Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 24, 2019.

Spezial:Beobachtungsliste[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete Very unlikely a user would type the German term into en wiki's search bar. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, but highly likely that a user will switch from their German watchlist to their English one by editing the URL, changing "de" to "en". I am pretty sure that is what this redirect is for. —Kusma (t·c) 12:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible cross-namespace redirect. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 20:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful for German editors to quickly move between watchlists, and harmless. —Kusma (t·c) 12:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the last three consensuses to keep - no indication that anything has changed since then. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED, specifically in the spirit of the portion regarding...

    In addition, having redirects from foreign languages gives readers the impression that an article exists in their native language. This is not always the case. Due to how third-party search engines work, readers could be forwarded to the English Wikipedia without any reference to an article in their foreign language, especially in the event that the article does not exist on the Wikipedia of the redirect's language. This issue can hinder the potential for an article to be created in the Wikipedia of the redirect's language.

    The fact that this redirect exists on a Wikipedia other than the German Wikipedia is problematic since it could potentially be a magnet, pulling German readers from third-party search engines and forwarding them to the English Wikipedia ... which is problematic since they are most likely attempting to look up pages in the German Wikipedia is looking up this term. This redirect serves no utility on the English Wikipedia; in addition, the essay at WP:FORRED underwent a major overhaul in August 2014 which applies more to this discussion than it did before, considering that the most recent discussion for this redirect before this one happened in January 2014. Steel1943 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see the relevance of your quote to this discussion. —Kusma (t·c) 14:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In the quote, "article" should say "page" when referring to this discussion. (May have to fix that in the essay.) That, and I think I copied the wrong quote from WP:FORRED, but the latter part of my comment still applies. Steel1943 (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this is kept, it should be retained as a hard redirect to Wikipedia:Spezial:Beobachtungsliste as it existed from March 10, 2017‎ until January 6, 2019‎. Plain {{soft redirect}} is not used in the mainspace, see here. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree strongly with that, for two reasons. 1) making it a hard redirect was contrary to the outcome of the 2014 RfD discussion, and 2) making it a hard redirect turns it into a double redirect: first to the Wikipedia: space (hard) and then to the Special: pseudo namespace (soft). The fact that it is the only soft redirect to the Special: pseudo-namespace in the article space is precisely why we are here and why it should be deleted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There are hundreds (at least) of soft redirects in the main namespace, it's just most of them use specialised templates to link to sister projects. Anyway, I agree with Godsy's suggestion if this is kept it should be a hard redirect to the soft redirect, if we want it to be a soft redirect then just make it a direct soft redirect to the target, rather than making a user click more than necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A hard redirect to a page bearing a soft redirect is fine. A double redirect is one hard redirect that points to another hard redirect. Many hard redirects point to soft redirects, which can be seen by exploring Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Wiktionary redirect a bit (e.g. the hard redirect Floccinaucinihilipilificatious that points to the specialized soft redirect Floccinaucinihilipilification). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Accidentally omitted qualifier to my initial comment added in bold above; hope that clarifies. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:47, 10 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) 15:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per this discussion and 3 prior discussions, some editors find this redirect helpful, and I am not seeing any deletion rationale here that would override that, even if this is IAR. Rlendog (talk) 20:59, 15 January 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) 23:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – very useful if you want to switch from German to English Wikipedia. I see no use in deleting this redirect. --Icodense (talk) 14:50, 2 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.

Eva Dennis[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 relevant content is added somewhere. -- Tavix (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently redirects to a page without content about the redirect topic/name. Can be restored once that content is in place. Jessamyn (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 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.

Direwolf[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 6#Direwolf

Charles de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona.[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. Hopefully two and a half weeks is slow enough. -- Tavix (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As already requested on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona., I re-request the deletion of this useless redirect. Long story short: Article Charles de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona. (with an useless full stop in the article's name) has been created. I created a redirect to the correct article's name (Charles de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona), so the redirect becomes redundant/useless. Cheers, ––AiPee213-100 (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not speedy delete the article existed at this title from 4 September 2017 to 11 January 2019, so if it is deleted then it needs to be done slowly to allow any mirrors and links, etc at least some time to update. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 24 January 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.

