Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 9[edit]

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

Clean gas[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. Both the delete and disambiguate arguments were legitimate, and usually in such cases, we should prefer the option besides deletion. But I don't see a good sense of what that page would look like. No prejudice against the creation of a disambiguation page at this title if any editor wants to give it a try. --BDD (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the current target. It seems parallel to clean coal but a google search shows the term most closely associated with natural gas rather than carbon sequestration. It doesn't seem to be a particularly common term and has no incoming links, so it may be worth deleting if no suitable target is found. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could put in a redirect to Pyrolysis#Liquid_and_gaseous_biofuels or Methane pyrolysis (which redirects to the same target). Read the info there (KALLA), the method mentioned is a sort of carbon capture and storage of the carbon, but done before it is actually burned (it converts it to hydrogen directly, and then the hydrogen (which has no carbon) is burned.

Genetics4good (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Renewable energy which is where Clean energy redirects. Alternatively, consider natural gas if that's the primary topic for clean gas. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about Biogas? I had a look over Renewable energy to see if we could get more precise, but I don't know if this would exclude other valid topics. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate since there are so many viable targets. feminist (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This DDG search shows that "clean gas" does not have a specific technical meaning. It is simply the plain meanings of "clean" and "gas" used together in various contexts, with some non-notable company names thrown in. It's best for Wikipedia to reveal search results. Deryck C. 11:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second choice disambiguate. Deryck C. 11:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. When you exclude corporate names and results about cleaning gas appliances (using the search term what is "clean gas" significantly reduces them), this is used as a term meaning variously natural gas (sometimes but not always in contrast to town gas), hydrogen gas (sometimes in the context of having been extracted from natural gas or purer methane), clean energy in the form of a gas and syngas, in addition to the sum of parts meaning of a gas that is clean (with at least two meanings of "clean"). The only one of these targets the internal search engine lists on the first page of results is natural gas - and that in 13th place (excluding this redirect). None of the other targets appear in the first six pages of results so readers (when they get to the search results, sometimes several clicks away from where they arrive) are very clearly not best served by the search engine. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are very good reasons to disambiguate. You're probably right that its better than retargeting or deleting. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It may be helpful for someone to draft a disambiguation so we can see what one would look like.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dismabiguate per lack of unambiguous meaning. Although it doesn't have a clear meaning, it is used in various contexts. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 23:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of a lack of unambiguous meaning, and this redirect may therefore cause confusion. A disambiguation page is not possible without a number of clear meanings from articles that mention the term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Deryck Chan, and Shhhnotsoloud. With no incoming links, and the DDG search results showing the term has no clear technical meaning, there are no obvious dab targets. Even Tavix posited, in his or her relisting, for someone to post a draft dab page to see what that might look like. Thus, delete, for now, without prejudice to re-creation in the future provided it's not to the same target of course. Doug Mehus T·C 01:07, 17 November 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 Man Who Wasnt There[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 Man Who Wasn't There. An easy non-admin closure. Consensus was unanimous on retargeting as it's a plausible typo, but since there's more than one version of this film, as editors EurekaLott and AnUnnamedUser have noted, we can't be sure which was the intended target. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 01:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, there's a typo in the title. Second, there is also a 1983 film of the same name so it's not clear why the 2001 film is singled out. Reyk YO! 17:00, 9 November 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.

Human exceptionality[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, and I haven't found any sources using this term to reference special education. ComplexRational (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have an article about human exceptionality. It is a well-known topic in psychology (for example it is the subject of this famous book). I made a redirect to special education for now because this article talks about exceptional education. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as far-fetched name that cannot be expected to be an alternative name for "special education", or create a new article per Pirhayati. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 18:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation per WP:REDLINK, and since the topic is not covered at the current target article. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I encountered this phrase, I'd probably think it meant Human exceptionalism which redirects to Anthropocentrism and is bolded in the lede. But maybe readers using the phrase would be looing for the special education topic. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 11 November 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.

Flo, Albania[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the entries on the disambiguation page at Floq indicate that they are known as "Flo". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. See the history of Floq, Gjerbës, which was created as Flo, Albania in 2011. Apparently the creator misread the name of the village. It doesn’t seem a plausible typo to me. Markussep Talk 07:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Markussep, as an implausible typo (no more plausible than "Foq", "Flq", "Loq", etc.) and unused (less than 10 page views last year). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:42, 11 November 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.

Mitchell Hope[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the current redirect target about this actor other than he played a role. This is not the only role he plays. See this. It is better for this to be deleted and leave a red link when linked than redirect to something with no information about the actor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, as a performer-to-performance redirect. For performers, such as Hope, who are associated with multiple performances, it is better to let the reader select a topic through Search instead of arbitrarily selecting a single performance as "primary". -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:44, 11 November 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.

Salt-tolerant grass[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 22#Salt-tolerant grass

Untitled Avengers film[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 Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Mysticair667537 (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Implausible redirect, nobody is going to use this search term for a film that they clearly already know the name of. Was almost deleted in previous RFD, but was kept only because of one single keep vote that argued that it should be kept because IMDB originally had the title as "Untitled Avengers film" but that's not a valid argument. IMDB is not a reliable source. Mysticair667537 (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Didn't know it was a working title.

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.

