Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 10

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! 01:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sally's School Building (Peanuts) → Sally Brown  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. The phrase "school building" is in the target article, but this redirect seems to be about something more specific. Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I presume the final two sentences in the "history" section are what the target refers to. Someone more knowledgeable about Peanuts should weigh in though. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I believe that is what the redirect is referring to. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the others. Jay 💬 18:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 18:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lady of the East → Panthoibi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Lady of the east → Panthoibi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another one. Quite generic phrase that probably shouldn't be a redirect. There are ninety-five(!!) redirects to the same article, many of them similarly generic. PepperBeast (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Jay 💬 18:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The lady with long arms → Lai Khutshangbi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's a very generic phrase going to a very specific place... but more significantly, there are nearly fifty(!) redirects to this article, most of them equally generic. PepperBeast (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all redirects in the list as ambiguous. 2601:647:5800:4D2:8450:33A3:ED6B:FBFA (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Elizabeth line. Legoktm (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lizzie Line → Elizabeth Line (gymnast)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Lizzie Line" is common slang for the Elizabeth line in London so should be retargeted to reflect this Painting4 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, What is the prevalence of use, as it applies to each? If she routinely goes by the nickname, then I'd not change it. But if she doesn't personally use it, and it's just something the fans use, then retargeting to the rail line is better, due to the larger group or people using (orvay least aware of) the nickname. Senator2029 【talk】 21:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Based on GNews and GNews Archive searches, the rail line has more usage. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Inverse element. No consensus on the other two redirects, Invertible and Inverse (ring theory), but anyone is free to open another RfD and discuss them there. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Invertible element → Unit (ring theory)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I would like the redirect to be retargeted to the article Inverse element. The concept of an invertible element is more general than just units in a ring. Currently both Invertible and Inverse (ring theory) are redirects to Inverse element. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UltimateDude101 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 18 November 2022} (UTC)

• Retarget, per nom. If it wasn't for this RfD, I'd have just changed it, it really doesn't seem controversial. Lithopsian (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, which is why I did change it a couple days ago; my change was reverted. UltimateDude101 (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and retarget Invertible and Inverse (ring theory) to Unit (ring theory), per WP:LEAST: The phrase "invertible element" make sense only if there are elements that are not invertible. So this phrase is typicaly used only for ring multiplication, as it is useless for groups, for addition (in most structures with an addition), and for field multiplication (in this case "nonzero" is used instead). The phrase makes also sense for monoids, but, AFIK, it is not commonly used in this theory, and there are much less Wikipedia readers interested in monoids than in the other structures above mentioned. So, it is highly probable that a reader searching for "invertible element" is interested in invertible elements of a ring multiplication. This is enforced by the fact that many authors prefer to use "invertible element" rather than "unit" ("unit" is easily confused with "unity"). D.Lazard (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose retargeting Invertible per WP:LEAST, as most readers searching for this term are most likely looking for the general theory of inverse elements. Besides, Unit (ring theory) is already linked from Inverse element. 2601:647:5800:4D2:AD3F:A018:EA26:6861 (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget I think it is unfair to say that invertible elements are only talked about in the context of ring multiplication. For example, a group could reasonably be defined as a monoid such that every element is invertible. If someone reads this definition and needs clarification on what an invertible element is in this context, they would be fairly confused arriving an article about ring theory that does not discuss the broader topic they are interested in. The article Inverse element does have a section discussing rings, so someone who is there to learn about ring theory specifically would be able to find what they are looking for. I wouldn't say it's astonishing to arrive at an article about inverses when you're looking for a specific kind of inverse. We shouldn't be trying to read users' minds, we should give them access to a broad article that is most likely to provide the information they are looking for. There are times when elements are called invertible outside of ring theory - that's why Inverse element exists. UltimateDude101 (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Latest comment shows the nominator voting on their own nomination. So… relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this RfD at Talk:Unit (ring theory) and Talk:Inverse element.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget. I don't feel strongly about this, but I'd be inclined to have Invertible element and Invertible redirect to Inverse element, while having the more specific Inverse (ring theory) redirect to Unit (ring theory). If this is done, perhaps the notion of invertible element in a ring (meaning a unit) could be featured more prominently at Inverse element, since I agree with D.Lazard that this is the most common usage of "invertible element". Ebony Jackson (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @UltimateDude101: how do you feel about Ebony Jackson's suggestions? Jay 💬 14:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Amenable. Legoktm (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Amenability → Amenable group  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The disambiguation page at Amenable is potentially a better target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. BlackholeWA (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The notion of an amenable group is clearly the primary meaning of the word : the notion of amenable number is at best anecdotic, the other use on mathematics seems a part of a marginal version of set theory (and is barely mentioned in the page), and "amenable species" seems to be no more than an official nomenclature. If the redirect is changed this primality should be reflected on the disambiguation page. jraimbau (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion about the primary topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Amenable - I do not agree that the notion of an amenable group is clearly the primary meaning of the word. That's not clear at all. The primary meaning of the word is simply "to be amenable" in a general sense, and not a rather obscure mathematical concept. Of-course, since Wikipedia isn't a dictionary the primary meaning of the word doesn't have an article. The legal term also doesn't have an article, but I would guess that it would be familiar to more people than any of the mathematical concepts listed at Amenable.

