Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 14, 2020.

Carnes Lord[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 17:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate that "Carnes Lord" should redirect to a Reagan-era directive. That is not a suitable substitute for a page, and does not represent information useful to those (like me) following the the link from, say, Aristotle's "Politics." Carnes Lord's work and career was primarily as a significant academic in Ancient political theory, and apparently he did political work as well. Either he is worth his own page in which NSDD77 could be mentioned, or he isn't and there's no reason to send every mention of his name to NSDD77. Regardless, the current redirect to "National Security Decision Directive 77" is not justified. I recommend the removal of this redirect, and have no opinion on the need for Lord having his own page. 146.115.136.16 (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom and per WP:REDLINK. While he was clearly involved in the current target, it offers minimal actual information about him, and given he's had plenty of other somewhat significant publications, I don't think this redirect is serving a particularly helpful purpose. We should either have an article on him, or if there isn't enough information, we should not pretend we do. ~ mazca talk 13:12, 22 December 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.

MAGAt[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 Magat. There is overall support for us keeping this in some form, and the best balance of covering most options seems to be using the disambiguation page at Magat, which does provide context including a Wiktionary link. ~ mazca talk 20:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derogatory neologism. Not every entry at Wiktionary should get an enwiki soft redirect. Fram (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose derogatory shouldn't be relevant, the redirect is useful and not harmful in any way. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it useful? We don't even have a single article that uses the "word" (nor the other redirect, MAGAts, which should have the same outcome as the one I nominated). There are more than 600,000 English entries on Wiktionary: having soft redirects for some words (mainly technical jargon or very specific terms) used in articles is useful and helpful; turning enwiki into a repository of soft redirects for terms which belong in the Urban Dictionary but not (yet) in an actual dictionary is not. Fram (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, I guess seeing this word commonly used had biased me on this topic. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:SSRT: "Please keep in mind that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia." (emphasis in original) MAGAt and MAGAts don't meet either requirement for a soft redirect. Fram (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I believe that the word has gained enough relevance as shown with these uses. There is a valid target and there's no encyclopedic value here, so it meets WP:SOFTREDIRECT and WP:SISP. See wikt:WT:RFV. It passes wikt:WT:ATTEST. Cheeto fly (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • False. None of the first page of results from GBooks uses MAGAt or MAGAts with this meaning, it is about people or places called Magat. In your GNews results, many again are for people called Magats, or come from comment sections, not from reliable sources. Fram (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reliable sources are not relevant to this discussion (they are only relevant to article content). What matters for Wiktionary is whether there are at least three uses of the term with the given meaning spanning at least one year (these do exist and so the term does meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion). What matters for the purposes of a redirect is whether it is a likely search term with a suitable target. A suitable target does exist - either the Wiktionary entry or the dab page (see my recommendation below), and the links provided above show it is definitely a likely search term so there is no call to delete this. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have not argued for deletion at Wiktionary, so I have no idea why their inclusion criteria (or the links to other wiktionary policies) matter one bit here. Something being used in some comment sections hardly makes something a likely search term: what are likely search terms for an encyclopedia are things people may regularly encounter in the actual reliable sources, but have trouble understanding. Fram (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reliable sources have no relevance to what people are searching for at all. Indeed people encountering terms or concepts in unreliable sources but wish to see neutral content about is a major reason people come to Wikipedia. In some cases we have no encyclopaedic content and so we direct them to Wiktionary for linguistic comment because this is significantly more helpful than a red link. The question is, "is it likely that people will be looking for encyclopaedic content about MAGAts on Wikipedia?" and the answer is clearly yes. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, the answer is clearly no. A "topic" which is a colloquial slang term, used in reader comments but not by actual sources, is not the type of subject people should except "encyclopedic content" about. A link to Wiktionary should be used for topics which one can encounter in reliable sources, in encyclopedic texts, which may be unfamiliar to many readers but don't warrant an enwiki article. This is not, like you claimed in your edit summary, "a fundamental misunderstanding", but a fundamental disagreement about when to have or not to have such links. Please see WP:SSRT for the actual relevant guideline on enwiki. Fram (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added the plural to this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the dab page at Magat where the term is mentioned, which can be changed to directly link to the Wiktionary entry (and should be if this is retargetted there). Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this redirects to Magat, this should be mentioned in Make America Great Again per WP:DABMENTION, but it isn't currently in that article. I'll go ahead and add Maggot (disambiguation) to the Magat (disambiguation). AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this need to be mentioned in an article if the link is to Wiktionary? Thryduulf (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the disambiguation page per Thryduulf. signed, Rosguill talk 17:30, 22 December 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.

