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 Governor Hotel. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Governor hotelGovernor hotel → Sentinel Hotel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted as there is already a more geographically-specific redirect linking to the target article as well as a disambiguation page, Governor Hotel under that name with proper capitalization. Publichall (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Governor Hotel as a textbook {{R from miscapitalisation}}. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Governor Hotel per User:J947 --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Royal ScotsmanRoyal Scotsman → Belmond Royal Scotsman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I believe this should be converted to a disambiguation page, as in this edit (which was rapidly reverted). I believe the term has no primary topic, as it could refer either to the HMS Royal Scotsman (a ship of the British Royal Navy that served during World War II and later became the headquarters of the Church of Scientology, the flagship of the Sea Org and the personal residence of L. Ron Hubbard) or the tourism train known as the Belmond Royal Scotsman (the subject of an RM discussion that was just closed). Recent page views show no major preference (e.g., in November 2020 the ship article was viewed more). — BarrelProof (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment should Royal Scotman be bundled into this nomination? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so. I think Royal Scotman would only refer to HMS Royal Scotsman (since the ship was once registered by that name – see, e.g., Mary Sue Hubbard#Life at sea and this memo, but I've never heard of the train being referred to that way). However, I think it would be reasonable to bundle in The Royal ScotsmanThe Royal Scotsman. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't really care what happens to the redirect (I don't even remember creating it) but a two-link dab page is ridiculous. Decide which one you want to target it at and link to the other in a hat note. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TWODABS is a guideline after all. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 23:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's a guideline, and it does not say that a two-link dab page is ridiculous. It says "if an ambiguous term has no primary topic, then that term needs to lead to a disambiguation page. In other words, where no topic is primary, the disambiguation page is placed at the base name." It does not say to just pick one subject as primary whenever there are two to choose from. It says exactly the opposite. It has a section called WP:NOPRIMARY, and in that section is an explicit example of an appropriate two-link dab page, John Quested. Per his page view data, John Quested the producer is more popular than John Quested the RAF officer. Should we just delete that dab page that is given as an example in the guidelines and move John Quested (producer) to John Quested? — BarrelProof (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was just pointing the guideline out to HJ Mitchell. Apologies if I implied that it said that two-entry dab pages weren't allowed; that isn't what I meant at all. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You should be aware, @BarrelProof:, that there are many editors including me and, it seems, HJM, that do consider 2-dabs pages to be ridiculous, because "Decide which one you want to target it at and link to the other in a hat note" actually gets more readers to where they wanted to be in fewer clicks. But that's another story, not for here... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • As you said, this is probably not the best place to discuss whether to change the guideline. However, my personal impression is that a lot of readers don't really understand the Wikipedia concept of hatnotes, and may not be able to quickly figure out what to do when they land on an article that is about a different topic than what they were looking for. When someone lands on a dab page, there are two advantages: 1) they will often learn something interesting about other topics that they didn't know before, and 2) it will be very clear what to do – you read the choices and click on the one you want. When a dab page has very few entries, that process will be fast. — BarrelProof (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh. Incidentally, HJ Mitchell is a 10-year admin, a sysop, an oversighter, an edit filter manager, and #771 among the most active Wikipedians of all time. I'm sure he's aware of the guideline. Hats off to all that service to Wikipedia. I'm not sure why I even bother responding with a different opinion, since I'm sure I'm much less well informed. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Getting into the weeds, but you make a compelling argument for reconsidering the status of John Quested. Not only is one of the two people getting hit twice as often as the other, the dab page itself is getting hit as often as one of the articles. That can't be healthy. Being quoted as an example of a two-entry dab page doesn't make it sacrosanct. Lithopsian (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The current disambiguation using a hatnote is sufficient. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just for transparency, I was the one who reverted the target change and hence triggered this discussion. As above, WP:TWODABS suggests that the primary topic is the one with the highest usage and most longterm significance. The train qualifies on both counts: although page hits are similar over the last few weeks due to recent news coverage and editing activity, over the long term and for most time periods there is no comparison. There is simply no point sending everyone to a disambiguation page if that most likely isn't where they want to be. On a related note, I'm not a huge fan of the page move (of the train article to its new formal name Belmond Royal Scotsman) that made way for this retarget, but I guess I missed that discussion. Lithopsian (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 in the absence of any mention at the target or elsewhere. ~ mazca ^talk 18:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Could I Love With No Fear → Music (2021 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, or anywhere else on Wikipedia including Music – Songs from and Inspired by the Motion Picture. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: The song is featured in the musical, on the original motion picture soundtrack, which is yet to be released. When it is eventually released, I will change the redirect to the soundtrack's page which I have ready to go in my sandbox. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and recreate until the song is released. There is no point in keeping this if there is no mention of this song anywhere in enwiki. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 10 Years (song). At its heart, this is a dispute on whether or not 10 Years (song) is notable, which is better suited for AfD. Now that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10 Years (song) exists, let's figure that out there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 10 Years (Daði Freyr song)10 Years (Daði Freyr song) → 10 years  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Confusing redirect, this could better be a red link The Banner talk 10:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: This is not where the article pointed originally. You can quite clearly see I pointed it to Daði Freyr. User:TheThomanski pointed the article to 10 Years (song), which was then redirected for, in another editor's eyes, "failing notabilty". Two editors, including myself, disagree, so I have reverted that editor's redirect of the article and repointed this there. Surely now this nomination serves no purpose and should be speedily closed. Ss112 10:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you guys are editwarring about reinstating the original article (what I only noticed a few minutes ago), this RfD is useful. The Banner talk 11:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: "You guys are editwarring"? I reverted somebody once, and that's my only contribution to any sort of notability dispute here, so I'm not in an edit war. Besides, even if the original article were redirected (after it goes through AfD, if it does), this would still be a valid redirect to Daði Freyr. I see no valid reason to delete it if it were pointed at the correct article by an editor and not a bot, which is what happened here. Ss112 16:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see here two removals and two restores. Start a proper discussion is far better idea. The Banner talk 17:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: I never denied it was an edit war between others. I know it is. I'm saying I'm not involved in it, because my only contribution was a revert to a) restore the article, and b) inform the editors involved to stop the back-and-forth and to take it to AfD, which is the correct venue for this after a BOLD redirect of an article is reverted. Ss112 22:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to 10 Years (song). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Why does the song have an article? Lack of significant coverage aside, it's not even out yet and we know nothing aside from artist, title, and future release date. IceWelder [✉] 11:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think the song is not notable enough for an article then take it to AfD, RfD doesn't evaluate articles. As it stands that article is a clear and unambiguous target for this redirect and so it should point there. If the article is kept then it's pointing to the right place, if it's deleted the redirect will be G8'd or retargeted to either Daði Freyr or Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest. There's literally no point targeting it anywhere else while an article on the song exists. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I have listed 10 Years (song) at AfD. As described there, and here, this will hopefully cut short the edit war there and in a few days provide a stable position to work against. Lithopsian (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Already been retargeted to 10 Years (song). Take any concerns about that article's notability to AfD, as it's already been redirected twice and we don't need anybody else trying to turn it into a redirect. Ss112 16:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reverted this retarget: please don't retarget a redirect that is under active discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shhhnotsoloud: Is this written in a guideline or policy? If it is, please cite what guideline it's from. If it's not, you shouldn't have reverted. Thank you. Ss112 13:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ss112: It is clearly bad practice to attempt to subvert or anticipate the result of an RfD by prematurely changing the target. For one thing, it makes your "keep" a very confusing statement, since you mean keep it targeted at a different target than that stated in the nomination. This is Redirects for discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Shhhnotsoloud: So it's not written in a guideline and you just think it's "best practice" to police every redirect listed at RfD each day as you see fit? Gotcha. I saw the redirect was only targeted to 10 years by a bot to avoid a double redirect after the article it was pointed to had been redirected, so I was restoring that target as it had only been changed and nominated because there was no longer the correct article to point it to. Finally no, my keep vote was based on the fact that I had already re-repointed it to 10 Years (song). Keep also means "I don't want it deleted". Surely someone who frequents RfD knows this. Ss112 23:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps I'll change my username to EvilWikiVigilante. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 10 Years (song), notwithstanding potential lack of notability. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Digital Homicide Studios LLC.Digital Homicide Studios LLC. → Digital Homicide Studios  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely typo with the lone period at the end. IceWelder [✉] 08:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think "LLC." with a lone period is a fairly common styling due to (perhaps erroneous) cross-formatting from the likes of Inc. and Corp. BlackholeWA (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BlackholeWA. Plenty of real-world examples of styling in this manner. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.