Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 7, 2019.

House of Swabia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 20#House of Swabia

Toyota Yaris ONYX[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. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a mention. Sheesh - it took me less than a minute to do a web search for a suitable reference and only a few more to add it to the article. Probably less effort than it took to create this discussion.  Stepho  talk  22:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it is mentioned in the article. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  12:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though I do suggest we refine the redirect to the section "North America". — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Deletion rationale no longer applies. - Ryk72 talk 13:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Now mentioned in target, leaving no reason to delete. Geolodus (talk) 19:59, 11 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.

Vetlehamar[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) 16:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target or its corresponding article on noWiki or nnWiki, no results in Google Maps. signed, Rosguill talk 22:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep given the use of the alternative name Vetlehamar for Lillehammer, as you can see in searches (e.g. [1] and [2]). Mostly used synonymous with Lillehammer (and widly used in Nynorsk texts) from the mid/late 1800s to early/mid 1900s. Part of the Norwegianization of placeames, Lillehammer was supposed to be renamed Vetlehamar in the early 1900s (like Kristiania was to Oslo, Bergen to Bjørgvin, Trondheim to Nidaros, Fredrikshald to Halden, etc. - Some of them didn't happened because of large protests from people). It can be readen about in the different sources from the National Libary of Norway. --Volum-ion (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 7 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.

Italy 2026[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 18#Italy 2026

Uomo Qualunque Front[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) 16:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely and useless redirect, written half in English and half in Italian; it should be deleted. Wololoo (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep given the use of this exact phrase in sources (e.g. [3], [4] (note 7 on page 14), [5], [6] (second column of "A Paddle Streamer in the Atlantic" on page 4), and more this is neither unlikely nor useless. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 7 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.

Feynmanium Element 137[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) 16:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if element 137 had its own article or feynmanium was the official name, it is redundant to include two names in the title. Redirects like this constitute a Pandora's box (e.g. Fluorine Element 9 and Flerovium Element 114 do not, and should not exist). ComplexRational (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Firstly WP:PANDORA is a recently-added section of an essay (that doesn't as a whole have universal consensus - it gets about as much wrong as it does right) and directly contradicts WP:OTHERSTUFF and the lack of precedent, accordingly whether other redirects with this formation do, don't, should or shouldn't exist is entirely irrelevant. Anyone using this redirect will be taken directly to the only content we have they could be looking for, so it's both useful and unambiguous so there is no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. This is a Pandora's box worth opening because it would lead to the creation of useful redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) (replying to both) My primary concern is that anyone who gets as far as typing "feynmanium" or any other element in the search bar will already find an article or a redirect to it (e.g. feynmanium already points readers to what they were looking for, and can be typed far quicker); a search for "element 137" (or similar redirects) alone will also satisfy readers. I still don't see how it's not redundant to define the topic twice in a single title. As far as setting a precedent, where would we draw the line between potentially useful redirects and redundant redirects that could be created ad infinitium?
  • As a side note, WP:ONLYESSAY is an argument to avoid here (unless I misunderstood a key point in your rationale). ComplexRational (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such thing as a "redundant redirect" - a redirect is either useful or it isn't, and that can only be judged on its own merits. Whether other similar redirects do or not exist is irrelevant. Not every element is unambiguously named (Gold and mercury come immediately to mind) and unnecessary disambiguation is never a bad thing. Also the search bar is only one of many methods people use to find Wikipedia content, search suggestions are not available for most of them and anyone who does look for this is going to be taken to the exact content they are looking for, and as someone has seen fit to create this redirect we can assume that they at least find it useful (WP:R#KEEP point 5). Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify "redundant", it means that a simpler, more plausible redirect exists. Checking pageviews, this redirect has exactly one hit between two days after redirection and this RfD, whereas "feynmanium"(typed first or linked from other articles) has 15 hits per day, strongly suggesting that "Feynmanium Element 137" doesn't serve a very important function as a redirect. I also would like to know, how else would this title (and not another redirect) be reached if not via searches - it has no incoming links outside XfD.
This also is not the standard way of disambiguating, per WP:AT and WP:NCDAB. If there was another "feynmanium" (I'm pretty sure there isn't), it would either be the WP:PTOPIC and Feynmanium (disambiguation) would exist, or it would not be and parenthetical disambiguation (not even in this redirect) would be the way to go. In that case, we would have Feynmanium (element) as the simplest disambiguator; we do not say Mercury element 80 or Mercury first planet. Once again, there is no precedent for this type of redirect, even in unnecessary disambiguation. ComplexRational (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether or not this is an opening to a Pandora's box doesn't matter, we have a specific case at hand. There is nobody likely to be actually searching for this query intentionally rather than out of surprise that this name pops up in the suggestion box.--R8R (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, the element is not named "Feynmanium" (but for "Folk legend"). Tentavive naming of elements, especially this speculative, is frowned upon in scientific circles (because it would hinder the sensitive naming process: its discoverers have the primary right to propos a name). Second, an improbable search term as it repeats a name (identifier); as nom and R8R described above. Third: while PANDORA may be an essay, as an argument it stands. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an argument Pandora really doesn't stand - it directly contradicts WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and that every redirect stands or fails on its own merits - things that have had consensus here for at least a decade and probably longer. As for the substance of your argument, it doesn't matter if the element is or isn't called "Feynmanium", what matters is whether people are looking for it by that name and the target article demonstrates they clearly are. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects for Feynmanium and Element 137 have existed since 2017, both pointing to the same target: Extended periodic table § Feynmanium and elements above the atomic number 137. I can discern no potential need for Feynmanium Element 137 that would not be satisfied by one or the other of these two redirects. Consider the following comparable situation in a completely different domain. Redirects JFK and Jack Kennedy both point to John F. Kennedy. Would anyone consider creating a new redirect JFK Jack Kennedy? I can see only two differences between these examples (1) the difference in domain (physics vs. politicians) and (2) one is a section link and the other is an article link. I don't think either of those differences would drive one to a different conclusion. YBG (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 7 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.

