Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 6, 2019.

Millard J Fillmore[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fillmore, as far as I can tell, did not have the middle initial J. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – This search brings up some instances of this usage. Not sure if it is enough however. J947 (c), at 00:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    N.b., It's good practice to add -wikipedia when using Google for these purposes. In this case, it cuts the results down to a mere 48. But that does leave a few serious sources, including books and older newspapers. Since it seems Fillmore didn't have a middle name at all, I'm leaning towards finding this acceptable, but I'll also tag it with {{R from incorrect name}}. --BDD (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How bizarre. I started the same search as above (with -wikipedia) and found similar results for all letters A-I! A small handful were identifiably about other people, but on the whole, it seems people have plugged almost any letter in as a middle initial for this man who seems to have not even had a middle name. So I'm inclined to see this as junk at best, and hindering access to anyone who may have actually had this name at worst. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, not even applicable to a fictional character with such a name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; wow. Could just make redirects for all letters but that's 52 ridiculous redirects ('x' and 'x.'). J947 (c), at 04:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I helped get the Millard Fillmore article to FA. He had no middle name or initial. Neither did quite a few presidents of that time, like Abraham Lincoln.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 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.

List of Scheduled Castes[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 restore the article. signed, Rosguill talk 23:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a list of Scheduled Castes on Wikipedia right now, though it's very possible I just wasn't searching well enough. There's history at the first title, and AfD history. The AfD, in 2012, resulted in keep, but it was unilaterally redirected in 2015. I think we need to fish or cut bait, because the status quo is not serving our readers. I think I favor restoring the article. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 6 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.

Non-Inscrits (Italian Parliament)[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) 16:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-inscrits" is not mentioned at the target (nor for that matter are "inscrits" or "inscrit", nor are any of these terms mentioned at the linked itWiki article) . From reading through Non-Inscrits, Italian senators for life do not seem like a directly comparable category. I would thus suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The term does not appear to relate to the Italian Parliament, much less to senators-for-life within it; the term has to do with lack of party affiliation in the European Parliament.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I created the artcile and the redirect, but I see your point: "Non-Inscrits" is related to the European Parliament.Glimbeden (talk) 11:52, 7 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.

Clash of the Avengers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of these plot elements are mentioned explicitly. The only one I can sort of make sense of is "Clash of the Avengers", which is broadly descriptive of the plot, but not unique to this film either. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as weird fancruft. I have a suspicion that what's happened was something started out as a piped link, e.g., "his several experiences on earth", then got replaced, by someone well-meaning but clueless, with actual redirects.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I can't imagine how many of these are logical search terms, they seem to be super obscure fancruft. Based on the PageViews analysis, these seem to have about 7 combined views since the middle of last month. Redirects are cheap, but we don't have to have them for fancruft this granular. Hog Farm (talk) 20:07, 6 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.

Dirty pop[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 18#Dirty pop

Highwaters[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 Capri pants and thanks to SMcCandlish for the thorough analysis. -- Tavix (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These 4 ought to target the same place. I'm recommending Capri pants since their defining feature is their length (at the bottom) not their height (at the top). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Highwaters, per Thryduulf below (without prejudice to a hatnote being added to the dab page), and the Retarget the rest to High Water (the dab page), per AngusWOOF above except to the editor's rationale as the three articles have nuanced differences, it seems. Note that the dab page will need to be updated to include a reference to High-rise (fashion) --Doug Mehus T·C 17:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: I don't think that's what @AngusWOOF: meant: I think he meant Retarget to Capri pants because the relevant High Water (disambiguation) entry says "Capri pants, or highwaters, shorter trousers". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Shhhnotsoloud:, yeah, I get that, but what I don't get is wanting to retarget all of these redirects to Capri pants when that target doesn't claim exclusivity. Perhaps we should keep the first one targeted as is and retarget the rest to the dab page? --Doug Mehus T·C 17:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, yes, I can see keeping the first one. I should modify my !vote slightly. Doug Mehus T·C 17:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since capris are pants, I don't really understand different targets for these. If capris are the primary topic, wouldn't it make more sense to retarget all of them there and to expand the disambiguation page with other types of pants referred to as highwaters? --BDD (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all consistently to capri pants. "High[ |-]water[s]" (under any spelling) is a generic term for short trousers/pants that are nevertheless longer than shorts (including boardshorts). The only concern I would have is that "High[ |-]water[s]" is often applied mockingly to trousers/pants (especially men's) perceived as too short, e.g. due to shrinkage, and this concept isn't covered by capris (which are women's trousers/pants that are made intentionally short). But, WP:NOTDICT; it's not our job to cover every nuance of every usage of every phrase or term. At any rate, none of these terms have anything to do with high-waisted trousers/pants, nor with anything to do on the High water (disambiguation) page. All four redirs pertain only to short-legged trousers/pants.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SMcCandlish: that's not what google results are telling me, which is that "highwaters" is used (nearly) exclusively for short trousers, but that the other terms are used for both them and other things such that there is no primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Your Google and mine are producing different results then. Combing through things Google is feeding me, like listings of Etsy items and other catalog[ue] images (when the image can be certainly tied to one of these phrases), the results I'm seeing are short-legged. Those that are high-waisted are also and coincidentally high-waisted (like the lead image at High-rise (fashion), the probable source of the confusion), but are being called this because they have short legs. Nothing at the High Water (a.k.a. High water (disambiguation)) page has anything to do with any other kind of garments. Is there a reliable source somewhere that the phrase has changed meaning to refer to high-waisted pants/trou? I think it's just an error that these were ever redirected to High-rise (fashion). It may be worth asking WT:WikiProject Fashion for input; it's been my experience that men on average have incorrect assumptions about the meanings of a lot of terms that pertain primarily to women's clothing. PS: If "The Net of a Million Lies" happens to have some sites mislabeling waterproof trousers and waders and such as "high-water" pants, we are not bound to enshrine that at WP without strong evidence that it's become a common usage. It's more likely a collocation error by a non-native English speaker (I would almost bet money on it, especially given that the majority of online direct-to-consumer clothing vendors are based in Asia, including ones who sell through Amazon and other major e-tail venues). Even if it turns out I've just missed a shift in English, I'm skeptical that a hatnote wouldn't suffice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:02, 6 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.

