Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 23, 2019.

Dunkin'/Archive 1[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) 07:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real need for these "subpage" redirects. They were likely created by mistake while moving the Dunkin' Donuts article, and the move has since been reverted. Also, their existence had caused Bot1058 to retarget the talk archive subpage redirects to Talk:Dunkin' Donuts. Note also the "without leaving a redirect" in this move log entry for Dunkin' Donuts/Sandbox. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:17, 23 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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement/Members/User CRM[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 speedy deleted by Athaenara per WP:CSD#G6 and WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am the creator of the page. I created a user template in the Wikipedia namespace, then discovered I should have created it in the Template namespace. The template page has been created and all links to old namespace have been changed to new namespace. Mitchumch (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per G6 (or G7), as a page unambiguously created in error or in the wrong namespace whose sole author requested deletion; I tagged the page with this rationale. ComplexRational (talk) 22:30, 23 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.

Template:Moskovksaya Line[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) 07:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to delete this: A highly implausible typo Ymblanter (talk) 17:18, 23 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.

Ethnic minority[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 Minority group. MBisanz talk 17:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the former section this was pointing to no longer exists, can anybody provide a suggestion how to properly (i. e. prominently, as per WP:R#PLA) include this redirect lemma into the given target? Hildeoc (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EurekaLott: In this case, it should be taken care that the redirect lemma does occur in the target, as per WP:R#PLA.--Hildeoc (talk) 20:52, 17 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) 16:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per HideocEureka Lott. The lead of that article explicitly mentions ethnicity as one of the types of minorities discussed in the article so nobody will be astonished to arrive there. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 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.

Maxillary crest[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 Maxilla. MBisanz talk 17:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lemma as such not mentioned in given target. Synonymy seems rather doutbful to me. Hildeoc (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have made entry on Nasal septum page and needs to redirect there. --Iztwoz (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a regional term for the midsagittal crest of bone of the maxilla, formed from the fusion of the two maxillary bones, running posteriorly from the anterior nasal spine. Aka midpalatal suture. It articulates with the vomer and anterior cartilage. I'd redirect to maxilla. Nasal septum seems like a good place too, but really it's an anatomic description of a piece of the maxilla. Ian Furst (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
agree w/ Iztwoz for redirect Nasal septum--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:28, 23 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.

Destruction Duet[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 30#Destruction Duet

Rigani[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 17:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Origanum onites in Greek is Ellinikí rίgani (Greek oregano), not just Rigani. The word "Rigani" and related "rίgani " should either redirect to the plant in general : oregano, or the related surname that was derived from the plant : Rigano. --Matthew hk (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the article oregano claimed the Greek word was ὀρίγανον, chopping the ὀ in the front and ον at the back would became ρίγανη that was appeared in the wiki article Origanum onites. Matthew hk (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i did not notice it was Greek diacritics. The correct one Rígani was not yet created and may be not worth to create it as redirect. Matthew hk (talk) 15:53, 8 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) 11:37, 15 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) 07:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I note that there is no article in the Greek Wikipedia on the species, which may explain why a user was motivated to add something to the English Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 18:21, 28 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.

Ann Shea[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 17:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was redirected to a PBS station back in 2007 without explanation. Looked back in history and couldn't find any reference to an individual by that name associated with this particular station. Onel5969 TT me 11:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would NOT regard as "minor" an actress who appeared in such well-known films and TV series as Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987), ER (1994) and Passed Away (1992). Anyway, what's the point of reverting back to a link that has nothing to do with this person? It would be better to just mark the page for deletion. Rossen4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossen4 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 20 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) 02:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no mention of Ann Shea at WTIU. There does appear to be an Ann Shea who is (or was) employed at WTIU, however it doesn't appear that it would be appropriate to to insert coverage of her at that article. My searching also turned up a minor actress Ann Shea who appeared in a small number of movies/TV-episodes, however the only image I was able to find of her was in alien-costume for a Star Trek episode. It's hard to be certain due to the costume, but it appears to be a different Ann Shea. The redirect is inappropriate at best and confusing at worst. The redirect could always be recreated if/when we have an article that actually covers an Ann Shea. Alsee (talk) 15:32, 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.

Ohio Star[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. MBisanz talk 17:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd case. The redirect points to Record-Courier (Ohio), which currently makes no mention of Ohio Star, and under redirect guidelines redirect shouldn't exist for that reason. Anyone typing in Ohio Star and landing at Record-Courier will have no idea why they're on that page.

