 16, 2021.

MOS:ARABIC

• MOS:ARABIC → Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words#Arab  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading wikilink; maybe a better redirect would be to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Easily confused terms but there could be other things that people are searching for (such as English transliteration of Arabic script). —AFreshStart (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:Arabic redirects to Help:Arabic, which is about using Arabic script in articles. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic exists and should at the very least appear in a hatnote from this redirect's target if it isn't there. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic and add hatnotes to Help:Arabic and the current target. While this has pointed to the current content since 2016 (in various locations, it was moved out of the manual of style in 2018) it is only lightly used (22 views this year, 46 last year) and the only incoming link (Talk:Muhammad Sa'id al-Ashmawi) relates to content at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic not the present target. This suggests to me that it is more likely what people using the redirect are actually looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original Recipe Burger

• Original Recipe Burger → KFC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The English Wikipedia doesn't mention any "Original Recipe Burger", neither at the target, nor elsewhere. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete KFC is known for its KFC Original Recipe chicken. Not sure how this can have anything to do with burgers. MB 20:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless mentioned. Searching for "Original recipe burger" -wikipedia on google returns a full page of results about a KFC product so this is definitely a thing, although possibly not everywhere (I only looked at page 1, but all the results seemed to relate to Australia, Singapore or Malaysia, even a page on uk.style.Yahoo.com gave prices in $ and was written by an author many of whose other articles related to Singapore). However with no mention of this anywhere on Wikipedia, any redirect would be misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

69420

• 69420 → 69  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target; mentions elsewhere on Wikipedia appear to be referring to postal codes. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obvious target is Tesla Model S, except that no one has added it there ([1]). MB 20:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The most prominent use on Wikipedia is APT-69420, other uses include postcodes in France and Texas, a slowly rotating minor planet, a Star Wars action figure's product code, an NER Class N locomotive and the SeaLifeBase taxon identifier for the Australian sea lion. The minor planet is the only one of these I think that would work as a redirect target, although the locomotive and hacking group would be fine on a disambig. Google adds the Tesla thing, a substring of Pi, the postcode for Kazlų Rūda, Lithuania, a song by non-notable band Lossheep, and an ordnance relating to a historic district in St. Louis, Missouri. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aogus

• Aogus → Among Us#Continued popularity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible misspelling of the Amogus meme (itself a satirical misspelling). ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This does not help us in any way. —AFreshStart (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google tells me this is an Irish family name, an electronics retailer in Singapore, a PC case, and a Chinese company whose website is currently broken. None of these appear notable. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Thryduulf's findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jonas Huff

• Draft:Jonas Huff → McRib  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Old junk with no useful history and no connection to the target. Hog Farm _Talk 19:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Grenada

• Kingdom of Grenada → Emirate of Granada  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Retarget to Monarchy of Grenada. I do not agree with result of the previous discussion, and I see no consensus there for retargering to Emirate of Granada. PS I do not know how correctly open a request to review a non-admin closure, thus just opening the new discussion. Somerby (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty articles

• Dusty articles → Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Confusing cross-namespace redirect. Delete, or perhaps redirect to Dustiness. MB 18:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, that page used to redirect to WP:Dusty articles, which itself redirects to WP:Database reports/Forgotten articles (a maintained version of the old dusty article list). That explains the weird title. However, this is still really weird since WP:Dusty articles has been a redirect far before Dusty articles. In any case I !vote to delete since it is relatively new (no links anywhere) and seems rather pointless (given that even Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles does not get that many pageviews, and that many people probably wouldn't know that WP:Dusty articles exists.) eviolite (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Segun

• Peter Segun → Three Star Club  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. He has played for multiple teams (currently playing at Satdobato Youth Club according to translation of first paragraph of [2]), so redirecting to one team makes no sense. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Polar bear attack

• Polar bear attack → 2011 Svalbard polar bear attack  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Dubious that this would be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for this term. "Polar bear#Life history and behaviour" may be a better potential target. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Bear attack#Polar bears, a section specifically about attacks by polar bears, and that mentions the 2011 attack. The section of the main Polar bear article is not entirely about their attacks. eviolite (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Good catch. I would also support redirecting to that section of that article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Bear attack#Polar bears, as a much more general target for what people might be looking for. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Bear attack#Polar bears per Eviolite and Joseph. This particular attack may have been the most searched topic associated with that phrase at the time, but there are other notable ones occurring as well, both in and out of Svalbard. We don't want to risk ASTONISHing readers by redirecting them to this specific polar bear attack. Regards, SONIC678 18:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Bear attack#Polar bears per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Bear attack#Polar bears per above. If someone showed me 'polar bear attack' I would expect an article on polar bear attacks in general, not about a singular polar bear attack. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 02:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Inclusionist~enwiki/test5