Sverbank[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. I'll tag it as an erroneous form, though. --BDD (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted as misnomer. Александр Мотин (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This wasn't tagged until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this is a plausible error given the keys are next to each other on a QWERTY keyboard, that "sv" is a much more common combination of letters than "sb", Be (Cyrillic) and Ve (Cyrillic) have notes that they shouldn't be confused with each other, and it's been made enough in the "wild" (eg: [1][2] [3]). -- Tavix (talk) 18:30, 4 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.

Annunciation Day[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 Feast of the Annunciation. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Lady Day, because the two "different" days are merely synonyms for the same religious festival: it is the festival that celebrates the Annunciation, but it is not itself the Annunciation. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Feast of the Annunciation, which seems to be a bit broader than Lady Day (Christianity vs. English). -- Tavix (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Feast of the Annunciation per Tavix. I agree that there's a distinction between the biblical event and the festival (and that the former wouldn't really be called "Annunciation Day"), but the broader place is more appropriate to target. --BDD (talk) 22:02, 4 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.

All redirects to Template:short description[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 all except Template:SHD. {{SHD}} is very ambiguous, {{brief description}} is reasonable, and the others are unambiguous. Arguments about tools not supporting redirects are weak since the tools can be improved to properly handle them. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for proposed deletion:

Shortcuts/redirects for {{short description}} are not recognised by the short description editing gadget, SHD is obscure and does not help anyone reading it, short desc is same problem and not even much of a shortcut, the others even more so. Most short descriptions should be added and edited using the gadget, there is no need for any shortcuts if the appropriate tools are used. On the rare occasions when manual templating is required the full name is not a burden. These shortcuts were created in good faith but it turns out they do more harm than good. The gadget does not handle editing of redirects correctly, and allowing redirects will make maintenance of the gadget unnecessarily complicated, so likely to be less reliable.

