Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 17, 2019.

Lama dal and chander naun[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 as a classic WP:XY. Deryck C. 13:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting both as WP:XYs resulting from page split. —Ketil Trout (<><!) 22:40, 17 June 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.

Lake Dashair and Dhankar[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 as a classic WP:XY. Deryck C. 13:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting all as WP:XYs resulting from page split. —Ketil Trout (<><!) 22:40, 17 June 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.

Tom Gerard[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) 03:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target of redirect DuncanHill (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not mentioned at redirect target. Jayjg (talk) 16:42, 18 June 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.

Desert Air[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) 03:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poor target. There are contemporary NN airlines with this name. But no indication anyone looking for the WWII air force unit would use this term. Was a DAB page, but all other entries were invalid. Recommend delete. MB 20:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it misparses the target: it's Desert [Air Force], not [Desert Air] Force. That article would be the first to show up in the search results anyway, which also make it possible to access the other entities mentioned here and there in the encyclopedia that have the term as part of their name. – Uanfala (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Uanfala, and also because the construction "X Air" is usually used for commercial airlines, so this is misleading. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:18, 18 June 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 cub at the end of The Lion King[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) 03:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This may refer to Kiara, found at List of The Lion King characters#Kiara, but in the original film, the cub born at the end had no name and their gender was unknown as well. In fact, it gets even more confusing when referring to non-canon versions of The Lion King since Kopa is considered Kiara's older sibling, but Kopa doesn't appear in The Lion King II: Simba's Pride. (The ending of The Lion King leaves viewers to assume the baby that Rafiki is holding up is Simba and Nala's first born: The second film leaves the assumption that cub was Kiara, but non-canon literature leaves the assumption that cub was Kopa.) Probably best to delete this thing. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 17 June 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.

Simba and Nala's newborn cub[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) 03:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing since Simba and Nala had more than one offspring, as evidenced by List of The Lion King characters. Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 17 June 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.

Chaka(The Lion King)[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) 03:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the WP:RDAB issue, there is no "Chaka" mentioned in any articles related to The Lion King. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 17 June 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.

Petro-[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 List of Greek and Latin roots in English/P#petr- -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect, a soft redirect as a result of WP:Articles for deletion/Petro- in 2016, would be better targeted at Petroleum Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it does, sorry. Retarget to List of Greek and Latin roots in English/P#petr-
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.

Bbnrapckn[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. ST47 (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an approximation of the Bulgarian word български, but it's not precise enough to be a suitable redirect (for one, л and и, which make 'L' and 'ee' sounds respectively, are both transcribed as 'n', which could also plausibly stand in for п, 'p'.) and I have a hard time believing any Bulgarian speaker would use it (no one has so far). I originally gave a pass to "Eyynvika", a transcription of ελληνικά, because it's a more faithful transcription, but figured I should bring it to discussion here if we're taking a look at Bbnrapckn. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, this isn't meant for Bulgarian speakers, but for people without any knowledge of Cyrillic trying to type out the the Bulgarian name for Bulgarian: български (depending on the font used, it may or may not look like a good approximation). Still, it's difficult to see how such a situation would arise. – Uanfala (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utterly implausible misspellings. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: It appears that none of the discussed alternatives for "Bbnrapckn" corresponds to a word that one would look up in enwiki. However, pageview statistics show that even though similar redirects like Pyccknn (for русский) receive few pageviews (2.83 d-1 for Pyccknn versus 2791 for Russian language), Bbnrapckn receives almost none, possibly because Bulgarian language is less commonly searched to begin with. As for Eyynvika, I am unsure whether y is the most plausible approxination for λ, or even if any Latin letter is a good approximation of λ. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhnvika, perhaps? I'm surprised that Pyccknn gets more traffic than Pycckuu. signed, Rosguill talk 23:28, 19 June 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.

Guerrilla walker[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) 03:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, searching online suggests that there's something in the Red Faction universe that is called this, but not in Star Wars. signed, Rosguill talk 17:57, 17 June 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.

Doraemon.pk[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. ST47 (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typing in this url took me to an online shoe store, no connection to the show Doraemon signed, Rosguill talk 17:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as misleading at best, deceptive at worst. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article itself is proposed for deletion, so if this article is deleted this will be eligible for CSD G8. Nonetheless, the grounds established by nom are sufficient for deletion in its own right. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:45, 18 June 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.

Amazon+Pakistan[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. ST47 (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target does not mention Pakistan. signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 17 June 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.

Rivers of Romania[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 List of rivers of Romania. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think these should all go to the same place, but I'm not sure whether this should be the incomplete list organised by length or the index of the 13 alphabetic lists (see Category:Lists of rivers of Romania, or something else. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. That is easily resolved by merging the lists. I have done just that. -- Tavix (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: You've merged list to List of rivers of Romania and so I presume you mean to retarget all the other variants to that title? Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nah, just keep them as-is. No need to do the extra work when we have bots for that. -- Tavix (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • With that edit I'd consider this resolved. Kmusser (talk) 00:47, 20 June 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.

