Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 6
May 8 >

May 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 7, 2020.

Soviet Russia[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 21:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could also mean Soviet Union to millions of people. Therefore, disambiguate the redirect. Soumyabrata talk contribs subpages 06:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to help the ignorant millions (among whom you can include me, because my immediate thought on seeing "Soviet Russia" is the USSR). Narky Blert (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose turning into a dab page. Neutral on target (Russian SFSR vs. Soviet Union). Renata (talk)
  • Retarget and swap: Setting aside the historical facts of the Soviet Union (which came after Soviet Russia, etc.), it was commonly, if incorrectly, called "Soviet Russia". Setting that aside, though, Narky Blert offers an ingenious and correct solution: the two pages (this one and the DAB) should be swapped to reduce further and continuing confusion. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Staszek Lem. There's already a notice on top of the current target for readers who meant to read the USSR. I think it's working well. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Check the incoming links, a good proportion of which relate to USSR not RSFSR. It is working very badly. Narky Blert (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia by Alexander N. Yakovlev, Soviet politician and historian, is about the Soviet Union. Narky Blert (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Russia was only one part of the Soviet Union. HotdogPi 21:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate because there is no primary topic and to prevent erroneous incoming links. buidhe 08:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it already goes to the correct target. Hatnotes are the right way to unconfuse readers who might not understand a term. SpinningSpark 14:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't disagree with the nominator's argument, but Soviet Union is always going to be linked in the lede of the target article. Sure, people will use "Soviet Russia" as shorthand for the whole USSR, whether out of ignorance or metonymy, but when we have an article on the actual Soviet Russia, that's the clear target. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For above reasons. Better to clear up this misunderstanding instead of being purposefully inaccurate. It should point to the Russian SFSR --Havsjö (talk) 11:00, 15 May 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.

Grandview Avenue[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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, a Google search returns results for Grandview Avenues elsewhere as well, with no obvious indication that the Mount Washington Grandview is more prominent. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 22:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not mentioned on target page and is too vague to be unique. I have to imagine there are other "Grandview Avenues". - Dyork (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect is ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:21, 8 May 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.

Betviton[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 14#Betviton

Gen W[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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Searching online, this term seems to be used by a women's organization. While I can understand the logic of "the generation before X is W", there doesn't seem to be much evidence that this phrase is used this way. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Looks like an attempt to push a neologism without support. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add: the organization doesn't appear to be notable in my opinion, but I wouldn't object to somebody starting an article necessarily on it after deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At first sight, I though it related to some general or other (Washington or Westmoreland, perhaps? I could see such an abbreviation being used in military correspondence). Narky Blert (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are indeed usages of this abbreviation in military correspondence ([1]). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a rather clear {{R from incorrect name}} per an expected use of chronological order, given the targets that Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z target. If there are other encyclopedic targets which this term could refer, then create a disambiguation page over this redirect. Otherwise, this redirect is definitely a plausible search term for its target. Steel1943 (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In searching, I've not found any references to using "Gen W" to point to Baby Boomers. As noted in previous comments, I have found uses pointing to women's organization. I agree with CoffeeWithMarkets above that it might actually make sense for the redirect to be deleted and someone to create an article about the Gen W organization. Regardless, I do think this redirect should be deleted. - Dyork (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just because later generations have been identified by sources as X,Y and Z doesn’t automatically mean that the baby boomers are known as gen W and the fact that several people haven’t been able to find sources to that effect indicates that they aren’t known by that name.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete especially that Generation W was deleted (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 9#Generation W). CrazyBoy826 (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, keep because someone who doesn't know much about generations would think that the previous was W because of X, Y, and Z. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We should still require evidence that the term is in use not simply that it could technically make sense. Also, I see the arguments that lead to the deletion of Generation W applying here.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We simply don't require evidence. It's a misnomer and helpful in some ways; IMO it fails in its ambiguity instead. — J947 [cont] 02:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous (1 2). — J947 [cont] 02:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since Generation W was deleted. Any keep !votes are fundamentally relitigating that RfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with this interpretation – the likely reason for the redirect wasn't raised in the previous discussion, this is a case of new information being brought up IMO. — J947 [cont] 04:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at that nomination the nominator knew about the connect between the term and the Serbian War Generation so in this case it’s more likely the original nominator didn’t know this existed at the time.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 17:20, 14 May 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.