Why are we still here, just to suffer

• Why are we still here, just to suffer → Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Quote is not mentioned in the target article. Lord Belbury (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One of the most meme'd dialog from the game but otherwise an obscure part of the game's plot. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mount St. Halenas

• Mount St. Halenas → Mount St. Helens  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

double typo that could refer to either Mount St. Helens or Mount Saint Helena, and perhaps other targets, suggest deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Move and retarget. This was created when the Hurricane Jeanne article was moved to that title from here in 2004. As best I can tell, it was page move vandalism but because page moves were only recorded in the history of the source page back then it's tricky to be certain. Even though it is vandalism, this being the only record of that page move does mean we need to keep it around for attribution purposes though. I agree it's not a useful redirect to the current target, or to the hurricane, in it's present form and nothing notable includes "Halenas" as far as I can see (only usernames, a non-notable possibly sole-trader clothes retailer, and very occasional French pages (wikt:halenas informs that it's the second-person singular past historic of halener, meaning "to exhale" or "to scent")). So I suggest moving it, without a redirect, to a name that's a useful redirect for the hurricane and retargeting it there - the modern logging of moves and showing up in whatlinkshere for the hurricane will make it as easy as possible for someone to find if they need to. Maybe moving an then separately deleting the resulting redirect (rather than suppressing the redirect) will allow for log entries to be even clearer? Anyway, that necessitates finding a useful redirect to the hurricane that doesn't already exist - Hurricane Jeanne 2004 or Hurricane jeanne are the most obvious to me, with possibly a marginal preference for the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as a ambiguous typo. I strongly oppose Thryduulf's proposal. The idea that attribution would be necessary for page move vandalism is—frankly—ridiculous and sets a dangerous precedent. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It might sound ridiculous to you, but nowhere I've ever seen in either the GFDL (which applied at the time) or cc-by-sa attribution requirements is vandalism distinguished from any other edit, despite what an essay might imply. Thryduulf (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Nowhere I've seen that all page move vandalism before 27 June 2005 must be kept, which is what you're implying. Vandalism need not be attributed—quite the opposite in fact because vandalism is prohibited. -- Tavix ^(talk) 11:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You are correct that vandalism is prohibited, but I've seen nothing in either the GFDL or cc-by-sa licenses' attribution requirements that distinguishes between prohibited edits and allowed edits. We don't get to choose which bits of the law we follow, so unless you can show me where, in the legal text, it says vandalism is exempt from attribution requirements we don't have a choice to keep this. Thryduulf (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the contributions have been removed (not meaning from the database, just from the article), then the requirement to attribute the article's text does not include people whose contribution have been removed from it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless I'm missing something, I kind of doubt that page move (or any other) meets the threshold of originality. Rummskartoffel 17:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The only time moving a page to another title would arguably not be a significant edit would be when doing simple substitution of similar characters (e.g. hyphen to endash). Moving "Hurricane Jeanne" to "Mount St. Helenas" is far more significant than a typo fix in an article and we always ensure to maintain the attribution of those edits. Thryduulf (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think we necessarily need to preserve that bit of confusing old history and simple deletion would be fine, I don't think there is any harm in Thryduulf's proposal either. In that case I think the redirect can just be suppressed when doing the move along with a detailed edit summary rather than doing a move/delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 12:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Thryduulf:, would a link to the user who did the move and a brief description of what they did in the edit summary of a dummy edit be enough for attribution? That's basically what the current system does anyway in regards to moves. If so then I absolutely believe a delete is warranted. eviolite (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Is Getting Problematic

• Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Is Getting Problematic → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron is getting problematic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was created as a redirect to the ANI discussion thread about the Article Rescue Squadron, which has since been archived. The redirect is unused and unnecessary. From what I can tell, there are no other instances of project-space redirects to specific ANI discussions, and it is unlikely to become useful in the future. DanCherek (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This isn't the first time a redirect like this has been created, and from memory what normally happens is that they mostly get retargetted to the archive or to a follow-up discussion somewhere, but they aren't common. If the latter exists for this discussion (I know it was suggested, but I've not looked to see if it has happened) then that would be my weak preference here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless anyone can show me evidence that this discussion is something that is or will be referred to as a significant precedent. Or retarget to a follow-up discussion if one can be shown to exist. feminist (+) 03:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per feminist and because someone who knows the exact title of the thread could just search for it in the archives (typically the redirects to discussions that I've seen have been shortcuts--I can't think of any off the top of my head, but kinda like how WP:FRAM isn't called WP:User:Fram Banned For 1 Year By WMF Office.) eviolite (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laundry mark

