Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 29, 2020.

Ujilli[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 all but the now disambiguated Admiral Anderson. Thanks to the IP for the work. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and not mentioned at the target page. These redirects may have been added when casting was announced; these characters were in the end not important. I just removed entries for four of them from the list ; [1] the last may never have been mentioned. – Fayenatic London 23:29, 29 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.

Wikipedia:HEADLINE[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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Headlines. signed, Rosguill talk 05:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In September 2020 an RfC was closed finding that headlines are unreliable. That RfC turns this essay into policy, effectively. The links WP:HEADLINE and WP:HEADLINES go to the essay, when really they should both go to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Headlines. I did not know this was incorporated into the guideline till I did some digging. If the targets were proper, it would be a lot easier. Naturally I expect WP:HEADLINE to go to the policy, if it exists. It going to the essay makes me think this isn't actually a PAG. I'm about to add a hatnote to that effect, but I think this should be retargeted to the PAG as well, in line with what Newslinger said in Special:Diff/972082506. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to WP:RSHEADLINES. Seems like an obvious fix. Schazjmd (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 30 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.

Template:Websites[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 6#Template:Websites

Template:Wsproj[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 no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 05:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused in mainspace talk space. Does not follow any of the banner standards (and their redirects). Magioladitis (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Of course it's unused in mainspace, it redirects to a talk page template. It has incomming links, is not in the way of anything else and is clearly related to the target. If you dislike it then feel free to get consensus to get a bot to replace it, but I see no valid reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant talk space. It was a typo. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of my comment still applies, deletion is neither necessary nor beneficial. Thryduulf (talk) 01:44, 31 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.

Protovis[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 6#Protovis

Glovers Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador[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 05:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned in the target article. This is part of a major cleanup where bodies of water have incorrectly been written up as settlements. Geschichte (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glover's Harbour apparently used to be called Thimble Tickle according to List of giant squid specimens and sightings where Glover's Harbour is also mentioned. Perhaps these should be retargeted? Mdewman6 (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Glovers Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador, I cannot find a community by that name. I must have thought it became part of Lewisporte when I changed it to a redirect several years ago. However, there is a significant body of water called "Glovers Harbour" that's not near Lewisporte (see 49°27′45″N 55°28′47″W / 49.46247°N 55.47966°W / 49.46247; -55.47966) that may be sufficiently notable for an article. PKT(alk) 14:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The place mentioned in List of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador and other articles is the area around the body of water. Peter James (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well here is the welcome sign that appears in the giant squid article: List_of_giant_squid_specimens_and_sightings#/media/File:Glover's_Harbour_welcome_sign.jpg. So certainly suggests this a place, and likely at least deserving of a redirect if not an article. But is it a place on land, or just an actual harbor? And where best to target a redirect? Lewisporte doesn't sound like it's correct. There is also this Thimble Tickle article that needs to be considered how it fits in here, and could be a possible redirect target, or moved to Glover's Harbour. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:02, 23 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 17:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. With further investigation, I see evidence for both a body of water ("Glovers Harbour" on Google maps) and for a designated place, and I believe Thimble Tickle Bay is an old name for Glovers Harbour. So perhaps the most rigorous thing to do would be to restore the 2009 stub at Glovers Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador and either send to AfD or improve, then retarget Glover's Harbour there or to Thimble Tickle Bay (which also has sourcing issues and should be considered at AfD or improved). Right now, red links are best here until properly sourced stubs can be developed, but perhaps that is a decision for a separate discussion at AfD. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or revert to the pre-2010 stub. There is clearly a place of this name, per the Statistics Canada census profile, but existing as a designated place is not necessarily the same thing as being an actual incorporated municipality — which means that under WP:GEOLAND, there may not be sufficient grounds for a standalone article about it if we can't find any notability-supporting sources. But that's a question that falls under AFD's purview rather than RFD's — here, we can really only consider the value of the redirect itself, and the redirect is definitely a misfire since Lewisporte isn't where Glover's Harbour actually is. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2021 (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.