I propose to delete them all and salt. I have added a warning at {{short description}} about this problem, requesting users to refrain fron creating and using redirects. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pbsouthwood, These all should be at WP:RFD actually. I want to note that it would only take a few minutes for me to support the shortcuts; the main thing would be that no new shortcuts be created - that would be what would create a maintenance burden. But another issue here is that these redirects don't show up in searches like Special:Search/insource:"Short description" which we use to figure out how many manual descriptions have been added.
So I think it is reasonable to delete them all with the additional rationale that {{SHD}}, {{Brief description}}, and {{Short desc}} are somewhat more unclear than {{Short description}} in the wikitext (same reason for deleting {{Sdesc}}), and {{Shortdescription}} and {{Short-description}} are no shorter and barely used. AWB and similar anyways replace template redirects with their target and so we may as well not have them at all. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Galobtter, of course you are right. I am obviously working too late. I will move the whole catastrophe to RfD. There are only significant numbers of {{short desc}}, I have cleaned up the others already. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OK, the editing gadget referred to, User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper, now works well and is proposed to become a regular gadget that editors can select in their user preferences. If the programmers say the shortcuts make too much work then it's difficult for non-programmers to argue back. Nevertheless let's put the counter-argument:
  1. So why not always use the gadget and do without the shortcuts? When inserting a short description along with other edits to a page, it is natural to do both at the same time, within the same edit; but that way you need to type the template name. Completing the rest of the edit and then going back to use the gadget will mean making two edits for the price of one, with effects on Recent changes and watchlists, and allowing stringent critics to claim that you are inflating your edit counts.
  2. Insofar as it is argued that the shorter template shortcuts are "obscure" or "cryptic" in wikitext – as also here – these are common in Wikipedia, as for example {{Rip}}, {{Cc}}, {{FSS}}, {{LR}}, or {{Mtc}}. Many others will be found in Category:Redirects from template shortcuts. As far as I am aware there is no guidance that such shortcuts are now deprecated.
  3. The last three redirects nominated, rather than saving typing, allow for misremembered or mistyped versions of the template intended.
In summary, my view is that these existing shortcuts should stand. Can an initiative badly in need of more contributions afford even the small deterrent of insisting that all shall type {{short description}}, the whole of {{short description}}, and nothing but {{short description}}?: Bhunacat10 (talk), 22:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
short description is not hard to remember. Preview exists. If you were to make any random typo that would not be a good reason to use it as an additional redirect. Unlike redirects to articles, which are useful for searching, redirects to this template can cause maintenance problems, but then it is someone else who has to fix them. Would that also be considered artificial inflation of edit count? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Template:SHD since it's new and a bit ambiguous and implausible. Keep the rest as unambiguous and harmless. Steel1943 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to this. --Daviddwd (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the last four. Delete {{SHD}}, since it's quite vague. The ones to keep are quiet useful and of I created {{Shortdescription}} after I repeatedly added it as a redlink because at the time only {{Short description}} (with a space) exists. It's the gadget or any tool for that matter that should be reconfigured to recognize the redirects not other way round. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them including 'SHD' that I created. — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these redirects appear helpful and it's usual to have template shortcuts that save typing, especially so for a template that is expected to be added to several million articles. People edit in all kinds of ways and it's not reasonable to expect that everybody should use the gadget. Now, if there's a need for standardisation – so that all instances of the template should use its exact title, then couldn't this be achieved by making the shortcuts autosubst as their target? – Uanfala (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uanfala Sounds like a possible solution. Could you tell us more about "autosubst" or give us a link for it? Thanks: Bhunacat10 (talk), 14:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's really beyond my expertise (maybe ask at WP:VPT?), but the way I see it, the individual redirects can be converted into wrapper templates for the target and set up so that they will get automatically substituded by a bot (the way this is done for {{cn}} or {{unsigned}}; see User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster). For example, if an editor adds {{shortdesc}} to a page, then the bot will come along and replace it with {{short description}}. – Uanfala (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've not encountered the term "autosubst" before, but I suspect that it refers to the placement of {{subst only|auto=yes}} on the doc page for the template. If that is done, AnomieBOT (talk · contribs) will patrol uses of the template, and WP:SUBST it - for instance, {{unsigned|Username|Timestamp}} is altered to {{subst:unsigned|Username|Timestamp}}. I don't think it is possible to bypass a redirect in this manner without substing the target template too, which I don't think is the desired outcome. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (if possible). I'm the creator of the "Brief description" redirect. I did so because I kept getting the words "brief" and "short" mixed up, and needed to be able to remember which the correct one was. I was unaware that this would cause problems for the template, for which I apologize. Also, I was unaware of the gadget and had no idea where to find it before reading the above. I've been adding the template to articles whose existing short descriptions are incorrect. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Shortcuts (non-mainspace redirects) can be ambiguous. Regardless of whether or not these can be used to transclude the template, they are valid anyway because they can be used to link the template in discussions etc. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - just because a shortcut can me made, does not mean it should be made. Keeping them opens up the possibilty of them being used in articles, which would mean more ambiguous templates polluting the editing window. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talk • contribs) 20:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am interested to know how ambiguous {{Shortdescription}} is with {{Short description}} or how one of them —and not the other— 'pollute' the edit window. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are interested in nitpicking my response then {{SHD}}, {{Short desc}} and {{Brief description}} are ambiguous. While {{Shortdescription}} is just not friendly to read and {{Short-description}} is pointless. They pollute the editing window being ambiguous or hard-to-read and require an editor unfamiliar with them to click them to be redirected to the actual name to see what they are. Mainspace templates should be easy to understand right away and not require you to leave your current page. --Gonnym (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Template namespace#Guidelines states: Template function should be clear from the template name, but redirects can be created to assist everyday use of very popular templates. This "pollution" argument bears no relation to the specific templates here discussed, nor to the Short description project, and reeks of "I don't like it". Let those who argue this way first gain consensus to deprecate the many template shortcuts whose purpose is not obvious from the name, such as those I listed above. Then they would have some basis for picking out the ones they don't like and getting them deleted: Bhunacat10 (talk), 23:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete SHD, not helpful. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 30 January 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.

Journal of The Book of Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture[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. Indeed not eligible for R3 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • completely implausible redirect due to the "Book of Book of" portion of the name. Not eligible for WP:R3 because it wasn't recently created. ~ GB fan 18:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • GB fan (talk · contribs) objected to the speedy deletion of this pointless redirect because apparently less than a year is not 'recent'. So let's engage in some pointless WP:BURO and delete this pointless redirect. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:28, 24 January 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.

