Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 26, 2019.

Thai Empire[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 10#Thai Empire

Residences[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. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that this redirecting to Dwelling is a WP:SURPRISE, and this should probably be retargeted to Residence as a {{R from plural}}. Steel1943 (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the time that this redirect was created, I also redirect Residence to dwelling. The current page at that title is merely a collection of synonyms for "dwelling". There should be a single article on the concept of the place where one resides/dwells/lives, whatever it is called. bd2412 T 23:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. This should point to residence, as long as we have an article there. If residence becomes a redirect again, then this (obviously) will be retargeted. - Eureka Lott 23:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to residence per above comment. Oz\InterAct 06:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; alternatively, Retarget per nom. Arguably a retarget is not required; editors can just use "[[residence]]s", but it's harmless. I note that the subjects of the articles Residence and Dwelling are two different concepts, at least today. "Residence" is about where one lives; "dwelling" appears to be about the legal significance of a building in which an individual lives as it is used in, for example, the definition of various crimes such as burglary (i.e., breaking and entering into a factory or other non-dwelling is distinguished from breaking and entering into a dwelling). TJRC (talk) 21:48, 28 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.

EconomicS[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. A good history lesson and a good explanation why its okay for CamelCase redirects to be unused. -- Tavix (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused CamelCase redirect Lmatt (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Lmatt: most CamelCase redirects go unused. That's why they are generally categorized as {{Unprintworthy redirects}} as most folks wouldn't even notice them. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a very old WP:CAMEL redirect, per WP:RFD#KEEP, item four. This page was created on the final day that Wikipedia required CamelCase links. - Eureka Lott 23:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the original purpose of the page, it seems to be vandalism, and there is no clear reason to keep it. Age alone doesn't mean that it makes sense to keep.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: @Zxcvbnm: This page does not appear to have any history of vandalism. Lmatt (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, see WP:CAMEL. It looks absurd and even disruptive today, but in very early days, that's how you did article titles! --BDD (talk) 18:41, 9 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.

Last Night (2009 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This film was released in 2010 and not in 2009. I do not see a reason to keep this redirect anymore, and it could cause some confusion about the movie's release date. The redirect does not have any history that would be worth preserving either. Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Decidedly a 2010 film, making the redirect unnecessary.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:25, 28 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.

Drill DOzer[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) 00:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PANDORA. Unnecessary as Wikipedia search already corrects such errors. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I combined the batch that I posted.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep harmless {{R from miscapitalization}}s. There is no evidence that this redirect existing has encouraged the creation of other such redirects, nor why that would be a bad thing if it did. -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment CamelCase redirects almost always need to be kept because of their extreme age, but all of these have spaces, so that's not an issue here. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unnatural capitalization errors. PC78 (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:26, 26 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.

Animal crossing review[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) 18:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page was created as, well, someone's review. But it makes no sense to point here, or anywhere, since WP:NOTESSAY. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I doubt anyone will actually type this in the search bar. While I understand Geolodus' suggestion, there is a certain level of ambiguity in the phrase "Animal crossing review". It could certainly reference reviews for the first game, but it would also indicate reviews for the follow-ups or reviews of the franchise as a whole. Aoba47 (talk) 20:39, 26 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.

Funding agencies[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 WP:TRAINWRECK. That being said, I will follow Patar knight's plan for keeping/restoring/retargeting, because it seems to have the most overall support. Also, it is the most WP:ATD option, which is usually how I handle trainwrecks. Finally, there is no prejudice against speedy individual renomination if anyone wants to discuss a certain redirect in more detail. -- Tavix (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of these terms are specific to science: funding agencies, bodies, opportunities etc. also exist in the humanities and other disciplines. We probably ought to have an article on research funding in general (the target was at that location until it was moved in 2010 as it was solely or primarily about science), but at present we don't, so WP:RDEL #10 applies. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Overly vague unless a WP:BROADCONCEPT article's made.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most per nom. However, several exceptions:
    • Keep research funding. Redirects resulting from pagemoves often shouldn't be deleted, and when they have a long history, they definitely shouldn't be deleted except in truly extraordinary cases, since deletion is highly likely to break links in old revisions of articles, from other websites, and in printed materials. This has been a blue link since 2004 (it was the article title 2004-2010 and a redirect 2010-2019), and the issue presented here isn't a big enough issue to delete.
    • Retarget the ones with "grant" in the title to Grant (money). The word "research" appears fourteen times in that article and various forms of "fund" appear twenty-three times; someone looking for information about grant funding and research grant(s) will get plenty of information there.
    • Retarget "Funding organisation", "Funding bodies", and "Funding body" to Foundation (nonprofit). These are organisations whose sole purpose is funding various projects, and while they don't necessarily focus on funding research, the redirects in question aren't necessarily related to research either.
  • Nyttend (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore List of funding opportunity databases, which was its own article and retarget Funding opportunity databases there (ping me after closing and I'll give it an update).
  • Retarget ones with "grant" to grant (money), and any remaining pages with "fund" to funding. Organizations other than foundations are also funding organizations, so a broader article target is better.
  • Keep research funding per Nyttend, and the other research ones, since research council is mentioned in the article. Not perfect, but there is generic article.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:12, 26 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.