466453[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) 16:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The former phone number for Google SMS Search, but it has been shut down a while ago and is not mentioned in the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google Assistant gives us the evidence that the domain 466453.com was used by Google. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 14:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 7 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.

Resident evil movies, games, and books[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Resident evil movies, games, and books

Østen[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 convert to set-index article. Thanks to Eureka Lott for doing the work. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not equivalent. Østen is Norwegian for "east", whereas Øystein is a given name that means something along the lines of "good luck stone". signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm finding lots of uses of Østen as a given name, although not immediately for anyone notable. I'm also finding a lot of genealogy hits for people who used one name but were formally the other, especially for people who lived circa 1800-1950. It's also worth noting that no:Øystein notes it both as an old fashioned/archaic form of the name and as the Danish equivalent. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create set index article for the given name. We have pages for Østen Østensen, Østen Bergøy, Eistein Kjørn (aka Østen Kjørn), and possibly others. - Eureka Lott 00:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Now I'm not so sure about that. no:Østen (andre betydninger) says that Østen is Swedish form of the male name Øystein. Perhaps it would be best to retain the redirect. - Eureka Lott 17:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Technically, according to the Norwegian disambiguation page you linked and tables at no:Øystein#Utbredelse, the Swedish form of Øystein is Östen, with a different diacritic than Østen (although both are pronounced the same). I would still support creating a set index article, although definitely with navigation aids to avoid confusion between all these similar names. Geolodus (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good point. I'm embarrassed that I missed that. I made a first draft of a given name page below the redirect. - Eureka Lott 19:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Like Fourth Empire above, this discussion needs closing (or relisting). Geolodus (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 7 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.

Archimedes scientific achievements[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) 17:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a search engine. Also redirects to ad-hoc Wikipedia sections are not useful redirects. Also punctuation failure. — the Man in Question (in question)

  • Comment I cannot agree with you at all that "redirects to ad-hoc Wikipedia sections are not useful redirects.". There are nearly 200,000 Redirects to sections almost all of which are correct. Per that category, "Redirects to sections are often created [...] when there is not enough information to write a whole article, project page, etc., about a subtopic, but there is enough information to include a section about it in another article or page. [These] redirects are good search terms and may have the possibility of becoming full articles someday.". I also don't understand why it is relevant here, given that this is not a redirect to a section? Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 --BDD (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine. Still somewhat baffled by the nomination statement since this isn't a section redirect, but it probably should be, to Archimedes#Discoveries and inventions. Yes, this isn't standard punctuation, but we don't demand that of searchers, and in this case, the term corresponds with the way many people would pronounce the term. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 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) 20:17, 7 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.

