Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 14

March 14[edit]

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

N plicatus[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 03:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

N plicatus → Northern freetail bat (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Useless lacking the dot after N. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This redirect is plausible in cases like this. Deleting serves no benefit to anyone. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... N. plicatus doesn't exist, and I cannot figure out where it should point via third party search engines results if the redirect is created, and I'm obviously running across the same issue with the nominated redirect. Striking out my vote. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This redirect only got 35 pageviews in the last 4.5 years. That is 7-8 views per year. OcelotCreeper (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but this doesn't necessarily prove that the redirect is misleading, which would be the only reason in this case why this redirect would need to be deleted. It is perfectly plausible for someone who wants to look up this term but doesn't know that the first abbreviation in the term is traditionally followed by a period (N. plicatus vs. N plicatus) to attempt to search this term without a period. Lack of page views does not prove anything regarding why this redirect should be deleted, especially considering that deleting this redirect creates problems for readers who do not know that the period needs to be used to look up the scientific name, this redirect is not ambiguous, and the lack of existence of this redirect goes against assuming readers do not have a clue. Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Striking the above out per the comment regarding the change in my vote. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Wrinkle-lipped free-tailed bat per [1], unless this scientific name can be shown to apply to other bats, in which case delete. Hog Farm (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:XY in addition to the missing period, since both bats mentioned in the discussion have N. plicatus as a synonym. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, missing period makes this an unlikely search term. Abbreviations of binomials that involve a simple Greek/Latin adjective and a common letter are rarely unique; the extinct pig genus Nyanzachoerus also has an N. plicatus and there are likely other species not yet mentioned on Wikipedia. There are disambiguation pages of this form in Category:Species Latin name abbreviation disambiguation pages, but I don't think those are a very good idea (they aren't typically updated with newly added relevant articles, and due to the haphazard nature of creation of species articles on Wikipedia, dab pages may not contain the particular species a person is searching for); C. elegans (disambiguation) is Wikipedia's longest disambiguation page, and an excellent illustration of the problems in creating a comprehensive disambiguation page for a relatively common binomial abbreviation. I favor deleting this redirect rather than creating a dab page at N. plicatus. Plantdrew (talk) 20:10, 24 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.

His Prophet[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His Prophet → Muhammad in Islam (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

While a Scholar search for this term does return results about Muhammad, it also returns results about a whole bunch of other prophets. Redirecting to Prophet could make sense, but also is likely not helpful for anyone searching for this term, leaving me leaning toward deletion and letting search results take care of it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The phrase is apparently a snippet from the Shahada, but such a redirects doesn't really make sense outside of a conceivable Islamic version of Conservapedia.The temptation to redirect to Paul Dirac should definitely be resisted. – Uanfala (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per completely ambiguous as to what it is referring to. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this term is also used to refer to several prophets in the Old Testament, so ambiguous. Hog Farm (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Prophet. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the point of redirect to prophet. b uidhe 08:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's no value in redirecting this elsewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 20 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.

Former Wei[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 22#Former Wei

NCoV (SARS)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#NCoV (SARS)

1.000[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. There's interest in disambiguation, so if you want to make one, feel free. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1.000 → 1000 (number) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

1'000 → 1000 (number) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I'm not quite sure what is the intended context of 1'000, but it seems to be a possible string in Quote notation, where it doesn't represent the number one thousand. As for 1.000, it may represent 1000, but not in the English notation. – Uanfala (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1.000 as misleading, and weak keep 1'000, I've seen it used that way in financial/accounting contexts before. Hog Farm (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hog Farm's proposal. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the 1st; Weak keep the second per Hog Farm and J947. Doug Mehus T·C 19:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either leave the redirects as they are right now, or, if this can't have a consensus, change them into disambiguation pages: 1.000 into a disambiguation page containing links to 1000 (number) and 1 (number), and 1'000 into a page containing 1000 (number) and Quote notation. Rationale: It might seem overkill at first and, obviously, we can't do this for all such numbers, but given that 1000 is a particularly important number in the context of decimal and thousand separators, I think it would be a disservice to our readers to not redirect them to some useful place (if a single such target can be established in this discussion) or educate them a little and point them to all possible meanings. While we are the English Wikipedia, we are only one entity in an international project, and many (if not most) of our readers come from an international context. The alternative would be to disambiguate incoming redirects through hatnotes on the target pages, but this might become impractical if there are more than one such incoming redirects. "." is used as a thousands separator (rather than decimal separator) in about half of the world, and "'" is used as a thousands separator as well in some countries (for example in Switzerland) and in contexts where using either "." or "," could cause confusion (although a half-space is meanwhile preferred). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. There are many instances where a period is used as a delimiter for the thousands place, be it for English speaking countries or other from other countries with different dialects. In those cases, commas are used to denote decimal places, and use periods for indicating thousands, etc. People searching for information about the number 1 are not searching for "1.000", but are instead searching for "1". With that being said, using a period instead of a comma in the redirect, while it may not make much practical sense, means "a thousand" in other situations. Therefore, it would be an alternate name for the topic. Read more at Decimal separator#Digit grouping. Keep 1'000 for the same reason. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment. I'm persuaded by Utopes and Matthiaspaul and I think disambiguating for 1.000 might be slightly preferable to deletion. Keeping it targeted to 1000 (number) is not a good idea: outside of mathematics, 1.000 is a common way to indicate "1" known to a certain precision. If this is used as a search term at all, then this use is in my opinion at least as likely to be the one intended. Disambiguating 1'000 might be a good idea, but I'd want that to be done by someone confident in quote notation (I woudn't go by my own reading of that article to interpret the number). – Uanfala (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1.000 is used in Batting average (baseball) and is noted as "batting a thousand" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per Utopes. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the times that I have seen "1.000", the dot is a decimal point, and the number means "1", or "some value within the range 1±0.0005". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep exactly per Utopes. It's not typical for an American to see 1.000, but that's what a good redirect can help with. Less sure about 1'000 but it seems like a fine typo. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1.000. 1.000 is technically 1, not 1000. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the second – I have seen it used on some older calculator displays, and its meaning seems unambiguous. Neutral leaning disambiguate for the first – the above arguments mention several reasonable targets, and I'm not convinced that any one is a primary topic, but even those could be a stretch for a dab page, so keeping to the current target would be better than leaving uninformed readers with a redlink. ComplexRational (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The use of quote notation for 1'000, since the zeroes are redundant: $1'000 = 000.11111... = 1/9$ . — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:24, 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.

Nick Bianco[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 21#Nick Bianco

Maumoon Abdul Gayoom The President Of Maldives 41 Years Ago[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. Nabla (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maumoon Abdul Gayoom The President Of Maldives 41 Years Ago → Maumoon Abdul Gayoom (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Seems like a useless redirect. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, time-based redirects are not helpful. Hog Farm (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first three words accurately point to the target; no more qualification is necessary. (FWIW, as of 2020 he was president 42, 41, 40, ... 14, 13, 12 years ago.) Narky Blert (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the 41 years ago part is removed. It has a decent number of pageviews. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:06, 14 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.