TheReligionofPeace.com[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned. 95.187.111.170 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete is a separate website / organization that likely got its name from the phrase. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And I added two more that are also commercial in nature. UnitedStatesian (talk)
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.

Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Argentina[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 4#Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Argentina

Alight Solutions[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 The Blackstone Group#Investments since 2011. There seems to be a bit of discussion that it would ideally be a separate article, and anyone is free to overwrite the redirect with an article if they are able to show that it is notable. -- Tavix (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like editors to discuss whether Alight Solutions, formerly a division of Aon Hewitt that was sold off in 2017 and is mentioned in a single sentence, should redirect to Aon Hewitt. Should it redirect to The Blackstone Group#Investments since 2011, the article about its current owner, where it also has a single sentence? Should we delete it altogether to encourage somebody to write an article about Alight? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of back story. I created the redirect back in October after the page was initially created as an attack page, then redirected to Aon Hewitt. If there is enough for it to be an article, then of course create the article for it and remove the redirect. I'm neutral on its deletion, at the time I did this merely as a tidying up task more than anything else, and if it doesn't need to be here, then so be it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alight Solutions is a completely separate company - ideally it would have it's own page. Thanks for your consideration.--Bbkahlich (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is discussed in the Aon Hewitt article and not even mentioned in the Blackstone one, even prior to the recent edits in January 2019 leading to this RFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is mentioned (not discussed) in the Aon Hewitt article, and now—after a mere 30 seconds' work—it's also mentioned by name in the Blackstone article. (It was previously mentioned, but the name Alight was missing.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to The Blackstone Group#Investments since 2011, since that is the current owner. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:18, 30 January 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.

Voltron: Defender Of The Universe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 4#Voltron: Defender Of The Universe

French-speakers outside of Quebec[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. Including the nominator, !votes are 6 against 4 to keep it in some form or target, but while I think the arguments that this should exist are somewhat stronger, I'm not convinced enough to put aside those opposing its current target. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No suitable target, since there are French speakers outside of Canada. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also, it would be quite impossible to have or create and retain an article (or section of an article) with such a scope. Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine target to French Canadians#Canada or French Canadians#Elsewhere in Canada. Presumably the phrasing of this title (because it mentions Quebec) suggests a reader searching for information on French speakers in Canada but outside of Quebec. Either one of these sections deal with that specific topic. The "Elsewhere in Canada" section also contains a list of links to more specific information by region. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too vague a search term to have one suitable target. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form per Ivanvector. Useful search term. feminist (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to French_Canadians#Elsewhere_in_Canada per Ivanvector. The context of the search implies that they are looking for information on Canada. I think the latter section is better, since the former section seems general to all French Canadians, while the latter is about those not in Quebec. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Geographical distribution of French speakers. There are French speakers outside of Quebec that are also outside of Canada. I would prefer deletion over refining because that target is inaccurate. -- Tavix (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants seem to favor keeping this in some form, but I'm not convinced where yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and refine to French Canadians#Elsewhere in Canada per Ivanvector. With "Quebec" in the name, it does seem like a really safe bet that a reader is looking for Canada. It's possible a reader would know French is spoken in Quebec but not know that it's spoken in other countries... possible, but not likely. I don't want to create further hoops for the great majority of readers to jump through. --BDD (talk) 21:50, 10 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) 12:14, 24 January 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.

Pop-cultural imperialism[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. Killiondude (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what I’d be looking for if I searched this term, but it sure would not be the target. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Cultural imperialism, possibly the Contemporary ideas and debate section. Contra Wikipedia stereotypes, it's heavier on history and scholarship than pop culture, but clearly in the same neighborhood as this idea. Mostly a weak vote because I'm not sure how common the term is. Google is showing some usage, but not extensive (and the first result deals with "K-pop cultural imperialism"). --BDD (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 11 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) 12:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I've gone back and forth on whether or not to retarget to Cultural imperialism, but I think I've finally settled here. While I agree that cultural imperialism is a better target than the current one, I don't think it goes far enough to discuss pop-culture. There are a few references to things that may be described as pop-culture, such as consumerism and American media conglomerates, but I would rather see a fleshed out article on this topic over one where you may find something relevant if you look hard enough. TL;DR: "delete per WP:REDLINK". -- Tavix (talk) 18:17, 4 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.