Resistance (Terminator)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target mentions this a few times, but this isn't a likely search term, compared to the more commonly named disambiguation page. Was redirected long ago, after editorial consensus found nothing worth preserving. Jontesta (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Harmless case of an {{R with history}}. Term is also mentioned several times at target article, so I personally don't see how deletion would be beneficial. CycloneYoris talk! 02:32, 29 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 17:21, 29 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.

Cricket In China[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 6#Cricket In China

Average attendance[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) 15:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance does not necessarily refer to sports event attendance, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ambiguous. Could also refer to schools, parliamentary proceedings, prenatal clinics, you-name-it. Narky Blert (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NB and nom. MB 22:21, 30 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.

Template:Hebrew[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 after transclusions have been replaced. Listed at the TfD holding cell. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replace by the target and then delete As stated belowon tomorrow's discussion page regarding Template:Arabic, templates with the name of a language for the most part do not exist. Those that do exist redirect to a template about the language, not to a script template. In addition, the present redirect is misleading, since the target is per its documentation specifically not intended for text in the Hebrew language (only text in other languages expressed in Hebrew script). We could of course redirect to Template:Hebrew language, but I think that simply deleting is the better option. This nomination is part of a cleanup operation, which included so far the deletion of Template:Lang-he-n and improvements to the documentation page of Template:Script/Hebrew. And just in case anybody would ask, since the target is not intended for text in the Hebrew language, why should we replace an incorrectly used template redirect by another incorrect template, the answer is because cleaning up the many incorrect transclusions of Template:Script/Hebrew and replacing them by Template:Lang-he is the next and final step of this cleanup operation. Debresser (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the mechanics of this redirect, but it broke existing pages, e.g. Unicode and HTML for the Hebrew alphabet. Perhaps don't redirect until a fix is ready? Aryeh Sanders 15:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.54.87 (talk)
The problem at Unicode and HTML for the Hebrew alphabet came from another template, Template:Unicode chart Hebrew. It was solved by replacing Template:Hebrew by Template:Script/Hebrew.[2] Apparently the Rfd notice which wrapped itself around Template:Hebrew caused this problem.[3] Debresser (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It also seems to be causing problems in Hebrew alphabet; every template starting in the middle of Hebrew alphabet#Dagesh appears as a link. It looks like maybe some sort of limit is being hit; the problem doesn't appear when editing and previewing a section, and replacing a few Template:Hebrew with Template:Script/Hebrew before that point and clicking "Preview" will cause more templates to appear correctly; however, the notice on Template:Hebrew says not to replace the redirected links. ~User:chridd [[tʃɹɪ|Special:Contributions]] 00:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as the nomination is approved and implemented, this issue will disappear. I replaced all of them on that specific page[4] and the issue disappeared. Debresser (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template, Lang-he-n was supposed to clearly display Hebrew texts that use the diacritics. Not sure if it redirected to script/Hebrew, but I should note that the n in the name of the template abbreviated nikud which are normally hard to see without special fonts. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although this does not relate directly to this nomination, I am happy to tell you that this very same issue you raise, and with which I agree, is currently being discussed at Template_talk:Lang-he#Unreadable_nikud. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The root cause is that the "RfD" template isn't sensitive to the fact that transcluding it will cause a huge charge against WP:PEIS. This is only a problem for templates that are used multiple times on a page or which are used on pages that are within 24,000 bytes or so of hitting the 2,000,000-byte-or-so limit already, which is probably why it's not been fixed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 18:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Further discussion of root problem is at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#RFD template on templates causes a 24,000-byte charge against WP:PEIS per invocation (permalink). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 18:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Comment A few editors have commented on he technical issue related to the Rfd template. Perhaps we simply implement this proposal already? I mean, there is no reason this shouldn't be an improvement, to replace two templates that do more or less the same thing - but for unclear reasons not precisely - by one template, especially since its name is misleading, as I explained above in detail. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any objections to the proposed deletion, but I do see 3600+ uses of the template. Debresser, if you'd like, I'm willing to close this as delete, but I'm not willing to carry out the deletion while there are still so many transclusions. With such a close, you could put a G6 tag on after the transclusions are dealt with. Sound good? --BDD (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD The proposal here is "Replace by the target and then delete". If there are automated processes that admins here can use to replace, then that is what I was hoping for. If not, then what you propose is the next best option and I agree with it. Debresser (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I've closed anything at TfD, but they have a holding process for this. I'll close and post this at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell#To convert. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2021 (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.