美国[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 Flag of the United States#"Flower Flag" arrives in Asia. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This redirect is in Chinese. There have been discussions about the redirects from foreign languages such as Spanish and French and the consensus seems to be that the languages have a significant history in the country. I'm not sure Chinese does as well. Interstellarity (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:17, 7 May 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.

Barack Obamacare[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 21:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely incorrect name. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "It'll be what's known as Hillarycare or Barack Obamacare, or whatever you want to call it." -- Tavix (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. — J947 [cont] 21:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we already have the ubiquitous "ObamaCare" as a redirect. We don't need Barack added to the title. Google search results bring up less than 4,000 and most of those include the WP redirect and Barack Obama's name somewhere in the article. Not a good use of a redirect. Atsme Talk 📧 19:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this redirect since it may not be clear to some readers what the "Obama" in "ObamaCare" refers to. Yes, Obama is currently a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Barack Obama, but Obama (disambiguation) also exists. For those who may not know who/what "Obama" refers to in this redirect, the deletion of this redirect may hinder their ability to find their intended target, and the deletion of this redirect does more harm than good. Also, please see Tavix's comment above citing the use of this redirect in at least one third party source. Steel1943 (talk) 01:06, 9 May 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.

Tyler Johnson (baseball, born 1985)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per G7. -- Tavix (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect disambiguation and improbable typo. When I moved the page a while ago, I incorrectly disambiguated and put the wrong year. The link has only existed for two weeks and I hope to delete it. This one's on me. My bad. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KingSkyLord: If you created it and nobody else made substantial edits to it, you can request it for speedy deletion. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 20:43, 7 May 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.

🤑[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 16#🤑

Wikipedia:5C[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 00:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect. Doesn't make sense in context. How is "5C" related to copy editing? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Copyediting involves the "five Cs": making the article clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent * Pppery * it has begun... 18:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess, but I have been a coordinator for the Guild of Copy Editors for seven years, and I can't recall anyone ever writing "5C" or asking for a 5C link. We already have "CE", which is a well known abbreviation that actually makes sense. In my experience, redirects are usually created because they are needed for some reason described at WP:RPURPOSE. I don't see that reason in evidence here. It's just unnecessary. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: Keep: "5C" stands for something that is said in the Wikipedia:Basic copyediting page: Copyediting involves the "five Cs": making the article clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent. -◊PRAHLADBalaji 21:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC) (Edited 00:32, May 8, 2020)[reply]
  • Keep - Duh. - BilCat (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Demonstrated to be sensical. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we close this discussion, since it hasn't been discussed for a while? -Best, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (Stay safe!) 18:44, 14 May 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.

Racism in Arab Palestine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 14#Racism in Arab Palestine