• Laundry mark → Laundry symbol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect ought to be deleted. Quite simply it points to a page that in no way relates to what laundry marks were, and in some places still are. Moreover, I can find no appropriate wikiarticle to which to change the target of the redirect. A laundry mark is a mark made by a commercial launderer on a garment, tablecloth, etc., to indicate either where and when it was laundered, or for whom it was laundered. It is not a care symbol. Here are three things which illustrate this:

• "What is a laundry mark?". The Straight Dope Message Board. The Straight Dope. November 2000. Retrieved November 15, 2021. [A] laundry mark is a mark made on clothing to identify it when it is laundered (in a commercial laundry, not in a personal washing machine or laundromat) ((cite web)): Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
• Chaddock, Don (May 23, 2018). "1870s stagecoach bandit Black Bart reforms, learns job skills". California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Retrieved November 15, 2021. On the handkerchief was a laundry mark, which was the means of securing his arrest. … The investigators found a launderer with that mark in San Francisco on Bush Street. From there, they discovered the owner of the handkerchief was 'C.E. Bolton,' who was staying at a nearby hotel. … … It was a long chase but Black Bart was finally run down with the aid of a simple laundry mark.
• Dominguez, Robert (November 2, 2021). "How NYC detectives pieced together the case of a dismembered body scattered throughout the city". New York Daily News. Retrieved November 15, 2021. On the neckband was a faded laundry mark with a coded number indicating where the garment had been washed. Detectives began a painstaking search for the cleaners and soon hit paydirt.

I should add that the redirect is "harmful" because it takes one to an article that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic and, consequently, will serve primarily to create confusion (deletion reason D2). Also, there is only one article linked to this redirect (verify). Thanks! — SpikeToronto 11:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

((Wiktionary redirect)) to wikt:laundry mark. That entry appears to have be describing laundry marks as used in the above links as well as the only article that links to Laundry mark, and linking to a different project is better than deleting it, making it unsearchable, and turning its (admittedly singular) use into a redlink. eviolite (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Eviolite. Redirect to Wiktionary. Good idea. Huggums537 (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I support either redirecting to Wiktionary or deleting. My preference is in that order. I notice only one article links here; but in searches, there are several mentions of a laundry mark that could benefit from a link to the redirect. --Mindfrieze (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: That’s a great idea, @Eviolite! I hadn’t even thought about Wiktionary. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 22:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church

• Roman Catholic Church → Catholic Church  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Latin Church or at least to Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) (in this case better to move Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) to Roman Catholic Church) or Roman Catholic (term). The term Roman Catholic Church for the Catholic Church as a whole is incorrect, but of course sometimes still used [3], Turner, Paul (2007). When other Christians become Catholic. Liturgical Press. p. 141. ISBN 978-0-8146-6216-8. When other Christians become Catholic: the individual becomes Eastern Catholic, not Roman Catholic, Fortescue, Adrian (1910). "Latin Church"". Catholic Encyclopedia. no doubt, by a further extension Roman Church may be used as equivalent to Latin Church for the patriarchate Somerby (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• DAB between Latin Church and Catholic Church, the term 'Roman Catholic Church' is interchangeably used between the two. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 02:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phacophytin

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

implausible typo for target, not mentioned at target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The page has seen only 4 hits this year (excluding those since the nomination) and the occurrences as Google hits appear to be cases of OCR mistakes in scanned texts, where e has been recorded as c. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Mike Turnbull that the few search results can be attributed to incorrect OCR. eviolite (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I did not consider this might be a common OCR error for the alternative spelling phaeophytin. As such, I'd be fine with keeping as long as it is properly tagged with ((R from misspelling)), but deletion is fine too since it gets so little use. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the proper rcats below the redirect so it's there if kept. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Redirects are WP:CHEAP and this one doesn't create any ambiguity. In fact, when I looked this term up, I found several papers incorrectly referring to this compound as "phacophytin", probably due to the aforementioned OCR mistakes. Someone may look up phacophytin on Wikipedia reading one of these papers, and will find the correct spelling and the compound. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 02:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

O͞o

• O͞o → List of Latin-script digraphs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, but described at Pronunciation respelling for English#Notes and Phonetic notation of the American Heritage Dictionary, so possibly retarget to one of those? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the pronunciation respelling page.  Nixinova   T   C   19:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Close back rounded vowel as the sound that o͞o represents in the pronunciation spelling systems that use it (at least according to Pronunciation respelling for English. eviolite (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SGH-A167

