Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 5, 2020.

Socialbox[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, I suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Socialbox" is ambiguous in real life (but no use I can find is associated with Facebook) and Enwiki has no information about any of the uses of the phrase (other than a minor mention at Peter Paduh#SocialBox.biz) which is not a suitable target for this general redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:14, 6 January 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.

Starship orbital prototype[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 Starship development history#Starship and Super Heavy. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the target article, there is only a summary of the orbital prototypes. Further explanations are found on the Starship development history#Starship and Super Heavy. I suggest to retarget the redirects to Starship development history#Starship and Super Heavy. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:51, 5 January 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.

Second party[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 00:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target has no mention of this term. I boldly retargeted it to Party (law) but am having second thoughts, so reverted that to list here. Until April 2006 it was a disambiguation page, like First party and Third party, and it could be one again, but I'm not sure that adds much value. It has had on average less than 1 hit a day this year, and no article links to it. 84.236.27.55 (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that the same applies to Second-party and I should have included that in the nomination.
But the current target (the DAB page) does not mention "second party" or "second-party". I think it a WP:SURPRISE to redirect to a page that does not mention the term. To be pedantic, Party (law) doesn't mention "second party" either, but at least it mentions "The party of the second part". The first, second and third parties are the first, second and third grammatical persons, but I don't think that's a good candidate for retargeting either. IP nominator, address changed94.21.10.204 (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'd be surprised, and I think retargeting to the disambiguation page is better than a dedicated disambiguation page with only 2 entries. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:28, 6 January 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.

First-party source[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 mixed: Keep Second-party source and delete First-party source. signed, Rosguill talk 00:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although these are both categorised as {{R from alternate title}}, patently they are not alternate titles. We could categorise them more appropriately as {{R from related term}}, but the target doesn't mention the terms. We do have the articles primary source, secondary source and tertiary source, but "source" for "third-party source" means a supplier of goods or services, not one of information as those articles do, so they may not be suitable as retargets. Neither has links from other articles. Hits never exceed three per month. Weak delete both. 84.236.27.55 (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "second-party source" is mentioned in the target, but "first-party source" isn't. I'll leave my !vote as it stands, for now. 84.236.27.55 (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If I we're looking up these terms, I'd expect a "first-party source" to be something like Original research, and a "second-party source" to be something like an Interview. So ... I'd imagine that there are retargeting options for these somewhere... Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If "second-party source" is an interview then a "first-party source" is a witness statement (or merely a witness). But the terms are not mentioned at those articles. I'm not sure any of these get much beyond a WP:DICDEF of what a "party (law)" is. 84.236.27.55 (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 5 January 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.

International language of love[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 12#International language of love

Shock theorapy[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 22:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these malformed or misspelt redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:37, 5 January 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.

Editing Template:Australian Senators/facn[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 delete. WP:G6 Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Similar nominations merged. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rosiestep deleted the last one, using the canned "RfD closed as delete" edit summary. Did you mean to delete them all? --BDD (talk) 14:31, 6 January 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.

Industrial truck[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 Material-handling equipment#Industrial trucks. signed, Rosguill talk 22:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target is too narrow. According to Powered industrial truck, 'OSHA defines PITs as "forklifts, tractors, platform lift trucks, motorized hand trucks, and other specialized industrial trucks..."'. In the absence of a better target I say retarget there, weakly. I suppose a SIA is possible. Neither has any inlinks and monthly pageviews are in single figures. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 15:40, 5 January 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.

Racing colour[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 Racing colors. signed, Rosguill talk 22:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Racing colors is a DAB page to which Racing colours redirects. We could retarget this, but "racing colour" doesn't make sense (and racing color does not exist: the term is "colo(u)rs" even if the apparel is monochrome. So Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. No article inlinks, and averages a little over one hit a week. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 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.