Laura McAndrews[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 24#Laura McAndrews

GOOGL (NASDAQ)[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 Alphabet Inc.. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly used disambiguation ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Disambiguation? Invalid rationale. The nominator apparently didn't understand the purpose of the redirect. "GOOGL" is Google's NASDAQ symbol (see [7]), and we routinely link NASDAQ and other past and current stock market symbols to articles about the corresponding companies. (In cases where they are ambiguous for historical reasons they would need to be disambiguated, but this wouldn't be a reason for deletion either.)
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I do understand the purpose. GOOGL redirects to Alphabet Inc. already, as it should. GOOGL (NASDAQ) is pointless.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you meant the parenthetical disambiguation in the title. Well, I agree that this is a bit redundant now that the other redirect exists, however, users searching for the NASDAQ symbol might routinely specify the (NASDAQ) extension as many (if not most) similar redirects follow this convention because without the extension many of these symbols are ambiguous and their place is already occupied by disambiguation pages. When I created the original redirect I didn't want it to interfere with potential other uses which could somewhen in the future be disambiguated on a disambiguation page at GOOGL, whereas links meaning the NASDAQ symbol and going through GOOGL (NASDAQ) could still remain unchanged.
I still think it should be kept for completeness and stability reasons, but I agree that the target of the redirect can be changed to Alphabet Inc. now.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. The ticker symbol now refers to Alphabet Inc. - Eureka Lott 16:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. Consensus for Retarget has formed weeks ago already (even my Keep was basically a Retarget). But even a closed as Keep wouldn't matter as the link could be retargeted to better targets like Alphabet later on as well. High time to close this RfD. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:23, 17 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.

YouTubeCanDoBetter[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. No prejudice against recreation if it's to point to sourced content. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article at all. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to an article that contains information about the hashtag (which YouTube copyright issues does not); but if none exists, delete. Eman235/talk 17:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since AngusWOOF has specified a redirect target, I accept the possibility of a redirect. We should discuss to which article the term shall be redirected. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:35, 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.

An acequia[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. This applies to all redirects still listed at this point, so not A pillar. There is broad appetite for deletion here. I did note proposed alternatives for a few of these, but didn't see a clear course of action for any of them. No prejudice against recreating one or two. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCAN. Wikipedia redirects inappropriately beginning in indefinite articles. An enormous WP:Pandora's Box. I have not included any titles of works, famous quotes, words such as A frame, A fib, or A flat where the A is not an article, phrases whose acronyms use the article a in their first initial, etc. I have also left out any ones that I thought particularly likely to spark specific debate, some of which I'll probably end up listing in separate noms. All of the redirects above that did not begin as redirects (such as A frog or A jump point) were redirected without merging, and therefore none have consequential history. Many of these were created by the same user. I am sorry it is such a long list, I know some of you prefer shorter lists, but (unless I am much mistaken) none of these have previously gone through RfD and none of these were merged upon redirection (I have checked them all twice); and the issue at hand is the same for all of them. — the Man in Question (in question) 03:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just spam that makes it more difficult for users to search. None actually aid in finding pages.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These redirects are unnecessary and only make navigation harder for most users. Geolodus (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take back "all"; keep the ones where the A is not an indefinite article, like A number. Geolodus (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – ill-judged namespace weed that serves no purpose and increases chaos levels. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ridiculous, thanks for cleaning up, —PaleoNeonate – 10:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I looked over the list thinking surely there'd be one or two worth keeping, but that's not the case. @The Man in Question: I'd imagine there are a few that start with 'the' that probably need to go the same route. –Fredddie™ 12:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • EDIT: I tagged the wrong person. –Fredddie™ 12:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]
    Yes, I know. But I figured, one thing at a time. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above arguments, and WP:SNOW (without prejudice to retargetting proposals which should be discussed separately). - Ryk72 talk 12:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
W.r.t. the argument made by Tavix & Thryduulf, that these redirects are valuable to readers, I am not convinced that there is significant value lost by deletion. Nor am I convinced that individual redirects with a prepended indefinite article are the best way to address the issue of ensuring that readers find what they are looking for; I suggest that the question of prepended indefinite articles is better handled in search software by ensuring that the results include any targets which match the search string with an initial "a" or " an" removed. Looking at other "common noun" articles which do not have a redirect with a preceding indefinite article, this appears to be an issue which is already resolved - the target articles are invariably included in a search list as the first or second^ item listed. That is, we are saving readers a single click (assuming that the common noun is the intended target; which is not necessarily a safe assumption). c.f. A weasel (which also lists "wild weasel" and "weasel words"), A frock (which also lists "frock coat"), A camel (which also lists "camel case"). ^The sole instance that I found of the common noun not being listed first in search results is A dress, which lists The dress first. - Ryk72 talk 15:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Basically keep ones where they would likely be hyphenated like bring your A game AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. As stated above, though, A pillar is not on the list. — the Man in Question (in question) 17:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A (programming language) redirects to Assembly language, supporting AngusWOOF's proposal. Narky Blert (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Tavix (without prejudice to retargetting proposals which should be discussed separately), these are entirely harmless redirects that give value to readers. Deletion will not bring any benefits to the project, but will cause harm by making content harder to find. Thryduulf (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all bar the exceptions identified by AngusWOOF. Every single one would otherwise have to be DEFAULTSORTed, or they will appear in the wrong place in a printed index. They also increase searchbox clutter. Narky Blert (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A minor one-time inconvenience for an editor (defaultsort) does not come remotely close to outweighing the benefits to readers provided by these redirects. Search box clutter is unfortunate for some readers but that should be technically solvable and again doesn't outweigh the benefits to those readers who do use these terms to find the content they are looking for (if it was otherwise then we'd routinely delete misspellings, misnomers, incorrect capitalisations, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget A pillar per Peter, I would agree that the redirects are otherwise useful but WP:Pandora's Box says otherwise. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:COSTLY. Pandora's box is already opened a crack here, time to slam it shut. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - pointless. Deb (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at least some - I noticed this discussion after visiting "A distal radius fracture", which struck me as an odd search result from typing "distal radius". "A number" should be deleted (or retargeted) since A Number (different capitalization) is a separate article about a play. "A mole" should also be deleted as it could refer to either Mole (unit) or Mole (animal). The ones with parenthesis ("A ground effect vehicle (GEV)", "A spoiled child (spoiled brat)", "A geographic information system (GIS)", "A failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA)", etc) seem less plausible to be searched by users, so I would support deleting them.
I would lean toward deleting the rest of the redirects as well, although I could see some of them being searched up by users ("A public library", "A girl", "A person" etc, though their view stats don't seem to be particularly high). –Sonicwave talk 05:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion is starting to look like "WP:TRAINWRECK vs. WP:TNT", and hoping more discussion can clarify that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 7 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.

