Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 20

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 20, 2019.

Anisa Moghaddam

[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anisa Moghaddam is a co-writer for a song on this album and another Grande album. Not really serving any purpose with the redirect Richhoncho (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, having two possible targets means there really isn't one it should point to as I don't see how one is any more notable than the other. Encourage article creation, now or distantly in the future, by WP:REDLINK. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Zeke. Performer-to-performance redirects are generally harmful, given they discourage article creation and a single performer may have multiple performances. While there is useful page history (see here), straight deletion would have been more appropriate than redirection in this instance. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2019 (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.

Eirin! Eirin! Tasukete Eirin!

[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are song lyrics. The song in question is mentioned in several articles but there's no actual content to point this to. Even if there was, this should probably still be deleted. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't really understand how this would actually aid in navigation because in order to get it just right you would already need to be somewhat familiar with the subject matter, which implies you already know a more direct route to get to where you're going. I can't see how having this is superior to not having it in that case. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:47, 23 September 2019 (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.

QWE

[edit]

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not in use as an actual abbreviation of QWERTY, could easily be an acronym for something else. signed, Rosguill talk 20:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick of this. Why does the same person who looks like an admin but is not have to mess with all of my redirects? Page QWE didn't exist before, so that means that it can only be short for QWERTY. Barracuda41 (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, technically any editor can nominate any redirect for discussion or tag it for speedy deletion (although the latter is then pending review from an admin, and if someone has a habit of bad CSDs it could result in sanctions). But that's not a complete answer, as it doesn't explain why I'm looking at these redirects in the first place; I have new page patrol permissions, which means that I can approve new articles and redirects to be released to search engines for indexing. I would estimate that I do the lion's share of patrolling redirects, as every day I patrol the end of the backlog to make sure nothing gets missed, going through 100-200 redirects per day on average (and sometimes as many as 500+). I haven't taken an exact count, but I would estimate that of the redirects I look at, I nominate maybe 3% for discussion. Believe me, I'm not trying to pick on you, and there's been several times that I actually approved redirects created by you that I probably would have nominated for discussion had someone else created them, simply because I didn't want to start a fight and because the redirects in question were, if not really useful, then at least harmless. Despite this, redirects that you've created probably account for at least 10% of the redirects that I nominate for discussion.
These redirects are neither mine nor yours, they are Wikipedia's, and should serve the purpose of creating a useful encyclopedia that is easy to navigate. The ones that I nominate for discussion or deletion are ones that I think do not fulfill this criterion, usually because they go against either WP:FORRED or because they meet criteria #1 or #8 of WP:R#DELETE. I would suggest thinking carefully about whether a redirect actually meets one of the criteria at WP:RPURPOSE before creating it. I think that this specific redirect is actually a borderline case, and I would appreciate it if other editors would weigh in, even if only to disagree with me––I was going to let it pass but then doubled back and brought it here after deciding that the benefit of this redirect did not outweigh the possibility of confusing someone looking for something that uses this as an acronym or something else (such as QWERTZ or Quechuan languages, which has an ISO code of QWE). The same cannot be said about many of the other redirects that you have created, such as this one. signed, Rosguill talk 22:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
QWE doesn't have to refer to anything. If the page didn't exist before, it's probably because QWE doesn't actually refer to any existing concept to begin with and so a redirect is not justified. Even then, I would have to ask why QWERTY, already a pretty short term, needs further abbreviation, let alone one that is used popularly enough to make this a viable search term. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no evidence that "QWE" is used as an abbreviation for anything, and it can't work as an abbreviation for keyboard layouts because it would be ambiguous between QWERTY and QWERTZU. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that it is short for QWERTY, but there is evidence that it could be an acronym for one of the following (and probably others).
QWE Quality Week Europe
QWE Quality Work Environment
QWE Quebecor World Europe
QWE Quality Web Education (website)
QWE Quarter Water Entertainment (Los Angeles, CA)
If this info leads editors to another option, I probably wouldn't disagree. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification. That list came from a Gsearch, not WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then if it can refer to more than one thing, turn the page into a dab page instead of deleting it! geez! Barracuda41 (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of disambiguation is to differentiate between articles whose subjects are referred to by the same title. Per WP:PARTIAL and WP:DABABBREV, it's not really appropriate to create a disambiguation here, as you're essentially asking to create a disambiguation between partial matches (which don't belong on dab pages) and several topics that we don't currently have articles for. signed, Rosguill talk 02:24, 22 September 2019 (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.

