Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 27, 2019.

Gal Gadot Versano[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Nomination was mistaken. (non-admin closure) Jalen Folf (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not the correct spelling of the person's married name. Multiple sources have misspelled this surname. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding the nominating comment correctly, then it seems that this is a plausible enough mistake to justify keeping the redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 00:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep assuming the nominators rational about multiple sources using this misspelling isn’t being misread it actually supports keeping the redirect.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 02:51, 28 October 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 Demented Duo[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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 04:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target as an alternate name. Delete unless a justification is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I created the re-direct, so I'll sustain from voting either way; however, I would like to specify that my rationale for creating it is simply that The Demented Duo is a very popular nickname for the rap group, despite not being mentioned in their article currently. If you Google "The Demented Duo" and "Twiztid" with quotation marks to assure that both names appear in the same page, you will find over 6,500 results. If that alone isn't enough justification, then by all means go ahead and delete. --Ogyaf (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find it used in a reliable source too. This nomination was a mistake, and I'm withdrawing it. signed, Rosguill talk 04:19, 28 October 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:Books/... to Books:... redirects[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) 02:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. This is a follow-up nomination to this one, with the same rationale: Currently, there are ~600 redirects from "Wikipedia:Books/..." to "Books:...", nearly all of which were created ~10 years ago when the Books: namespace was first established. There is no need to retain these cross-namespace redirects: each move is recorded in the page history of the destination page, the redirects are unused (maybe 1–2 pageviews each year), and the Book: prefix is certainly well-established by now. I will be nominating these redirects in batches of 30–60 so that I/others can have a reasonable chance of checking the page histories and incoming links. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Notice of this discussion has been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books#Cross-namespace redirects. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral others seem to weigh things differently, so I won't hold things up. UnitedStatesian suggests deleting further redirects under G6 and given the opinions here that seems better than rehashing this discussion every few weeks. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Keep per WP:RKEEP 4. @Black Falcon: what's the point in deleting these redirects? That they are from before the Book: namespace existed and also the result of page moves means there's a good chance we'll break stuff. Absent a rationale for why these redirects are harmful, the costs versus benefits suggests we should keep them rather than risk breaking things for no reason. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are overestimating the likelihood of "breaking things", considering many of the pages were moved within days of being created and most within 1–2 months. The point of deleting the redirects is summarized in my nomination, and expressed in more detail here. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to offend you, but have you read Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects recently? The reasons for deleting are entirely about redirects out of article space, and #9 in the section on keeping seems most applicable "Readers of the article-space only ... are unlikely to fall "backstage", because these "trapdoors" ... are only being left in the maintenance areas." I don't see how simply being a redirect from Project space to Book space is inherently harmful. Your nomination says "there's no need to retain these cross-namespace redirects" but WP:RKEEP gives us a reason. You're right that it's not strong, but you haven't given a clear reason why these redirects are harmful. We have potential problems if we delete them; what's the problem if we just leave them alone? Wug·a·po·des​ 05:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense taken—it's a fair question, especially as, in retrospect, I should have offered a more nuanced response. :) Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects is written for CNRs out of mainspace, as you correctly note, but I think similar reasons apply to CNRs in general. All CNRs blur the line between namespaces, potentially adding to confusion for editors/readers; create "trapdoors" that take editors/readers across namespaces; and degrade the effectiveness of the filters in the Wikipedia search function. As such, I consider all CNRs to be harmful and worthy of deletion except when there is a compelling reason to keep them. I realize you may not agree, but I hope that at least helps to clarify my perspective. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can definitely see how keeping search filters clean can be useful. I still think the balance leans toward keep, but that's the point of these discussions: get more thoughts on the matter. Thanks for the explanation! Wug·a·po·des​ 05:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; per nom, also these are wp:Cross-namespace redirects and so come directly under WP:RDELETE#6. Re. the above vote/discussion, any unused legacy function accrues harm as its origin becomes obscure and devs/editors lose track of whether they need to retain compatibility. For example if we leave them in then one day someone will come in and start creating more of them, even moving books back across again or whatever. I'd say the risk of such harm is now greater than the risk of breaking something that matters if we delete them, i.e. that WP:RKEEP#4 is insignificant here. They are an anachronism that once lived briefly and now needs cleaning out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Virtually unused redirects should be deleted as they take up unnecessary server space. NoahTalk 10:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're worried about server space (you shouldn't be, BTW), deleting unused redirects won't help in that regard. When something is deleted, it doesn't get removed from any servers. It is simply is hidden from the view of non-administrators with all edit history still in tact. In fact, deletion actually adds a bit to the servers due to the addition of a log entry. -- Tavix (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this for further discussion on the merits of keeping or deleting these, especially given that WP:CNR is largely concerned with mainspace->elsewhere redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all in this batch, and speedy delete all futher ones per G6, housekeeping, to save us all the further discussion. These redirects clog the Special:All pages results and (if properly categorized, which these are not) the maintenance categories, both of which are critical tools to maintain the Wikipedia namespace. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per UnitedStatesian. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 13:49, 28 October 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.

