Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 19, 2017.

Paeng[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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 12:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing the connection between this term and the disambiguation page to which it points. I would delete it, unless a better target can be found. bd2412 T 21:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Noted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Barophobia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 5#Barophobia

Antlophobia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 5#Antlophobia

To be precise[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) 22:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not mentioned at target, no other suitable target found Paradoctor (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted as moot. Paradoctor (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per this book, it is a recurring phrase used by Thomson and it seems to have gained fame. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then delete unless it's worked into the article with sources indicating it's a famous phrase and is associated with that person.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  15:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done check the lead section. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It may be a catchphrase of theirs in the English translations, but it's not like it isn't an extremely common phrase. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The term is clearly encyclopedic, redirects are WP:CHEAP, and popularity isn't mentioned at WP:RFD. Paradoctor (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 17:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it seems to be an obscure catchphrase that isn't even covered in books like Oxford Dictionary of Catchphrases. [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This "catchphrase" is way too generic to assume users are looking for these characters. Based on a quick Google search, the number of times the phrase is accompanied by Thomson is ~116,000 out of 7,000,000 total uses, or 1.6%. Compare that to "Why so serious", which actually returns more hits when you include the word "Joker" after it, not in quotes. The phrase was also used in a similar manner long before the Thomson character was created - here's one example from 1838. It seems the part that makes this a catchphrase is the way it's used - that is, used when the character isn't actually being more precise. That context is missing from the search term. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a common English phrase that should not direct to a specific article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hhtp[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 Hexahydroxytriphenylene. Thanks, DMacks, for creating that article! -- Tavix (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep not really an unreasonable misspelling for people who aren't already well-versed in computing. Has usage. feminist 12:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google Books search for HHTP finds real meanings (e.g. hexahydroxytriphenylene) which right now have mentions in Wikipedia but probably aren't great redirect targets. The best outcome for the user is probably showing the search results with those mentions. Correct spelling should take precedence over misspellings. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this gets about 10-70 hits per month and was created in 2015. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it seems to be an actual, if uncommon, misspelling. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 17:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we were to have an actual article for something that this actually is, I would support redirecting to it (agree with 59.149.124.29). Certainly that correct use would be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC vs an uncorrect and (by others comments rare) one, and then it could have at most a {{confused}} if others think it's useful for readers. If we don't have any other meanings with articles, I support keeping as is, because we don't generally disambiguate among pages that don't actually exist. Give me a few moments... DMacks (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that the "Hhtp" capitalization isn't actually correct for any of these cases (the protocol is all-caps, the URL token is canonically all lowercase, and the chemical is also all-caps). DMacks (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't really matter here, but Http is the correct rendering of an all lower-case title because of the technical constraints of the wikipedia software that don't allow article titles beginning with a lower-case character. – Uanfala 22:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh look, hexahydroxytriphenylene just turned blue. I therefore support retarget Hhtp and create HHTP to match it. No objection to someone adding a hatnote to that article if these redirects point there. DMacks (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hexahydroxytriphenylene now that DMacks has created that article. – Uanfala 22:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hexahydroxytriphenylene. Thanks to DMacks for creating the article! 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added a distinguish hatnote to HTP in case those searches were looking for the web-related topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2017_November_19&oldid=1138479642"