Improper title format that gets next to no page views. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not one of the original camelCase redirects. Existed at this title for less than a day after moving a page from userspace, unlikely search term and not a useful redirect. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this redirect for deletion due to lack of relevance. There was no mention of this person on the target page at the time of the redirect's creation, nor is there now (or anywhere else on enwiki, for that matter). An internet search reveals that there is a science teacher with this name, but no specific connection to peptide bonds that I can discern. Quesotiotyo (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A likely student prank, if this guy is a science teacher. Fieari (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: only hits on google for this redirect's title and peptide are this redirect and three sites that pull definitions from Wikipedia. Skynxnex (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd like to note that this redirect has always been a redirect ever since its creation... holy heck, in 2005??? Going back in Peptide Bond's history reveals that the article didn't have info on a Bruce Shotland back then, either. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Implausible redirect 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 17:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [Delete; after sleeping on this, I agree with everyone]. Plausible and similar combinations are included at Password strength and List of the most common passwords. Perhaps retarget to the latter as a reasonable r without mention.—Alalch E. 17:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many hits, but the vast majority are assorted usernames, test strings, etc. No one I can find is using this to refer to the keyboard layout. Rusalkii (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would have supported a redirect to list of common passwords if this password was actually listed there, but it is not. Without such a mention, I agree with nom that this is pretty much nonsense. Fieari (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the spirit of WP:UFILM. Minimal page views, target was released over a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I don't know what stats the nominator is looking at, but it can't be the ones for this redirect as it's hits almost every day and often multiple hits a day which isn't anywhere close to "minimal". Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf, I feel like a broken record a bit here, non-minimal page views = proof that it's still useful and should be kept a little longer, let it cook, so on, so forth. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tavix(talk) 22:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. We shouldn't delete a redirect that is being used by readers with relative frequency. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 13:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this misleading redirect for a TV series that premiered 13 months ago and cannot be considered upcoming under any stretch of imagination. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 14:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We generally should not be using relative terms like "upcoming" in page titles, full stop, doubly so for a show that's already premiered. —Jéské Courianov^_^vSource assessment notes 17:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 17:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a few more weeks/months as needed. We can delete it after usage dies down. No need to jump the gun here. Fieari (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I wouldn't consider 13 months after the series' release "jumping the gun"; not useful for editor time to sit around the rhetorical microwave, waiting for the redirect to cool off if it's just going to end up in the trash anyway. Not sure what a "re-look in a few weeks" would do after over a year. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, maybe someone should make a bot that would scan for (upcoming) redirects, check to see if pageviews have died down yet, and auto-nominate after a redirect falls below a certain threshold. Would cut down on the editor time needed here.That said, a redirect like this one can still be useful for a while after a series releases for two reasons: one, like other pagemove redirects, external links could be pointing towards the redirect that feed in a steady amount of traffic. Two, it can serve to alert someone who didn't know that the series/movie/game/book had released yet that "hey, it's out now, go watch/play/read it!" Both of those mean that such a redirect is still useful, and I'll note that one of the two scenarios I presented (that I'm not suggesting is operating here, although given how long it's been, it could be) does bar UFILM from actually functioning-- if an external source is linking to the redirect, it could take years before pageviews actually naturally die off. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pedalanka, Bhattiprolu mandal
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 wrong venue. Completed the uncontroversial move; all existing titles on and off Wikipedia refer to Bhattiprolu with this spelling. (non-admin closure)Utopes(talk / cont) 03:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 14:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should've been, yeah. This is essentially a WP:RM/TR to swap a title which is held up by redirect. Looks uncontroversial so I'll just go ahead with it. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Curse bowl