Josh Murty[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 7#Josh Murty

Possible 2019 Sheffield Hallam by-election[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. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is WP:CRYSTAL. There are no sources that say that there is going to be a by-election in Sheffield Hallam. I know that this redirect emerged from a page move but it is still misleading because no sources say that there is going to be a 2019 Sheffield Hallam by-election. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a likely search term any more. Bondegezou (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No less problematic than the redirected article 2019 Sheffield Hallam by-election; with a general election now looming, a by-election in Sheffield Hallam this year is highly unlikely to happen. Would it be better to leave it until the end of the year though? PC78 (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as misleading and not covered at the target article. I do agree with PC78 that 2019 Sheffield Hallam by-election is equally problematic, except that the inclusion of "Possible" makes this redirect even less useful and more misleading. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:04, 6 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.

Thog[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 move both pages as noted. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that the name "Thog" primarily refers to the Marvel character. I think Thog (disambiguation) should be moved to Thog, because at it's current state, the redirect is potentially confusing. Not a very active user (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move Thog to Thog (comics) and then move the disambiguation page as suggested above. BOZ (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sounds like an issue for WP:RM, not RFD. - Eureka Lott 03:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this discussion should probably be at RM but support in principle. PC78 (talk) 11:12, 30 October 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.

レーディ[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. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be the katakana for "Lady", which was this character's original name. It's misspelled though as it should be レディー. In any case it is vague and shouldn't point to this list anyway. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not a very active user (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I doubt that someone looking up Pauline would type the katakana for lady (a name the character hasn’t been known by for decades) and even if that was the case the fact that it’s misspelled makes it even less plausible.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 22:26, 28 October 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.

Locus Award for Best Horror/Dark Fantasy Novel[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance someone would actually search this? I don't think so. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a former official name for Locus Award for Best Horror Novel so it's conceivable. And I did, so... PriceDL (talk) 05:11, 27 October 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.

New York's Absolutest[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. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Various civil service departments of the City of New York refer to themselves as New York's Boldest, New York's Bravest, New York's Finest, or New York's Strongest. Unlike those terms. this one doesn't seem to exist outside of Wikipedia. If it's not used elsewhere, it should be deleted. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:53, 27 October 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.

Uttarakhand Cricket Association[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 Cricket Association of Uttarakhand#History. Deryck C. 11:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page shouldn't be redirected to the article Cricket Association of Uttarakhand since the Uttarakhand Cricket Association is a separate unaffiliated sports organisation and not related to the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand. Also there hasn't been any merger of Uttarakhand Cricket Association into the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand. Hence I propose the deletion of this redirect. Hemant DabralTalk 13:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no personal familiarity with this subject but if the nom statement is correct then it should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 23:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is the separate organisation notable in its own right? If so then the redirect can be turned back into an article describing it. I notice that there used to be content (describing the CAU), which was all deleted a couple of days after the target was created. Should there be a WP:HISTMERGE? Spike 'em (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Uttarakhand Cricket Association is not a notable, neither a recognised sports organisation to govern the sport of cricket in the state of Uttarakhand. Initially there were four unrecognised cricket organisations in Uttarakhand competing to get official recognition and affiliation of the national level governing body for cricket in India, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI); the four contenders were Cricket Association of Uttarakhand, United Cricket Association, Uttarakhand Cricket Association and Uttaranchal Cricket Association. Out of these the United Cricket Association merged with the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand back in 2017. In August 2014, BCCI decided to grant the affiliation and official recognition to the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand to govern the sport of cricket in Uttarakhand, leaving it the sole cricket organisation to officially represent and control the Uttarakhand cricket team in the domestic inter-state cricket tournaments. Therefore, I've proposed the deletion of the redirect page Uttarakhand Cricket Association altogether, since it carries no significance anymore. Check out the related ESPN news article here for the reference backing my rationale for deletion. Hemant DabralTalk 11:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is mention of UCA (and other rivals organisations) in the history section of the CAU page, so I think this is a valid redirect if there is no content on this page. Maybe amend the redirect to go to that section rather than the top of the page. Spike 'em (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 17:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It's not a relevant, nor a useful redirect to keep. Its history has already been discussed in the article Cricket Association of Uttarakhand#History. If the need arise, we can recreate the article in future but for now it should be just deleted. Hemant DabralTalk 04:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:53, 27 October 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.