1000th millennium and others[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. No consensus prior to the relist, and no further comments after the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirects, unneeded. -- Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Just delete them if you deem them unneeded. Matthew Cenance (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MatthewCenance, none of the CSD apply to these redirects, nor does PROD apply for redirects. As such, this would be the only appropriate venue. (That said, delete per nom.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see at least 1000th potentially being useful as the sort of thing people would idly search to get to the material at Timeline of the far future. None of these are old enough to have solid stats but 100th millennium, which has been around since 2009, gets a decent amount of hits despite not being linked anywhere. My feeling is keep 1000th as reasonably likely and weak delete on the rest since I can't see people trying them without trying the earlier ones keep all and wait to see which ones people are using per Thryduulf below. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 18:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1000th per Nizolan, Keep the rest as harmless and of unknown utility - keep them around for 6-12 months or so and see how they are actually used and revisit them if it turns out they aren't used. They're not incorrect, they aren't in the way of anything and there aren't any better targets I'm aware of. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, I've changed my !vote to keep all. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 15:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 7 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.

Em engine[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. No consensus prior to the most recent relist, and no additional comments after the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deletion. EM Engine is not an established term for the RF resonant cavity thruster. Someone confused it with "EM Drive", which is an established term. The sites that can be found by searching EM Engine all use EmDrive or EM Drive. Heptor (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - at the very least it should be "EM engine" with capital M, but I don't see that used with any relevant frequency either. "EM drive" has to stay, that is clear. --mfb (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean you don't see it being used in the reliable sources I quote directly above? Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 7 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.

