Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 6

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 01:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Santjordia → Jellyfish  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Santjordia pagesi → Jellyfish  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Monotypic genus and species has no mention in the article. Better off as a redlink.

Also should blocked users be notified if their page/redirect is up for deletion? 115.188.142.52 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDLINK --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per REDLINK. Plantdrew (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Regarding the question should blocked users be notified if their page/redirect is up for deletion? that depends. If their block will expire before the discussion is scheduled to end and/or there is an appeal pending, definitely yes. If the block will not expire for several months, it was an indef block placed a long while ago then generally it's not worth it but exceptions will apply. If all the indications are that they've left the project then it's of use only if an interested talk page watcher happens to spot it there and not elsewhere. Between the extremes it's a judgement call - the more recent the creation and greater relevance to their typical areas of interest the greater the likilihood of continued interest in the redirect which points towards notifying. However, don't spend too much time thinking about it - unless there is some explicit indication they don't want to be notified then err on the side of notification. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 10 July 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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 01:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kemosabe (Kesha album) → Warrior (Kesha album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This currently redirects to Warrior (Kesha album). Kemosabe is the name of a record label that put out the album, but the album article does not mention anything about it being a name for the album itself. The article history also raises concerns about WP:HOAX as shown here. I do not see any value in keeping this redirect as it does not seem like a plausible search term and per the above reasons, it is confusing and unclear. Aoba47 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 05:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--NØ 07:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:39, 7 July 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).

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. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:VN → Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Visual novels  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to either Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:WikiProject Vietnam. I would lean towards retargeting to RSN, considering WP:V/N links to it, but I can see an argument to link to WPVietnam. I don't see how an inactive task force should be the ideal target for this redirect. OzzyOlly (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Most of the incoming links are intended to go to the Visual novels task force. Breaking all of those links wouldn't be optimal. It has almost no utility, so a disambig page would not be useful compared to its maintance burden. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Ca. I don't know the etymology of the WP:V/N → RSN redirect, but going by the stats it's far far less used than WP:RSN (~10 monthly hits vs ~1500), so it doesn't look like a common source of confusion. Can't see a reason to change it, so keep. BugGhost🪲👻 07:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe it means "verifiability noticeboard". OzzyOlly (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh yeah of course - thanks BugGhost🪲👻 17:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate create a new redirect for Visual Novels WP:VG/VN -- the task force is inactive, so it is not a productive use of this redirect, for such a common abbreviation for Vietnam. The WP:SURPRISE of landing at an inactive TF, instead of the country WPP or a dab page is overwhelming. Replace all existing incoming links with the new redirect. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar disambiguation pages in WP-space include WP:PT (with WP:PT (disambiguation) redirect) and WP:1st (disambiguation), etc -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I'm not convinced that going back to change all the incoming links is worth it. The hatnote already takes care of people looking for WP:V/N or WP:VIET. I did create WP:VG/VN per the IP's suggestion though. Nickps (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's also not possible for links in edit summaries. Those will be broken no matter what. Nickps (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:27, 6 July 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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 01:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Stavros Kremos → Cyta  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

non-sense redirect InterComMan (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Presumably Stavros Kremos is a person somehow connected to the company, but as he is not mentioned at the target article, the redirect should be deleted. --Un assiolo (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 05:11, 7 July 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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 10:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Albumoftheyear.org → Album of the Year  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I am not sure the website url redirecting to a disambiguation page which does not list anything related to the website is useful. There is nothing at the target page for people seeking information about the site, and it does not appear to be notable. NØ 09:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The website was mentioned at the disambiguation page, but it was (appropriately) removed in April. - Eureka Lott 13:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not mentioned at the target. --Un assiolo (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 05:13, 7 July 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).

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed deletion patrolling. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:PDP → Wikipedia:Protection policy#Creation protection  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Hasn't been used in over a decade, and it's much more likely someone coming here may be looking for proposed deletion patrol. I recommend converting to disamb page.

P.S. I tried adding a 'redirect' hatnote over at the protection policy page pointing over to the PROD patrol Wikiproject page, but this was rejected by someone else, who suggested in the edit summary to "convert to disamb page" as it apparently hasn't been used since 2007. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Everyone uses WP:SALT nowadays instead. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed deletion patrolling per the nom's logic. The problem with disambiguating a shortcut is then it can't be used as a shortcut. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget/Comment - I'm honestly unsure of what PDP is even supposed to stand for with regards to creation protection, and as such I'd support just retargeting it to proposed deletion patrol... but I'm worried about historical talk page links getting broken (such as in WP:ANI archives). There's not MANY pages using this shortcut... if we change this redirect (which again, I agree is generally a good idea) would it be against policy to go and update the old links for safety? Fieari (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW it stands for Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages. Nickps (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yeah, retargeting to PROD Patrol Wikiproject would be even better than converting it to disamb page. This obscure shortcut to creation protection simply almost isn't used at all. I only said convert to disamb because that's what was suggested in the edit summary of the hatnote removal. For the like five uses of this shortcut on those 1.7 decade old archives, would piping the link (so it's [[WP:SALT|WP:PDP]]) work? That way the text is undisturbed but the link still brings you to the originally intended target. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:42, 13 July 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).