• Samsung SGH-A167 → Samsung Telecommunications  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to article and send to AFD, if desired. The article was WP:BLARed about a month ago, and RFD shouldn't be used for backdoor article deletions. - Eureka Lott 19:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to article without prejudice to AfD per WP:BLAR and EurekaLott. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:G7. I created the article ([4]) in good faith hoping more would come out of it but nothing ever materialized. I don't see why this needs to be prolonged any further as the phone is not notable for a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you are not the only substantial contributor to the page this is not eligible for G7 speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd actually be OK with a G7 deletion. I'm not seeing any significant additions by other editors. - Eureka Lott 14:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The requirement isn't "significant additions" but "non-trivial edits" and there is more than one of those. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, G7, per EurekaLott. The requirement is substantial content, not "non-trivial edits". -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment FWIW (possibly not much), SGH-A167 is linked from Commons (e.g. File:Tuolumne County Courthouse Sonora CA.jpg). Might be useful to merge this and other non-individually-notable Samsung phone models to some list so that the bare model numbers can be made into ((R from file metadata link))s. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert and send to AfD Per Eureka Lott. I don't think there would be any issues on its deletion at AfD so it will still be deleted without having any WP:BLAR issues.. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C. solida

• C. solida → Coelolepis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect (an abbreviation of a species name) should be deleted, as it redirects to the genus (which is not monotypic), and it is ambiguous, as the abbreviation can also refer to Corydalis solida and Cellana solida. A disambiguation page would be a normally better method, but I think dab pages for short-form binomials are generally discouraged on Wikipedia. Esculenta (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination since unclear. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate or soft redirect to Wiktionary where a list of species by this short name can be built, if we do not build a disambiguation page here on Wikipedia. Since short form species names exist in the wild, they should be viable search terms. As this one is ambiguous, then a disambiguation page should exist. We could just define everything on Wiktionary instead of Wikipedia, and then link back to Wikipedia in the see also section of the Wiktionary page, though I don't see why there shouldn't be a disambiguation page. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig per the ip editor. Readers will encounter this term in the wild and there is no good reason I can see why we shouldn't disambiguate it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate removing the redirect seems accurate, but alot of same-genus-but-different-species wikilinks do it, and it will show a red link, so a new creation mixes the thing up. Normally, i would just link but place the display name different for these type of wikilink.Species-to-genus redirects should be addd if it's the only species in the genus.Leomk0403 (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The convention in scientific literature is that a species is only abbreviated after it has first been written out in full. Species abbreviations do not exist "in the wild" without the full context of the unabbreviated genus. The abbreviation is not a reasonable search term. There are additional species that can be abbreviated C. solida that do not yet have articles on Wikipedia. Assuming somebody is searching for C. solida, how do we know they aren't seeking a subject that doesn't yet have an article on Wikipedia? Include red-links for every C. solida? Outside of the scientific literature, there are a handful of species that do frequently appear in abbreviated form: T. rex (most people know what the T. stands for), E. coli (most people don't know what the E. stands for (or if they do, they may have trouble spelling it)), however E. coli regularly appears in general audience news about disease outbreaks. Then there's C. elegans; it's not well-known to the general public, but may make an occasional appearance as an abbreviation in the science news section of a newspaper. And then there's C. elegans (disambiguation); at 144,178 bytes, it is Wikipedia's largest disambiguation page, and probably includes almost every organism that could be abbreviated as C. elegans. It isn't really useful for navigation; a reader who encounters C. elegans in the wild is better served by reading backwards in the document where they encountered it than by trying to find the appropriate entry on the dab page. User:Caftaric (now blocked) created the C. solida redirect and was responsible (with their other accounts) for the vast majority of edits to C. elegans (disambiguation). Let C. elegans (disambiguation) serve as a cautionary tale; it is a bad idea to create disambiguation pages (or redirects) for species abbreviations. Species abbreviation dab pages either require ongoing maintenance as new articles are added, or else will have many red-links. Species abbreviation redirects are ambiguous more often than not. Plantdrew (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Plantdrew Are you disputing the existence of all the Category:Species Latin name abbreviation disambiguation pages? I suggest that this is not the right venue for this, and that consensus of disambiguation be followed unless a broader discussion suggests acting otherwise (on a bigger scale). ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not disputing ALL of them, just the vast majority. T. rex has primary topic, and T. rex (disambiguation) is useful for people who aren't sure how T. Rex (band) is styled. C. elegans has a primary topic, and therefore, as ridiculous as the resulting dab page is, I suppose it should continue to exist (at least to serve as a cautionary tale). I'd also dispute the existence of the vast majority of Category:Redirects from scientific abbreviations, most of which would need disambiguation if keeping and dabbing C. solida sets a precedent. And then there are thousands of additional (usually ambiguous) species abbreviation redirects that haven't yet been categorized. Plantdrew (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate - I have drafted one below the RfD notice. eviolite (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment almost all of Plantdrew's objections to a disambiguation page are that the scientific convention means people will not see usage like this in the wild. However that just means they shouldn't, not that they don't. There are countless examples of abbreviations being used in non-scientific contexts and sections of scientific articles seen out of context. That a large number of disambiguation pages will be needed is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