Queen of Poland[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. ST47 (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Poland should not be redirect to List of Polish monarchs. This one should redirected to disambiguation page where thera are two articles: List of Polish monarchs and pl:Najświętsza Maryja Panna Królowa Polski (Currently red link on English Wikipedia). English Wikipedia should have this article when ENwiki has article like Church of the Holy Virgin Mary The Queen of Poland, Słubice. Why redirect is better than disambiguation page? Only List of Polish monarchs is notable here? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we take look through history of changes we can found also other redirect to List of Polish consorts Dawid2009 (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the proposed disambiguation is in violation of WP:DABSISTER. The current list has information on queens of Poland, so this is fine until a separate article is created. -- Tavix (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If "King of X" isn't the name of an article, it's typically redirected to "List of rulers of X"; see King of Poland, for example. (This is even the case when King of X can have an alternate meaning; see King of Prussia and its hatnote.) I don't see a reason to treat queens differently. Of course, the consorts list would be quite acceptable too. Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current target is exactly what I would expect to find when using this search term. Other articles can be linked from a hatnote or non-primary dab page if needed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as there are no good targets. I'm not comfortable redirecting to Marian churches in Poland per WP:SURPRISE, and the only other plausible target, Jadwiga of Poland, was actually crowned as King of Poland.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: I agree with the nominator that the current target is bad. There is no "Queen of Poland" on that page. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:10, 17 June 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.

Nadeș River (Arieș)[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. I think there is consensus here that we're faced with a binary conditional, both possibilities of which lead to a "delete" outcome: Does a river actually exist by this name in this region? If yes, our readers will be disappointed by this redirect because no article contains information about the river. If no, then it's a wrong redirect that ought to be deleted. Deryck C. 13:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Romanian rivers. Is this redirect targeted correctly? There is no mention of "Nadeș" at "Arieș" and there is another article Nadeș (river). Should we delete to avoid confusion? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. According to List of rivers of Romania: L-O (which needs some serious formatting improvements) there are two rivers called Nadeş in Romania. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have added the diacritic variants to this discussion for completeness. I see that Nadeș River (Arieș) used to be an article, but was redirected by Markussep with the summary not sure this river exists. This action is concerning to me. If the river doesn't exist, then it shouldn't exist as a redirect either, because then we're left with a few misleading redirects to an article that would rightfully have no information about the non-existent river. If the river does exist, then there should be some information at the target on the river so someone searching for this river knows how they ended up at an article for a completely different river. I'll also note there are several other similar redirects to the same target, so the problem extends far beyond this one river. -- Tavix (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I redirected this article to "Arieș" because it may exist (the creator of this article was probably good faith) but if it exists, it is so small or obscure that I couldn't find any information on it. It may also have been confused with a name for another locality (a field, a valley, a tiny village). I encountered many of these articles in the past weeks. I found several of them on hiking maps, in which cases I redirected them to the larger river they flow into (and left a mention in that article). For a similar case see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valea Făgetului River (Misir) (here I actually found it on a map). I don't think anyone will look for this river, so I guess the redirect could be deleted as well. Markussep Talk 20:11, 17 June 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.

Syriac Latin alphabet[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 25#Syriac Latin alphabet

Romanization of Syriac[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 25#Romanization of Syriac

Availability of House (TV series)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ST47 (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target section no longer exists. Other than that, it is unclear what this redirect refers to. Steel1943 (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Presumably it refers to House (TV series)#Distribution. Page history suggests a content fork of some kind. Whether or not it's a useful redirect, I don't know. 10 page views for the whole of last year suggests not. PC78 (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are also no other "Availability of..." pages, redirects or otherwise. PC78 (talk) 20:32, 17 June 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.

Hughsday[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. ST47 (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like some WP:NEO referring to the fact that Hugh Laurie was in this series. Other than that, this redirect rather made-up, and recent results for this term on third party engines are for almost any famous person with the name "Hugh". Steel1943 (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems like a rather trivial neologism. Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, only six page views last year. PC78 (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom signed, Rosguill talk 23:09, 17 June 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.

Home energy efficiency[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 House energy rating. Deryck C. 14:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not all homes are houses. Since we have an article for Home, the fact that this redirect targets a section in House is a WP:SURPRISE. Steel1943 (talk) 03:00, 17 June 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.

Sasaek[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 Political factions in Joseon dynasty. Deryck C. 14:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target page. Steel1943 (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere else either. Not entirely sure what I'm looking for, but a quick Google search wasn't helpful. PC78 (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. As best I can make out this means something like "speculation" or "introspection" in Korean (Hangul: 사색) and is also translated as "four colours" with reference to the factions of "old", "young", "southerners" and "northerners" (Political factions in Joseon dynasty maybe?). There is no entry in the Korean Wikipedia for ko:사색 and as a non-Korean speaker wikt:ko:사색 doesn't help me. All this, and the lack of mention here, leads me towards delete but I'm going to ping WikiProject Korea in case there is something I've missed or misunderstood. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 17 June 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_June_17&oldid=1138582727"