Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 2

October 2
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 2, 2018.

The Witcher 4
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 17:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The Witcher 4 → The Witcher (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Witcher_4&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not found on target page. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 22:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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


 * The result of the discussion was no consensus  . ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 17:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Throbbing → wiktionary:Special:Search/throbbing (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Throbbing&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

WP:SOFTSISTER does not justify creating a redirect when the creator is the one who previously created the page, see. The same user responsible for this also created sackful and blow off, which are being discussed here. I am all for WP:NOTCENSORED but not merely to appease a penchant if that is the case. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 06:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I have redirected this to Throb (disambiguation). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC).


 * Comment Nothing at Throb (disambiguation) is a verb, thus it does not help people looking for "throbbing". 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. On balance, I feel the same about this as about sackful, i.e. that while neither are especially likely search terms, or necessarily so unfamiliar as to require a soft redirect, the fact that somebody's seen fit to create this suggests that they're plausible and useful enough. I don't think there are any topics discussed in the encyclopaedia which someone who searches for this could plausibly be looking for, so there's no risk of causing confusion by keeping this (I'd oppose redirecting to the disambiguation page for the same reason). See also my argument regarding WP:SOFTSISTER at Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 1. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "that some[one has] seen fit to create th[ese redirects] suggests that [the redirects are] plausible and useful." By that logic, every redirect is plausible and useful. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * most redirects created by humans are plausible and useful. There are exceptions (e.g. uncommon typos) and there are times when other considerations are stronger (e.g. redirects that are irretrievably ambiguous). This combined with WP:CHEAP is why redirects should be kept unless there is a good reason to delete (not vice versa). Thryduulf (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. However, the vast majority of redirects are to local targets. The issue at heart here is when soft redirects to sister sites are appropriate. According to the relevant guidelines as they currently read, it is not appropriate in this case. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 08:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Guidelines explicitly note that exceptions apply and that they are intended to be applied with common sense. In this case having a soft redirect will serve our readers better than rigidly following something that was never intended to be rigidly followed. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." Unless you are arguing that this case is an exception that we should bend the rules for and return to following the guideline afterward, I have already explained why WP:IAR (where "common sense" and "occasional exceptions" link within subcat guideline) is not applicable below. Policies and guidelines document community consensus and allow a large number of people to work together on a collaborative project. If you believe one should not be followed, gain consensus to change it (an added benefit of that path is that we get to avoid discussions like this). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 09:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case having a soft-redirect is clearly beneficial. If the guidelines say that it would normally not be in this situation, then this is an exception to the guideline and so the guideline should not be applied - which is exactly how guidelines work. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For it to be a reasonable exception, it must be shown why this is a special circumstance compared to all other soft redirects that would violate the guideline. No one has done that. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh? All that we need to show is that a soft redirect is the best option in the circumstances applying to this redirect, which has been done. How and if the guideline applies to other redirects is entirely off-topic for this discussion. If you want to discuss the guideline in general, then you need to start a section on the guideline's talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I probably will, though the onus to start a discussion generally falls to those who wish to disregard a guideline. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * No, that doesn't follow at all. The operative word is suggests: there might be myriad other reasons for deleting a redirect, which would cause us to disregard that suggestion, but in this case no such reasons apply. Perhaps it's not the most relevant issue in relation to this redirect though: at Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 27 I was responding specifically to the nominator's description of the redirect as "a very unlikely title to search for". I think that argument ignores the fact that somebody presumably not only searched for it, but also, on finding that it didn't exist, felt the need to create it; but no such argument was made in your nomination here. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to discuss the merits of deletion vs. retargeting to Throb (disambiguation) vs. keeping as a soft redirect
 * Keep as a soft-redirect per Arms & Hearts and 59.149.124.29. Thryduulf (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Retarget to Throb (disambiguation), where the word in a general sense should be defined so readers can navigate to relevant articles such as vibration and/or pulse. There is the added bonus of having the Wiktionary link also present at the disambiguation. -- Tavix ( talk ) 13:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is to be retained, I prefer a local target (Throb (disambiguation) is the only one suggested so far) instead of a soft redirect. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 02:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 17:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Andante (music)
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was no consensus  . ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 17:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * <span id="Andante (music)">Andante (music) → Tempo (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andante_(music)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

(Context: Andante has now been turned into a disambiguation page.) Andante (music) could be confused with Andante (song), and with Andante (tempo) there is a redirect with the same target as Andante (music) but with a more specific disambiguator. Tea2min (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. This is a situation best handled with a hatnote to the song and the dab at the target of the Andante (music) redirect. The tempo is the most likely thing someone using that search term, or following a link to it, will be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, a generic disambiguator like "(music)" suggests something general, like a musical term or a type of music. I don't think many readers (if any) would expect an article about a proper noun (like the title of a song or an album) to be reachable by such a generic redirect. Nonetheless, there is some scope for confusion, but I don't like the solution of adding hatnotes for the sake of such redirects from parenthetically disambiguated terms. The lesser of two evils would be retargeting to the dab page at Andante as an R from incomplete disambiguation: the one sentence at the top there has all the content that the current target has, or could be expected to have, about the andante (which is the reason the dab page was recently moved to the primary title despite there being a primary topic). The downside is that the redirect could be handy for linking, but it doesn't appear to have been used in this way: it has no incoming links from mainspace despite having been around for over a decade, and – as Tea2min points out – there already exists a better redirect for this purpose. – Uanfala (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Retarget - As stated above, this appears like a solid case of R from incomplete disambiguation. It's logical enough to simply go to 'Andante'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think this is a particularly plausible search term for any of the other articles listed at the disambiguation page; the only possible exception, and it's a bit of a stretch, is Andante (song), but that can be handled with a hatnote. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 02:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as (music) refers to the musical terminology first and not specific songs named Andante. Add hatnotes to help.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 17:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Andante disambiguation page as R from incomplete disambiguation ( My first thought was the Abba song so there are 3 feasible musical entries on that dab page ). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Economy of tThe Gambia
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Economy of tThe Gambia → Economy of the Gambia (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_tThe_Gambia&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Implausible typo <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 11:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I'm amazed this is still around - it was the result of pave move following a typo during article creation in 2009. It was prodded twice in 2015 (both correctly declined as redirects are not subject to prod) but nobody has until now followed up on the recommendation to bring it here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Raymond1922 (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Shirley Roberts
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 10%23Shirley Roberts