Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 21, 2019.

Cerrolow 136[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. An article can be written in place of the redirect, of course, but for now the redirect is serving a purpose and pointing to content. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect should either be deleted or retargeted to it's own subject (Cerrolow 136) page. (deletion or re-targeting) The rationale being that the current link redirects to Wood's metal in the table on Wood's metal. Can be seen by Wikipedia's use of bold in the table text. Cerrolow 136 is a different material than Wood's Metal. This can be clearly seen by the composition in the table the redirect links to. Wood's_metal#Related_alloys Wood's metal has a melting point of 70 °C with a composition of 50% bismuth, 26.7% lead, 13.3% tin and 10% cadmium. Cerrolow 136 on the other hand has a melting point of 58 °C with a composition of 49% bismuth, 18% lead, 12% tin and 21% indium. 2A02:A03F:5C84:ED00:6158:5948:45C1:F2E5 (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect (no change)
Sorry, but there are a few misunderstandings there about how WP works.
We have two credible choices: Cerrolow 136 as a redirect to Wood's metal#Related alloys, or else Cerolow 136 as a stand-alone article (as you recently converted it to be). It's a reasonable question as to which is best. Personally, I'd favour it as it is now, as a redirect. It's not sufficiently distinct from the alloys on that page to require separation. Nor did that article have anything in it that wasn't already part of the list article.
The current article is not overly confusing and the table is clear enough. The bolded title was just because that's the page it's on (it was an implicit behaviour from MediaWiki, but now removed). There's no implication as to the composition being anything other than the correct one you give here.
There is zero reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 21 March 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.

Winx Club: Hybrid[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) 00:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: I found this redirect while working on the Winx Club articles. There is nothing called "Winx Club: Hybrid" that I know of. The page history shows that it was created by a blocked user, who redirected this fake title to an unrelated video game. Lagoona Blue (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the fact that was originally created as a redirect to Mortal Kombat (2011 video game) is a clear indication that this was created in bad faith and there is nothing at the current target to indicate any meaningful connection with the redirect.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a good idea to see if they created sny other bad redirects.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 02:45, 22 March 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.

Thomas Liebler[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) 14:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible alternative name for the subject. There is no mention of "Liebler" at the target at all. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That redirect was created in 2007. The history of the Thomas Erastus page shows this text "Erastus, whose surname was Liber, Lieber, or Liebler, was born of poor parents, probably at Baden, Canton of Aargau, Switzerland." at that time, but without citation. This sentence was altered in 2010 and subsequently dropped altogether. There is a source for "Liebler" here. Gil Gamesh (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the edit that took out the modified version, for some reason, was by a now-blocked sockpuppeteer. I've put it back into the lede cited to Britannica.  — Scott • talk 14:41, 22 March 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.

Claudia Bill-de la Peña[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. Unopposed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect needs to be deleted because it is wrong. An article for Claudia Bill-de la Peña was created using the biorgraphical information of Frances Prince. The author apparently was confused by Prince having been a previous mayor of Thousand Oaks while Bill-de la Peña was the current mayor. The article was renamed to Frances Prince, creating the redirect. Since these are two different unrelated people, the redirect is unneeded. Indyguy (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:49, 21 March 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.

Hello Goodbye (Jonas Brothers song)[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 A Little Bit Longer. Really just restoring the previous target ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the redirect in the target article whatsoever. Goveganplease (talk) 02:24, 21 March 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.

Menardian[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) 10:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked at Menards for years and have never once heard this term used to describe team members or customers. Goveganplease (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this was created as a two-line dictionary definition article in 2007 and tagged for speedy deletion (A7, although it doesn't quite meet the subject criteria) and then 20 minutes later redirected instead by the same user (WWGB, who I'll alert to this discussion). I cannot find any sources to verify the term's existence though. There is a "Menardian Paradox" which is something related to Mormonism, and an alternative name for MSA Lay Associates, which is somehow related to the Society of the Missionaries of the Holy Apostles, which is some sort of Roman Catholic thing but we don't seem to have content on anything directly related to either topic, let alone any content that mentions the term so there is no alternative target. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:MADEUP. WWGB (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW I don't think this is madeup, I get the impression that's it is a term that is (or was) genuinely used, but not in a manner that gets it included in reliable sources. I suspect it is/was hyper-local and unofficial, nearly every large site or organisation probably has examples of this sort of term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 24 March 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_March_21&oldid=890024186"