American Indian history[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 21#American Indian history

Dell Financial Services[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 21#Dell Financial Services

5 demands[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 21#5 demands

🕵️[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 recent comments after clarification seem to support the idea that this is at worst harmless, as an unambiguous emoji with a clear and obvious target. ~ mazca talk 22:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-useful emoji redirect, analogous case to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 10#💁. Character does not exist in target article. Zerach (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Per Emojipedia, the name of this emoji is "Detective" and it targets the article named Detective so this is completely unambiguous. This is not analogous to the linked discussion because it was found there that 💁 was ambiguous. -- Tavix (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per User:Zerach and nom's stated rationale. In no way would I, or arguably anyone, accidentally search Wikipedia by emoji. In fact, this could arguably be a strong case for speedy deletion. We may also want to ban the use of emoji redirects the wikiworld. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are specifically discussing 💁, not emojis in general. Your proposal would require a wider discussion, probably at WT:CSD. I'm not sure why you think emojis would only be searched "accidentally". Emojis are widely available via smartphones, and so is Wikipedia. It's easy to type an emoji into Wikipedia's search engine and learn what the emoji means (in this case, "detective"), and at the same time one can then learn about detectives by reading that article. -- Tavix (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I put 🕵️ there not knowing that it also included the Variation Selector. It was a mistake. Pacingpal (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait. Is this discussion about 🕵️ or 💁? Because the first one was a mistake. The second one was put there because I thought people were going to search it, so I thought why not make it redirect to Emoji? Pacingpal (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pacingpal: I patrolled both redirects you created, and approved 💁→Emoji because it appears in the article to which it redirects (the redirect deleted in the linked deletion discussion had a different target). This discussion relates to 🕵️, which doesn't appear in the Emoji article so it doesn't make sense to redirect there. Zerach (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what's the problem with it targeting detective, as it does now? -- Tavix (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • This version, 🕵️, has a Variation Selector-16. I put it there by mistake. Pacingpal (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, gotcha. Given that it's an invisible character, do you know how I can verify that? -- Tavix (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • You can copy and paste it into something that identifies a string’s code points. I confirm that it contains VS16. Note that U+1F575 SLEUTH OR SPY has [:Emoji_Presentation=No:] which means Unicode explicitly recommends using VS16 to make it an emoji. It is therefore appropriate for this redirect to exist. Gorobay (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close an old log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So there's a hidden character in this one? It's not just the emoji? --BDD (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is just the emoji. The redirect’s title consists of two characters: <U+1F575 SLEUTH OR SPY, U+FE0F VARIATION SELECTOR-16>. Together, they form a single emoji. Without the second character, Unicode recommends rendering it as a simple dingbat (as in Webdings) instead of an emoji. Gorobay (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. I'm a keep then. I don't think there's ambiguity here. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. Every unicode character outside the private use area should be a blue link if there is a suitable target as they are very useful search terms. There is no question that the current target is the most suitable for this emoji. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try to attempt clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as emoji with little to no ambiguity. It's not an implausible redirect, and we keep random unprintworthy redirects that are still plausible anyway. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 18:43, 9 November 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:Rfl[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. Participants are split between retargeting to Template:RFL, and deleting as a confusing and broadly unused redirect. Given the deletion of the proposed target, the obvious consensus is to delete this redirect given the extreme lack of support for its current target. ~ mazca talk 22:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should redirect to the capitalized version at Template:RFL, which has existed since 2012, rather than a lazy shortcut for {{Reflist}}. I’ve noticed this also causes some confusion as some editors, not knowing what “rfl” means, have added the Reflist template in the same article. Then there’s also this one: Template:R fl. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't think we need a template shortcut for either target here: {{Reflist}} is already short and it's only ever added once per article, so there's really no case for a typing aid here (and if the shortcut exists, we'll have to keep an eye on uses and replace them as they come). Similarly for {{RFL}} – the benefits of this template as a typing aid are negligible, and its ambiguous name can easily cause confusion. – Uanfala (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the capitalised {{RFL}} per nom. I don't see any benefit in deletion. PC78 (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This redirect has been in force for months, and is past the point of changing, just like {{RE}} was. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not keep, the status quo is too confusing. I'm not bothered either way if it's retargeted or deleted, I don't think it will matter much. -- Tavix (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uanfala, and just type the 4 extra characters. While this could be a legitimate redirect to Template:RFL, its use for a different purpose means that retargeting right now could be a source of confusion and mistakes. It's better to delete the redirect for now and let anyone who would use it (if anyone other than Jax) select between {{Reflist}} and {{RFL}}. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Template:RFL, considering that doing so is harmless and also considering that Template:Rfl has 0 transclusions, and can thus be retargeted immediately without breaking anything. Steel1943 (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redirect has only been there for a few months and only has one transclusion. I don't think it's past the point of changing. The existence of multiple competing targets make it an unsuitable title for a template shortcut. Deryck C. 11:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This redirect is potentially confusing, only four letters shorter than {{reflist}} and used practically nowhere. Not a very active user (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. I see no benefit to deletion. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've listed this at WP:ANRFC since most of the RfD regulars have given an opinion in this discussion. Deryck C. 12:33, 7 November 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) 00:14, 9 November 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_November_9&oldid=927458599"