Thai peoples[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 Ethnic groups in Thailand which has emerged as a nice compromise option from the deadlock between Thai people and Tai peoples. Tai peoples is already prominently linked in the lede, and I'll add a {{confused}} hatnote to Thai people. -- Tavix (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In plural, this is more likely to be a typo meant to refer to the multiplicity of ethnic groups known as Tai peoples, of which Thai is one out of many. Originally redirected to Tai peoples by User:Saimdusan in 2008, retargeted to Thai people by User:Unreal7 in 2012. Paul_012 (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep per WP:CHEAP and WP:COSTLY. It may have started life erroneously, but it's not an implausible typo. I don't actually see any benefit in deleting it, but am more than happy to hear the rationale explained in more detail by the nom. per my response below. I suspect that the more common search would be for "Thai people", and that "Thai peoples" should remain as a plurals error rather than a Thai/Tai error. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was suggesting to re-target it back to Tai peoples; sorry if this wasn't clear. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha, I see. Not a straight forward call. If anything, I think there's a strong case for renaming the article space for the former to "Thai (people)", and the later to "Tai peoples" in line with other encyclopaedias and our own WP:NATURALDIS. I haven't actually got a clue as to whether the majority of readers would be looking for the multi-ethnic contemporary nation-state, or the article on the Tai ethnic group. I suspect it would be the contemporary nation-state, ergo (sans article move) I'd suggest that it remain pointing to Thai people. I notice that the "Tai peoples" article lacks a DAB hatnote. It's probably worth checking the talk page to find out whether there was consensus to not have one at some point. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For better or worse, titles like Thai people (not Thai (people)) are standard (e.g., Romani people, Olukumi people, Khmu people, etc.; just take a glance at this category to see dozens of examples: Category:Ethnic groups in China). — the Man in Question (in question) 00:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree with you, the Man in Question. It was a passing thought as it was used on occasion for ethnic groups in the past where things were a little ticklish over a region or a people, but would only be of any value for consideration if 'Tai (peoples)' were the NATURALDIS... which is not the case. As we've both concluded, retaining the current redirect to 'Thai people' makes the most sense. In the infrequent situations such as this, hatnotes are the dominant source for clarification for the reader. I don't believe the reader is going to overthink the disambiguation, therefore there's no need for us to do the same. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say: Weak keep the redirect to Thai people and trust that the hatnote will guide those looking for Tai peoples. The Thai spelling clearly belongs to Thai people, and the peoples/people distinction is slight enough to be subordinate to the aforementioned spelling. [But I see Deryck's point too.] — the Man in Question (in question) 00:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Tai peoples. The Tai languages make an aspirated vs unaspirated distinction and "Thai" is a valid spelling of the wider people group as well. "Tai" and "Thai" are simply two different romanisations of the same term, which English-language literature co-opted to distinguish between the broad people group vs the narrow ethno-national people group. I would say the plural "peoples" should swing this title towards the broad people group. @Chaaak: Any comment? Deryck C. 14:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good point. I'll change my vote to only a weak keep. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that Tai languages, the DAB page for Tai, and various arguments over how this should be handled has created no end of problems. Again, I'd stick with the redirect in question remaining targetted at the Thai people article, but would strongly suggest that what is being implied (a merge of the Tai peoples and Thai people articles should not be addressed here, but brought to the attention of editors who work on the broader Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups project. It's a separate question to that of a redirect and should not be !voted on in this limited venue. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not convinced by Deryck's argument as most people searching on the English Wikipedia will be unaware of the nuances of the Tai languages and will be looking for the same target as if they searched "Thai people". Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to close this as no consensus, but maybe I'll throw out Ethnic groups in Thailand as a possibility. Tai peoples is listed in the first sentence; Thai people isn't, but probably could be. Semantically, I think there's a solid argument for parsing "Thai peoples" as "wikt:peoples that are wikt:Thai", compared to a misspelling of "Tai peoples" and an uncommon/irregular plural for Thai people. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 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) 18:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if consensus can be formed on a target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ethnic groups in Thailand. Not sure if a potential closer was already counting my earlier comment as such, but I thought I'd make it official. Let's not assume the search term is a mistake, and readers will have access to the other relevant topics anyway. --BDD (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD. Makes the most sense, since "Thai" is more likely to be used to mean something related to Thailand, than as a misspelling. Also, popular proposed target (Tai peoples) is in the very first sentence there. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:52, 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.

Fancy food[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. No consensus prior to the relist, and no further comments after the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's close enough semantically that I wouldn't nominate this for deletion in a vacuum, but there's possible confusion with the pet food brand Fancy Feast. signed, Rosguill talk 17:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there's possible confusion, why not add a hatnote ({{redirect|Fancy food|cat food|Fancy Feast}})? (Though that might lean into "Greek philosopher" territory.) Eman235/talk 20:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is a Fancy Food Show from Specialty Food Association. Fancy is not the name of a brand for Fancy Feast, rather, it uses (whatever) Feast for their products. Nothing's really using Fancy as a brand though, besides non-notable businesses (some grocery stores). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hatnotes can be added if there is anything worth hatnoting - I can't find any references to the Fancy Food Show that omit the word "Show". I will create Fancy Food Show as a redirect to Specialty Food Association#Activities though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 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) 19:52, 7 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.

