Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 30, 2020.

Sexy Actress[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague, could also refer to sex symbol or similar. Suggest deleting. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2020 (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.

Fenugreek (dollop)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 8#Fenugreek (dollop)

Eritrean Autonomous State[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 8#Eritrean Autonomous State

Economic drain[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) 11:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not synonymous, Scholar search results suggest that the phrase "economic drain" can be used to refer to a wide variety of negative economic effects and not just human capital flight. I would suggest deletion unless a stronger justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Many things can be so described. --Spasemunki (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Rosguill: I do agree that the concept is more broad. What about redirecting it to Dadabhai_Naoroji#Naoroji's_drain_theory_and_poverty? There doesn't seem to be a general article about this subject, but the concept seems to be quite linked to India. Streepjescode (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's preferrable; it's not mentioned at that target, and Scholar results show plenty of usage in contexts unrelated to India. signed, Rosguill talk 22:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect is ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2020 (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.

Zionism (disambiguation)[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see "Zionism", without an adjective, is not ambiguous. In any case, Zion (disambiguation) no longer disambiguates the term "Zionism". Any disambiguation page for "Zionism" would only contain WP:Partial title matches, which leads me to a recommendation of delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2020 (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.

Stygiella[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No explanation in article on moth genus of this name. Names of genera should be unique (although maybe not across different biological kingdoms). Need to accept Draft:Stygiella on genus of flagellates. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Stygioides colchica is synonymous with Typhonia stygiella. The redirect probably should have gone there. In any case, delete. Relatively unlikely that someone typing only "stygiella" is looking for Typhonia stygiella as opposed to the genus Stygiella. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a synonym of Stygioides, which appears to be invalid due to the genus of flagellates. I see that Robert McClenon has already put a hatnote at Draft:Stygiella to take care of it, so it's taken care of. SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It doesn't seem that Stygiella was ever actually published as a Lepidoptera genus (see notes [1]; the nomenclatural history is a little convoluted, but 'stygiella' only appears to have been published as a species epithet). Plantdrew (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possible confusion with Stigmella, and we should not have redirects from specific epithets; which are by their nature ambiguous, see List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names. If evidence turns up that there is an invalid genus name, a hatnote can be added to the article about the accepted genus. Narky Blert (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2020 (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.

B33r[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search doesn't bring a whole lot up for this, mostly usernames, various products (some of which aren't even beer), and Urban Dictionary and the like. Doesn't appear to be widely used. Hog Farm (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2020 (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:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A soft redirect that has aged poorly, and sees essentially no use, not even 10 views a month. If meta would like to have such a poorly titled and constructed essay, that's their business. But here on Wikipedia, I'd like to think we have some standards. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Poles are evil for a similar discussion. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Poles are evil. Interwiki link to a low-use joke essay on meta. The fact that this can show up in the search bar while looking up other things makes this detrimental, and this has no real value in the first place. Hog Farm (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Poles are evil. Wikipedia in the old days was a different place, and while there are some circumstances where we want to keep old stuff about as a reminder of where we came from, this is definitely not one of them. If Meta wants to continue to degenerate into a collection of outdated and unfunny jokes that's Meta's problem, but it doesn't mean we have to link to them, let alone that this should be the second option on the list when I type "WP:Friends" into the searchbar (an eminently plausible search given the number of people either wanting to know if there's a WikiProject for the TV show, or if we have a page of suggestions about how best to interact with other editors). ‑ Iridescent 20:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, also per Iridescent and the "Poles are evil" discussion. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 01:21, 01 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and comments above. --Spasemunki (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per no encyclopedic use for linking to a sister project joke essay. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear, yes, Delete of course. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, offensive and useless. CycloneYoris talk! 08:01, 4 May 2020 (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.

Lst of vegan media[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how plausible these misspellings of "list" are, and don't seem to get very many pageviews now that their targets were moved back in 2019 (when they were created). Not sure how useful these redirects are... Regards, SONIC678 19:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. Not helpful, not history. Oddly enough, the vegan media one seems to have always been a redirect. Hog Farm (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per above. Not helpful at all. Note that Lis and Lst both have multiple meanings. Narky Blert (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unambiguously created in error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2020 (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.

Oin, son of Gloin[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, and shouldn't be: The dwarf mentioned in the Hobbit is Oin, son of Groin. This is a separate dwarf that is very minor in the backstory, and is only mentioned in on WP in a dab page. Adding to the confusion, the correct Oin is siblings with a Gloin in the plot. Hog Farm (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE both, for the stated reason. Hardly seems controversial. Strebe (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom.
Gimlet, son of Groin is a character in Bored of the Rings. Presumably somedwarf else altogether. Narky Blert (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2020 (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.

