Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 11, 2020.

Knightley filmography[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 19:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keira Knightley isn't known mononymously, so it is an awkward title that is not plausibly used to find her filmography. Additionally, it is ambiguous because Will Knightley is an actor. -- Tavix (talk) 23:08, 11 March 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.

Reino Unido[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 19#Reino Unido

Chapter named after Mary[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) 19:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely and ambiguous search term, since it's both slightly ungrammatical and doesn't specify what book the chapter is in. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While it's not technically a full chapter, the Magnificat would also be something that this could refer to. Hog Farm (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This looks to me like a plausible English-language search term for this surah. The book in question can only be the Koran. There is no chapter named after Mary in the New Testament; this is purely an Islamic concept. Narky Blert (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is the Gospel of Mary -- 70.51.46.77 (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are a wide variety of individuals known as 'Mary' who have either written material, had material written about them, or have been involved with the writing of material in some other way. Multiple New Testament people named Mary exist in particular. Notability is a rather tricky question to say the least. I tend to think that deletion is the right call in these circumstances. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 11 March 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.

Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848-1868)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 20#Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848-1868)

GM Specialty Vehicles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 19#GM Specialty Vehicles

Jonny David[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 19:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These were all players for the Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball program, but there really isn't a good place for a redirect. The current target either offers a bare mention or none at all. They all get better coverage in multiple season articles (eg: 2014–15 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team, 2015–16 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team, 2016–17 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team), so we should not be choosing one target over any of the others. -- Tavix (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all These are basically just a bunch of non-notable players. Why have redirects at all? Rikster2 (talk) 19:10, 12 March 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.

Çakya-Mouni[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 19#Çakya-Mouni

Parahumans[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 19#Parahumans

Egiptus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 18#Egiptus

Growing a Greener World[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 18#Growing a Greener World

God of Blood[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 18#God of Blood

Tower cap[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 19:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Random mushroom in a video game. Not a helpful redirect. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, / The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces, / The solemn temples, the great globe itself, / Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve / And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, / Leave not a rack behind. Narky Blert (talk) 21:03, 12 March 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.

Brown Americans[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 User:GB fan per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY as this term may also refer to Americans from South Asia or certain Hispanic and Latino Americans. feminist (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no point in disambiguating. The redirect is an ethnic catch-all with no clear definition. Hog Farm (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Honestly I don't care, I was a fucking moron back in 2007, and made a lot of pointless redirects. I even got most of them deleted myself. So whatever, get rid of it I couldn't care less. I don't even care about Wikipedia anymore. I only come here nowadays to look up names of actors and the character in a movie as well as browse movies to watch. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 17:23, 11 March 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.

*Stupendous Man[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 19:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding asterisk is pointless. Also, possibly problematic because a leading asterisk is how the search bar brings up all mentions of a string. Appears to be a leftover from a page move in 2005. Hog Farm (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not part of the actual name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or remove the asterisk per nom.OcelotCreeper (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had apparently tried to fix this back in 2005 (I have no memory of that), but only created the redirect without the asterisk. I probably should have nominated this for deletion then, although I doubt I knew how to at the time. DavidConrad (talk) 17:14, 13 March 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.

Land of Entrapment[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 19:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The state's real nickname is "Land of Enchantment". While I can find usage of this term in places like Urban Dictionary, I can't find usage of this term in reliable sources. Delete. Hog Farm (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article does not even mention entrapment in it. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as undiscussed neologism. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a joke in poor taste. Narky Blert (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entrapment is not mentioned at all like what the IP above said, but Land of Entrapment instead of Land of Enchantment makes this an obvious WP:RCOM. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit: If you look at the page history, the creator of the redirect used the words “colloquial humorous nickname“. I think that makes this redirect a G3.OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, G3 is only for bad faith creations. A widely used colloquial humours nickname would be a very useful redirect to have (and indeed we have them for many places, people and things), and the nominator has indicated that this is a nickname that is used for the target, so it is very likely that this redirect was created with the good faith aim of improving the encyclopaedia. I haven't looked yet to see whether it is or is not useful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I searched it up, the nickname exists. However it is not that well known yet so it feels like a neologism (not sure on this one) and the article does not mention the joke nickname at all, so it makes it sound like a joke redirect made up on the fly. OcelotCreeper (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • While it might sound like it, it obviously isn't. This is not an argument for keeping the redirect, it is simply an argument against speedy deleting it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this was NOT done in bad faith as I was aware of the nickname. IWI (chat) 07:46, 12 March 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.