24 pounder

• 24 pounder → 24-pounder long gun  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Heavily ambiguous, as this was a generic cannon rating. There's also the M1841 24-pounder howitzer and the 24-pounder Dahlgren gun and maybe others; specific meaning is probably too context-specific to point to a single place. Hog Farm _Talk 04:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• setindexify per nom. Add information on what being a 24-pounder means (ie. it's not the weight of the gun itself) -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Would this be the first such article for a cannon rating? (A "yes" is not necessarily a reason not to proceed.) --BDD (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: 32-pounder is a set-index. Hog Farm _Talk 21:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, that would probably do, then. I was just looking at Cannon and its corresponding category. --BDD (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Setindexify per the IP. Seems like the best solution here if someone wants to draft one up. If not, a dab page would be a good starting point. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to Set index per above and precedent in 32-pounder. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Setindexify per above. --Pokechu22 (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A Set Index Page will help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Make SIA; I have already drafted one based on the 32-pounder article. If it goes through then closer should make sure to add ((SIA)) to the end eviolite (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of digraphs

• List of digraphs → List of Latin-script digraphs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Digraphs aren't limited to the Latin script, and we do have a List of Cyrillic digraphs and trigraphs as well, though more writing systems are listed at Digraph (orthography)#Examples. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rd is a leftover from when I moved the page. It could, of course, be a dab instead; there are no incoming mainspace links to worry about. If we keep it as it, we should have a hat note at 'List of Latin-script digraphs' -- but without incoming links, why clutter that article? Best I think to turn it into a dab page. — kwami (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this goes to what the end-user would expect. If you were writing in the see also section and typed in "you can find other examples at the [[list of digraphs]]", what would you expect to link to? A list of Cyrillic digraphs? Arabic? Ge'ez? No, you would expect that to be digraphs in the writing system for the "en" Wikipedia, i.e. the Latin script. The second question is whether a user would realistically use that particular link for that purpose, and I would have no doubt that someone who doesn't routinely work in non-Latin scripts (i.e. 99% of editors) would do so. Lastly, the question is whether other content should go here, e.g. a disambiguation page, and although that is a possibility, unless a significant amount of editors would expect this link to be to a disambiguation page for lists of digraphs in several scripts, or the number of alternatives becomes unmanageable, this is better handled by a hatnote at the target page if even one editor were to express that expectation. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 22:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suspect some would want digraphs from any script, not just Latin, as a whole over different scripts. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I honestly cannot come up with a plausible use case for that. If someone is talking about digraphs outside a specific script, they're going to link to the concept of digraph, not a list of digraphs from multiple scripts. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 06:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate to all articles or sections of articles that lists them -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What about Digraph (orthography)#Examples itself as a target? It links both lists that exist as well as adding information for some more writing systems. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That would seem to be a reasonable target. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per above. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Digraph (orthography)#Examples since it already has a list of digraphs from many scripts with links to the Latin and Cyrillic links. Any dabpage would necessarily be clumsy as it would need to link to that section anyway for non-Latin non-Cyrillic scripts (so it might as well just send you there for everything), and anything more on that page would be essentially just a content fork. eviolite (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfe (TV series)

• Wolfe (TV series) → List of programmes broadcast by Sky One, Sky Max and Sky Showcase  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target doesn't mention the series. It is mentioned, without details, in Sky Max. Delete to encourage article creation; or write the article, it looks potentially notable. Narky Blert (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-canonical

