Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 9, 2019.

Hoyveda-Grubbs catalyst[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 closure. Speedy-deleted by User:MelanieN per author request. Thank you. Deryck C. 14:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this page: incorrect spelling (I accidentally left it while moving a redirect page - should have left no redirect here) cherkash (talk) 21:02, 9 February 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.

Shut your eyes and think of England[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 20#Shut your eyes and think of England

List of formats of Kabaddi World Cup (disambiguation)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

article title does not need disambiguation. Spike 'em (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I created this one by mistake, so happy for it to be fixed.— Rod talk 14:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The whole set of articles / dabs / redirects around this are a bit of a mess, and some of my edits may be better done as page moves. Spike 'em (talk) 14:49, 9 February 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.

2017–2019 Iranian protests[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 and I don't see another relist providing any benefit to continuing this discussion. Regarding moving the article over the redirect, there is no prejudice against performing that action, but this discussion is also unclear if that course of action is controversial; for moving the page, I recommend filing a move request at Talk:2017–2019 Iranian protests. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can have a title covering 2018–2019 protests since we're just in Jan 2019 and there's no unrest, unless users are predicting protests in 2019. --Mhhossein talk 08:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Mhhossein talk 08:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does this count? --mfb (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move article over redirect per the first sentence of the article: "The 2017–2019 Iranian protests refer to a series of public protests occurring in various cities throughout Iran beginning on 28 December 2017 and continuing into 2019." Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NB, The first sentence referred to by Thryduulf has been reverted to "2017-2018" as the article contains not a single word about protests this year. The answer to Mfb's question (Does this count?) is probably no, since the pertinent question is not so much whether someone, somewhere in Iran is protesting about something in 2019. Rather whether a specific set of nationwid-ish protests which began in late Dec 2017, about specific grievances, are continuing. I think not but have tried to initiate discussion on talk. The scope of the article needs to be settled before this redirect can be resolved. Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, wait, and see. The article still hints at 2019, with just "Since 28 December 2017" as the date in the infobox, several other instances of "2017–2019", and "The country may experience more protests starting in 2019." (Did we learn that from our crystal ball?) And of course, 2018–2019 Iranian general strikes and protests throws a wrench into it all. Let's see what happens at that article's AfD (it could result in a merge, for example). If nothing else, this could end up being a plausible error. --BDD (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:05, 9 February 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 dufflebag[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. What more is there to say at this point? Other, more plausible versions of this have been created since the initial discussion. There is consensus to delete this now, but if some subsequent harm to the encyclopedia is revealed, I hope we can just as easily move on once someone recreates it. --BDD (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is a combination of (1) the inferior spelling "duffle" for "duffel", the origin of which is Duffel, (2) made into a closed compound word as a misspelling, and (3) with a definite article, "the", prefixed. This amount of error makes this an unworthy redirect, and thus I propose it should be deleted. (Prior history: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 11#The dufflebag) Bsherr (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. It is an alternative spelling, not a misspelling, but even if it was, that's not a reason for deletion of redirects. There is even a whole RCAT for these redirects, see {{R from misspelling}}. As for the definite article, that also isn't an automatic deletion. See, for example, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 7#The Google, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 3#The Scott Block Theatre and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 13#The coldest place. -- Tavix (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    However, the former two are proper nouns, and the latter is a noun phrase that if ever used in a sentence necessarily would include the definite article. All are distinguishable form this instance. --Bsherr (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since besides the nom's rationale, the use of the word "the" can hint that there is only one of its topic (or, in this case, its target), but that is not the case since there are probably countless amounts of duffel bags in the world. Steel1943 (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. The redirect is not misspelled, the definite article is not harmful or misleading and there are no other benefits that will come from deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are multiple products and companies called "The Duffle Bag" (e.g. [1][2][3][4][5]). The best place to redirect anyone searching for those is to Duffel bag.--Pontificalibus 17:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    At present, The Duffle Bag does not exist. --Bsherr (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not feel that this is a plausible search term. I don't feel strongly about deleting it --- in fact, the only strong feeling I have about this matter is my mild amazement about how much volunteer time we've spent on it! --- but I don't really see much benefit to the encyclopaedia in retaining it.—S Marshall T/C 23:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix and Thryduulf. Too many editors here don't realize how many casual searchers enter a phrase verbatim rather than using keywords. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that entering a phrase like the France or the potato – or even the potatoe, or the duffel bag – in the Wikipedia search box still gives a search result with the correct article at the top of the list. Google searches on those phrases also point to the correct Wikipedia article in the first few results (usually the top result). "Casual searchers" will have no problem finding these articles. The fact that those are all redlinks should also tell you something about Wikipedia's general approach to what constitutes a plausible term for redirection. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "duffle bag" is a legitimate alternative spelling of "duffel bag", Google shows that "The Duffle Bag" is used as a term for some duffel bag products, as noted by Pontificalibus, and I don't think leaving off the space makes it into an implausible search term. Hut 8.5 19:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a plausible search term, and the redirect only exists because an inexperienced editor didn't know how to delete a bit of vandalism several years ago. The only reason we're having this discussion now is because someone wanted to make a point about deletion policy and admin authority after the needlessly long DRV discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, you can see a list of all the articles and redirects with titles starting The ... at [6]. It's pretty obvious that we don't create redirects with "The" prepended to every single noun. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone searching with this term might be looking for the company by that name, or the article My First Album (Lolly album). The redirect hijacks their search from invoking the search engine, and dumps them at an article they surely already know about. Delete in favour of letting the search engine do its job. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per TenOfAllTrades: an implausible spelling + hijacking legitimate, for the sake of making some sort of a face-saving point, is pretty disruptive. --Calton | Talk 09:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TenOfAllTrades, Steel1943, and SmokeyJoe. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's weird, Duffelbag should have a redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does now. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:09, 14 February 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.