Columbiahalle

[edit]

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 Speedy delete per WP:G7 by Anthony Bradbury (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear to be a concert venue in Berlin, but it's not mentioned at the target, and it's not clear that it's appropriate to add it to the article given its scope. I think that deleting and leaving as a redlink for now is likely the best course of action, unless someone finds a better target. signed, Rosguill talk 20:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More: it was deleted under speedy criterion A2, which suggests it was copied and pasted from dewiki, which is not allowed. Just FYI. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I created the redirect and agree with your reasoning. I don't see myself making an article for the venue either. Also, the venue was just recently renamed to "Knorkatorhalle" so, if there was any more reason to delete the 'Columbiahalle' redirect there's that. I grieve in stereo (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's not mentioned at the target. A red link or an interlanguage link in articles where it's used would be better. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2019 (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.

Apjak

[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why this redirects here, given that it did not seem that the target ever used this abbreviation/acronym, and APJAK doesn't exist. Might be a made-up WP:NEO. Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2019 (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.

Misspelled U.S. state names

[edit]

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 mainly per the WP:TRAINWRECK concern mentioned by many participants. Individual renominations are encouraged. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also #Misspellings of chemical element names, below. Some of the misspellings for Virginia are also ambiguous with Vagina. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned Ohayo into a disambiguation. I believe Ohaio should redirect there as the Japanese term in all of its variants is used a lot. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KAVEBEAR, I've boldly redirected this one and am striking this from the list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do over per AngusWOOF. While there are several examples in this list that I would vote delete on, I pity the closer trying to make sense of a discussion with a half dozen editors each with a different list of ten names that should be deleted or kept, while others make broad statements about the entire set. signed, Rosguill talk 22:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: None of the pages were tagged, all are now tagged and creators notified at least once. Steel1943 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Sure, some of them are bad (New Hampster?), but this is a huge nomination of disparate topics (they can't all be addressed appropriately in a single discussion), so come back and renominate them individually or in little groups. Please don't renominate Oiho, as it's an easy typo to make. Back in the 1990s and early 2000s, at this intersection in Jackson Center, Ohio, the sign read "Ohio Street" on one side and "Oiho Street" on the other. If someone can put it on a street sign by accident, it's definitely a plausible typo. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, please don't renominate EPnnsylvania, either. The first two pages of Google results include several hits in surprisingly good sources: Epnnsylvania in a federal court opinion from Pennsylvania, EPNNSYLVANIA in Federal Election Commission records, ePnnsylvania in a 19th-century history of a region of Pennsylvania, and ePnnsylvania in the title of a Pennsylvania law. PPS, please don't renominate Pennfylvania. This is a plausible misreading of "Pennſylvania", the state's name written with a long s, as was common for more than a century after it was founded. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close discussion and renominate individually or in groups Net was cast just a little tiny bit too wide here. Many of these are plausible typos and while such redirects may no longer be necessary because of Wikipedia's autocomplete function, they do WP:NOHARM. Some of these may need to be investigated as ambiguous, and the rest still might be entirely superfluous but I wouldn't waste my time trying to delete them. Admittedly, I'm too lazy to care enough to scroll through and see how many fall into each category, but no doubt I'd find plenty in each one. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Broadly agree with several commenters above that this nomination simply goes too far in trying to paint these all with the same brush. More nuanced multiple nominations in smaller batches would be more likely to result in the truly problematic ones being removed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, since many of these are plausible typos and the list is too long to make individual decisions on these. Xichigan should probably be retargeted to Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry, though. Ohio State fans have a tradition of X-ing out the letter M during the week before The Game, so they call Michigan "Xichigan". Aside from the redirect itself, all of the top Google results for Xichigan have to do with the rivalry. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-nominate individual entries with a reasoning. I for one would delete the "New Yourk" variants as unlikely misspellings, but as somebody said each editor has their own reasons to keep or delete some of those. — JFG talk 13:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and renominate a few at a time, per others.
That said, unless someone can find a WP:RS for Haway as an alternative spelling or misspelling of Hawaii, it should redirect to Geordie. It's an alternative spelling of 'howay', see wikt:haway. Narky Blert (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and renominate, with one discussion per target state. The comments above indicate that many of these are affected by local culture of individual states, which tells me a separate discussion is needed for each target state. NeonMerlin 22:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse one state at a time. That looks a really good way of breaking the discussion down into bite-sized chunks. Narky Blert (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Virginia and West Virginia ones: You would be surprised how often I see these in my own state (I live in Virginia but within a stone's throw from West Virginia). It's sad. I would Keep Hawaii too, as that is technically a misspelling, it's actually Hawai'i. The spelling was anglicized to Hawaii. The rest, I can't speak for. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:48 on September 23, 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep All: The aren't harming anyone. If they help one person find the page, a year, it is worth it. Oldag07 (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep all per above, I may have an opinion on some of the individual ones, but this nomination will only result in a WP:TRAINWRECK, support the proposal to nominate one section for each individual state. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and renominate individually per all others in favor of that. This discussion is quite a trainwreck indeed; I would personally be in favor of keeping Ulaska, Flarida, Haway, Ohaio and Texos as (semi-)plausible, retargeting Xichigan to Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry and deleting most of the others. Geolodus (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2019 (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.