Hard and soft technique[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 22:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes both hard technique and soft technique, but this R is nonsense, as it implies that "hard and soft" is one technique. It would make sense to create the redirects for "hard" and "soft", but delete this. No inlinks, and has had just 3 pageviews after its creation in July 2019.94.21.10.204 (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was moved here from Hard and soft (martial arts) as the result of the discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hard and soft. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, typical {{R from singular}}—in fact this exact phrase is used in the singular in the target's very first sentence. Feel free to create any other redirects you think make sense once you've created an account. -- Tavix (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an {{R from singular}}, because that implies that "hard and soft technique" is one technique, which is not what that category is meant for. It's not meant for any group of words that happens to be grammatically singular, nor for every redirect with a target that happens to be plural.
In the first sentence, it's elided as part of the phrase "the terms hard and soft technique": "terms" here makes clear that elision. In the second sentence, "hard technique and soft technique" is not elided.
It's not harmful, but just adds to clutter in the search space. Really, the problem is with the article title in the first place, per WP:AND, but I can think of no better. 94.21.38.148 (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't imply anything other than the fact that "hard and soft technique" can be used as a singular form of "hard and soft techniques" in some contexts, and I have given an example of such usage. I almost stated in my first comment that it sounds like your issue is with the article title, but wasn't quite sure enough to say so. It's nice to have that confirmation. So long as the article remains about "hard and soft techniques", a redirect from a singular form makes sense. -- Tavix (talk) 17:19, 7 January 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.

Graph edit operation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 12#Graph edit operation

Charte blanque[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 22:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enwiki has no information about "Charte blanque". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not even a non-English language. The only thing a Google search turned up was someone called "E Charte Blanque" on FaceBook. Narky Blert (talk) 13:03, 5 January 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.

Enragé[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 22:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. WP:XY, Enrage redirects to Rage (emotion) which hatnotes "Enragé" to Folle blanche, where it is mentioned in passing. The singular term "Enragé"( from French 'enraged, angry') is not used at the current target. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think. If I had read Enragés and wanted to know more I might well look up the singular. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from singular}}. I can easily imagine reading "X was an enragé" in a source. Narky Blert (talk) 10:25, 6 January 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.

Last friday[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 12#Last friday

Katy perry e.t.[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 22:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly capitalized redirect which hardly has any pageviews, seems completely useless. CycloneYoris talk! 06:27, 5 January 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.

Edward Fortyhand[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 13#Edward Fortyhand

German spelling reform[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 Spelling reform#German. signed, Rosguill talk 22:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several German spelling reform movements occurred before 1996. I suggest to retarget that redirect to Spelling_reform#German. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @LiliCharlie: Do you mean to rename the redirect we are discussing here? If so, that seems pointless. If you mean to rename the target article, that should definitely not happen, since it covers far more than just two German reforms. Glades12 (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was also a reform in 1901, so that is not a reason to oppose retargeting. Glades12 (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ^.^b Definitely, I only disputed the renaming suggested by LiliCharlie. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither the 1996 nor the 2006 changes to German spelling were officially called a reform; the official name was Änderung des Regelwerks (lit.: "amendment to the body of rules") in either case. However the 1996 revision was popularly called Rechtschreibreform ("spelling reform") or neue Rechtschreibung ("new spelling"), and the 2006 one Reform der Rechtschreibreform ("reform of the spelling reform") or simply Reform der Reform ("reform of the reform"), in order to distinguish between the two. For the term Reform applied to the major 2006 revision see for instance German Wiktionary, German Wikinews or the Zentrale für Unterrichtsmedien im Internet. — Apart from those two major revisions, German spelling underwent minor revisions in 2004, and in 2017 when the letter capital ẞ was officially introduced. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2006 was the 3rd revision of the 1996 "Regelwerk" (reform), cf. dewiki, 2011 was a minor 4th revision of 1996. FWIW (=pending review) I added your capital ß info on Reform der deutschen Rechtschreibung von 1996. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 13:45, 9 January 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.

