Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 26, 2020.

Qin Zhuang Xiang Wang[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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 18:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be referred to by this name Utopes (talk / cont) 23:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a plausible error for Qín Zhuāngxiāng Wáng, which is the pinyin transcription of his Chinese name and is listed in the {{Infobox Chinese}} in the article. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, as it's a plausible transliteration from Chinese without tonal accents. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 05:28, 27 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.

Judo Union of Asia[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) 21:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 26 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.

Germanic groups[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 20:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While "language groups" would be specific, simply using "groups" to describe language families means that this titles could be ambiguous. These are likely search terms, so I would assume that retargeting is the best outcome. I would also presume that each of these titles might have different outcomes; "Gaelic groups" are much less ambiguous than "German groups", as "Gaelic" is more commonly associated with the language. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:03, 26 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.

American sprinter[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 Category:American sprinters. signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless someone can find an appropriate target article with a list of American sprinters. I was unable to find one. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:45, 26 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.

HomePage[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. Looks like this is still no consensus, with significant numbers of editors supporting either redirection or keeping as is, not to mention a few editors who chimed in to say that they have no strong opinions one way or the other. signed, Rosguill talk 20:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Proposing a retarget to Home page. Not sure why the CNR would gain precedence over the article with the similar title. Hog Farm (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose retargeting for historical reasons. It appears that this was the original location of Wikipedia's main page. [1] SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, HomePage was the old CamelCase name for the main page. Many of these are still kept. 47 pages link there (on the enwiki). Also, should be kept for purely historical reasons. >>BEANS X2t 18:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Home page per nom as the most proper target for the redirect as an encyclopedic search term. Since Main page cannot have a hatnote and there are readers who may not have knowledge of how to navigate to Home page if they search HomePage first with the current configuration, retargeting is the most proper way to go. For this reason, the hatnote currently on Home page that directs readers to Main page is sufficient after this proposed retarget. (FWIW, Hog Farm, this redirect is technically not a WP:CNR; Main page is technically in the article namespace as it has no namespace prefix.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the argument for "keep" versus "retarget"? Retargeting doesn't do anything to the page history, right? Asking in case there's something I'm missing. (Cool thing to look at: Wikipedia:UuU, which was originally at UuU.) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think the Keep !votes are missing that no one has proposed "Delete"; in RfD, although in many (most?) cases, the proposal is to delete, the D actually stands for "discussion" and that's on-pont here.
I personally am torn so provide no opinion on the redirect's disposition. On the one hand, I would have it point to home page, but an awful lot of links in ancient discussions would break and make no sense were it to be changed. TJRC (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like TJRC said, retargeting would break old links (not just on talk pages, but in articles too). And it just seems wrong to break the link between this and the modern-day Main Page because it's such a fundamental part of Wikipedia history. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was a previous RFD: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_20#HomePage. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TJRC and SpicyMilkBoy: For what it's worth, at RfD, "keep" can be considered short for "keep as is", so voting "keep" is perfectly fine in respect to leaving the redirect as is. Also, I've added the previous RfD to the top in this nomination in this edit. Steel1943 (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is for historical reasons, as well as the fact that "Home page" appears as a search term when the camelcase version is typed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This might be of interest to Graham87. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh – honestly, I don't mind, as long as the history is kept (which it will be). Graham87 01:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget The time to care about nineteen-year-old (!) history to this extent passed long ago. What matters now is what the most logical target for "HomePage" is, and home page, which already has a hatnote to Main Page, seems clearly more logical. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for prior-mentioned link breakage rationale reason (and also because I'm a lover of keeping sufficiently old/historical stuff like this the way it is but that's really more of an arguments to avoid rationale). - Purplewowies (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral; it's important to note OlEnglish's comment in the last debate on this. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 20:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's helpful for the people who will click on the links here from the old pages.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 12:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect; even though this is the original location of the Wikipedia homepage (Special:Diff/908493319), I doubt people are actually landing on these links from anywhere except Wikipedia:First 100 pages. Plus, compared to the actual main page, main page redirects are barely used at all.[toxiboi 1] At best, only 88 people followed this redirect. Even if people are considered about the history, it will stay there after the redirect. –ToxiBoi! (contribs) 02:02, 24 March 2020; edited 02:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Pageview chart for March 2020. Other redirects included for comparison.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 19:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. While we should always be careful not to break links, especially old links, unnecessarily we do need to balance that with accessibility of current uses. In this specific case there is a hatnote at home page leading to the main page but one in the other direction would not be appropriate, so the balance imo is clearly in favour of the retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment: This section was accidentally removed in this edit at 22:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC). It was not returned until I added it back in this edit a few minutes ago, meaning this nomination disappeared for almost a whole day. Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its unlikely someone searching in CamelCase is looking for Home page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:24, 28 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.