Vanzolinius

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 2#Vanzolinius

Kamehameha (weapon)

[edit]

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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, what we have here is a case of an editor, User:Kaithehedgefox, who has basically spent the last two years vandalizing the project, a large part of that being by creating inappropriate or trolling Redirects, as you can see by their Talk Page. They were recently finally banned for their vandalism, so I started the process of going through their remaining Redirect creations, and decided that, rather than go the process here for every one, it would be more prudent to just nominate them all for deletion at once. Based on the fact that the user has seemingly not made a single good faith edit during their entire tenure here, it seems a safe guess that none of these redirects are appropriate. Just among the ones I did look at, there is a mish-mash of implausible spellings, unnotable fan characters, and made up terms that are not mentioned in the target articles. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2019 (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.

Superlatives galore

[edit]

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 speedy keep. As per below, there's a clear consensus that the nomination is improper by rationale, in execution, or both. –Darkwind (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a search engine. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:32, 20 September 2019 (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.

Iron Essay

[edit]

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 Speedy delete. The CSD nomination 14 years ago was entirely valid, this redirect was inappropriate then and it is now, and is unused. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a publisher of orginal thought. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:26, 20 September 2019 (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.

Chlorine is manufactured

[edit]

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:10, 20 September 2019 (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.

Iridium-77 (element)

[edit]

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 77Ir isotope, which would have no neutrons. Implausible search term either way. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:05, 20 September 2019 (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.

Prano Bailey-Bond

[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant The Banner talk 14:44, 20 September 2019 (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.

Fdf.dk

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 28#Fdf.dk

Palestine mountain gazelle

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 28#Palestine mountain gazelle

One-party participatory democracy

[edit]

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 Politics of Zambia#Government and constitution. -- Tavix (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not very helpful. Many people will be looking for one-party state, so it should be deleted to give search results instead. Zerach (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to decide whether this phrase is outright contradictory or not. There's only a single passing mention of any political party at Participatory democracy, surprisingly. If it's a contradiction, by all means, retarget to Zambia as a quirk specific to that country. If not, perhaps deletion, but simply retargeting to One-party state could also be appropriate. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2019 (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.

Caña (Chilean slang)

[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:R#DELETE #8, the word "caña" is never used in the article Hangover. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 22:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2019 (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.

Iraq and Syria

[edit]

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 Iraq–Syria relations. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a helpful redirect. I'd suggest either redirecting to Iraq–Syria relations or deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2019 (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.

Sakuga

[edit]

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 Sakuga Group. There isn't a slam-dunk consensus here for anything, nor would a "no consensus" close with no action satisfy anyone. --BDD (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wiktionary, sakuga is: In Japanese animation (anime), a sequence of noticeably higher quality, used to highlight a particularly important scene. It's not mentioned at the target or at Anime, nor is it likely appropriate to add mention of it to either of the articles. It's possible that the term is notable enough to merit its own article, but as a redirect it is not helpful and I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2019 (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.

List of Animated Feature Film

[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless unused redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just a note, I read those who said "move" as thought they were saying "delete" when I was assessing consensus, so thus, I did not yet see consensus when I performed this relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2019 (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.

Battle of south guangxi

[edit]

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 speedy keep. Remember that not everyone searches in the search bar. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a redirect that is useless for linking as well as searching (absent the redirect, the search engine would automatically direct the search to the article). The redirect has no incoming links (except links related to this RfD) and no useful page history. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2019 (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.