Archibasilica[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 05:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Term not mentioned in target. (Also, given target section non-existent.) Hildeoc (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: information Note: There is Archbasilica of Saint John Lateran, but the correct term – as given in the lemma – is Archbasilica (not Archibasilica) …--Hildeoc (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Correct" term depends on the language - archibasilica is Italian. Elizium23 (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is the English Wikipedia …--Hildeoc (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:22, 29 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.

Bangkok Metro[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 as described by Narky Blert, with the final outcome of "Bangkok Metro" as the disambiguation page name. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article was originally created at Bangkok Metro, and has been an R from move since 2010. The redirect is technically incorrect, though, as "Bangkok Metro" is the name of the operating company Bangkok Metro Public Company Limited, not the rail system. Are readers more likely to expect "Bangkok Metro" to refer (correctly) to the company (which is now known as Bangkok Expressway and Metro), or a (commonly misused) name of the MRT (Bangkok) rail system? To complicate things further, "Bangkok metro" may also be used to refer generally to all the rapid transit systems in the city, content concerning which is currently a jumbled split-up mess between Rail transport in Bangkok and Mass Rapid Transit Master Plan in Bangkok Metropolitan Region. Paul_012 (talk) 12:15, 29 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.

Wikipedia:Moderator[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 Wikipedia:Moderators. signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have rarely, if ever, seen this term be used on Wikipedia. I know on other sites "moderator" can be synonymous with "administrator", but anyone can moderate content without admin rights. At the best this page should be retargeted to Wikipedia:Administrators, but at the worst this redirect should be deleted. Aasim (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Moderators (where I am about to draft a new dab page). It is very plausible that someone (especially a new user) will be searching for information about moderators on Wikipedia so we should be as helpful as we can. Help:Moderator (which I've added to this discussion) should be retargetted to the same place. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 30 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.

Draft:Flag of Jubaland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted as G7. (Non-admin closure) --Paul_012 (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its a cross-namespace redirect Heesxiisoleh (talk) 10:55, 29 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.

Time of assertion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 6#Time of assertion

Lucy Hannah[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 Longevity claims#Problems in documenting. signed, Rosguill talk 05:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Hannah's age was recently invalidated by expert genealogical research,[5] and accordingly her name was removed from the redirect target: List of American supercentenarians.[6] The original article had already been deleted in November 2018 for lack of notability. I believe we should now delete this redirect entry as well. — JFG talk 08:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not mentioned in the target article or any other longevity list article anymore. Had no media coverage whatsoever while alive, there are no known photos of her, and almost nothing is known about this woman, except that she wasn't 117, so a complete fail of any notability guideline. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Longevity claims#Problems in documenting and add a brief mention there, something like "Lucy Hannah, previously considered the third-oldest person ever, was in 2020 shown to have not lived to 117". Chessrat (talk, contributions) 14:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent idea, you've got my full support. — JFG talk 12:31, 5 January 2021 (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:Curiosity killed the cat[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 6#Wikipedia:Curiosity killed the cat

Duolingo tree[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) 15:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of trees at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 22:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It's probably referring to the level trees. No strong opinion at the moment, but if this thing is to be kept, a mention should be added. Regards, SONIC678 17:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:25, 29 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.

Bedoon of Kuwait (stateless people)[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 05:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is left over from an undiscussed move that I reverted. The article, at Bidoon (social class), discusses a group of people spread over several countries, not restricted to Kuwait. I don't think anybody's going to search for what is essentially a doubly disambiguated title like this. Largoplazo (talk) 01:50, 29 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.

The Adventures of Winnie the Pooh[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 Winnie-the-Pooh (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This could refer to either the 1977 compilation film The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh or the similarly titled 1988 TV series The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. As such, this redirect should either be turned into a disambiguation page or deleted entirely. IceWalrus236 (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:32, 29 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_29&oldid=998743401"