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. Looks as if "incantation" and "curse" can be interchanged, did not seem to me at first. (non-admin closure)Utopes(talk / cont) 03:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "curse" is not mentioned at the target article, nor do any of the topics at the target have any correlation to "curses" to my understanding. It is, however, mentioned at Super Bowl curse, and various football championships have been dubbed as the "Curse Bowl" due to bad things happening, [1]. It is also one letter off of Cure Bowl, which might be more plausible than a target where the title isn't mentioned. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Curse bowl" is, I thought, the more common and less precise term. I didn't know that page was there at "incantation bowl" at all, that's why I originally made a stub instead of a redirect. There could be other people who don't know the term incantation bowl. Temerarius (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 2 minutes on Google shows that this is a synonym for the target, see e.g. [2], [3], [4]. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 14:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep connection between redirect and target name seems intuitively clear. Google results suggest most uses are related to incantation bowl, including academic sources (see e.g. Thryduulf's examples), though with a sizable minority referring to various Super Bowls. Rusalkii (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a synonymn, regardless of being mentioned in the article or not (although if academic sources are using this name, perhaps it should be added to the article). Fieari (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Chat Control 2.0
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. With refinement. Thanks for the addition! (non-admin closure)Utopes(talk / cont) 03:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of anything indicative of a "2.0" at the target page. The target mainly talks about Chat Control from a singular-usage standpoint, which Chat Control currently exists as a redirect too. External searches has led me to believe that "Chat Control 2.0" is a different piece of legislation entirely, which shares similarities to this one. Without any dedicated content, however, this redirect does not appear very useful. (No mention of "Chat Control 2.0" anywhere on Wikipedia by the way). Utopes(talk / cont) 03:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, things found in external searches refer to the same thing using the added "2.0" in the name, but such naming has mainly been used by activists (e.g. by EU Pirate Party) and such sources have not been cited on the article. Such activists refer to a separate earlier legislation as "Chat Control 1.0" (still a topic as legislators debate extending it, and originally referred to it simply as "Chat Control"), hence the added 2.0, while the sources WP has cited don't talk about the earlier legislation with such naming, and drop the 2.0 when labeling the newer. The older "1.0" legislation was adopted in July 2021 but was/is time-limited, the 2.0 legislation was inspired by it and sought to make it more permanent and to take further steps.
It seems good to cover the naming so that readers know what the labels refer to and have been used for, but there's no real coverage on it. Also, I'm unsure what sources would qualify. --JoelKP (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No mention has been added yet to the target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 14:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a term in use by certain groups, regardless of article inclusion, but especially in light of article inclusion. Fieari (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
I just created it but I'm not sure anymore. I noticed willingness could mean the same. Or should it be targeted to Wiktionary? --MikutoHtalk! 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The personality trait of agreeableness has very little to do with the transient state of being favorable about something. Jcbutler (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now wondering if Attitude (psychology) would be appropriate, because attitude can be defined as some level of favorability or unfavorability. Jcbutler (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let's get some !votes in here. If you're proposing to disambiguate, please mention which pages might be listed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the most common reason someone would search for this is to find what a "Favorability rating" is, in the context of Opinion polls... but that article doesn't describe or define that term specifically, so it may not be the best target. Crosswiki'ing to wiktionary won't provide the information to the searcher either, as it just defines the word and doesn't discuss or illuminate how it is used, particularly in politics, where someone might be confused about it. I feel like this may actually be a potential article in the making, but I'll be honest and say I don't want to do it. I'm also not sure where this redirect should go. Maybe leaving it as a WP:REDLINK would be best? I'm not sure! Fieari (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to wikt:favorability. Redirects are cheap and making it a soft redirect makes it much more helpful than having the reader stare at a bunch of search results. Also, both Google and DuckDuckGo mostly bring up dicdefs, so I don't think it'd hurt if we had another. Duckmather (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very useful redirect. It is mentioned at the target page and receives hundreds of daily pageviews. This title is an alternate name for the subject and it would be a great idea to keep it. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you describe the connection between "Gullible.info" and our article on Factoid? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a reply to User:Abhishek0831996 and User:Skynxnex: Context clues, including the information Skynxnex shared about how gullible.info was a site full of intentionally-false but seemingly-plausible "facts", indicate that Utopes's nom comment is meant to be highly sarcastic, and was intended to be read basically as the complete opposite of what was stated literally-- i.e., This isn't a useful redirect, is not mentioned at target page, receives no daily pageviews whatsoever, is not related to the subject in any way, and should be deleted. Quick checking reveals that, indeed, this redirect's pageviews have practically flatlined at zero. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lunamann. Fieari (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Create the article if the topic is notable but this proposal for redirection is not meaningful. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these redirects are appropriate. The language "forced-birther" seems to be rather pejorative, like creating baby murderer and redirecting it to Abortion-rights movements.