Big Bird (cryptid)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article, old history doesn't seem to be notable (see most expanded version at [2]), no real reason to keep this around, almost certainly wouldn't survive an AFD if the article version was restored. (preliminary search brings up one source I would consider to be reliable, cryptid sites can't establish notability). Hog Farm (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it seems pretty clear that the article version was a joke, at least judging from the sentence "Big Bird is a mysterious monster which some scientist claim is an ancient creature that was defrosted in Antarctica due to global warming. Many eyewitnesses have described Big Bird as having a human face, but many of these people have also seen the Virgin Mary on their tortillas." TheAwesomeHwyh 17:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — At this RfD, Narky Blert claimed that the article carried a strong stench of WP:HOAX and offered a link to the article at its most developed (Special:Diff/155344347). In addition to the quote provided by TheAwesomeHwyh, the article uses the placeholder names "Bert and Ernie". If this is not G3-obvious, it should probably go to AfD; else, it should be eligible for speedy deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:37, 30 April 2020 (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.

Yankee Dime[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 8#Yankee Dime

Redirects to Polandball[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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. feminist #WearAMask😷 16:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, these terms are not explicitly mentioned by name, but the article establishes the use of [country]ball in the context of the subject. I think that anyone searching for these terms will find what they're looking for. signed, Rosguill talk 22:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rosguill, none of these countries (China, Confederacy, Denmark, Ireland, Mongolia, North Korea) are mentioned in the Polandball article. feminist #WearAMask😷 06:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article lays out pretty clearly that various countries plus the suffix "ball" is the central premise of the subject. I don't think it's a stretch for the reader to make the connection. I'm a bit more neutral on Confederateball, since that's not really the name of a country and it's the only one not pictured in the image in the first section, but that is a name that I've seen used for comics including the Confederate States of America. signed, Rosguill talk 07:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rosguill as helpful. — J947 [cont] 00:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rosguill, and the fact that these follow the general format of "country[-]ball". — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:46, 30 April 2020 (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.

Uneven (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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 22:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

redirect of a film to an actor that isn't even in the film BOVINEBOY2008 15:54, 30 April 2020 (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.

Anaheim FC[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. While the opinions are evenly divided, there is a rough consensus that the benefits of not having these redirects outweigh the harms of more difficult searching. The main argument in favor of keeping them is that they are plausible search terms, but those in favor of removing them point out that the few articles with information will turn up in a search anyway and that with they may be difficult to maintain as teams change leagues. What tips the scale though is that most commenters acknowledge that these redirects should be unlinked in their target articles which would make these redirects mostly unused, make articles less likely to be created, and--should they be created--create more work to add the links back. The main rationale to delete is that the red links would encourage article creation and prevent circular redirection without having to add or remove more links. Thus there seems to be a rough consensus that there are more harms than benefits to keeping these redirects. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination having come across a PROD placed on this redirect by ColeTrain4EVER with the justification No information on this team is on Wikipedia besides that it plays in the UPSL. Having it redirect to the league page, United Premier Soccer League, serves no real purpose. It should be highlighted in red and not blue. signed, Rosguill talk 03:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, plausible search terms, mentioned in the target. Unlink in the target per WP:SELFRED. Narky Blert (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that is fair. The entire UPSL page is filled with links that redirect to the main article while teams that actually have pages (Cal FC, Florida Soccer Soldiers, L.A. Wolves FC, etc.) get lost in the mix. If the redirects were removed from that page it would be much cleaner and optimized. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible search term. It is fairly standard to have redirects of this nature. GiantSnowman 18:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redlinks are likely to encourage article creation for these teams, improving the encyclopedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (and note there are other similar redirects such as Austin Real Cuauhtemoc, Bright Stars of Colorado SC, and International SC) - the article United Premier Soccer League contains very little information about these teams (and it would come up in a search for them anyway) probably a lot of users will try clicking the links either in the table or the large maps in that article which all links straight back to the same article. Also as others have mentioned having these redirects rather than redlinks discourages page creation. A7V2 (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and unlink. That just causes more work if we get an article on one of these teams, but they're misleading in the meantime. There's just enough information on each of them to make these potentially useful. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: if the redirects are kept (including no consensus closures), please refine to the targets I have mentioned above. — J947 [cont] 21:07, 11 May 2020 (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.

Dunbar's Guerillas[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 8#Dunbar's Guerillas

Herumor[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 11#Herumor

Soviet Russia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 7#Soviet Russia

Gurdyroot[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, now mentioned at target. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, and only mention on the Wikipedia appears to be in the sentence "Gulping Plimpy – a Gulping Plimpy is supposedly a breed of Plimpy that is repelled by Gurdyroots." at Magical creatures in Harry Potter. Doesn't seem like a helpful retargeting point, and doesn't seem to be worth mentioning anywhere, seems to be a very minor trivia element. Hog Farm (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Gurdyroot is mentioned in the target article now. It is a minor element, but it is treated in at least one secondary source, so I think it should be kept. Daranios (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2020 (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.

Wiki page pages[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While it is appropriate in some cases to have "wiki" in the title, like if it's a page about a wiki, I'm not sure about these eleven, since their subjects aren't wikis, and like with the "Wikipedia" discussion earlier, this might be better off in a search engine. Regards, SONIC678 02:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created the redirect Condorcet method/wiki/Schulze method because this link appeared in an Internet discussion. Markus Schulze 04:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't sound like a convincing rationale to me... and given your COI, you probably should have gone via WP:AFC/R anyway. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 18:49, 30 April 2020 (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/2020_April_30&oldid=956936447"