Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 12, 2019.

C2H4ClO3P[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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C2H4ClO3P was created by mistake: formula of Ethephon is …H6… not …H4…. I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula C2H4ClO3P. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, with the obvious proviso that this should be recreated should there end up being an article about a compound with this formula. Nyttend (talk) 20:18, 18 August 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.

Dex eps[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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Dex" could just as much be short for Dexter's Laboratory (and probably others as well). Gonnym (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator; ambiguous abbreviation. Stats indicate rather low usage for both redirects since at least July 2015. –Sonicwave talk 06:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above: dex and eps are both ambiguous. My top Google results are all financial statistics sites trying to tell me the earnings per share of some obscure exchange-traded fund. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; my first thought would be Dexter's Laboratory, and per the IP, we don't need a redirect for an abbreviation that's otherwise used to refer to the Delaware Enhanced Global Dividend and Income Fund's earnings. Nyttend (talk) 20:20, 18 August 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.

Sl eps[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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Sl" is in no way a valid shorting of "Sherlock", and if it is, it can be valid for any of the 11 Sherlock Holmes TV series listed at Sherlock Holmes (disambiguation)#Television. Gonnym (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator; ambiguous abbreviation. Stats indicate rather low usage for both redirects since at least July 2015. –Sonicwave talk 06:00, 13 August 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.

Sh eps[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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if assuming "Sh ep" always means "Sherlock Holmes episodes" and that itself is a stretch, Sherlock Holmes (disambiguation)#Television lists 11 Sherlock Holmes TV series, which this can be just as valid for. Gonnym (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator; ambiguous abbreviation. Stats indicate rather low usage for both redirects since at least July 2015. –Sonicwave talk 06:00, 13 August 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.

C13H15NO[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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C13H15NO was created by mistake: formula Ethcathinone is C11H15NO. I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula C13H15NO. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Apparently created in error. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with the obvious proviso that this should be recreated should there end up being an article about a compound with this formula. Nyttend (talk) 20:18, 18 August 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.

Trangst[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Trangst

Bumper (transformers)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Bumper (transformers)

Cetpot01, 02, 03[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) 21:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, doing an internet search for these terms didn't turn up anything meaningful. Based on the pattern, I would guess that "Cetpot" is some sort of initialism referring to the rebooted Planet of the Apes series, but there's no indication that it's widely used enough to justify redirects. I suggest deletion unless someone can provide a proper justification. signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and possibly per WP:RFD#D1 as it seems CETPOT is a valid initialism for other things, but none with articles. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:40, 14 August 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.

2019 European Judo Championships – Women's 57 kg[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are two different things. See 2019 European Judo Championships Willbb234 (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 2019 European Judo Championships was included into the program of the 2019 European Games in Minsk. Almagestas (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 12 August 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.

Weavel[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly more likely as a misspelling for Weevil than pointing here? ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aren't correct uses almost always more plausible than misspellings? Geolodus (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean this except in cases where the misspelled use is considerably more notable than the technically correct one (Info Wars redirecting to InfoWars instead of Info Wars (film), for example). The nominator has provided no evidence for this to be the case here. Geolodus (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Geolodus. Plus, there is a hatnote at the target section in case anyone gets confused. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  13:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 12 August 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.

Bully club[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. Agreement that the current target is not correct, but no agreement that this is a useful redirect to point to any other particular target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just redirected Bully boy, previously an article about the broad concept indicated by the title and a specific practice at Yale University, to Bully Boy, about an unrelated play (see Talk:Bully boy). As a result this redirect is left without any plausible targets: it's not appropriate to retarget it to Bully Boy, there are no other articles that mention this term, and most Google results for the phrase seem to refer to clubs of pit bull owners, a topic not covered in the encyclopaedia. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Baton (law enforcement) as an R from misspelling as a potential misspelling of "Billy club". It sounds similar enough.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague; could go to Bully (disambiguation). Some sports clubs are known as Bullies. Searches point to Bulldog or pit bull kennel clubs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bully (disambiguation) as first choice, delete as second choice, redirect to Baton (law enforcement) as third choice. AngusWOOF is right that there are a ton of possible targets, and they'd be listed at the DAB page. While I think Baton is not a bad target, it might confuse readers more than just deleting the page especially given incoming links expecting the Yale article. Wug·a·po·des​ 08:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lots of potential targets, but none that are particularly convincing. - Eureka Lott 00:54, 16 August 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 institutions and objects named after the criminal against Humanity Alfried Krupp[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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result of a POV article creation and subsequent move. Propose to delete the redirect given its implications and the uncommon nature of the title. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 11:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable enough as a title to justify the non-neutrality. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. Krupp is a convicted criminal against humanity, and that term is used in sources, so it will aid web searches. Non-neutrality is not sufficient to delete a redirect that targets a neutrally targeted name. Wug·a·po·des​ 08:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Criminal against humanity" is not a normally used term (does not exist as a redirect), and so this redirect is unlikely to be used and not helpful (because someone looking for the Krupp-related list could find it without this redirect). UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:28, 13 August 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.