I also want to clarify that I do not oppose abortion rights, but WP:NPOV applies to these redirects too. RockstoneSend me a message! 07:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Okmrman (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:RNEUTRAL. Redirects are not held to the same neutrality standards that the rest of the encyclopedia are held to, as-- unless you use the "What Links Here" tool-- they are invisible in all circumstances except when they do their job, which is taking a search and redirecting it to where it needs to go. In this case, having non-neutral redirects like these, which espouses a very specific and particular POV, are useful for catching searches by people who hold that POV, and searches by people who want to know what the heck those POV-holders are talking about. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag per Presidentman. Why I think these are different than "baby murderer" "forced(-)birth(er)" appears to be used in more reliable (and near-reliable) sources describing anti-abortion advocates/positions than "baby murderer" is used to describe pro-choice advocates/positions. Second, if a baby murderer redirect did exist, it probably should be targeted to infanticide (or similar) since that is likely the primary topic for the phrase. Skynxnex (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another 2009er, there is no mention of "Grizzly-1" anywhere on Wikipedia. Without any content about this apparent Beast Wars character, this redirect is currently unhelpful and leaves readers lacking information. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of a card game called Gris at the target. Has always been a redirect, used to target Spoons and Spoons (card game) when it was its own thing in 2009. Without a mention or any context as to what "Gris" is, this redirect is not helpful and leaves people confused upon arriving at the page. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I attempted to do a history dive in an attempt to find out if there'd ever been information on this subject-- and found that Spoons was never its own article, but rather, was the article's old name prior to being moved to Donkey (card game) and then again to Pig (card game). With that information in hand, I found that the editor who made the Gris (card game) redirect made an edit to the Spoons/Pig article on the very same day-- and that said edit contained zilch in the way of information or mention of Gris, nor did any edits immediately prior or after. I can reasonably assume that Pig (card game) / Donkey (card game) / Spoons (card game) has NEVER had information on Gris. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of "grib" at the target article, much less a something or someone that's "gribbly". Alternatives include Gribbly's Day Out which exists as a standalone article, as well as Gribble, Roman Gribbs, and the music director of Rec Room (video game). Zero idea or indication why this is going to Grunge currently, although it's done so since 2007. (Doesn't seem to have been mentioned within the former history of Grunger, which is where it used to point back in 2005). These 2005 redirects are... surely something, lol. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, "gribbly" is not a word. Kill with fire. CAVincent (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of "great" at the target article. Basically all google search results for a "great september" are in reference to the Great September Gale of 1815, although this is only a partial title match of that. Seems to be an assortment of different septembers that could also be considered "great".
This redirect seems to very much be a product of its time, as this particular September '93 was a lot more "current" in 2005 than it is in 2024. With no mention, a "great September" could refer to a lot of things. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or disambiguate - Only dab'ify if someone comes up with a list of potential targets. Otherwise, delete as ambiguous. Fieari (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a topic discussed at the target article. It's only mention is being the title of Rebecca MacKinnon op-ed, used as a reference. This particular reference is the only time on all of Wikipedia that it is used.
But as the saying goes, I'll have two nickels here because the same reference is also used in the Stop Online Piracy Act article. But not only just the reference is reused, the entire paragraph is reused, and quotes the op-ed basically as a carbon copy each time, at PROTECT IP Act#Concern for user-generated sites, and Stop Online Piracy Act#Websites that host user content. By the way, the Great Firewall of America isn't discussed in either, but appears as the colloquial name that MacKinnon alludes to in her quotes pulled here. Without any further information and only 2 locations where it comes up at all, this doesn't seem useful or helpful. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a local(?) satirical(?) magazine published by a boarding school. Zero standalone notability, existed as two sentences that were BLAR'd immediately into the school it was published from. No mention of "goulash" anywhere at the target page. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention No redirect. To be honest, I doubt if this magazine is even real. Couldn't find anything in Jstor and Gscholar Catalk to me! 15:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's probably real, honestly, but just so local that it has no electronic archives, as many a student magazine do 😅 Utopes(talk / cont) 22:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A fictional element and/or creative work that is not mentioned at the target. "Gorbino" does not appear at the target, nor does "Gorbino" appear anywhere on Wikipedia. Much less their quest appearing anywhere on Wikipedia; no quest is ever alluded to at the target page either. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
