Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 3, 2021.

MOS:Naming convention[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 11#MOS:Naming convention

Matt Gaetz child sex scandal[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 per discussions at AN and elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This title is a BLP violation; it assumes the truth of serious, unproven allegations. This was the original title of an article which was moved to Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations leaving this redirect. The subject is under discussion at AN. The argument for deleting this redirect is that it is a BLP violation; the argument in favor of retaining it is that there are currently 60 or 70 pages that link to it. However, they are links from user pages or projects, plus a few from portals; I found no links from mainspace. [1] MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I moved the page and was unsure whether to leave a redirect. I was focussed on clearing up the AfD move and forgot to raise whether this was appropriate. I support deletion and apologise for leaving it in place. Fences&Windows 18:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I called for keeping the article, and by the technical letter of the law, 17rs-old is a child, but let's err on the side of discretion for now. Sources generally aren't labeling this story with this terminology. Zaathras (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2021 (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.

Long Bar[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 18:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous. Could mean a long bar (as in furniture) or else long musical phrase. Unlikely search term imo. (t · c) buidhe 17:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • REtarget to Longbar as a {{R from misspelling}} and use hatnotes there for any other uses -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Rather ambiguous, and the Scottish hamlet of Longbar certainly isn't the primary topic. Not convinced this is a good candidate for disambiguation, so uninhibited search is likely the best thing to do here. Hog Farm Talk 04:51, 11 April 2021 (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.

Francis Henry Fee[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. Hog Farm Talk 04:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD decision was to delete this page, not redirect, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Henry Fee Devokewater 16:00, 3 April 2021 (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.

Focative case[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. Hog Farm Talk 04:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This term does not appear in the target page, and never has. The five instances of the word in the iWeb corpus all refer to the single use in The Merry Wives of Windsor, and while there may indeed be a ribald intent there, on the surface it is a character's error for "vocative". I thus think that this redirect serves no useful purpose, and could be confusing. If it exists at all, it should point to The Merry Wives of Windsor, but I think it should be deleted. It has no history, and no talk page. ColinFine (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It was added to the article in 2002,[2] was there when the redirect was created,[3][4] and was removed in 2015 as no source was cited.[5] Without a source to say that this is its meaning, it doesn't belong in the article so a redirect is not useful. Peter James (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without a mention in the article, this redirect may lead to confusion, or at worse be misleading. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2021 (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.

Adio (company)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 11#Adio (company)

'Aladdin (musical)[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. Hog Farm Talk 04:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

redirect from improbable typo Yeeno (talk) 🍁 07:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can understand why Aladdin might be transliterated with a leading apostrophe or similar character (there are several redirects to Aladdin), but not like this for the musical. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible search term, I agree with the above.Less Unless (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2021 (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.

Julian of Rome[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 17#Julian of Rome

Automagic[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. Hog Farm Talk 04:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target besides the sister project link to Wiktionary. Why not soft redirect there directly (wikt:automagic)? Note that automagically already is a soft redirect. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wiktionary, where the reader can find useful information about the word. Searching is still possible if desired. —Kusma (t·c) 10:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't like the idea of prioritising content at sister projects when there is at least one apparent encyclopedic topic with the name here. Yes, there's a link to the search results from the Wiktionary redirect template, but that requires an extra step for the reader. If the redirect is deleted, then both the search results on Wikipedia, and the Wiktionary entry will be visible in a single screen [6], which is preferable. – Uanfala (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:01, 3 April 2021 (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/2021_April_3&oldid=1138583021"