More research should have been done on this. This denigrating nickname has been common within the state for at least my entire life (I'm in my 50s now). This was a good redirect and should have been kept.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hugbunter[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 18#Hugbunter

Catstodian[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 18#Catstodian

Floof[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 18#Floof

John. W. Brown[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 19:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible with the period after the first name, the extraneous period after the complete name makes this one pointless. Hog Farm (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, implausible misspelling which will help no-one. Narky Blert (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I'm not too sure about this. Still, I can easily see somebody going '[First Name]. [Middle Initial]. [Surname]' when typing inattentively. It's not that implausible of a mistake. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. John Brown is more of a disambiguation page and it contains 5 people named John W. Brown and 2 ships named John W Brown. Makes it a useless redirect. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of the period after John. John W. Brown already exists as a redirect to the dab page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:02, 12 March 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:R from incorrect punctuation[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 19:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting retarget to {{R from misspelling}} (as rejected by Paine Ellsworth). As we also have {{R from alternative hyphenation}}, a new Redirect categorisation template may alternatively be created. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional keep since this redirect, at the present time, has 108 transclusions. If that number becomes 0, consider me neutral. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Since this template redirect has that many transclusions, actions with it would be harmful. Hog Farm (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retargeting as creator. Although I'd say punctuation isn't always spelling, it looks like {{R from alternative spelling}} is also for alternative punctuation, so it's logical that {{R from misspelling}} should be for incorrect punctuation. M.Clay1 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to {{R from misspelling}}. Both are mistakes, whereas {{R from modification}} means a correct alternative version. Narky Blert (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. At some point, editors may want to turn this into an rcat if and when there are a significant number of incorrect punctuations. For now, these are unprintworthy error-type modifications of the targeted title. PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is per Paine Ellesworth. These are not always spelling errors. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 11 March 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.

Magazine cover[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 18#Magazine cover

Front cover[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 Cover. signed, Rosguill talk 19:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A front cover is the front portion of a published product or publication, like album cover or any other cover. I think it should be redirected to cover dabpage (or another target) converted to separate dabpage. Also, the redirect was piped as reference to anything else other than a book cover, like a cover story of a magazine. George Ho (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Cover per nom as it can be any media cover from books to albums to magazines. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:59, 12 March 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:Hillbilly Hack[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 19:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was redirected to this page in 2017 by an IP, a draft with this title does not seem to have ever existed. Pointless CNR. Hog Farm (talk) 14:47, 11 March 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.

ACW causes[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 19:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the dab page ACW, this wouldn't exclusively refer to this topic. Hog Farm (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Using the word cause makes it sound like it is talking about a virus or something else. ACW origins would be a better redirect. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be plausibly ambiguous with a least five other entries on the ACW dab page, so would not be significantly better. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thryduulf maybe Civil War origins. Is that better? OcelotCreeper (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC) but i[reply]
        • Not as a redirect to an article about the origins of any particular civil war - almost every country that has had a civil war refers to their own as just the "civil war" with qualification given to others. e.g. to me I would assume it was about the origins of the 1642–1651 conflicts, an American would read it as relating to the 1861-1865 war while a Syrian would most likely assume it was related to the ongoing conflict that started in 2011. It would work as (a redirect to) an article about the origins of civil wars in general. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
N.b., There are several incoming redirects that don't specify the US. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Looking over the disambiguation page, I don't know what else this could refer to. In my experience, "ACW" isn't a very common abbreviation for the American Civil War. But that could just be because I'm American, and we just say "Civil War". --BDD (talk) 16:13, 12 March 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.

Tan Huat[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 18#Tan Huat

Lingwa[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) 19:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the target isn't know simply as Lingwa: the term here is only part of the name, as it is also part of other names, like Lingwa Maltija. – Uanfala (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Dhar. It's an inhabited place, mentioned there. I've removed the bad link. Narky Blert (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lingawa (I don't know if Lingwa is a valid alternative spelling or a typo) is only one of several hundred villages in Dhar www.census2011.co.in/data/subdistrict/3536-kukshi-dhar-madhya-pradesh.html, and I see no reason why this should remain mentioned in that messy text at Dhar (at the very least, the village is in the district of Dhar, not the city that the article is about). There is another village, this time properly called Lingwa, in another part of the same state www.census2011.co.in/data/village/478357-lingwa-madhya-pradesh.html, but unsurprisingly, it's not mentioned in the article about the administrative unit it's part of. – Uanfala (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy for now. Author requests deletion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Soumya-8974: this is not suitable for speedy deletion as other editors have recommended an action other than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to lingua. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a default choice per the above discussion. Multiple options have been selected to retarget this redirect, but the title of the redirect does not have potential as a disambiguation page, meaning that deleting this page will allow Wikipedia's search function work appropriately for anyone searching this term. Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943. signed, Rosguill talk 19:02, 18 March 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_March_11&oldid=956344448"