gorbino's quest is a fictional game and recurring... "thing" there, and probably maybe the setting of one of the levels
this is just like gorbino's quest. this is the gorbino's quest of redirects i'd keep if a mention can reasonably be made (probably in the plot section), or weak delete otherwise cogsan(nag me)(stalk me) 13:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
gorbino's quest is found in cruelty squad and i wholeheartedly promise you anybody who form some bizarre reason searches for "gorbino's quest" on wikipedia is looking for the game's article Formaldehydemaster (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRUFT + unmentioned. We're not the Cruelty Squad wiki, and pageviews reflect that-- this redirect gets practically no views whatsoever. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mentioned enough in the game that it is worth looking up to determine if it is an actual game (possibly by the developer of Cruelty Squad). It turns out it is an entirely fictional element but the redirect is useful for a reader looking for that information. It'd be better if there were a mention in the target article, though. (I found and used that redirect back in 2021 in that context, and then added rcats to it afterwards.) (A redirect for just "Gorbino" would not be useful, though, and one does not currently exist either.) --Pokechu22 (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig. Google results are a roughly even three-way split between the world cup, the video game and events relating to FIFA in 2023. I haven't found a good target for the latter, but a dab between the first two is viable with or without that. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert back to the status quo of redirecting to FIFA Football 2003. The video games are commonly referred to as "FIFA [year]", the World Cup is not. While it's ambiguous, the video game is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and a hatnote should be employed for the World Cup. --Tavix(talk) 15:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my research, in practice it seems there is no primary topic for this title. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Show your work then. Per the video game article, it is known as simply FIFA 2003, and my research verifies that it is common for the video game (eg: [5][6][7][8][[9]). I don't see the World Cup referred to as "FIFA 2003" and the exact phrase does not appear in the World Cup article. --Tavix(talk) 21:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting that it's a common name for the video game. However, as I explicitly said in my first comment, google results show it is also a common name for the world cup and events relating to FIFA that happened in 2023. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Google results do not show that. --Tavix(talk) 02:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we must be seeing different google results, because I've looked again, this time in a private window, using the search term FIFA 2023 -Wikipedia my top 30 results are as follows: Video game 13, World cup 10, FIFA events 5, Fifa Club World Cup 2. That's very clearly no primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Use quotes, this is an exact phrase. FWIW, my results with that exact search are 27-2-1 in favor of the video game. --Tavix(talk) 03:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, my own results (for "FIFA 2023" -wikipedia) are the following:
FIFA Women's World Cup 2023 (fifa.com)
Trophy and award winners, for FIFA in 2023 (fifa.com)
Amazon listing for FIFA 23 on Xbox One
2023 FIFA tournaments in photos (fifa.com)
Forbes article talking about what happened to FIFA in 2023
FOX Sports page for the Women's World Cup
Reddit, linking to discussions of the video game AND FIFA itself AND the cup
Amazon listing for FIFA 23 on PS4
FIFA 2023 listing on Sony Store Malaysia for... some reason... Google, you know I'm in the Southern US, right???
FOX Sports for Women's World Cup 2023
fifa.com again, Watch the best goals from the Women's World Cup
FIFA 2023 for PS5 listing on... Toys R Us UAE!?!? Google pls
Olympics.com page about the Women's World Cup
EA Answers page about FIFA 2023 Career Mode
okay I don't know what language that's in, Spanish? It's fifa.com tho so I'll assume it's the World Cup and/or FIFA itself
Youtube link about how to play FIFA 2023 on Android
Dick's Sporting Goods listing for FIFA 2023 themed soccer balls
@Lunamann: Can you do some critical thinking about what those results tell you? Of these, how many are an exact title match for "FIFA 2003"? Are you are getting results for the World Cup, but they are simply within the phrase "FIFA 2003 Women's World Cup" (or similar) without solely calling the subject "FIFA 2003"? If so, that's what disambiguators call a "partial title match" and should not be used in a (hypothetical) disambiguation. Would someone simply search "FIFA 2003" looking for the World Cup if it's not used, branded, or abbreviated in that fashion as often as someone looking for a video game that is commonly abbreviated this way? Furthermore, do you think an arbitrary dumping of algorithmic Google search results is a good proxy for determining primary usage on Wikipedia? --Tavix(talk) 14:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My search results for the search "FIFA 2023" -Wikipedia -"FIFA's" (the latter exclusion becuase many of the results were for that, but you'd discount them as irrelevant whether they are or not):
2× Amazon listing of the game on XBox
"Smart Home Sounds" listing of the game for PS4
FOX Sports Women's World Cup 2023 teams
5 reddit threads, 3 about the game, 1 about the Women's world cup, 1 about working at FIFA, 1 I can't work out.