His Steveness[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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonce name applied to any number of Steves. And of course not a plausible search term, if the reader is looking simply for Steve Jobs. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. By at least an order of magnitude the primary topic for this frequently used appellation, which makes it a plausible search term for those who do not know who is being referred to. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This seems rather implausible. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE 1 and 2: makes finding other articles unnecessarily hard and likely to cause confusion. I see little benefit in keeping it. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:50, 12 August 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.

John f k[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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. People don't search "Franklin d r" or "Martin l k". — the Man in Question (in question) 04:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Whether people do or don't search for other people using similar constructions is irrelevant, the stats show that people do use this redirect to reach the article about Kennedy. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible formatting that isn't used to refer to him. I do agree that the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument is irrelevant. -- Tavix (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Tavix, typing "John f", "John fk" or"John f k" already causes the intended article to show up. –Sonicwave talk 22:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Thryduulf has pointed out, this redirect is obviously being used. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems like a very obscure way of abbreviating one's name, unlike "JFK" or even "J.F. Kennedy". It could thus be argued that this is an obscure synonym and deleted per point 8 of WP:RFD#DELETE. Additionally, having a first name but not a surname in the title makes the primary topic ambiguous (though with well-known exceptions such as "JFK"). "John f k" could arguably refer to John F. Kelly, among others; hence, WP:XY also applies for this uncommon abbreviation. ComplexRational (talk) 13:15, 13 August 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.

Body measurements[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 Anthropometry. -- Tavix (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retargeting to Anthropometry. No reason to prefer this more specialized subtopic. BDD (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is, seems to already be at the correct redirect for the term. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget; there are tons of other body measurements unrelated to bust, waist, and hip. Nyttend (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an even more general relevant article than Anthropometry, and that's Biometrics. – Uanfala (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambig, as everything suggested so far is a plausible target. Thryduulf (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to anthropometry. This article is already effectively a set index list with descriptive links to many of the possible targets suggested for disambiguation here, and many others. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question. I originally closed this, but then realized the close would look like a WP:SUPERVOTE, so I reverted myself. Then I relisted the discussion with a comment, but then reverted that as well since my question/comment could have been perceived as not being neutral. Anyways, here's the question: Could this be a case where there is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT target for Body measurements and a disambiguation page could be created at Body measurements (disambiguation)? Steel1943 (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that would not be a disambiguation page, it would be a search index of partial title matches and best guesses. Plus, anthropometry is pretty much already that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:06, 22 August 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.

SAMSUNG PL20,PL21 / VLUU PL20,PL21[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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, almost no usage, VLUU isn't mentioned in the target in any capacity. signed, Rosguill talk 15:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page is used to accommodate redirection from Wikimedia file JPEG EXIF DATA, taken from Samsung SAMSUNG PL20,PL21 / VLUU PL20,PL21. Aris riyanto (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per what's said at {{R from EXIF}}. There's no way to ascertain precise usage. Nyttend (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like this is necessary, but I would prefer we make it not so. Do we get this exact string from machine-generated metadata? Can we automate anything on the Wikimedia side to simply link to Samsung? It's going to pollute the search box and confuse readers in the meantime. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • BDD, sorry, there's nothing that can be done on the software side. Literally the only choices, as far as I can tell, are to retain this redirect or to find all of the files with this in the metadata (if that's possible) and edit the metadata to say something else. Not easy (and potentially deceptive, in case anyone's depending on this) and definitely not worth the effort. Nyttend (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UnitedStatesian, do you realize that there are no demonstrable links to any other capitalisation of this string, but this precise capitalisation has demonstrable links from lots of photos' EXIF sections, e.g. the ones EurekaLott found? Nyttend (talk) 10:58, 21 August 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.