Lendia (tree)[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. Justification provided, withdrawing nomination. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 17:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what the purpose of this redirect is. "Lendia" is not mentioned in the target, nor is any close permutation of it. Internet and google scholar searches didn't turn up any meaningful results. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not sure if google searches are tailored according to users previous searches or not, but on my computer "Lagerstroemia parviflora AND Lendia" lists many useful pages.
The name Lendia is a Hindi word for Lagerstroemia parviflora. Other (latinized) Hindi words for the same plant are Dhaura, Bakli, and Sidi. If your google search does not give any useful hits, try to have a look at this particular page: Small Flowered Crape Myrtle at Flowers of India. RhinoMind (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment, this justification is good enough for me. Withdrawing the nomination. signed, Rosguill talk 17:56, 26 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.

Oven Toast Grill[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) 23:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New redirect to bad target (dab). Not mentioned in the dab, and no obvious target. Capitalisation also bad. Widefox; talk 16:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This redirect is unhelpful and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:33, 27 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.

KAPR[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) 23:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KAPR is an AM station in Douglas, AZ. KVOI is an AM station in Tucson, AZ. I don't see any connection between the two nor any reason for this redirect. Recommend delete to turn this back red. MB 16:14, 26 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.

Libya Gate[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) 23:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect unrelated to topic. See Talk:LSE–Gaddafi affair#"Libya Gate is the name given to a scandal" Lmatt (talk) 16:00, 26 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.

Cut Man V[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) 23:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A pair of fairly useless and nonsensical redirects created by a user who specializes in vandalism through redirects. One is, as far as I can tell, a fan character (possibly created by the redirect creator), the other, as far as I can tell, does not exist. In both cases, these are worthless as redirects. Rorshacma (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can keep these redirects because Bowsette is a fan-made concept for a character, and Cut Man V is to. Also I didn't create Cut Man V, he was created by SesakaTH in 2009. [deviantart.com/marioshi64/art/CutMan-V-Trade-154243032 Here's an image of him.] Kaithehedgefox (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)kaithehedgefoxKaithehedgefox (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not mentioned in the article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, if we add information about Cut Man V in the List of Mega Man characters, then we can keep the redirects. Kaithehedgefox (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)kaithehedgefoxKaithehedgefox (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only if there is enough reliable coverage for this particular fan character.--67.68.29.90 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not covered in the target article and there is no evidence that reliable sources have shown interest in this particular fan creation. Finally, the fact thst Bowsette is covered doesn’t mean mean that all fan characters deserve coverage, each one needs to be decided on their own merits.--67.68.29.90 (talk) 21:54, 28 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.

Make the World Greta Again[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. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Created by the same user as Thunbergjugend; appears to be a joke and/or attack redirect with no usage in reliable sources. I suggest deleting it. Geolodus (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator and WP:NPOV. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Articlize Disclaimer, the creator and I both edit the subject's BLP at Greta Thunberg. This phrase is becoming a meme on the part of fans and supporters of Thunberg's Climate crisis messaging. Primary sources (Thunbergs own statements and writings) ask people to focus on her message, not her. By linking the phrase to the avalanche of global awards and accolades bestowed upon Thunberg, the redir looks like a tongue-in-cheek mockery of her fanbase. I'm not saying that's the creator's intent, only that the redir is susceptible to this interpretation. Unless someone finds a good reason to write an article about the phrase itself, the best solution is delete. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC) PS Or Articlize After posting that I discovered Thunberg and others have produced a documentary by this title. This redir could possibly turn into an article about that film. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Vice special by this name is given a paragraph of coverage in the target, making this redirect suitable. signed, Rosguill talk 17:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn: There is apparently a mention of this in the target that I missed at first. Thanks for pointing this out, Rosguill. Geolodus (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Between the Vice special by this title and the film documentary by this title, I'm going to retarget the redir on the article itself rather than just the section about her prizes and awards. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NewsAndEventsGuy wait but that's where the mention is, so I'm not sure this suggestion is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I've started listing sources at the redirect's talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, can someone close this discussion now? Geolodus (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pinging the sole remaining delete vote, Crossroads1 signed, Rosguill talk 06:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is in that kind of use, then I guess it should be a retarget to her article as a whole. -Crossroads- (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, someone please close with retarget instructions NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I think we have a consensus to keep the redirect, I don't think there's a consensus of whether the redirect should point at the article or a section. I for one think that the current section targeting is appropriate, as it is the only place in the article that the film Make the World Greta Again is mentioned. signed, Rosguill talk 21:56, 31 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.

Boomerang (2018 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It did not release in 2018. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It was originally slated for a 2018 release, though that may not be much of an argument for keeping this redirect. Geolodus (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the redirect is not particularly useful and it does not have any history that would be worth preserving. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – It is factually inaccurate since the release didn't happen in 2018. Senator2029 “Talk” 18:13, 30 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.

Hevatt-Packard[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) 23:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Hevatt" is an unlikely misspelling of "Hewlett". OxiClean Versatile Laundry Stain Remover (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added the deletion notice to the redirect as the nominator did not do so, and fixed the stats link. Both the nominator and the creator of the redirect are currently indefinitely blocked (for different reasons). –Sonicwave talk 17:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This doesn't seem too plausible to be searched (two incorrect letters and a missing "L"), and stats show that the redirect had 77 pageviews since it was created in November 2017. –Sonicwave talk 17:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Obvious misspellings like this are not helpful. Senator2029 “Talk” 18:11, 30 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.

Infected Mushies[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) 23:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely evident that the band has been referred to by this name. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:16, 26 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.

GIMP 2.10.6[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 16#GIMP 2.10.6

File:Torontogirl.jpg.JPG[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 10#File:Torontogirl.jpg.JPG

Wikipedia:WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 10#Wikipedia:WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_26&oldid=1088037247"