Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 14, 2019.

Danni Dyer[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 Danny Dyer#Personal life. I've been swayed by the votes as nominator, making the consensus unanimous (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 01:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this was initially pointing at Dani Dyer, which was replaced with a redirect to the current target. I think that it's pretty clear from the categories attached to the redirect (particularly Category:1996 births and Category:Actresses from London) that this redirect does not refer to the current target, and thus I think it should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 21:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine as above to Personal life section and possible alternate spelling or typo for daughter's first name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to personal life as a type for daughter --DannyS712 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 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.

The Chris and Paul Show[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 move edit history to draft so Nightscream can continue to work on it. I'll leave the title redlinked so it's easier to move back once ready for publication, but I do see consensus to have a redirect to Christopher John O'Neill otherwise. I have no idea how long it would take, so feel free to recreate the redirect if you'd like to have in place in the interim or if the article doesn't end up coming together. -- Tavix (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "Chris" of "The Chris and Paul Show" isn't the Chris who married into the Swedish royal family. Cabayi (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep now that a viable target has been found. Cabayi (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Changed my vote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I read through the discussion on Nightscream's talk page that led to this nomination. In my opinion, the best way to handle this would be to restore all of the old deleted edit history and merge all the edits together, and move the whole shebang to the Draft so Nightscream can work on it. Does that sound reasonable? I would not want to get in the way while the redirect discussion is ongoing though, but it looks like consensus is leaning towards keeping a redirect to Christopher John O'Neill, which I agree should remain after the edit histories are restored, merged, and moved to the Draft. BOZ (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there more edit history than what is currently at the draft that was started in September 2019? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was a version to which I added at least two more citations of reliable sources, before it was deleted or turned into a redirect, all that work is gone. Could I at least be given a copy of that html or Edit Field information? Nightscream (talk) 16:41, 19 December 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.

Musical object[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. Note that "write content" votes are delete votes per WP:R#DELETE criterion #10. signed, Rosguill talk 09:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vague term that's not specific to the target, nor to any one of a large number of other possible targets. Therefore suggest deleting. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I don't think the user who listed this looked at article redirected to: The "Transformation theory" article mentions "musical objects" in the lead. Name a single music article besides that that mentions "musical objects". Hyacinth (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, how about: Set theory (music), Polytonality, Music box, Music Markup Language, Digital sheet music, just to name a few. Keep in mind that these are using the phrase in different ways. There are even more if you allow for articles which aren't primarily about music, but still mention it, such as Semantic dementia#Memory in dementia: musical objects, musical concepts, and semantic memory. At the very very least, if kept, the Set theory (music) article would be a better target. But I still think the term is too generic to be a useful redirect. A quick Google (or whatever!) search reveals the term being used in all sorts of other ways. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to musical instrument. "Object" is the problem here, not "musical". From an object-oriented point of view, everything is an object, but that is not the everyday sense of the word, and to direct it to set theory or any other "scientific" article is a bit too technical for this simple term. 85.238.91.41 (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation: While Deacon Vorbis has a perfectly valid point, the selection of articles cited do not all use the term in completely different ways, and certainly none of them uses it in the sense of "musical instrument", with the possible exception of the music-box article. The term (in my experience) is used to avoid too-specific a term such as "pitch" or "note", when a somewhat broader field of subjects is intended (including, for example, "note duration", "motif", "scale", "chord" in addition to or instead of pitches). It is therefore in fact a technical, "scientific" term in music theory, and most of those cited articles (not the one on music boxes but including the one on semantic dementia) use it in this way. If there is an "everyday" use of the term, it is certainly extremely vague. The problem with the redirect to Transformational theory is that it is misleading to the extent that it is not a term exclusively used in that field.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It seems that the term "musical object" is used as an auxiliary name in transformational theory and (following Deacon Vorbis and Jerome Kohl) in many other musical theory approaches. If some meanings of that term can be combined to a single concept, an own article "Musical object" should be devoted to it. In any case, just redirecting "musical object" to "transformational theory" is misleading when there are many other uses of the former term. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or write content per Jochen Burghardt. From reading this discussion it seems like what is needed is a disambig, set-index or broad concept article at the Musical object title rather than it being a redirect to anywhere specific. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Write content. My comment yesterday was "off the top of my head", and I was thinking along much narrower lines than I might have been. Subconsciously, I believe I must have had in mind Peter Ivan Edwards's article, "Object, Space, and Fragility in Luigi Nono's Das atmende Klarsein" (Perspectives of New Music 46, No. 1 (Winter 2008): 225-243). A search of the literature quickly turns up dozens or even hundreds of articles on the topic, often in a much broader sense, the seminal one (apparently) being Patricia Carpenter's article "The Musical Object", Current Musicology no. 5 (1967). Especially because there are several senses of the term, a substantial article could and should be created to help readers understand the context for each sense.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:44, 16 December 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.