Mr. Donald John Trump[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Mr. Donald John Trump

Forms of Digivolution[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Forms of Digivolution

The digimon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#The digimon

Wikipedia:RE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Wikipedia:RE

Roberts Barracks[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, an internet search would indicate that other similarly named barracks exist in other locations. In light of the possible confusion, while Roberts Barracks (Larkhill) or something similar would be acceptable despite lacking mention in the article, I think that this redirect, without a disambiguator, should either be deleted or pointed to a more appropriate topic. signed, Rosguill talk 20:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there are three mentioned in WP articles – Germany, Singapore, and Larkhill – with Larkhill perhaps qualifying as primary: [1]. The mentions should be reviewed to verify and target the correct articles or dab, perhaps by someone familiar with the topic or with access to some of the offline refs. I created the redirect for use by List of Royal Artillery batteries. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 12 August 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.

Diznick[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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The word "diznick" is used in the song, and may have even been coined there, but appears to have broader usage (both in the same sense as in the song [2] and apparently as a portmanteau of Disney and Nickelodeon [3]). Moreover, the term is not mentioned in the target, making the redirect of little use. signed, Rosguill talk 18:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if you google Diznick http://www.google.com/search?q=diznick the FIRST result you will get is Stupid Hoe. In fact, so many people say Diznick word is made by Nicki Minaj. Barracuda41 (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the first link you posted leads to a 2016 song, while Stupid Hoe is 2011, and the other link you posted leads to an article where it says DizNick (with the N capitalised as if it was a compound word), which means that it has nothing to do with Diznick (the one that has the N lowercase and said by Nicki Minaj) Barracuda41 (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Disney and Nickolodeon would be Disnick. Barracuda41 (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but the most popular media with "Diznick" in it is Stupid Hoe, so there. Even all of Urban Dictionary has Stupid Hoe-related definitions for Diznick. Barracuda41 (talk) 19:54, 15 August 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.