Template:Soviet

[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused for many years. It does not follow the standard naming convention for redirects of wikiproject banners. Magioladitis (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2019 (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.

Lord Althorp

[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Earl Spencer (peerage) or Disambiguate. No evidence that this is the primary topic, in fact by pageviews, the current target page is one of the least visited articles: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=John_Spencer,_8th_Earl_Spencer%7CJohn_Spencer,_5th_Earl_Spencer%7CJohn_Spencer,_3rd_Earl_Spencer%7CCharles_Spencer,_9th_Earl_Spencer%7CGeorge_Spencer,_2nd_Earl_Spencer%7CCharles_Spencer,_6th_Earl_Spencer DrKay (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd Earl was a very prominent politician *during his time as Lord Althorp* - leader of the House of Commons who pushed through the Reform Act, etc. This is not true of any of the other people who were known as "Lord Althorp," as far as I'm aware. (The 6th Earl to a much much lesser extent.) The 8th and 9th Earls are better know *as Earl Spencer*, but nobody much calls them Lord Althorp. Do I need to explain how courtesy titles work? john k (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For this American, john k, that could be quite helpful. And what do you think of the hatnote suggested by Shhhnotsoloud? --BDD (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2019 (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.

Square Enix Ultimate Hits

[edit]

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 Square Enix#Business Model. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2019 (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.

Lauren Orlando

[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from a non-notable person to an associated organization whose article completely fails to mention her name at all. I get that she is associated with it, that checks out in sources, but if her involvement isn't important enough to actually get her named in the article body then there's no need for a redirect. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2019 (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.

Ultimate Hits (Square Enix)

[edit]

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 Square Enix#Business Model. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2019 (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.

Misspellings of chemical element names

[edit]

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 per WP:TRAINWRECK. Individual nominations in the future would be a better/clearer option if any of these redirects are still in need of discussion. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These misspellings are rather implausible. There are some particularly funny ones, too, like "Buryum", "LEad", and "Alliminuim". I don't have enough time to tag these... –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete:
  • Asstatine. While possibly plausible, I'm not sure if this could be considered a joke or vandalism; also note that its creator was indeffed for creating abusive redirects (maybe an admin can review this).
  • Uninunium. Although this has only one typo, the structure is fairly predictable, so misspelling this particular "un" seems rather unlikely. It's also less likely that this will be searched since the element was renamed to roentgenium.
  • Unonoctium, same rationale as for uninunium.
  • Weak retarget:
  • Dubnadium to oganesson; I'm finding several sources suggesting that it was once a proposed name for element 118, but it was not as widely discussed and could also be deleted (it is not a plausible misspelling of dubnium).
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.

Thai redirects to Gautama Buddha

[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed per WP:FORRED, articles are not specifically about Thailand. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly delete: พุทธประวัติ; the word "พุทธประวัติ" means "history of Buddha", not Buddha as human.
Thanks. --Garam (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2019 (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.

Aniti-advergame

[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo for "Anti-advergame". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:26, 20 September 2019 (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.

Antitritium

[edit]

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 Tritium. Article creation is encouraged. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, possibly due to lack of significance. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:22, 20 September 2019 (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.

Third industrial revolution

[edit]

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 The Third Industrial Revolution. --BDD (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target of this has been changed several times. Current target is not mentioned in the article, but is related and plausible. But the book The Third Industrial Revolution is a closer match with the actual wording. I think we need a discussion to avoid moving this back and forth. I recommend the book. MB 03:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2019 (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.

Waymarking.com

[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Waymarking.com is a specific website; there is no information in this article and I find the redirect confusing. Recommend delete. MB 03:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too find this confusing. Delete Waymarking.com. Rwood128 (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Waymarking.com, a website for Waymarking, I can see the redirect was intended to provide info on the concept, for lack of a page for that website. For those with an inkling of what is Waymarking, which I gained just now(!), it may be helpful. For that I say keep. DadaNeem (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Waymarking.com is more closely related to Geocaching than Trail blazing. The website was created by Groundspeak Inc. (the dominate geocaching company) as an alternative to creating more virtual caches. If the redirect is to exist, it should point to something on the geocaching article, not trail blazing. –Sparkgap (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2019 (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.