FOX Sports Women's World Cup 2023 news
Olympics.com Answering questions about the Women's World Cup
Medium piece about the game
BBC article about the Women's World Cup
EA Answers HQ (about the game)
YouTube video about the best 30 goals in FIFA competitions in 2023
The FIFA Code of Ethics in Spanish
BBC Sport article about the Women's World Cup group stages
YouTube Viode about the game
"Creative Bloom" article about the Women's World Cup (mainly the logo and similar design elements)
A mod for the the game
3 Google Books results, 1 about the human rights risk at the World Cup, 1 that is a 2023 publication about the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, 1 I don't know - the snippet includes "FIFA 2023 co-hosting plan" but not enough context to make sense of that.
Marca.com about "The Best FIFA 2023" - "what time and where to watch the FIFA gala on TV and online"
Microsoft Community about the game on xbox
2 Results about buying the game, 1 in Malaysia, 1 in the UAE.
A Youtube video that I think is about comparing the goals in the Women's World Cup with the goals in the game
An article about all things FIFA in 2023 including the world cup and the game.
So, even discounting partial title matches, the indication overall is that there is very much no primary topic for the exact phrase. And yes, google search results are one good indication of what people are looking for with a given search term. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
forgive my possible unsmartness, but where did the 2023 part come from?
I'm also not entirely certain, 'twas Thryduulf who started talking about 2023 instead of 2003 and I think we all just followed suit without realizing? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is the proposed target "FIFA 2003" the primary topic? Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to FIFA Football 2003. As discussed above, the World Cup is not referred to as "FIFA x year". The FIFA games are. I appreciate the research regarding primary topic, but the fact is that the 2003 Women's World Cup is simply not referred to as FIFA 2003. ‡ El cid, el campeadortalk 14:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the fact is that the 2003 Women's World Cup is simply not referred to as FIFA 2003 that's true only if you disregard all the evidence presented above that shows it is. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No such evidence has been provided. Which sources refer to the 2003 Women's World Cup as "FIFA 2003"? --Tavix(talk) 20:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean no such evidence other than the evidence presented by myself and Lunamann of multiple sources referring to multiple topics, including the women's world cup, as "FIFA 2023"? Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't see anything in the search results that y'all regurgitated without context which refers to the 2003 FIFA World Cup as "FIFA 2003". Everything Women's World Cup related looks to be WP:PTMs for that specific term. Help me out then: which sources specifically refer to the 2003 Women's World Cup as "FIFA 2003"? --Tavix(talk) 20:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more try — disambiguate or retarget to FIFA Football 2003? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to FIFA Football 2003 - I've read the arguments that there is no primary topic, but even in the displayed google searches listed above none of the other topics are referred to as FIFA 2003 (or 2023), it's just a google search the has popped up references to something FIFA did in 2003 (or 2023). The thing that is referred to as FIFA 2003 (or 2023) as a proper noun is the video game, and nothing else as far as I can see. Fieari (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to FIFA Football 2003 as above. Most likely target. Personally I only thought of the video game. GiantSnowman 09:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of this term at either of the target pages, and no mention of this term on all of Wikipedia. One of these was created 19 years before the other, which doesn't matter but still interesting. I've now come to understand this term being "Big Bang" backwards, but without context these have debatable use as unmentioned synonyms, and probably shouldn't have differing targets as "gib gnab" and "gnab gib" both come up at seemingly the same frequency? Utopes(talk / cont) 06:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually two of them are very old, and yes this does matter. The older a redirect the more likely it is that it is used somewhere off wiki. Hence the injunction Therefore only delete redirects which are very new or harmful.