Mia's Index of Anthro Stories[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. If we run into problems with "hijacking", feel free to contact me or any admin. We'll get out the salt shakers. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are mentioned in the target article. As they're all the names of websites or web forums, these redirects seem like they were created promotionally. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects were created because they are furry websites mentioned at the time - i.e. a decade ago - in the relevant section of the article, which were not in and of themselves notable enough for a full article (or at least had not had one created), but were significant enough to mention, and for people to reasonably search for. They may not be mentioned there now because content has been removed from the article in question - just as was the case with list of furry conventions. A big part of the goal with such redirects is to reduce the number of articles created. They do not in and of themselves have "a promotional effect". Conversely, if you don't have something there, it's very tempting to use the "create this article" link. As far as the sites go, ArtSpots closed in 2012 (to some consternation from users), FurBid was shuttered in 2015 (arguably had become less relevant than it was before then); Pounced.org was taken down by its owners in March 2018 due to concerns about the controversial sex-trafficking bill known as FOSTA; FurBuy went down just this year for an indeterminate period; Mia's Index of Anthro Stories is still up and was historically important but had been largely superseded by 2005 as fans moved to archive sites rather than their own homepages; Bluefurry, Lulz.net and The Fursuit Database are still going (probably none of those will ever have sufficient refs for a standalone article). GreenReaper (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think that most of them are unlikely to ever have their names hijacked for articles. I see no point in keeping them around if they're not mentioned in the articles because it just creates confusion for the few people who know most of these sites' names. Worst case it'll cause them to add the sites' names to Furry fandom and clutter it up with listcruft or trivia about said sites. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only the first of these redirects has been tagged. PC78 (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PC78: I was trying to tag them all, but it kept throwing up an error so I gave up. Twinkle needs an easier way to do multi noms. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can also be done manually. ;) PC78 (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The target page provides no information about these websites, making these redirects useless for readers. Not a very active user (talk) 15:31, 27 October 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.

Nightcrawl[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 Nightcrawler. Deryck C. 11:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After searching it seems this term does not have a main topic or obvious target. It does not seem to refer commonly to "yobai" or any of the Nightcrawler media. There is also a song called Nightcrawl recorded by apparently NN group Odd Couple. Zerach (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which album is Odd Couple's song on? Not even the German article mentions this. I guess for now I'll just redirect it to the Nightcrawler disambiguation page. Apparently when used as a verb it can also refer to photographers who drive around at night looking for photos, Nightcrawler (film) being named after it. Olivia comet (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Olivia comet: It's a Pressure to Meet You (Discogs page).
OK, let's redirect to "Nightcrawler" for now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: enwiki has nothing about "nightcrawl". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except, didn't you add the translation to the article? It's a stretch, perhaps, but what's wrong with pointing this there? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited it to change the style: it was added by @Moscow Connection:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Nightcrawler, ambiguous term which might refer to many things. Not a very active user (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Nightcrawler per Not a very active user. It may be worth adding these grammatical variants in the lede of the disambiguation page, but right now it doesn't strike me as necessary. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 6 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.

Space cruiser[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 7#Space cruiser

Ngân Sơn (town)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 7#Ngân Sơn (town)

Toad worship (Chinese internet subculture)[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. The rough consensus is that this disambiguation bracket is rather too specific. Deryck C. 11:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a technical request on behalf of Wei4Green, who requested a move at WP:RMTM (diff) and for the redirect to be deleted; I don't think it's eligible for speedy deletion. Sceptre (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thank you User:Sceptre. I actually want to keep that page because a deleted redirect may add more data to the Wikipedia database (WP:CHEAP). [[User:Wei4Green]] · 唯绿远大 04:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that. I expected to see some page history on a redirect, and found none. Was there a WP:HISTMERGE involved, too? - Eureka Lott 21:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:40, 27 October 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_October_27&oldid=925079628"