How chocolate is made[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 all that no one has advocated to keep, no consensus on the rest (retargeting where suggested). No prejudice against speedy renomination due to how varied this group is, but I figured this is a better option than calling WP:TRAINWRECK. -- Tavix (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More natural language question redirects; these were omitted from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 8#What is a museum, but the same logic there applies to these. Some also "feature" strange (and therefore unlikely) capitalization and/or punctuation. One talkpage shows a previous nomination that closed as no consensus, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 23#How elements are arranged in the Periodic Table. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. shoy (reactions) 20:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral leaning keep for How the ancient Egyptians divided water and Why we haven't seen aliens per point 3 of WP:R#KEEP, as they could possibly help readers who may not know the precise terms. Delete the rest because the titles are sufficiently self-explanatory and already include a keyword; for example, email would already be the natural place to look to answer How email works. Additionally, I would recommend deletion of Who is responsible for these pages as an unhelpful WP:XNR. ComplexRational (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Why we haven't seen aliens". Fermi paradox is a really interesting page, but if you're not already familiar with the idea, you'll need some help getting there. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Why we haven't seen aliens" per above comments; neutral on "How the ancient Egyptians divided water" since I'm not sure on how significant the "folding water" story is to warrant a redirect, though it probably doesn't hurt to leave it. For "Who is responsible for these pages", Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia? would be a more accessible page for readers, but I would still lean towards deletion since it may not be immediately apparent from the title that the redirect is referring to Wikipedia. Delete the others as they are redundant. –Sonicwave talk 18:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:
How email works - target describes in detail how email works.
Retarget:
How chocolate is made to Chocolate#Production, where it is explained in great detail how chocolate is made.
How elements are arranged in the Periodic Table to Group (periodic table), which explains in detail several methods for how elements are arranged in the Periodic Table.
Delete:
This years download festival - WP:NOTDIRECTORY, target does not indicate the dates of any upcoming festivals, maintenance issue, and grammatically incorrect.
How Windows became Popular - subjective, described poorly at the current target. Also, Windows has not been renamed Popular, it is still Windows.
How the ancient Egyptians divided water - imprecise question, with only one of many possible meanings answered at the target. I feel that if someone is familiar enough with the topic to ask this question in reference to the given target, they'll already know to look for that target instead.
Who is responsible for these pages - imprecise question, and cross-namespace redirect.
Why Aren't These Pages Copyedited - imprecise question, and cross-namespace redirect.
Why we haven't seen aliens (weak delete) - the Fermi paradox is a good list of possible explanations for Fermi's version of this question, but there are other versions. Some of them are linked as see-alsos in this target, so maybe it serves readers anyway, but I'm leaning delete for being imprecise.
Why the battle of blue licks was a loss - subjective; the article indicates it was a victory, just not for the Americans. Also does not explain why.
-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:
    • How chocolate is made: Has negligible visit count. People are more likely to search "Chocolate" and then search for this item, so it is not a plausible search aid.
    • This years download festival: Zero page visit stats. People are more like to search "download festival".
    • How Windows became Popular: Misleading and subjective; looks more like an attempt in promoting one's point of view. The peculiar spelling contributes to low page view stats. Unlikely search term.
    • How email works: Same as the top two items above.
    • How the ancient Egyptians divided water: Zero page view stats and misleading. It requires one to know in advance that Egyptians did "divide" water, then get mislead by the vague and ambiguous nature of the title. Just how many of you who have not clicked on the link know that it is not an agricultural topic?
    • Who is responsible for these pages: Misleading title, misleading target, and probably a form of a black humor or attempt in ridicule. Page view stats shows there is zero need for retargetting it.
    • Why Aren't These Pages Copyedited: Same as above, but its spelling implies someone was trying to make a point. Its use for the reader was not even a concern. The person who asks such a question already knows the meaning of "copy editing" and thus, needs not visit the copy editing article. I am sure among the trillions of policy pages in Wikipedia, there is one that says don't make a point at the expense of Wikipedia's readership.
    • Why the battle of blue licks was a loss: Lacking page view stat; low discoverability due to poor spelling; plus, one must already know there was a "Battle of Blue Licks", in which case, the reader would simply search "Blue Licks". In addition, one must already be mislead into thinking the battle of Blue Licks was a loss!
Flowing dreams (talk) 07:14, 19 August 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.

Second American Civil War (disambiguation)[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) 21:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target article is not a disambiguation page, but does contain details of alternative uses of the phrase. Is that sufficient for a (disambiguation) redirect, or should the redirect be deleted? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep someone using this term is going to find a list of things referred to as the "Second American Civil War", which is what they'd find at a dab page, just with a bit more verbosity. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping. Linked page is not a disambiguation.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the above comment. If you search this title it automatically redirects to the target page. It's pretty much a useless redirect. Masum Reza📞 22:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Thryduulf's rationale, but Masumrezarock100 makes a valid point, and this page only saw one hit in the past 30 days. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:03, 14 August 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.