Super Heavy (rocket)[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 redirect to targets proposed by nom. signed, Rosguill talk 01:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Super Heavy" is the first stage of SpaceX Starship and is only described in detail in the article "SpaceX Starship". I propose to retarget "Super Heavy (rocket)", "Super Heavy (SpaceX)", "SpaceX Super Heavy", "Falcon Super Heavy", and "SpaceX Falcon Super Heavy" to SpaceX Starship#Super Heavy, and the "Starship and Super Heavy" to SpaceX Starship. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment'. "Super" should also be used on an A380 after the callsign on initial contact with Air Traffic Services (ATS)... for most large aircraft this would be "Heavy (aeronautics)"- ICAO designates this type as "Super Heavy" but it's not mentioned at the article, it is mentioned at Wake turbulence. Do you think the A380 or wake turbulence should be added to the DAB at Super Heavy? I can't make up my mind. 85.238.91.41 (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this should be uncontroversial after changing the scope of the articles. They are also specific enough to avoid conflict with any other meaning. --mfb (talk) 03:05, 15 December 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.

Emissary from hell[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. Feel free to recreate if it gains a mention. -- Tavix (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, not clear what the purpose of this redirect is. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete almost-but-not-quite-correct name of lots of stuff, but apparently not the correct name of anything covered in English Wikipedia. This was probably an attempt at translating one of the episode titles mentioned at the target ("From the Secret Messenger of Hell" — itself a not-very-good but apparently official attempt at translating Japanese: 地獄からの密使) ... but it could also be an attempt at translating all sorts of other stuff too (e.g. Special:Search/"地獄からの使者", plus similar phrases in hundreds of other languages). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's his catchphrase. Ultimate someone (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea of this being Spider-Man's catchphrase sounded absurd to me, but I quickly verified it. Still, the redirect is unlikely to be very helpful if the article doesn't discuss the catchphrase. Should it? --BDD (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 14 December 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.

Nizar ancestor of Arabs[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) 01:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and implausible redirects; as the article makes clear, Nizar was not the "ancestor of Arabs" or "father of Arabs" [sic]; "Nizar father of Mudar" and "Nizar of Adnanites" [sic] is also *very* unlikely to be ever used or even searched for. Constantine ✍ 11:31, 14 December 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.

Bbmb dav public shool nangal[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) 01:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible title because of the incorrect capitalisation and spelling. Nothing links here. Reyk YO! 09:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete someone typing in "bbmb dav public" will get to the entry so the version with "shool" typo in it is not useful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' per WP:RFD#D8 implausible typo, cannot go speedy R3 as not "recently created" (2010). Six page views all year. 85.238.91.41 (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Angus and common sense. John from Idegon (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Steven (Editor) (talk) 16:58, 15 December 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.

Ccody Simpson Discography[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) 01:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo and no pageviews at all, seems completely unnecessary. CycloneYoris talk! 06:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This was a typo made at the time of page creation and fixed ~2½ hours later. This was in 2011 so all utility the redirect had has long, long expired. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, housekeeping. 85.238.91.41 (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' coupled with the improper capitalization, this does seem useless. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:24, 15 December 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.

Sandusky state[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) 01:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At most this is a pejorative nickname with very limited use. I note that there is a Sandusky State Theatre in Sandusky, OH which may be notable. I would suggest deletion due to a lack of evidence that this is a widely used term and the possibility of confusion down the road. signed, Rosguill talk 00:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Contributor321 (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Delete. This is an offensive and pejorative nickname. Jeff in CA (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after excluding results for "theater" and "theatre" (both spellings seem widely used) the most prominent results are for the Sandusky State Scenic River and its fisheries, which are equally irrelevant. There are a few hits relevant to the university, and many when "university" is added to the search term, but very nearly all of these are actually "Sandusky's state" and partial matches for phrases like "Sandusky's state pension", "Sandusky's State College home" and "Sandusky's State College retirement benefits" and so are not indications this is a useful search term. "Sandusky's state" is it seems a popular crossword clue (answer Ohio) and results for this are interspersed with the google hits as well, making this redirect misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The Sandusky State Theatre article can be created later if notable. I do see some references to that venue from other Wikipedia articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:21, 14 December 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_December_14&oldid=932529503"