Perhaps amenable group is the primary meaning in mathematical contexts, but if I searched "amenability" and was redirected to amenable group, I'd honestly be quite surprised. Using the "find link" tool (edwardbetts.com/find_link/), many of the results don't have anything to do with mathematics, let alone specifically amenable groups. Using Wikipedia's own search similarly brings up many articles which use the word in a non-mathematical sense, many of which use it in the legal sense. I don't think any mathematical usage of the word can claim to be the primary topic for this term.

Given this, linking to the disambiguation page which has a link to Wiktionary seems like the best option. Anyone looking for amenable group would still find it on that page. – Scyrme (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Tilde#Precomposed characters. As Scyrme explains, it's common for unicode characters to have redirects to these kinds of pages. Legoktm (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ᵮ → F with hook  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target SlimyGecko7 (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This unicode character is U+1D6E : LATIN SMALL LETTER F WITH MIDDLE TILDE. Retarget to Tilde#International Phonetic Alphabet, which supplies a bit of context. - Eureka Lott 19:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• After looking closer at the F article, a retarget to F#Related characters could also work. - Eureka Lott 20:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Even the retarget selection is a stretch. Not really plausibel that someone will type this looking for that. Sometimes it is better to trust the search. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I found the search results thoroughly unhelpful. Did you see otherwise? - Eureka Lott 20:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As there is a redirect there, putting ᵮ into search just takes me to the redirect. Am I missing something? If I find my way to the full search, the first hit after this redirect is a page that mentions it (F). Seems to be working. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sirfurboy: if you go to Special:Search directly and then type in "ᵮ", it should show you the search results, regardless of the fact the page exists. Legoktm (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Tilde § Precomposed characters where it is listed. While it is also listed at F § Related characters, it only lists it without information, whereas Tilde has a section on the meaning of a tilde superimposed onto the middle of a letter, as well as including unicode-related information at the list I linked earlier.

I don't agree that this is an implausible search; while it is difficult to type it's plausible that someone might find the character somewhere, copy it, and paste it into a search bar looking for information about the character itself or what it signifies; Tilde provides both. Wikipedia has many similar redirects from unicode characters to relevant sections or lists; this is no less plausible than any of them. – Scyrme (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Daniel (biblical figure). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Daniel the Prophet → Daniel Defoe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of this alleged pseudonym at the target. Veverve (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Daniel (biblical figure), who is often viewed as a prophet. Searching the term on Google overwhelmingly gives references to the biblical Daniel. – Scyrme (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Daniel (biblical figure). Seems like a no-brainer.Glendoremus (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Daniel (biblical figure) as proposed. Clearly the most plausible target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Daniel (biblical figure) per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Press coverage. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:PRESS → Wikipedia:Press coverage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• WP:press → wmf:Press room  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These should point to the same place. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all to Wikipedia:Press coverage. Note that the Wikimedia Foundation Press Room is in the external links section of that page. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all to Wikipedia:Press coverage per Lenticel. That page is more likely to be cited than the WMF press desk. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  07:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 no consensus. After four relists, editors appear no closer to forming a consensus, despite the obviously unsatisfactory situation of having these two redirects point to different targets. As no one has made an argument that the two redirects should point to different targets, I'm going to defer in favor of the older redirect as a sort of preexisting status quo and will retarget both to Fallout (series). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• War never changes → Fallout (series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• War. War never changes → Ron Perlman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Both should redirect to the same page. FunnyMath (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft retarget War never changes to q:Fallout at Wikiquote, where it's mentioned. Quote isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article and someone who doesn't already recognise it may not see the connection, since "war never changes" on its own is a vague sentiment that anyone could express; the quote is often attributed to Ulysses S. Grant, for example.
• Delete War. War never changes - the full stop in the middle but not at the end makes it unusual and, imo, implausible. War... war never changes or War... War never changes would be more plausible, but neither of those exist.