Googol Megaplex[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) 00:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure of whether this redirect refers to Googolplex or something else. Maybe it should be deleted? Jalen D. Folf (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: A quick check using the appropriate search engine shows that this term has been used to define a very large number, though the author of the definition is not known. The article creator insisted that the term came about in May 2009 (the same month the article was created), but the large number wikia points the origin back to 2004. The terms "Googol megaplex" and "Googolmegaplex" appear to be valid in numerology. Paper Luigi T • C 22:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, along with Googol Hyperplex and Googol Gigaplex for the same reasons. They were all created at the same time by Xplane80. They were later redirected to Googol by Ironholds with the edit summary "WP:NFT". I can't comprehend why it was redirected instead of deleted—if Wikipedia is truly not for things made up in one day, why would you want the made up term to continue to exist on Wikipedia as a redirect? Even if these are legitimate terms, they aren't mentioned at the target so someone wanting specific information on these numbers will not find it at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three per Tavix. WP:NFT should have led to deletion, not redirection. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete would confuse with Google Megaplex if Google went into the movie theater business. But looks like neologisms to me. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:40, 14 February 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.

Cartoon Network Original Series and Movies[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) Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. A better redirect already exists. No need for grammatically incorrect caps. Paper Luigi T • C 12:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Neither redundancy nor other plausible capitalisations are reasons to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 9 February 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.

Table of Numbers[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) 01:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Table of Numbers can refer to different types of numbers like fraction, small numbers... B dash (talk) 02:30, 9 February 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.

.9[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 18#.9

Restyling[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) B dash (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generic term that could apply to many things in addition to autos. MB 02:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Considering both that Restyle doesn’t exist, and it would be best for Wikipedia’s search function to help readers find what they are looking for when searching up this ambiguous phrase rather than being forced to choose from a list of concepts/partial title matches on a list page. (I fail to see how such a page could be a disambiguation page per Wikipedia:Disambiguation.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restyling is the Italian term for the word Facelift (automotive), which is also used in Spanish-language media. I thought it interesting, since it is not used in this Wikipedia, redirect it to the English term. --Geom (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC) (Moved comment from Talk:Restyling. -- Tavix (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I just added a comment that the redirect's creator left on its talk page that I believe is relevant to this discussion. As a general note, it is unhelpful to suggest disambiguating without specifying which articles are to be disambiguated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 05:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment should this go to Style? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the disambiguation page Style as an {{R from gerund}}. I'm sympathetic to dab arguments, but I think disambiguation should occur at the root word when disambiguating between general concepts like this. Luckily, such a disambiguation page already exists with relevant entries. -- Tavix (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Style as suggested by AngusWOOF and elaborated on by Tavix. That is a much cleaner approach than a separate DAB page as I had proposed above. TJRC (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more chance, I think we can get to some agreement here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This title should lead to a disambiguation page, but whether that is here or at a different title I don't have a strong opinion about. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can probably live with retargeting to Style, though I don't want to change my vote. This feels a lot like those Neelix redirect. I note that Styling already redirects there, and Restyle doesn't exist, as has already been pointed out. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current target is valid, and is excluded from the style disambiguation page as it isn't something that "style" can refer to. Nothing else in the disambiguation page appears relevant. If there are other things it can refer to that we have articles about, a disambiguation page that can include these can be created on the redirect. Peter James (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're still seeing new opinions and options, so let's leave it open for a little longer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need more inputs, this is the last chance. Iif there is no more inputs, may be we need to close as no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @B dash: Per WP:RELIST Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation either within the {{relist}} template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the debate sufficient. Could you please explain why you felt it necessary to relist this discussion for the fifth(!) time? -- Tavix (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Peter James. --Bsherr (talk) 23:54, 11 February 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.

Round-Tailed Sea Cow[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) 01:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Literal translation of the German term "Rundschwanzseekuh". Not a term that is ever used in English Plantdrew (talk) 01:39, 9 February 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.

Nature's speedbump[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) 01:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find any evidence that manatees are ever called "nature's speedbumps", even in jocular contexts. Plantdrew (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of jocular contexts for nature's speedbump being used as a description for a Manatee, typically in the West Florida Area. Here's a simple google image search for t-shirts. Google Image Search for Nature's Speedbump Steelangel (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Steelangel. Thryduulf (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Steelangel has chosen an overly-specific search to support this redirect, which gives a misleading impression of the phrase's usage. Yes, you can find manatee-related content if you image search, as they did, specifically for nature's speed bump manatee. On the other hand, a search for the bare, unqualified term – nature's speed bump – shows plenty of other uses. Squirrels are apparently also widely described as Nature's speed bumps.
    And if you just do a text search for "nature's speed bumps" the top hits are something else again: first, sastrugi; second, fifth, and eighth frost heaves; seventh, rabbits; ninth, wetlands. The phrase is used in a wide variety of contexts as a colorful and evocative figure of speech with a wide variety of context-specific meanings. Speed bumps are a well-known part of modern life, so they make a handy and widely-used metaphor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was convinced by Steelangel's comment until I read TenOfAllTrades'. The term has too many uses to be a redirect, and it's not really worth having a dab page there. Just kill it.--Srleffler (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the above. --Bsherr (talk) 23:56, 11 February 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.

Atatürk and Kurds[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 17#Atatürk and Kurds

Depressive disorder[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 Mood disorder#Depressive disorders. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These article should redirect to the same place. Why do the singular and plural redirect to different places? Mstrojny (talk) 21:38, 9 February 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_February_9&oldid=1078353580"