.csc[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 2#.csc

I griega[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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish name mentioned in Y#Name. WP:RLOE. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, yet another WP:FOREIGN redirect created by an editor with a predilection for creating useless redirects. TJRC (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFFL. Narky Blert (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's a chance that someone sees the term "i griega" used in a foreign language source and thinks it's a different letter than found in English.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 13:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's mentioned int he article and Naddruf's scenario above is plausible. It's not the most useful redirect on Wikipedia, but starting an RfD over this because the editor that created it has a penchant for useless redirects that waste our time is cutting off your nose to spite your face. signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 19:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is used almost immediately in the first section and is sufficiently different than the term used in English. While my following hypothetical is unlikely, what if someone whose language refers to it as "Greek I" tries looking for it on here? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 19:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Naddruf and Rosguill. The term is prominently used at the target so it falls within the first and/or second examples of appropriate redirects listed at WP:RFFL. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above as it's explained at the target. Also, since the Latin alphabet is not exclusive to English, I wouldn't even think WP:RFOREIGN applies here. ComplexRational (talk) 13:49, 27 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.

Savage (Judad Priest song)[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) 21:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo for a redirect from song created in the process of making way for a more notable song titled Savage. It doesn't look like any of the content in this redirect's edit history was used anywhere, so I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Savage is a track on the album. The redirect doesn't seem to be misleading or even particularly unlikely. The redirect Savage (song), now re-targeted, received a steady trickle of visitors, although possibly they were looking for a different song. If there were no redirect for "Savage (something)" it would seem to be desirable to create one, and "Savage (song)" may not be available as a title any more. Lithopsian (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lithopsian: Did you notice the misspelling? Judad Priest for Judas Priest. Narky Blert (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed that. Delete Lithopsian (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need for this misspelling when Savage (Judas Priest song) exists. Narky Blert (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain history at Savage (Judas Priest song) - Until today, this existed at Savage (song) until a series of incomprehensible moves which ultimately landed it here at a misspelling. But the redirect has edit history and should be preserved. @Rosguill: would this satisfy your needs - after putting the history at the correct spelling, the typo leftover redirect can be speedied. -- Netoholic @ 01:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to this per se, but I'm currently under the impression that there's nothing in the history that needs saving. signed, Rosguill talk 02:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: My thought is that if there's no compelling reason to delete, I'd rather retain since it was the first New page from a good faith first-time contributor. -- Netoholic @ 05:11, 27 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.

Dutchess County irport[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 20:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another typo, another day. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:16, 26 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.

English (traditional)[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 traditional, redirect (simplified) to Simple English. signed, Rosguill talk 20:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no use for these two redirects. They have virtually no hits and no incoming wikilinks. The targets seem somehow incorrect and I can't think of any obviously good ones, unless maybe Basic English for the latter. Recommend deletion. Station1 (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just created it from this meme: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/650/018/a9b.jpg Ollieinc (talk) 09:20, 26 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.

Redirects with trademark symbols[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 20:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs, such as Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_25#™_Redirects, have determined that redirects with unnecessary trademark symbols should be deleted per MOS:TM. (someone please compile a full list of these). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:04, 26 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.

European colonialism[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 History of colonialism. signed, Rosguill talk 20:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either leave as-is, or retarget to "History of colonialism" per consistency with other redirect pages discussed in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 1#European colonization. George Ho (talk) 06:55, 26 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.

2019–20 outbreak of North East Respiratory Syndrome(NERS) (NERS-nCoV)[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, G7. --BDD (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Hoax Carl Fredrik talk 05:53, 26 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.

Chinese takeout[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 withdrawn.. Thanks everyone for their input. I am now convinced that this term is not exclusively associated with American Chinese cuisine. This may have potential for its own article, as it's not exclusively served in Chinese restaurants. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to American Chinese cuisine. The term "takeout" is exclusively used in American English; the term "takeaway" is used in British English. The term "Chinese takeout" refers particularly to the type of American Chinese cuisine sold in disposable containers, not Chinese restaurants in general. feminist (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The phrase also applies to Canadian Chinese cuisine. --BDD (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While "takeaway" is indeed more common in British English, "takeout" is also used and a quick google suggests it is also used in Australia so I would oppose pointing this to an article relating to a single country. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-native English speakers do not distinguish between the words takeout and takeaway. Please do not confuse us. Chinese cuisine is sold in disposable containers all over the world, while conversely, American Chinese cuisine is also served in restaurants. The two terms simply do not match. – gpvos (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. My personal experience says that "takeout" is used in UK even if less common than "takeaway". The word is not country-specific. Narky Blert (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Takeout", as stated above, is associated with American English in this context but far from exclusive as well. I'd rather that we just leave things alone. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:50, 28 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.