– Scyrme (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote uses the full stop: "War. War never changes." If we were to use ellipses, it would be better to put a space before and after the ellipses and use lowercase w for the second "war": War ... war never changes. Alternatively, we can omit the spaces: War...war never changes. This is in keeping with MOS:ELLIPSIS. FunnyMath (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote uses two full stops, not the weird one full stop in the middle only. As for the ellipses, the spacing doesn't matter; all of them are more plausible searches and none of them exist, so my point stands. Compared to any of the ellipse variants, the middle full stop only redirect is bizarre. If you were suggesting the ellipse ones be created, I don't object; if created, they should point to the same target as War never changes, whatever that ends up being. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other as to whether they should be created. However, War. War never changes is better deleted regardless. – Scyrme (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll create the ellipses variants after this discussion is settled. FunnyMath (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Creator comment: I created the "War. War never changes" redirect. It is indeed mentioned at the target at the section "Voice-over work". I'm opposed to deletion but I'm open to anything else. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough that it is mentioned at Ron Perlman. (To clarify, when I said Quote isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article I was referring to Fallout (series).) In that case, I don't object to retargeting War never changes to Ron Perlman § Voice-over work if others here prefer that to Wikiquote.

  However, I maintain that War. War never changes is better deleted; the relevant section uses two full stops as would be expected. I don't have a strong opinion for or against creating other redirects (with two full stops or ellipses) to replace the redirect with one full stop. (Although a redirect punctuated with full stops like a sentence might also be a bit odd; are there relevant precedents or guidelines?) – Scyrme (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The intro for Fallout 4 starts with "War. War never changes.", but is voiced by Brian T. Delaney instead of Ron Perlman according to Fallout Wiki. [1] So I would be against retargeting to Ron Perlman. FunnyMath (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scyrme: I see the relevant section using only one full stop, and it has always been so. @FunnyMath: A 2012 revision of Ron Perlman says Perelman uttered the phrase in in Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout: Tactics, Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas. Jay 💬 17:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either you've misread or are looking at a different section. The article reads: including uttering the famous phrase "War. War never changes." <- Clearly 2 stops within the quotes. – Scyrme (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! I was looking for two periods after the first "War". Not one in the middle and one at the end which I now see you were referring to. However, the missing full stop is relatively minor since we don't have War. War never changes. and anyone looking for the quote will not be bothered about the second full stop if they get what they are looking for. Jay 💬 18:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I be concerned about there not being two stops after "war"? That would be even weirder.

As for someone not being bothered, why would they search with only 1 full stop in the middle in the first place? It's an extremely unusual, and therefore implausible, way of punctuating. One would expect either two full stops, or 1 comma, or 1 semi-colon, or ellipses. Any of these would be more plausible. As I said earlier, I don't object to replacing the oddly punctuated redirect with plausible variants if others feel a redirect for the quote is helpful. I only think any redirects for this quote should be punctuated in ways which are natural, as opposed to contrived to conform to the expectation that page titles don't end with full stops, and thus are plausible search terms for the target. – Scyrme (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we are creating proper corresponding redirects, we may look at these too. Again, I'm not concerned about any of these either. We have incremental search. When the reader types in the first few words, and gets the result suggestion, he is not concerned with the final full stop.

• Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get
• Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make
• Wait a minute, wait a minute. You ain't heard nothin' yet

Jay 💬 14:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the precedent. In that case I retract my objection. – Scyrme (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget War never changes to Ron Perlman § Voice-over work per Mr.Guye and Scyrme. If there is War. War never changes. then War. War never changes can be deleted. Or War. War never changes can be moved to War. War never changes. but there is no need to have both, as it will be redundant. Jay 💬 09:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — The phrase being from Fallout seems like the most notable thing about it; retargeting to voice actor Ron Perlman seems about as silly as if we were to redirect Life is like a box of chocolates to the article on Tom Hanks. As for the punctuation, it also looks correct to me as-is: War never changes and War. War never changes are both correct. Renaming to War. War never changes. and War never changes. would be incorrect. --Quuxplusone (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, I never even suggested War never changes., not even before I retracted my objection to the punctuation. (Although I still think War, war never changes and War ... war never changes are more natural, not that it matters.)

  I disagree with retargeting to Fallout (series), because the article does not mention the quote anywhere. A soft redirect to Wikiquote would be better, if Ron Perlman is judged to be a bad target. The target should include the quote (and not in some forced way just to justify keeping the redirect). – Scyrme (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go ... consensus still not clear enough ...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Quuxplusone: why would the renaming be incorrect? Jay 💬 06:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay re "why would...": I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Renaming to add periods would be incorrect; I don't know why we'd want to do that, and in fact I don't think we should. Encyclopedia entries simply don't end with periods: there's an article at Cow but not Cow., You have two cows but not You have two cows., and so on. It's just the way English works. The quotation in question is "War. War never changes" — it's exactly analogous to all those other quotations listed by @Jay above. Here they are again for the record: Life is like a box of chocolates, Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make, Wait a minute, wait a minute. You ain't heard nothin' yet. (Mind you, I am amazed that the latter two exist at all; but I suppose it's not harming anyone.) However, when the final punctuation is emphatic, it becomes part of the title: Whaam!, Why did the chicken cross the road?, I never drink... wine! (again, I'm surprised that exists, and I would have omitted the '!' myself). Quuxplusone (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about quote titles, not encyclopedic titles in general. So, what you are saying is quote titles may end with question marks or exclamation marks, but not periods. What are you basing this off? Just wanted to know if there is a universal style, if not a Wikipedia MOS. I had picked up the above examples based on periods in the middle but not at the end. Here is another set. If we had a single accepted style, we wouldn't be having the variations:

• Don't think. Feel.
• Bond. James Bond.
• Me Tarzan, you Jane.
• This makes me very angry.
• You know what? I'm happy.
• You're not just wrong, you're stupid.
• It's not personal. It's strictly business.
• When I'm good, I'm very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better.

Jay 💬 18:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a 4th and final time, as consensus is still unclear (even after three relists). All three of the previous relists had a decent amount of participation, so it seems fair to give this another go... not to mention that it's also useful for clearing the backlog a bit.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The fundamental problem here seems to be that despite this being a relatively well-known phrase, it isn't covered in any significant detail anywhere on Wikipedia. Can we get reliable sources to add related content on this quote to an existing article, or even create an article about this quote? Do reliable sources exist on this quote? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  07:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what sort of coverage you want besides what the quote was and who voiced it. Creating an entire article just for this quote seems a bit excessive, and adding "significant detail" somewhere to justify a redirect would be forced and probably undue. Adding detailed coverage to justify a redirect from a memorable quote seems backwards; the redirect should help navigation to content that already exists, otherwise it should be a red link.

  I think you're making this more complicated than it has to be. I don't see the problem with just sending readers to Wikiquote or to (one of) the voice actor's page (given that the page does at least include the quote). If someone is searching for a Fallout quote, they probably wouldn't be disappointed to find either more Fallout quotes or the voice actor who said the quote they searched for. – Scyrme (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As a note, sending people to Wikiquote would have the advantage that readers would get the rest of speech which contains the quote, not just the most memorable bit which the searcher necessarily already knows. (Or at least the version of the speech from Fallout 1.) – Scyrme (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Objections have been raised both to targeting Fallout (series) and Ron Perlman. Would anyone actually object to a soft retarget to Wikiquote? – Scyrme (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Soft redirect is not a compromise solution for lack of consensus on an ambiguous redirect. Soft redirect is applicable when the term is non-encyclopedic, and there are no appropriate (hard) targets. I can revise my vote and go with non-encyclopedic. Jay 💬 07:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).