Persians[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 moot. Per the result of Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 July#Persian people, the article and redirect have been reversed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Persian (disambiguation page). Persians is nearly as ambiguous as Persian, and it can and frequently does refer to one of the other listings on the DAB page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Persian (disambiguation page). It is as ambiguous as Persian.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The primary topic is clearly Persian people. If someone says the word "Persians" with no other context, no one will presume that one is referring to any of the things listed at the Persian dab page, and most of those things cannot even be called "Persians" (as opposed to "Persian"). "Persians" and "Persian" are two fundamentally different words...that's why other ethnic group articles follow this scheme, as suggested by WP:PLURAL and WP:NCET, and why we have things like a dab at German but Germans as a people article. There is no reason why the articles relating to Persian should deviate from the usual practice, per WP:CONSISTENCY. Also, I would suggest that this request should not've been made until the WP:MR in relation to Persian people concludes. RGloucester — ☎ 18:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RGloucester's comprehensive argument (the RM has since been closed though). For the singular, the people and the language are both prominent enough to be primary topic if the other didn't exist. "Persians" alone almost always refers to the people. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there is a move review presently OPEN to contest the closing of that RM. RGloucester — ☎ 18:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I misunderstood "MR" as "RM", since I've always thought of the former as "MRV", but of course you're right. I'll leave a note there about this discussion. --BDD (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Persians" is presently a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and could become the title of the peoples article pending the MRV decision. Waste of time. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  20:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was merely a quiet claim be RGloucester when he recently created the redirect, long after Talk:Persians RM discussions failed to establish that there is a Persian PrimaryTopic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More often than not, "Persians" refers to cats. When it doesn't refer to cats, it more likely refers to the ancient historic people than to the current people collectively. Currently, the term when applied to people, carries an ethnic pride POV that is confused and confusing with Iranian. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. This kind of cat is seldom if ever referred to in the plural, not "Persian cats", nor "Persians". Even as a group they are referred to as "the Persian cat" or sometimes "the Persian". So "Persian" is the ambiguous term; however, the term Persians unambiguously refers to the people. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  04:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article Persian cat uses the word "Persians" to refer to the cats 39 times, or it did when I checked last week. 125.9.31.50 (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Persian (disambiguation page) per SmokeyJoe. No clear primary topic.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this redirect is kept as is (I am currently not sure whether it should be), I would recommend adding a hatnote at the target saying "'Persians' redirects here. For other uses, see Persian (disambiguation)." or something similar. Geolodus (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Persian (disambiguation) due to ambiguity and in accordance with the result of the recent move request. 125.9.31.50 (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so should we redirect Swedes to Swede (disambiguation), so as to avoid confusing anyone as to whether we were referring to the type of turnip, rather than the people? Please reconsider the absurdity of what you are suggesting and read clearly the primary topic guidelines. Without context, no one would ever think that "Persians" means cats or "Swedes" means turnips. In an article about cats, certainly, one could use "Persians" to refer to the cats, but that's only because the topic of cats has been established. Without such context, "Persians" means the people...the primary and original meaning of the word. Please also consider that whether a subject is a primary topic or not is not solely based on usage, but also on historical significance. If a topic 'has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term", which is undeniably the case here, it is a primary topic. RGloucester — ☎ 04:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, redirect Swedes to Swede (disambiguation), it is ambiguous. Swede is a rutabaga. For people, it is ambiguous as to whether is is a citizen of a certain country, or an ethic group. Titles exist separated from context. With no context, introductions specify to the topic precisely. Wikipedia covers tubers and companion animals, not just people. Persians more often refers to the ancient peoples than the modern ethnic group pretending to have singularity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No way, José! Must go with RG as to the absurdity. Guess you think the whole WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT thing should be rewritten as well? Why not show an example where any primary redirect actually should redirect to a primary topic? or do you think there are no examples? They're all ambiguous terms after all, aren't they? Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  08:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PRECISE is absurd? Misdirecting a minority doesn’t matter? Sending people jumping straight onto an ambiguous title to the disambiguation page hurts no one. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PRECISE is not absurd. Readers are not as a rule misdirected by primary redirects. We are here to help readers, and "Persians" most often refers to the people, ancient and modern, and rarely anything else on the Persian dab page. Same goes for Swedes. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  10:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 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.

Angela Allen (paedophile)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Angela Allen (paedophile)

Rukoru[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Rukoru

Mozo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Mozo

C30H45N5O5[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) 16:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C30H45N5O5 was created by mistake: formula of Ergotamine is C33H35N5O5. I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula C30H45N5O5. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 16:36, 12 August 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.

C202H298N50O64[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) 16:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Formula of Enfuvirtide changed in article from C202H298N50O64 to C204H301N51O64 so C202H298N50O64 became needless. I have not found other molecule in enWiki with formula C202H298N50O64. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 10:26, 12 August 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.

C14H24ClN5O[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) 16:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C14H24ClN5O was created for another compound originally in EHNA article. There is no Cl in formula of EHNA: C14H23N5O. I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula C14H24ClN5O. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 07:20, 12 August 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.

Princess Snake[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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A minor fictional character that isn't mentioned in the target article. There are a couple of mentions in other articles but there's no substance. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete She is a minor character who only appears in anime filler. ―Susmuffin Talk 09:15, 14 August 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.

Selypa[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Selypa

2009 Capitala World Tennis Championship – Singles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#2009 Capitala World Tennis Championship – Singles

Tova[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) feminist (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken redirect. Tova also for a surname about people. Not only for a neuropsychological assessment only. PQ77wd (talk) 05:56, 12 August 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_August_12&oldid=964535439"