Cult moive[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 3#Cult moive

"Upcoming" redirects no longer upcoming[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 20:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Targets are no longer "upcoming". ...And after this batch, there may not be any more of these redirects for a few months... Steel1943 (talk) 03:57, 26 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:User GoogleChrome2[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 20:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This userbox was observed to be substantially similar to the target, and redirected by Pmsyyz back in 2012, but remained listed in the userbox gallery until the present day. I removed that link and updated all transclusions, so the redirect can safely be deleted. – voidxor 23:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore template and revert transclusion changes. The former content differs from the current target in that it also mentions Chromium (a slightly different piece of software), and although I doubt there is any relevant guideline, I'd say it is enough to keep the two separate. Alternatively we could merge the templates somehow, but I disagree with simply deleting this. Glades12 (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a long history here. Version "2" was created on 2011-06-27 and looked like this. At that time, the original looked like this. Not only do they look identical, but the links and categories are identical too. Inspecting the code, the only difference is that the "2" version dropped the transwiki links. There doesn't seem to be any justification for creating a second template at that time.
    Less than a year later, another user noticed that they were identical and merged them. That was all the way back in 2012. Nobody has complained since.
    As far as the Chromium issue, the original userbox did not mention Chromium. There was some back and forth circa 2010–2011 to do with Chrome's logo being non-free. It kept getting removed due to that. Ultimately, in this edit, the Chromium logo was substituted for the missing Chrome logo and the "or Chromium" text was ad hoc'ed into the userbox. But even by that time, there was an existing userbox for Chromium users, so no need to hijack the Chrome one. Other editors previously put back the Chrome logo, so I just reverted the text change as well. – voidxor 23:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Neutral then. Glades12 (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 03:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh; weak keep. It isn't causing any harm and I think we should be retaining valid history for clarity in future discussions. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 05:31, 2 April 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.

Simon Deitch[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. WP:SNOW closure. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Person not notable, and it doesn't make sense redirecting his article to his more notable brother. Tomskyhaha (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as valid {{R from relative}}. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jalen. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Templates like {{R from relative}} (I must know a dozen of them) are specifically designed for non-notable topics which readers might search for. Such redirects are justified if there is some useful information at the target. Narky Blert (talk) 07:42, 26 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.

President and CEO[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 Corporate title. Noting that Unrefine and Rerefine are both essentially keep votes, there is a clear consensus to keep the redirect. Editors advocating for Unrefine outnumber those advocating for Keep and Rerefine, so I see a weak consensus to remove the section targeting. signed, Rosguill talk 20:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous title to a location that the reader may not expect. In addition, this is an unlikely search term due to the "and" and the combination of topics. While this may be a common phrase, this opens the door for other title strings that should not be opened. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:XY. They are two separate titles, even if they may be held by the same person at the same time in a company. Steel1943 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrefine. The target adequately describes both titles at the target. However, these positions aren't limited to the United States, so it should not be refined to that section. -- Tavix (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. Two different jobs. Narky Blert (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrefine per Tavix. Yes these are two different jobs, but they are related and the target article deals with both - the exact phrase even occurs in the first section after the lead. XY is not relevant here as that is for situations where we would have to pick between two multiple equally relevant targets, but in this case there is exactly one relevant article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in the US, many executives hold both titles and are listed as such. Philly jawn (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and while I'm not entirely opposed to unrefining it, I would favour keeping the anchor link. It's a fairly common title for the heads of companies particularly in the US, and that section actually does discuss the combined title somewhat. If we didn't have a good place to point this redirect, it would indeed be an unhelpful redirect per WP:XY, but we do - I think the current target answers the likely question a reader will have, while also linking to the separate terms if that's what they were looking for. ~ mazca talk 17:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:07, 26 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.

Beisebol[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. After 2 relistings, consensus has still not been reached. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 19:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOREIGN, nothing particularly Portuguese about baseball. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. According to WP:FOREIGN, the only foreign redirects that should exist are those that people in the US or UK will commonly say instead of the actual word and this does not look like a plausible typo to the english word. Also, keeping redirects that are foreign words that are not commonly used in english countries could result in others creating boatloads of redirects that are foreign words of the target article so WP:PANDORA as well. OcelotCreeper (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD, this is a plausible misspelling of the Spanish form. There is still no evidence that keeping possibly-related redirects encourages others to create "boatloads of redirects". Besides, Category:Baseball in Brazil has a decent amount of activity. -- Tavix (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:FOREIGN. Yes, it is a plausible misspelling of a non-English word, but per Wikipedia guidelines, even properly spelled foreign equivalents don't belong here. I would have supported deletion of Béisbol had I been aware of it before Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_21#Béisbol closed. TJRC (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:00, 26 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_26&oldid=1147902190"