• Non-canonical → Apocrypha  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Non-canonical books → Biblical canon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Literary canon → Western canon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget all to Canon (fiction), as all titles more closely relate to canon in literature/fiction than their current targets. I wouldn't expect Biblical canon when wikilinking, and they might not represent a WP:WORLDWIDE view of the topics (though I have no idea of the topic). Non-canon and Fictional canon redirect to Canon (fiction), making Non-canonical differ. For Literary canon, I suggest the already-existing hatnote in Canon (fiction) suffices to navigate to Western canon if they are looking for it. If Literary canon is kept (because of the large number of links to it), the hatnote distinguishing it with Canon (fiction) should stay. SWinxy (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all - the current redirects are the best, not least because the proposed new one, Canon (fiction), is mostly about modern popular literature. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to disambiguation page Canonical. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• support The terms are more relevant to fiction in general, not just Jewish mythology and its fairy tales. Dimadick (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to the dab page at Canonical. There are many equally plausible things that could be being searched for here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all first two first only to the dab page at Canonical, I agree with Thryduulf. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is just nonsense - Canonical is a train wreck of a page, and redirecting a noun like "Literary canon" to a lengthy (rather over-lengthy) disam page for an adjective will almost always be a bad idea. "Non-canonical books" is a basic concept in Biblical studies, but must be extremely rarely used for other types of fiction - see this search. Google struggles to find any uses that aren't about the Bible. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canonical looks like pretty much every other disambig page, I see no train-wreck. I guess no one would object if you sorted it alphabetically, putting Religion above Science (plus ça change !). Literary canon is certainly a special case and I withdraw that part of my agreement. [It needs a separate discussion, it certainly should not redirect to Canonical (disambiguation) and certainly not to Canon (fiction). Canon (disambiguation) maybe but that seems pointless atm if just ends up going to Western Canon anyway.] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per talk:Canonical#Not a dab page, I have seen the error of my ways and repented. That part of reply withdrawn. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting results from 'general' google search for plain "non-canonical": Science trumps religion. Searching books.google has similar results if we include Linguistics under Science. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, for "non-canonical" in science contexts, but how can you justify "Non-canonical books", where all these fall away? Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I (or anyone) want to do that? You may as well just specify "non-canonical books of the Bible" and be done with it, since "of the Bible" maybe taken as read. Ah, ok, at which point I realise that I missed the thrust of your argument: the specific redirect in question is "non-canonical books", not "non-canonical" + "books". Hmmm, I think you have a valid point, which I accept. Another one bites the dust. Two down, one to go. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget first two to disambiguation page Canonical. Oppose retargeting literary canon, which is almost always used to refer to the Western canon. –Ploni (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget the first as ((R from antonym))&&((R from adjective)) to Canon (basic principle). Retarget the second as ((R from related term)) to Canon (basic principle). Retarget the third also to Canon (basic principle). English Wikipedia is not the Christian Wikipedia, this current schema is biased towards a Christian userbase. The largest English speaking country in the world is India, which is largely Hindu, and not Christian, so this is not a proper use of redirects. Both Canon (disambiguation) and Canonical (disambiguation) appear at Canon (basic principle). In entertainment, "literary canon" refers to the books, while you have "cinematic canon" referring to the films of a media franchise. In general culture [5] "literary canon" refers to the general body of literature that the common culture of a country is associated with. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the "Non-canonical books" are of great interest to Judaism too. I don't think the term is used at all in Hinduism. You have to twist definitions somewhat to say "The largest English speaking country in the world is India"! Indians form a significant part of our readership on the en:wp, but certainly not the largest group. Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So we will bias the generic redirects on Wikipedia to favor IslamicJudeoChristianity above other concerns? As Indians form a significant portion of the readership, that is a very good reason why these redirects should not be biased towards Western Civilization and IslamicJudeoChristianity. "India" was an example used. "non-canonical books" (and similar terminology) are in entertainment, especially when part of a media franchise's corpus is decanonized by the Intellectual Propery Owner when moving forward with new major works. All generic redirects should be generic, and not implicit Christian/American/British redirects. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects should serve the readers who encounter the redirected term. In the case of "Non-canonical books" this is almost certain to be someone reading a biblical or related article. Can you find any Indian topic where Non-canonical books is used as a redirect? I bet not. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects should not favor one group of the readers over other groups of readers. If multiple topics on Wikipedia cover concepts of the terminology from different cultural/regional contexts, then no single region should be favored. "Non-canonical books" is not just the content of Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible and other IslamicJudeoChristian apocrypha. As you can see all over the entertainment sector, non-canonical books/literature/history, can refer to works of fiction in media franchises, or the literary canon of a culture. Fractality and Variability in Canonical and Non-Canonical English Fiction and in Non-Fictional Texts [6] [7][8] -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So apart from the first, non-RS fan sites, none with anything to do with religions in India, so a red herring then. If at some future date any of those result in an actual article, we can revisit but right now their relevance is not obvious. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a red herring, it is an example of an English speaking region that is not Christian or Judaic. We should keep in mind that the world is not solely IslamicJudeoChristian, and should never think that all redirects should default in this manner. If we are discussing canonical religious works of Indian religions versus non-canoncial works, we have all manner of such [9][10][11][12]; my examples were indicating that non-canonical books extends far beyond religion, entering works about fiction canon. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for uses within Wikipedia, ie where a redirect might actually be used. I don't think there are any relating to Indian religions. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget first two to Canon, the DAB Canonical doesn't link to Canon (fiction) or Western canon, just Biblical canon. Keep the third (and hatnote); that is a different meaning for "canon" in literary canon. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canonical (disambiguation) should only link to articles containing the word 'canonical'. Canon (fiction), Western canon and equally Biblical canon, do not belong there and never did. The should only be listed under Canon (disambiguation). I will move Biblical canon now: if hard cases make bad law, then irrelevant cases make even worse law. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria

• Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria → Wikipedia:Notability  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I do not wish to delete this redirect; however I am suggesting either a retarget to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria or disambiguating to Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria. My reasoning is that while it does make some sense for "inclusion criteria" to refer to "the criteria that determines what should be included in Wikipedia", based on a search it appears that the vast majority of the exact term "inclusion criteria" on Wikipedia is referring to list inclusion criteria. Indeed, I only came across this redirect when searching for WP:Inclusion criteria, looking for the specific project page regarding list inclusion criteria. My reasoning for including Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in the proposed dabpage is that this used to redirect there and it seems reasonable enough - I would not object to a dabpage without that on it. Best, eviolite (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either of those options sound good to me. AFAIK since I created it, it's never been an important redirect to Wikipedia:Notability. ··gracefool 💬 03:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The redirect has had an extremely long standing consensus remaining in effect without issue for the past decade. Changing it now affects the fundamental meaning of other discussions that have currently been taking place: diff. Also, it doesn't make any sense to disambig WP:Inclusion criteria when we know it will impact other conversations and we also already have the WP:Inclusion disambig which already exists to work from where we could just add both Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria to that existing disambig page without affecting the meaning or the long standing consensus of the other... Huggums537 (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Huggums537: Is there a discussion that demonstrates that a extremely long standing consensus exists for this to go to WP:N, or is it just that it has stayed for a long time? (This is a genuine question -- I was not aware of any discussion of this redirect occuring anywhere.) Also, I hadn't seen that specific VP thread you linked before, but it seems that specific usecase is neither related to notability (in Wikipedia's terms; i.e. whether a topic belongs as its own article) nor list inclusion criteria (since it's not about stand-alone lists, but about sections within articles), so I'm not sure how that relates to your comment at all. I certainly don't see how the target of this redirect affects a discussion about something related to neither options. eviolite (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Eviolite, that is a valid question, but no discussion has to take place. Consensus is presumed. So, having a lengthy history of staying a long time without any objections is implicit consensus. The longer it stays that way, the stronger the consensus is implied. See WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Also, the reason my comment is related is because if the target of the redirect gets changed, then the meaning of my comment gets changed in the process. That is why I suggested we edit the existing dabpage since it is very similar anyway (only one word away from being exactly the same actually) and no meanings where this redirect is being used would be changed and the consensus would not be affected. Also, adding your suggested targets to the existing dabpage do not affect any meanings anywhere the existing dabpage is being used because it is already intended to convey multiple meanings anyway... Huggums537 (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • In that case, the fact that I am bringing it to RfD, i.e. expressing an objection to the status quo, shows that there is no consensus. Consensus can be presumed to exist until disagreement becomes evident. By that logic, nothing could ever change since the current version would always have "implicit consensus". The whole thing about bringing a completely different page into this discussion (WP:Inclusion) is patently silly as those are completely different pages. If I go to the Wikipedia project page for "Inclusion criteria", there is no reason for me to assume that what I'm looking for is actually hidden on an arbitrarily different page. How will changing WP:Inclusion change the fact that WP:Inclusion criteria links solely to something that is not the main meaning of that term, unless WP:Inclusion criteria is changed to redirect or link to WP:Inclusion? The statement about there just being one word different is rather confusing since the pages in question have only one and two words in the title anyway. To me, the insistence that a singular usage of this link, used in what reads to me like a petty comment about something you admit to be the finer points, that nobody has even replied to, outweighs, among others, nearly two thousand instances of "inclusion criteria" referring directly to list inclusion criteria (being in talk pages of lists) that would be confusing to somebody who does not know what "inclusion criteria" means in that context is frivolous. eviolite (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      How will changing WP:Inclusion change the fact that WP:Inclusion criteria links solely to something that is not the main meaning of that term, unless WP:Inclusion criteria is changed to redirect or link to WP:Inclusion? As I mentioned below, the fact that we have so many other similar redirects targeting the same guideline is ample evidence that this redirect does target the main meaning of the term. Furthermore, the more than 44,000 who are also using almost exactly the same terminology to redirect to Notability far outweigh less than 2,000. It's not just