Sony's Marvel Universe[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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting disclaimer on this one. Regardless, there's an WP:XY problem in that the idea of a Sony Marvel Universe has some cursory discussion both at the target page and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (more at the latter IMO). Draft space is indeed the place for this for now. I think it's WP:TOOSOON for mainspace redirects. --BDD (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is some discussion at Into the Spider-Verse, that film is not technically part of the universe while Venom was announced as the start of it by Sony which is why it is more appropriate to link there. As for the need of these, both "Sony's Marvel Universe" and "Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters" have become reasonably well-known terms over the last year and people are likely to search for them. In fact, Pageviews Analysis says that the two pages are being visited (on average) 128 and 65 times a day, respectively. So removing these redirects is just going to lead people to page creation templates and encourage them to start the page too early, when we actually want them to wait until it is time to move the draft into the mainspace. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We could protect the pages if people creating pages is a concern. Note that navigating to a nonexistent article with the same name as a draft automatically includes a link to the draft (e.g., Egyptian e-Government). Page views don't necessarily mean much in a context like this. It's reasonable to assume most, if not all, of those readers were looking for an article on a Sony Marvel Universe. Do you think they were satisfied? --BDD (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think, at least in the context I've read up on, "Sony's Marvel Universe" is talking more about the live-action films, and less about the animated/Spider-Verse films. So I think, for the time being, the redirects are directed properly and are not an XY issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until the draft is finished. This term has been used quite a bit over the last year, which is evidenced in the redirect's existing page view statistics. The discussion at Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is irrelevant since that movie is not a part of this cinematic universe, and is currently planned to be launched into it's own universe/franchise separate from the live-action one in question. Nathan2055talk - contribs 01:23, 13 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) 12:11, 24 January 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.

Wikipedia:Votes for Keeping[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 10#Wikipedia:Votes for Keeping

William henry west[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/delete according to Thryduulf's recommendations. This seems to be a good compromise between the one other "delete all" and "keep all", respectively. -- Tavix (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Combining a second list of unnecessary redirects from implausible capitalisations I reviewed these at NPP but on second thoughts they are beyond what's reasonable:

Policeman
Soldier

Not necessary: his notability is entirely from being a policeman, not a soldier. I've just reviewed at NPP a vast number of redirects to this man from likely and (mostly) unlikely variations of capitalisation, initials, "officer", etc (eg William h. west (policeman)), and I really don't see that we need this extra swathe of "soldier" redirects. I'm a great believer in making redirects from plausible alternative titles, but this lot is going too far: was someone trying to make a point? There are a list beyond this in the NPP feed which I will include under this discussion. PamD 13:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Tweaked and expanded PamD 13:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • note I've combined these very similar nominations into one. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the ones with uppercase "Solidier" and/or lowercase "h", keep the rest as plausible {{R from other disambiguation}} - he was a solider (the article even lists that before policeman) so it's not incorrect and redirects are WP:CHEAP so there is no harm in keeping those that are correctly formatted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My above comment applies only to the "soldier" list, for the "policeman" list: Delete those starting with "Officer" and/or which are incorrectly capitalised, Keep the rest. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator comment/keep A full list of redirects can be found under the collapsed header on the article's talk page. I wasn't trying to make a point, just be helpful as there were other people named William H West and I tend to get frustrated by deficient redirects, esp when I am on mobile and making 15 queries isn't easy. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:15, 16 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) 11:30, 24 January 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.

Heart pain[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 1#Heart pain

Environmental issues in Europe[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. MBisanz talk 04:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have an article about environmental issues in Europe, and the category targeted by this cross-namespace redirect does not concern environmental issues in Europe. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given its age and use in Template:Environmental issues in Europe this could use a little more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet the high bar for cross-namespace redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:36, 24 January 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.

Intel Core gen10 (TigerLake)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Intel Core gen10 (TigerLake)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_24&oldid=1138582570"