I have added a section to the Big Crunch article, therefore:
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. Withdrawn, works for me. I suppose this is the "German variant" of a language that includes the word German, so it's plausible to type twice in that regard. That also explains the lack of links here. Thanks for the tip! (non-admin closure)Utopes(talk / cont) 06:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Implausible to use "german" twice when referring to Low German, not a likely search term. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
German Low German language is the name used at Wiktionary for Low German as spoken in Germany as opposed to the Netherlands. I don't know how to check links to Wikipedia from Wiktionary, but there are probably hundreds if not thousands of such links. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
General OneFile not mentioned or discussed at target; the only mention of onefile is in an external link, and "general" is never used in relation to it. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Gale (publisher)#Products: where it is mentioned and seems like a more relevant page now. (Although something like this a redirect without a mention where it's verifiable is still useful to readers in many cases.) Skynxnex (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Used to target a section, since removed. The article does not talk about gender, and is a WP:XY situation as it stands. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, clear XY issue. Fieari (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Authoritarian personality; restore section. Last edit the section can be found in is here. The section that this redirect used to target was moved to Authoritarian personality in October 2019 by user:Neutrality; it was then removed in May 2023 by an IP editor for being "irrelevant" to the article. Notably, the only other edit this IP editor made, done on the same day and also removing a deemed-"irrelevant" section of an article, was reverted near immediately. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also WP:RDEL number 10. To my understanding though not any of the other points have incoming redirects. This is the only version that points here, and saw no links after a month of creation (as the creator was shortly community blocked thereafter). In any case, probably not necessary to redirectify via anchor; several more efficient and plausible ways exist. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "keep" section doesn't have an item 10 but the "delete" part does so is confusing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9 Google hits for this name, none of them seem to be this person. Can't find evidence they're referred to in this way. Rusalkii (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Untitled Guy Ritchie project/film
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 targets are no longer untitled. Steel1943 (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, the first project/redirect was moved just a few hours ago and has 63 thousand monthly pageviews. Can delete later but this doesn't fall under the 30 day spirit of WP:UFILM. Maybe not keep the second one at The Covenant page though. I don't really care too much about it because the project was just moved and the film version targeted the project for over a month, before being reverted right before RfDing. Maybe do something about this a little later. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retarget Snow White (disambiguation), basically everything on that list after the first is a remake by definition. Alternatively, delete due to being vague and unhelpful (deletion is probably my first choice now that I think about it more), Wikipedia is not a search engine to figure out what article people are imagining in their heads by typing "remake" nowadays. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I'm striking my retarget !vote. Wikipedia is not a search engine, "remake" is not useful in the form of a redirect. Currently it refers to anything on that list, but it's too vague and subjective in doing so (as remake isn't mentioned). Would be ridiculous to have Foo remake target any disambiguation page with multiple pieces of fiction with the same title, so let Google or Wikipedia's search function figure it out. Delete. Utopes(talk / cont) 07:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Retarget to Snow White (disambiguation) as plausible search by a reader. I'm also fine with delete due to the malformed "remake" modifier --Lenticel(talk) 05:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this could also not refer to subject at DVC. But, then again, I'm not sure why there any expectation that the target article or any subjects at DVC should be or have been referred to by this acronym in any sources. Steel1943 (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no evidence of abbreviation. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though the acronym matches the title of the target page, there does not seem to be evidence that the target page's subject has been referred to by an acronym, possible being WP:ORWP:NEO. Steel1943 (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no evidence of abbreviation. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that any of the subjects in the target disambiguation page are referred by this acronym. In addition, the target being the only mention of a phrase with words starting with L, V, E, then R is rather unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no evidence of abbreviation. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. I remember tagging one of several redirects created by Redostone and wondering if these abbreviations are really necessary. I would go with Delete and I suggest looking through his page creation log since he definitely has a history of creating questionable redirects. Okmrman (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Getting high" and "Being high"
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.
Pretty sure these phrases should either target the same target or both get deleted. Not sure which target though. Steel1943 (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
How naive of you. It was salted 22 June 2010. The very same person who created Gittigidiyor twice in the deleted history created this version too on 28 June 2010. I'm sure it was bad faith salt evasion. But that's irrelevant now as none of these are mentioned at the target. * Pppery *it has begun... 19:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't catch that the creator was the exact same, ack. Good eye. Not sure how to feel about you calling me naive, though... Ow.Yeah, this was salt evasion. At the very least, I'm not sure we need to worry about spreading salt to these locations too, given the site in question is now deleted? No sense trying to advertise for a site that no longer exists, after all. Definitely delete though, these are unmentioned and it's unlikely that someone's going to want to search for these in the near future given... site's dead, Jim. (Not sure how I forgot to add that to my first post lol) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly non-notable character mentioned nowhere. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no content on all of Wikipedia, based on the presence of a subst template in the edit summary, seems to have been created via some type of automation? Or at least, didn't swap out in the summary. No such section existed at the time of creation. Is getting pageviews though from a link, since removed (since no content). Utopes(talk / cont) 04:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly minor character mentioned nowhere on Wikipedia besides another entry on Matthew Wood's extensive voice credits in Star Wars. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no content on all of Wikipedia, disincluding casting credits. Utopes(talk / cont) 04:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maclunkey - er, Delete - If this character hasn't been discussed or written about on Wikipedia aside from a casting credit then we shouldn't have a redirect for them. We're not Wookiepedia. —Jéské Courianov^_^vSource assessment notes 07:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]