me using this link, and it's not just this redirect that is the only one saying it is the main meaning of the term. There are several other redirects just like it saying the same thing, and thousands upon thousands of editors also saying the same thing. The thing that would be frivolous would be to disrupt a well established redirect pattern that has been replicated by the community several times as being the main meaning and used by thousands in one of the redirects when there is no good reason for it except that a single user performed a piss poor search and now has an objection to the established redirect pattern after a decade of consensus with no issues... Huggums537 (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at WhatLinksHere, this doesn't seem useful to redirect to WP:N, there are a non-trivial number of uses with a different or unclear intent. Also, there are only 29 links here, it's not going to be seriously disruptive to disambiguate this. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've offered an alternative that wouldn't be disruptive at all. There's no reason whatsoever why we shouldn't add the suggested targets to the existing dabpage and spare users whatever "non serious" disruption you perceive it would be to disambig this. Actively encouraging any kind of disruption is a bad idea when you have a non disruptive alternative. Huggums537 (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that there is nothing wrong with this redirect in the first place. The OP even acknowledges that it does make sense for WP:Inclusion criteria to refer to "the criteria that determines what [articles] should be included in Wikipedia" (Notability). Further, the search that was conducted by the OP doesn't yield any better results at finding the list selection criteria even when you replace the terms "inclusion criteria" with more relevant terms such as selection criteria or list criteria. This suggests the fault lies with improper search parameters as opposed to a faulty redirect. This is especially true when you consider the fact that the original search includes needless Discussion pages along with other needless File, Template, Category, Draft, Module, and Gadget pages in a search for list criteria. The selection criteria can be found very easily when a more proper search is conducted. Are you quite sure you were looking for the specific project page regarding list inclusion criteria? Huggums537 (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Huggums537: You are misunderstanding what I said. I typed WP:Inclusion criteria into the search bar, like I said, expecting there to be a shortcut to the list inclusion criteria. Then, when researching for this RfD, I searched for "inclusion criteria" in all non-article namespaces to see which was more common; as expected, it was for lists. Redirects are meant to sent the reader to a page they would expect. eviolite (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This redirect is the page you would expect when you compare it to the nearly identical one Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion that is being used by over 44,000 who will be confused and disrupted by the change since we also have WP:Notability criteria and WP:What wikipedia includes redirecting to Notability as well. These very strongly suggest that Wikipedia expects all of these similar type of redirects to send a reader to Notability and this redirect should remain WP:STATUSQUO to avoid any disruption to that expectation or to avoid disrupting the meanings of current discussions as I pointed out earlier... Huggums537 (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't care about this redirect enough to debate this any further, especially when my attempts at due diligence have been characterized as disruptive and piss poor based on misunderstandings. It's clear that I have my opinion on where this should go, and you have yours; one person does not constitute a consensus so we'll see what others have to say. eviolite (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, any comments I made about disruption were in response to a point brought up by another editor, and so it was the other editor who characterized this action as being disruptive. I have merely agreed with that point and suggested the disruption is a bad idea. I have no idea what "misunderstanding" either one of us base this assessment/characterization on. At any rate, I do apologize for using "piss poor" to describe your search even though I still think it was not a very good one even in spite of any misunderstandings that have occurred. Also, when the whole community has intentionally developed a grouping of extremely similar redirects that all point to the same target, (essentially saying there is a community consensus that these types of redirects have this type of meaning) then saying, "one person does not constitute a consensus" is far more of an unfair characterization. (Note that every redirect of these types were each created by a different person.) Huggums537 (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, my comment said that the change would not be seriously disruptive. It did not say that I thought the change would be disruptive at all, only that I thought that it would at least not be seriously disruptive. I don't actually agree that the change would be disruptive, but I don't like making overly-broad claims when they're not particularly relevant to my argument. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think your comment was perfectly clear and succinct when you wrote it the first time, and I find it to be telling you came after the fact with this translation of "what you really meant", but thanks for clearing it up for us anyway. At least now we can see what you are intending more clearly. Huggums537 (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]