Dunkin' Donut[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 22:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Implausible search term for a brand name. No inlinks and gets half a hit a day, on average. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for reasons given.--Iztwoz (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The (non-trivial) pageviews are probably there because Search lists Dunkin' Donut above Dunkin' Donuts. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Keep. Tavix (below) is right. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Huh? Am I missing something? This seems plausible as a form of {{R from singular}}. An example used in a sentence is: "I'm going to go get a Dunkin' Donut." I also think it plausible to search this thinking the brand actually is singular (well, because it technically is). -- Tavix (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix, and since this is a very plausible {{R from incorrect name}}. Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone searching it, "Dunkin' Donuts" will be the first search result anyway. For that matter, the company now trades as the simple "Dunkin'", but it seems a minor edit flurry has moved it back and forth. The number of hits suggests that people don't in fact search for it this way.
That being said, Dunkin' itself actually use it as an adjective or modifier, which is hard to argue against, and now the firm trades as "Dunkin'" then "a Dunkin' donut" would presumably be OK. So I think it's better just to keep it as an incorrect term. 94.21.38.148 (talk) 03:21, 6 January 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.

HDMI_1.3a_Specifications[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 12#HDMI_1.3a_Specifications

Superior border (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 speedy delete by WP:G8 due to the target's deletion. It appears that being listed at RfD prevented this from being carried out automatically when the other deletion discussion concluded. signed, Rosguill talk 22:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impossibly broad redirect, not serving a useful purpose. Propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It already is. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 13:14, 5 January 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.

Borders of the lung[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 22:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overly broad redirect page. Not keeping any useful encyclopedic purpose. In my opinion, no need to keep. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the result of a merge with significant history. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons given above.--Iztwoz (talk) 10:06, 5 January 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.

SWOSC[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be a widely used initialism. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 5 January 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.

Nevada-Las Vegas and Nevada-Reno[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 city redirects.

Participants consider the redirects which add the university's nickname sufficiently unambiguous to keep. Participants find the bare State-City redirects to be rather ambiguous, and most find this sufficient reason to delete. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As identified by an IP editor who mistakenly nominated these redirects for PROD, these redirects are as likely to refer to the cities of Reno and Las Vegas as they are the university campuses. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 01:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the city redirects I concur with the nominator (and the unregistered editor who kicked this off in the first place). ElKevbo (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rosguill: It's very bad form to add additional redirects to this nomination after editors have already commented. Please don't do that again. ElKevbo (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ElKevbo: I agree, that wasn't me. Looks like an IP added those. I agree that those should be kept. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. My apologies! ElKevbo (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would think this format to be implausible for the cities themselves. Personally, I don't think I've ever seen a city itself formatted in this way. On the other hand, while these specific universities may not be formatted this way, it is common for universities to have this formatting (eg: Wisconsin's system, Missouri's system, University of Nebraska–Lincoln). Strong keep the ones that add the nickname, they are unambiguous with the city. -- Tavix (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the 3 Rebels articles, as they are not likely to refer to anything but the target of the redirect. Delete the Nevada-Reno and Nevada-Las Vegas, as their is ambiguity about what they should point to.Onel5969 TT me 14:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Nevada-Reno" and "Nevada-Las Vegas", as those could refer to both the cities and the universities. Keep "Nevada-Las Vegas Rebels football", as it is clear to see where that points to. Retarget "Nevada-Las Vegas Hustlin' Rebels" to point to UNLV Rebels baseball and "Nevada-Las Vegas Rebels basketball" to point to UNLV Rebels basketball, as those are the far more logical targets for the redirects. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Revising my vote to add keep for Nevada-Las Vegas Rebels Basketball, as that points to the correct article as is. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Nevada-Las Vegas and Nevada-Reno, strong keep the others. I understand the arguments against Nevada-Las Vegas and Nevada-Reno at first blush, but the fact is US cities aren't referred to this way. No California-Sacramento, Washington-Seattle, or Arizona-Phoenix to be found. Conversely, Nevada-Las Vegas and Nevada-Reno are common shorthands for the schools. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Nevada-Reno" and "Nevada-Las Vegas" as ambiguous to the cities and universities, and note also that these are not common shorthand references to either school (which use "Nevada"/"UNR" and "UNLV" as their common shorthand references, respectively). Weak Keep the others. -- LJ ↗ 17:33, 12 January 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.