Ayesha Erotica[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 23#Ayesha Erotica

The Cumberland News[edit]

 Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 22#The Cumberland News

List of The L Word CD's[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. Apparently, the link from Dweller's text should be inspired for article creation. (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect. List of the L Word is far more likely... and is a redlink. "CD's" is a barbarism. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep this is a harmless {{R from move}}. The nominator's personal dislike of "CD's" is completely irrelevant. If you think another title would make a good redirect then create it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - the nominator's apparent dislike of compact discs is not a reason to delete the redirect. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Bushranger, sorry I should have been more clear. The plural of CD is CDs not CD's. Do we need redirects for List of king's to list of kings? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Apostrophes are commonly used to mark the plurals of acronyms and initialisms, the same is not true of most other types of word. While prescriptivists would argue that such usage is incorrect, that is completely irrelevant to RfD where what matters is whether it is plausible that people will use this search term not whether we think they should or not. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate making an OTHERSTUFF argument, but List of king's would be a good redirect for List of kings? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but that is an OTHERSTUFF argument and it's also completely different because "king" is not an acronym or initialism (as I noted in my previous comment) so it's doubly irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I'd completely missed that. Ugh, now I'll never un-see it! - The Bushranger One ping only 21:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wikt:en:-'s#English -- this is a valid way of pluralization of initialisms, acronyms and abbreviations. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 04:16, 16 December 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.

Columbia-Warner Distributors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 22#Columbia-Warner Distributors

Thrr[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 (and refine to Alternative versions of Thor (Marvel Comics)#Thrr), where Mazca has added information on Thrr (thanks!). This alleviates the misspelling confusion and the delete opinions based on a lack of mention. -- Tavix (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposedly a misspelling for "Thor", though not plausible enough in my opinion. It also seems to be somewhat ambiguous and therefore not worth keeping. CycloneYoris talk! 05:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was in the Thor (Marvel Comics) article when the redirect was created. It isn't there now, or in the current target (where it was removed in 2019[1] possibly unintentionally), but it's still mentioned in the Spider-Ham article. Peter James (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I very much agree with this suggestion, and was completely unaware that "Thrr" is the name of a character that appears at Spider-Ham#Other characters article. So retargeting there is certainly plausible, and a better alternative to deletion. Thanks to Peter James for pointing this out. CycloneYoris talk! 05:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible redirect and there isn't any evidence of "Thor" also being known as "Thrr". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment according to Wikia [4] this is an alternate version of Marvel Thor that looks like a dog -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Search results don't show this as a common misspelling, and if it were, it would go to Thor not the Marvel Comics Thor. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Bushranger, where is it mentioned? Why isn't that spelling listed in any of the verbiage for that article? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 07:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Surprisingly enough, "Thrr" is an actual comic character. There's at least two variant Marvel universes where "Thrr" is the local version of Thor. Thus this actually is an appropriate redirect. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Bushranger, please add the variant to the article. I don't see from the article which variants are using this character. Otherwise it's as notable as Thresher Industries (stock symbol: THRR) [5] AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) that's not how notability works; (2) that'd be THRR not Thrr. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like there's a case for a disambiguation page then, for "Thrr, the dog" (Thrr), "Thresher Industries" (THRR), and Thrombin receptor (ThrR); where is the Wikipedia article for Thresher Industries? -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and refine to Alternative versions of Thor (Marvel_Comics) § Thrr), where I've just added a one-sentence summary covering one of the appearances of Thrr. If a different Thrr also appears in some other comic in the continuity (I am no expert) then it could also potentially be mentioned there. I am not seeing a particularly good argument for a disambiguation page here - all the other targets are also fairly minor, and have unique capitalisation. If Thresher Industries does end up being notable enough to warrant an article, their stock symbol THRR would warrant that capitalisation only, and Thrombin receptor is correctly redirected already from ThrR. ~ mazca talk 13:03, 22 December 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.

Apple ecosystem[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 Apple Inc. with no prejudice against article creation signed, Rosguill talk 17:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Apple ecosystem is much wider than the iTunes Store. Is there a better target for this? -- Tavix (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A whole article could be written about the Apple ecosystem. I created the redirect as a first cut of such an article, as the iTunes store is the means to monetize content, starting with music. As the ecosystem is somewhat abstract and editors love to focus on specifics (such as the latest iPhone) an article has yet to be written. Google links to several magazine articles describing the Apple ecosystem, one of these is quoted here: Apple Inc.. Maybe I should request an article or start a draft. John a s (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Apple Inc. for now, and add {{R with possibilities}} per comments from John a s. The section "Corporate affairs" currently discusses the company's 'ecosystem', while the products arguably comprise said ecosystem (though I may not get the nuance of a term that strikes me a biz-speak). Cnilep (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:15, 14 December 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.