After some digging I found a US Library of Congress historical listing for Ohio Star. It says the Ohio Star was a newspaper that existed from 1830 to 1854. It then explains a complicated history of many changes in ownership and name, including official status as an organ of various political parties. There doesn't appear to even be a list of the various names over the years. Finally, it says "In its current incarnation, it is known as the Record-Courier". The Record-Courier came into existence in 1961.[1]

The newspaper Ohio Star ceased to exist 165 years ago, with a 107 gap before the Record-Courier was established in 1961. Any connection between the two is tenuous in the extreme. Under normal circumstances I might add some mention of Ohio Star to the Record-Courier article and leave the redirect in place. However this is not a normal circumstance.

Recently a campaign financing org and political action committees (PACs) set up a bunch of clone websites each claiming to be a local newspaper, with largely clone content, each claiming to be the Most reliable local newspaper for their region, despite lacking any actual newspaper. See Snopes item and story at Arstechnica. In the modern US political environment, the theory is that local newspapers are considered more trustworthy. So naturally websites for fake local newspapers were set up as a cover for pushing campaign propaganda. The clone websites largely carry the same content, and that content is padded out with international coverage syndicated from the Daily Mail (which is explicitly banned as an unreliable source on Wikipedia). One of these fake-local-newspaper websites claims the name The Ohio Star.

The old Ohio Star newspaper ceased to exist 165 years ago, and has only the most tenuous connection to the Record-Courier. I see little chance that readers are obtaining any meaningful value from this redirect. On the other hand I see great potential for harm in this redirect, in that anyone typing in "Ohio Star" is almost certainly doing so in relation to the modern fake-newspaper website. Sending that user to the Record-Courier article will almost certainly confuse them, and even worse they could interpret our article as documenting the existence of a modern day genuine-newspaper called The Ohio Star. There is no such newspaper.

I believe readers will be best served simply by deleting this confusing redirect. Alsee (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a case of the Record-Courier article needing expansion than it being incorrect, especially the history. The Record-Courier counts the Ohio Star's establishment as its founding year and the histories I've read do as well. 1961 is simply the year the paper was fully merged and was no longer printed in two separate forms (one for Kent, one for Ravenna). The two had been effectively merged as a single entity since the 1930s. The Library of Congress page you linked to shows the succession of newspaper names, going from the Star to the Democrat, Republican-Democrat, Republican, the Evening Record, and eventually the Record-Courier (after a merge of the Ravenna Evening Record and the Kent Courier-Tribune). If anything, the redirect should be turned into a disambiguation page if there is concern about this "new age" Ohio Star that now exists. The 19th century Ohio Star comes up in Ohio history fairly regularly since it was one of the major papers of the old Western Reserve, plus it shows up consistently in the early history of the Latter Day Saint movement which was headquartered nearby in the 1830s. --JonRidinger (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JonRidinger you can't make a disambiguation page when there is only a single article. Alsee (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It could be with links to the Record-Courier article and the fake news website article. "The Ohio Star could refer to two news sources..." Again, if your concern that many are looking for the "fake news" website and mine that historians are looking for the 19th century newspaper, it seems like that would make the most sense since both topics are low on the notability scale, especially considering the website is less than 2 years old. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless and until someone establishes a CLEAR and DIRECT connection to the Record-Courier, and being at one end of a century-old chain doesn't cut it. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; too tenuous and possibility of harm.  — Scott • talk 14:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Fixed, so keep.  — Scott • talk 16:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom's findings and JonRidinger. The Library of Congress link clearly fingers the Ohio Star was the earliest iteration of this paper, both in the source from the Ohio Historical Society and in its own predecessor/successor links. There's also plenty of RS that cover the fake Ohio Star. [2][3] Readers are better served by an explanation rather than emptiness, which could lead to the reasonable but incorrect conclusion that the new Ohio Star is a legitimate paper that's not notable enough for Wikipedia. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated the article with the relevant sources. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:28, 21 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) 02:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per "The historical origins of the modern Record-Courier begin with the Ohio Star, which was first printed in 1830." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:50, 23 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.

Livewire (villian)[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 17:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unlikely typo for a disambiguation page Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant to Livewire (villain): we don't need redirects from typos inside parenthetical disambiguators. This was the title of an article for 3 months back in 2005: too long ago to matter any more. – Uanfala (talk) 04:21, 23 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.

Fireside (Baha'i)[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 17:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eubot redirect created for... no apparent reason? There's no Baha'i anything mentioned on that page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eubot created this as a diacriticless variant of Fireside (Bahá'í), a redirect created by Wiki-uk. "Fireside" apparently is a term for a (type of?) informal Baha'i meeting. – Uanfala (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added Fireside (Bahá'í) too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless a proper target can be identified. The current target page has no relevant content at all, which is pretty much an automatic basis for deleting a redirect. The redirects are useless at best, and confusing at worst. Alsee (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there are about a dozen mentions of Firesides or Fireside meetings in the context of the Bahai faith, not a single one of them would make a useful target for the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 29 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_23&oldid=890265986"