DK-King of Swing DS[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 move to DK King of Swing DS. Note that hyphens and spaces are fungible in the Wikipedia search box. signed, Rosguill talk 22:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DK Jungle Climber was not a King of Swing port, nor did King of Swing recieve it's own standalone port. — Searingjet (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment King of Swing mentions Jungle Climber as its sequel for the DS. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I don't know how likely a search term this is, but it should take readers where they want to go. I'll tag with {{R from incorrect name}}. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and keep. It was formerly known as "DK: King of Swing DS",[2][3] so the redirect would make sense, but we can't use the colon due to technical limitations. Replace the hyphen with a space and keep. czar 03:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Czar, is that a "move without leaving a redirect" vote? If "DK King of Swing DS" is an acceptable redirect, which I'd agree with, the hyphen seems like a rather benign modification. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BDD, yep! czar 05:26, 7 January 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.

Ethnic groups in locations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 25#Ethnic groups in locations

Saffron Barker[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 00:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is only mentioned in passing, and re-target to AJ_Pritchard#Saffron_Barker or the Summer_in_the_City_(event)#2018 award is not obviously better. That redirect was the result of a recent AFD, and the main contributor before the AFD is blocked at the moment. –84.46.53.194 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 08:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With no ideas so far, how about {{R to section}} AJ Pritchard#Saffron Barker and leave a comment on Talk:Social in the City#Saffron Barker stating what to do in the 2018 awards section, wikilink Saffron Barker or keep her unlinked? –84.46.53.107 (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems her main claim to notability is as a Strictly contestant, so I don't find anything wrong with the status quo. I'd say her mention at the other places is pretty passing too. I considered suggesting retargeting to List of Strictly Come Dancing contestants, but there are no redirects there. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable, and let Search operate unimpeded. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The AFD reason WP:BLP1E apparently missed the SitC 2017 and SitC 2018 awards, both unrelated to the BLP1E dancing. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The closing admin of the AFD also had no better ideas—correctly pointing out that the SitC awards are mostly NN—so that RFD degenerated into "toss a coin" for three suggested solutions, or two, if preserving the edit history excludes a "DEL". I've checked several obscure YouTube award lists for meanwhile notable BLPs, e.g., wikilinked Emma Chamberlain after that BLP was created, but this case was a FAIL, sorry for wasting your time. –84.46.53.207 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 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.

Talk:Scooter (motorcycle)/Archive 2[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 01:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These archives were text-merged into their target (by me) due to not having enough content to warrant separate archive pages. In the past, after text-merging archive pages, I've tagged the pages with either {{Db-g6}} or {{Db-subpage}} after the text-merge (usually {{Db-g6}} anymore after finding out that {{Db-subpage}} usually doesn't apply) and they have bee deleted. (For recent examples, please see User:Steel1943/CSD log/2 for some recent examples; there are probably over 100.) However, for some reason, the {{Db-g6}} tags I placed on these redirects were declined. (here and here.) So thus, I'm bringing these here for a couple of reasons: 1) These redirects existing breaks the utility of templates such as {{Automatic archive navigator}}, {{Archives}} and {{Talk header}} since such templates such return links for existent pages, including redirects, possibly making readers believe there is an archive page that has content, but it doesn't and 2) these redirects existing, as mentioned previously, make it seem that these pages contain content when they do not. Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 5 January 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_January_5&oldid=937629208"