Hannibal (2006)[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) 16:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


None of the subtitles for these redirects appear to actually be associated with the film. signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill What do all these notices saying the redirects I've added have "been reviewed" mean?

I suspect it means someone has complained about me correcting the title somewhere, so have asked for it to be checked, along with all the alternative titles.

I'm not entirely sure where I got all the alternative titles from but I suspect I got:

  • Hannibal: The Nightmare of Rome from the translations of Aníbal - La pesadilla de Roma which is what it was called in Argentina on DVD, and Hannibal - Der Albtraum Roms which is what it was called in Germany.
  • Hannibal: The Fall of Carthage and Hannibal: Fall of Carthage from the following websites (where they got that title from I have no idea) [1][2][3][4]
  • Hannibal: Legendary Commander from the translation of Ганнибал: Легендарный полководец which is what it was called in Russia.
  • Hannibal: Nightmare of Rome from the translation of Hannibál - Róma rémálma which is what it was called in Hungary.
  • Hannibal, Rome's Worst Enemy from the translation of Aníbal, el peor enemigo de Roma which is what it was called in Spain.

Danstarr69 (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I had no idea that these were from foreign language versions. That having been said, that means that they fall under WP:FORRED––because it's originally an English-language production, we don't need to have redirects for all the different translations. signed, Rosguill talk 21:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hannibal: The Fall of Carthage, retrieved 2019-07-19
  2. ^ "Hannibal: The Fall of Carthage". DocumentaryTube. Retrieved 2019-07-19.
  3. ^ Hannibal: The Fall of Carthage, retrieved 2019-07-19
  4. ^ "Jeffrey Slayter | Hannibal: The Fall of Carthage". Retrieved 2019-07-19.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Rosguill as translations of foreign titles of an English-language production. PC78 (talk) 20:08, 7 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.

ΜBTC[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. No consensus prior to the most recent relist, and no further comments after the most recent relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "microbitcoin" (μBTC) subdivision of the Bitcoin. It is not a plausible typo for millibitcoin (mBTC) because it is a mixed-script redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per similar noms. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm seeing plenty of uses of μBTC for microbitcoin on the official bitcoin wiki, and in various forums and discussions so it's a plausible search term. I'm not seeing it in reliable sources, but then I'm not seeing milibitcoin used in those sources either, only Bitcoin, fractions of bitcoin and Satoshi, so I don't see this as a barrier. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Appears to be an abbreviation in use for bits (microbitcoins). — the Man in Question (in question) 03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The current article discusses full bitcoins, millibitcoins, and satoshis. Microbitcoins clearly exist, but if they're not discussed, this redirect is of no help to readers who know about them, and only stands to confuse users who don't. If this is a real unit, though, the better solution would be to incorporate it into the article. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 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) 19:50, 7 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.

What wp is not[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 20#What wp is not

C13H8OF[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) 02:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C13H8OF was created by mistake: formula of 4,4'-Difluorobenzophenone is C13H8F2O not …FO (or …OF). I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula C13H8OF. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 19:29, 7 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.

C3H6F2NO[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) 02:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C3H6F2NO was created by mistake: there is no N in formula of 1,3-Difluoro-2-propanol. I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula C3H6F2NO. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Gyimhu knows what he's talking about when it comes to molecular formulas. If he thinks it should be deleted, it probably should be. (All kidding aside, the deletion rationale makes perfect sense.) Pichpich (talk) 19:04, 7 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.

Bushinryu[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) 02:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, fancrufty. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 7 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.

Let's Sing (video game series)[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) 02:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target article doesn't mention Let's Sing or its developer Voxler. signed, Rosguill talk 17:38, 7 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.

Rural Transit[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) 02:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague to be useful (potentially may even be a notable topic in itself). signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 7 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.

David Jacob (baseball)[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 Deleted via G7.. Has been deleted via G7. (non-admin closure) StrikerforceTalk 20:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Player has retired from professional baseball, per his profile on milb.com; IMO, no reason to keep this redirect, which is currently pointing to the last team for which he played. In hindsight, it was a stretch on my part to create it. StrikerforceTalk 16:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can be speedily deleted per WP:G7. The redirect serves no purpose as he isn't mentioned at the target page, and if he's notable enough for an article then this is better off as a red link anyway. PC78 (talk) 20:13, 7 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_7&oldid=912331925"