Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 11

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Poor people's rights → Equality  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I am not sure if we have a page that this is a natural fit for, but the "Equality" disambig page certainly isn't it. I can imagine a redirect to Economic inequality, as at least much more on topic? But that isn't really talking about rights at all, just the general existence of economic inequality. There's an ACLU handbook of poor people's rights, which isn't mentioned anywhere on wiki. I think the most common use of this phrase is for various social safety net programs? Rusalkii (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• The current target is definitely wrong. I'm wondering whether a set index would be the right fit here? A couple of minutes searching finds Poor People's Alliance, Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign, Poor People's Campaign, Poor People's Movements, Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for a Moral Revival and English Poor Laws which all seem to deal with some aspect of this search term, and I strongly suspect there are more. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Per a suggestion of @Thryduulf at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Navigation pages, I agree that it could be fit to be a navigation page, which would match better than either a set index or redirect. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

+1 on the {{navigation page}} conversion. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Set Index Article or Navigation page? For reference, we have 3 navpages on enwiki, and one is at AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Navigation pages are still under discussion and have not yet achieved official consensus. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Welfare rights if that's the best option, otherwise delete. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  On second thought, not everything that could fall under the umbrella of "poor people's rights" may have something to do with welfare. Some people and organizations are mentioned as advocating for "the rights of poor people", but that phrase doesn't seem to be well-defined, so delete for sure. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as we don't seem to have a suitable target. It might be possible to write a reasonable article about this topic, in which case I support doing so. I'm not convinced a navigation page makes sense here, but if someone wants to try that, I have no objections. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• Update since my first relist: we have 0 navpages now. Jay 💬 14:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Dancing Bush → Miniclip  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention at target. Doubtful whether the (unrelated) mentions at Vivien Alcock or Skeheenarinky make for suitable targets. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirect targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

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 Shelly#Fictional characters. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (u — c) 00:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Shelly (character)Shelly (character) → Brawl Stars  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Brawl Stars article does not mention Shelly. Mia Mahey (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• There are some characters mentioned at Shelly#Fictional characters. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Shelly#Fictional characters. BD2412 T 19:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Faraday's law induction → Electromagnetic induction  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is just "Faraday's law of induction" with a missing word. Constant314 (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Unlike the two alternative capitalizations, omitting the "of" does not seem plausible. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Presidentman, ungrammatical, and will cause confusion with correct form: Faraday's law of induction --Chetvorno^TALK 01:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Faraday's law of induction since this mistake is in fact well-attested in the google search results. Not implausible at all. Duckmather (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  Google is good at guessing, so this is not a convincing argument. However, I have retargeted it for now. Constant314 (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  I think this ngram makes it clear . "Faraday's law induction" produced zero hits. Constant314 (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete implausible typo/search term. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

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 Faraday's law of induction. Result is clear, no reason to drag this out. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Faraday's Law of InductionFaraday's Law of Induction → Electromagnetic induction  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is just an alternate capitalization of "Faraday's law of induction". Normally redirects are insensitive to case. Constant314 (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Faraday's law of induction and tag as an {{R from alternative capitalization}}. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Faraday's law of induction and tag is acceptable to me. Constant314 (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget Agree with Constant314 --Chetvorno^TALK 01:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Faraday's law of induction and tag as alt caps --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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 Faraday's law of induction. Result is clear, no reason to drag this out. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Faraday's Law Of InductionFaraday's Law Of Induction → Electromagnetic induction  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is just an alternate capitalization of "Faraday's law of induction". Normally redirects are insensitive to case. Constant314 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Faraday's law of induction and tag as an {{R from alternative capitalization}}. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Faraday's law of induction and tag is acceptable to me. Constant314 (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Faraday's law of induction and tag as alt caps --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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. Feel free to create Wikipedia:Citations templates if desired, which can be done independently of the nominated redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Citations templates → Wikipedia:Citation templates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ungrammatical WP:XNR; Wikipedia is not the primary topic for "citation templates". Delete. Cremastra _talk 16:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Move without redirect to Wikipedia:Citations templates. (Curiously due to wikimagic typing "Wikipedia:Citations templates" or "WP:Citations templates" leads to the current redirect.) CMD (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep and mark as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Citation templates, an XNR to the same target that has been uncontroversially helping new editors find how to reference articles (something that is unquestionably desirable) since 2006. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

  This is such an unlikely error to make that it seems to me that it does more harm existing as an XNR than it could conceivably help people. Secondly, I would also object to the citation templates redirect as also having an inappropriate focus on Wikipedia – my searches before making this nomination showed that Wikipedia's citation templates are far from the PTOPIC for that title. In fact, it is far more likely that a reader searching "citation template" is looking for an article (or section) on something like this. Yesterday enwiki was viewed by 77.7 M unique devices, but we only have 118,000 active users, and I'd hope most of those know enough to not search "citation template" in mainspace hoping to end up at WP:CITET.

  While helping new users is a worthy goal, we should put our readers first, especially in this case where the word does not refer unambiguously to Wikipedia (unlike something like "redirects for discussion" which is unambiguous). Cremastra (u — c) 23:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Deletes per nom. Any XNR is immediately on thin ice, and this one is especially pointless with the ungrammaticalness. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete per above IP. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• strong delete redirect into the pipeworking not relevant to the readership. Readers wanting templates (skeletons, examples) on creating citations for their term papers will not be helped by this redirect. It shows nothing of IEEE citation style, barely shows Harvard style, etc. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

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. Jay 💬 06:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Creation (Dragonlance)Creation (Dragonlance) → Dragonlance#Fictional history  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think this was intended to mean "the creation of Dragonlance", but it's ambiguous. I was expecting to find details of a fictional character or something called "Creation", but there's nothing here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: When it was an article, it was about the fictional creation story of the world and its early fictional history, rather than the real-world development of the world setting. Maybe there is a better name for it if it needs to be moved for clarity purposes? Or if necessary, a little more context can be added to Dragonlance#Fictional history? BOZ (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep The title may be somewhat ambigous, but the target is what we currently have on the subject of creation of the world of Dragonlance. To my knowledge, there is no more suitable target, nor any content present on Wikpedia which would fit to what other meanings one might think of under this heading. Even after the significant condensation of former content as described by BOZ, creation of Krynn, aka the world of Dragonlance, is still present. Daranios (talk) 09:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

...and despecify to Dragonlance instead of Dragonlance#Fictional history based on the argument of Caeciliusinhorto. Daranios (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Daranios. BOZ (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete or retarget to simply Dragonlance. There are two sections in the article on Dragonlance which this might plausibly point to: the current target (about the in-universe creation of the world) and Dragonlance#Creation (about the real-life origins of Dragonlance-the-media-property. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Redirects from page moves are usually kept, if only to avoid breaking links, and the same reasoning applies to merges (even if no text is moved in the merge). Furthermore, the current target is the best because it matches a common dab pattern of fictional elements with the fictional setting in parentheses. Examples include Galactic Empire (Star Wars), Gimli (Middle-earth), and a good chunk of Category:All fictional element redirects. — Jruderman (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per Daranios and Jruderman. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

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 Rational function#Abstract algebra. Refined current target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Rational function fieldRational function field → Rational function  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Function field seems to be a more appropriate target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Refine to #Abstract algebra, in which is described the field of fractions of a polynomial ring, which seems to be the far most likely thing meant by this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Agree. The target Rational function#Abstract algebra is going to be more helpful. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

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).