Television app[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 27#Television app

Bulwark[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 18#Bulwark

H₂O[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) 16:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-target to Water. Anyone entering this in the search box or URL bar (and not looking for something like a pop-culture product listed at H₂O (disambiguation) is probably an elementary-school child trying to find out what it means, not a high-school or university student or other teen-to-adult who can understand much of the present target's content. I think what's happened is this originally went to Water (molecule) which then got merged much later into Properties of water without much thought being given to all redirects to the formerly separate articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Water, per nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to H₂O (disambiguation) per nom. Although Water is the likely destination, we can't say for certain per WP:CRYSTAL, no? Moreover, there's a lot of water-related articles and I think retargeting to the dab page makes the most sense. Also, I like dab pages and, if I had my way, Wikipedia would have more of them and WP:PRIMARY would be limited only to people and companies/organizations. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 17:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No; CRYSTAL pertains to WP writing encyclopedic content that tries to predict the future. It has no relationship to editors trying to predict reader intent/behavior, which we do all the time or we'd just shut RfD down. Whether you'd change some policies and guidelines (and I think you meant WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) is likewise irrelevant; they still apply until they are actually changed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Water per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Water. I would actually think that is the primary topic, because it gives an overview of water (with links to specific articles), the most probable search; readers looking for another meaning of H2O could be adequately served by a hatnote. ComplexRational (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Water per nom. J947 (c), at 01:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Water as the primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can we add H2o to this nomination please. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also HOH, where on 28 May 2015 Jushi (who last edited 21 June 2016) gave the rationale People looking for "HOH" are probably looking for information about the molecule, not general info about "water". See also the single edit by 78.21.215.80 (also on 28 May 2015) which was confirmed on 28 June 2018 by Christian75 with the rationale revert unexplained change of redirect: I say like another editor: "People looking for "H2O" are probably looking for information about the molecule," – wbm1058 (talk) 21:03, 9 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.

Drug bust[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 16#Drug bust

Salvatore Cezar Pais[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 procedural close. This is no longer a redirect. --BDD (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target article does not mention Pais at all. 40.131.158.210 (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I turned it into an article. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:38, 6 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.

Hazelhurst, Massachusetts[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) 16:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to delete this, as I cannot find this in articles. on maps or other web pages, and thus I believe it is a typo of Hazelwood, Massachusetts. NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:09, 6 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.

Captain America: The Serpent Society[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 Serpent Society#Film. -- Tavix (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term does not appear anywhere in Captain America: Civil War. No source that it was a potential title for the film. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Serpent Society#Film, where it says Kevin Feige briefly announced this as Civil War's title. That's fairly trivial, but it's likely to remain in the article, and provides appropriate context to any readers searching for the title. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD. Good sleuthin'.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the content at Serpent Society#Film is very trivial and shouldn't even really be there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 14:39, 10 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.

(Actor) Imran Aslam[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) 16:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely use of disambiguator prior to the title. Steel1943 (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very unlikely search term. According to the page views tool, gets approximately seven views in a month. Not a very active user (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as opposite our disambiguation practices.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:26, 6 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_6&oldid=932691208"