Icy Wind[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 22#Icy Wind

World traveler[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 22#World traveler

Royal consort[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. Tool mistake. (non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This had been redirecting to dab Consort, where there are several possible targets that are "royal", for 12 years. Recently changed to a specific one. MB 15:01, 14 December 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.

Rare Candies[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. Concerns about deleting pre-merge history appear to be moot given that the merged content was later removed following a successive merge. signed, Rosguill talk 18:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just like above: better left for the search engine. Unless there's some list of obscure confenctionary somewhere on Wikipedia? Rare Candy was formerly an article, but got turned into a redirect after a 2005 AfD. – Uanfala (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Rare Candy. The AfD was actually closed as "merge and redirect" and the edit history of Rare Candy indicates that a merge did take place. If any of the merged content is still around then the redirect is required for attribution purposes. Surprisingly, Pokemon is the overwhelming primary topic for "Rare Candy" as an exact phrase - the first other use google finds is the very last result on page 4 - and that's a beer (made by a brewery that doesn't have an article) that the can design suggests was probably named for the Pokemon item. Pages 5 and 6 are a mix of Pokemon, more hits for the beer and one-off entries for non-notable musicians or musical recordings, Page 7 has 1 hit related to the beer, 1 hit from Urban Dictionary (which gives Pokemon as the etymology) and everything else is directly Pokemon related so there is nothing that comes even remotely close for someone to be searching for. I haven't looked at the other redirects yet but I expect results will be similar. Thryduulf (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Rare candy" is, for example, also the name of a recording artist, as evident from the search results here on Wikipedia. As for the ancient AfD, it may have resulted in "merge and redirect", but the merge target of that was another article [6], which itself got deleted three years later. And if rare candy is indeed important for Pokemon, then it would be helpful if the current target were expanded with at least some content about it. – Uanfala (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete merge target was deleted. This should be administrative cleanup of a redirect to a deleted topic -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's useless without a mention at the target, and there is no need to worry about attribution since the merge target was deleted. Most mentions on Wikipedia are for a remix musician (eg: Woman (Kesha song) and Telepathy (song)) and there's also a horse at 2016 Road to the Kentucky Derby. -- Tavix (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:16, 14 December 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.

Fourth (time)[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. No prejudice against recreation of the redirect if Temporal divisions named thirds and fourths is created. signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only mentions of 'fourth' on Second are in footnotes mentioning that al-Biruni and Roger Bacon each separately suggested dividing time into minutes, seconds, thirds, and fourths (or their Persian and Latin equivalents). The redirect seems utterly baffling. Note that I am not requesting any particular action, because I have no idea what purpose this redirect is meant to serve. Cnilep (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It appears that in 2012 when the redirect was created, these two sentences were not footnotes, but they said essentially the same thing. Cnilep (talk) 08:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubbify Temporal divisions named thirds and fourths and turn those footnotes into a stub article, then repoint the redirects to the new stub. It can also explain the name (the third and fourth level sexagesimal divisions; as opposed to second, the second level sexagesimal division (60th of a 60th)) -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this still doesn't clearly define what the fourth is. A fourth of an hour? A fourth of a day? Fourth time, as in the ordinal? See also Fourth disambiguation since that has other definitions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a fourth-order division, it is (1/60)^4 -- as is the "sec" second is a (1/60)^2 -- the fourth order sexagesimal division; So a third is 1/3600th of a minute, and a fourth is 1/216000th of a minute; A minute is a "first" in this context, as being a first order sexagesimal division of an hour (1/60th of an hour) and a second is (1/60)^2 of an hour. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:09, 14 December 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.

COSCO Ship Ports[edit]

 Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 21#COSCO Ship Ports

Dogoso[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 21#Dogoso

Shii's Song[edit]

 Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 21#Shii's Song

Digital Channel 32[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 Channel 32. (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KDAF is by no means the only station to be on "digital channel 32"; it doesn't seem to be the right target for such an ambiguous term. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:37, 14 December 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.

List of cricket competitions[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#Competitions. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? Retarget? Leave as is? The target article is very much not a list of all cricket competitions, just specifically T20 ones. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:32, 14 December 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.

ʿAmadiyya[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) CycloneYoris talk! 04:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leading punctuation seems like an implausible typo, especially for a differently-spelled subsequent word. DMacks (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. That's not punctuation there, but the letter ayin. As far as I can see, this redirect correctly renders the Arabic name of the place. – Uanfala (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this form used in the target article, which and also has a different number of "y". Is this some hybrid or phonetic style? DMacks (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard romanisation of the Arabic name, which is given in the article in the Arabic script. I've now added that romanisation to the article. – Uanfala (talk) 13:48, 14 December 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_December_14&oldid=995909595"