Lakshmi (Buddhism)

[edit]

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) 19:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects have misleading disambiguators, as Lakshmi and Saraswati already have significant amounts of content about their observance in the Buddhist tradition. Kisshoten and Benzaiten specifically covers the deities' adoption in Japanese religious traditions. I would suggest deleting this redirect, and perhaps creating Lakshmi (Japan), Lakshmi (Japanese religion), Lakshmi (Shinto), etc, although it's not clear to me that readers are likely to search for these subjects this way. signed, Rosguill talk 17:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue seems to be standardization of article names. Kisshoten and Benzaiten are simply Japanese language translations for these deities that feature in Mahayana Buddhist texts. Several Asian-language Wikipedias treat them this way as well. Another option could be to keep the names of the current articles as those that focus on Japanese-specific Buddhism and extended traditions (Shinto, Shugendo, etc). In this case, Saraswati (Buddhism) and Lakshmi (Buddhism) may serve as their own articles to distinguish between larger overarching traditions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism; similar to how Yama breaks into Yama (Hinduism) and Yama (Buddhism). Keep for now as they are still extensions of Buddhist tradition. --Invokingvajrastalk 18:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit to minimal knowledge of Buddhism, but these do look problematic. Lakshmi touches on Buddhism in a few places, liking to Kisshoten in the Japan section but also to Palden Lhamo under Tibet and Nepal. The situation with Saraswati is similar. It's probably better to either retarget to the main articles or delete. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No additional comments after first relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close. Best to take this to a relevant wikiproject or the Reference Desk and get input from those who are more knowledgeable about Buddhism. Once they've offered comments, come back here and create a new nomination with links to, or text copied from, the comments in question. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having re-read Invokingvajras comment here, as well as having consulted some friends of mine that are more familiar with the subject matter, I am not seeing a clear argument for why to keep these redirects. Yes, these are concepts that have importance in Buddhist, Hindu, and Shinto traditions. I am not opposed creating articles for Lakshmi (Buddhism), Lakshmi (Hinduism) etc. following the model set by the articles about Yama. However, if we see that as being the optimal long-term solution, then we should delete these redirects to encourage article creation. Moreover, in my opinion the core problem with the current redirects is that they suggest that the current target articles about these religious figures in Japanese traditions comprise the entirety of these deities in the Buddhist tradition, something which seems to be trivially false. I admit to being out of my depth when it comes to deciding how information about these subjects should be split across multiple articles, but for as long as the current division of content is maintained across the relevant articles, I think that these redirects are actively misleading and should either be deleted or redirected back to Saraswati and Lakshmi respectively. signed, Rosguill talk 01:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rosguill. Nyttend's advice isn't bad, but these seem too problematic to just leave as they are in the meantime. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2019 (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.

Returning citizens

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 5#Returning citizens

Anty Matter

[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:05, 20 September 2019 (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.

Seetee

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 4#Seetee

Template:Project Florida template

[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and useless. It does not follow the standard convention for redirects Wikiproject banners. Magioladitis (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2019 (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.

Template:Project Florida category

[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and useless. It does not follow the standard convention for redirects Wikiproject banners. Magioladitis (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2019 (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.

Template:PCP

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 29#Template:PCP

Piripicho

[edit]

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. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FORRED, these 3 redirects all appear to be foreign language words or phrases and I'm suggesting deletion. "Piripicho" appears to be Spanish and might be slang. I can't tell what language even that "Ŝot Brot" is supposed to be. The 3 redirects combined have only 8 total pageviews in the last 90 days. Chris857 (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all (I added yet another variation of "sot brot" to the nomination). "Piripicho" is Venezuelan Spanish slang meaning "penis", not used for a USB drive as far as I know. There's a mention of it in our Venezuelan Spanish article, but it's hardly worth having the redirect. I cannot find any explanation for "sot brot" that doesn't circle back to Wikipedia. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The objective of Wikipedia is to add to its readership's knowledge, not to its readership's confusion. These redirects have so far accomplished the reverse. flowing dreams (talk page) 06:10, 26 September 2019 (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.

Space navigator

[edit]

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. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generic sci-fi term that does not appear within the target, a line of devices for viewing 3D models. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:45, 20 September 2019 (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.

Lps04

[edit]

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. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this redirect page has no obvious connection to its target article. ―Susmuffin Talk 01:29, 20 September 2019 (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.

Pp2013

[edit]

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. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Pp2013" has no clear relation to the article that it redirects to. Yes, it could be a shortened version of "PAW Patrol 2013", but that would not be obvious to the average reader. ―Susmuffin Talk 01:27, 20 September 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_20&oldid=1073158654"