Third (angle)[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 00:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect points to a section of the target article that no longer exists. It was deleted as WP:OR some time ago. I've done a WP:BEFORE and can find no evidence of al-Kashi using this notation other than to say he used the sexagesimal system. It seems highly unlikely that he would mix Roman numerals with sexagesimal fractions as claimed by the deleted text. One third is, of course, a nice exact number in sexagesimal, but it is not a named angle in any system of measurement as far as I can tell. SpinningSpark 17:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. These units definitely exist(ed) and have been in use in historical times. I have personally seen them being used in two archaic books. I still remember that I created those redirects with one of the books still in my hands to create "anchors" for these units, after I couldn't find them being covered in Wikipedia already. I also remember that I planned to do some further research on them to put them in better context on the target article, but then was carried away to work on something else.
I don't know, if al-Kashi had anything to do with them, as you suggest above - the text that was removed in that article probably didn't exist back when I created those redirects. I will try to remember where exactly I saw them, but I don't know if I still have the references readily around to cite from. But I encourage other editors to search for this as well in historical sources, there must be more sources in existence than those I had available.
Regarding notation, from the back of my head, I can confirm 1III for a third, but I can't remember the symbol used for fourth. The deleted portion in that article suggested 1IV, whereas I vaguely recall (but could be wrong on this) that 1IIII was used in the sources I saw - this needs to be sorted out.
In general, I think, it would have been a better sign of collaborative editing to bring this up on a talk page and collectively try to fill this void in the encyclopedia, rather than to nominate something for deletion.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point having redirects pointing to a page that does not have any information. In fact it is confusing and frustrating for the reader. If you want to create something, then fine, I'll withdraw, but not while nothing exists. SpinningSpark 21:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not the book I had in my hands, but here is an example of that notation in a book by Al-Biruni, originally published in 1000: Al-Biruni (1879) [1000]. The Chronology of Ancient Nations. Translated by Sachau, C. Edward. pp. 147–149.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies and I withdraw the nomination, I forgot to take my anti-senility pill this morning. For some reason, I completely misread the removed text as saying a third of a minute, rather than a sixtieth of a second. Which of course now makes perfect sense. So now I think the deleted text should be restored so the redirects actually have a target. At least this has highlighted that some useful text was removed from the article. SpinningSpark 00:47, 8 May 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.

List of Brazilian films befoe 1920[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 00:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how plausible these misspellings of "before" are...also, they only got around 6-8 pageviews in 2019. Regards, SONIC678 16:27, 7 May 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.

Cory Finley[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. The draft article has been moved to this page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a redirect from Cory Finley to Thoroughbreds (2017 film). Finley also directed Bad Education (2019 film). There is currently a draft biography of a living person stub, Draft:Cory Finley, in Articles for Creation, pending review. This is a request to delete the redirect in order to accept the draft. This is a non-obvious notability question because Finley is a director rather than an actor. The acting notability guideline includes actors who have performed in multiple roles in notable films. Directors are covered by the guideline for creative professionals, which does not contain a multiple films provision. Perhaps such a provision was intended and should be added. In any case, the purpose of this request is to obtain a rough consensus from the community to delete the existing redirect and accept the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 7 May 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.

List of media of Doraemon[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 00:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section no longer exists. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:51, 7 May 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.

Epic Rap Battles of History redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 14#Epic Rap Battles of History redirects

General rildo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 14#General rildo

Aarushi[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 disambiguate. signed, Rosguill talk 00:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The murder victim is not the only person with this name * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to given name page. Thoroughly inappropriate to redirect from a given name to a death-of page. I've added a draft in Aarushi. Narky Blert (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per Narky Blert. – Uanfala (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anthroponymify per Narky Blert. I just invented a new word. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Get it used by a reputable news site, and you can add it to Wiktionary. Narky Blert (talk) 19:44, 8 May 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.

List of North Dakota State Bison fooball head coaches[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 00:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo in title. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:WP:WWF/D/2010/O[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 00:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

redundant double WP, not really needed. Just 18 views in the past 4 years, but the Wikipedia:WP: really messes things up. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Eumat114: How does it mess things up? — J947 [cont] 02:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, there are many similar redirects which have the double WP, (e. g. WP:WP, Wikipedia:WP DAB). Though it does have very few pageviews, so I personally don't see how keeping this could be useful. The broken links are not a major issue since they can all be fixed manually. CycloneYoris talk! 03:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The 2nd WP isn't a problem, it's standard for redirects to WikiProjects. The duplicate colon is the problem. Narky Blert (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Narky Blert. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:51, 8 May 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_May_7&oldid=956947325"