Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 30, 2021.

Morai[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 8#Morai

Tuahu[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 Ahu. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Search results suggest that this is referring to some sort of altar or shrine, but no article currently describes the topic on its own. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tūāhu is a Māori word for altar. The Hawaiian form is ahu, which is mentioned at 'Heiau'. It is possible that an article will eventually be created for 'Tūāhu'. In the meantime, changing the redirect to link to the disambiguation page 'Ahu' is a reasonable option. Nurg (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to ahu per Nurg. Jay (talk) 11:54, 2 May 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.

Tardicaca shark[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. ✗plicit 00:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Possibly the shark mentioned at Crippled Summer, but as I've never seen the show, I have no idea if this would make a plausible redirect for that. Hog Farm Talk 22:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not mentioned in the target article. The redirect is almost a decade old, the only revision before turning into a redirect was a short stub with no references indicating the character even exists. JIP | Talk 15:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is no species of shark named "Tardicaca shark". SCP-053 (talk) 23:58, 6 May 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.

Connected (upcoming film)[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The film is no longer upcoming. Dominicmgm (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no need for it anymore. Connected (film) does exist and redirect to the Connected disamb page where TM&TM is listed appropriately. At worst, it can't hurt to keep it for a few months as people come to realize the film's release but realistically it should be easy to find with other search venues. --Masem (t) 19:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Despite the page being moved in January this is still getting a lot of hits (over 200 in the 30 days preceding this nomination) indicating that it is still needed. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf, readers are being linked here by external links and breaking them by deleting this redirect would be suboptimal. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. In general we should avoid deleting a redirect if it was formerly the title of the article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per Thryduulf. Wait until 6 months to see if the pageviews die down. OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SCP-053 (talk) 23:57, 6 May 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.

Captain Thomas Moore[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. This is an obvious Keep close, and I also added a hatnote to the house article.( Non-admin closure) Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, it would only make sense for the hatnote to be on the article that the redirect points to – I think you got confused about the different meanings of to. Added anyhow. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly ambiguous, can refer to the namesake of Capt. Thomas Moore House. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Also Thomas Patrick Moore and Thomas Moore (British Army Paymaster of the Forces Abroad). ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 30 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.

Checkgate[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#Checkgate

Kraliçe İkinci Elizabeth[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) 20:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RLOTE, no specific affinity between Elizabeth II and Turkey or Turkish signed, Rosguill talk 17:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If kept, the second one should redirect to Queen Elizabeth. DrKay (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a connection between Queen Elizabeth II and Turkish. She is the queen of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, and one of the main languages there is Turkish. Whether this is enough to keep the redirects I don't know. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep #1, retarget #2 per Mx. Granger's logic and DrKay's argument in the alternative. If it's a valid way of referring to her in a language that is official and/or widely spoken in an area she governs, that would seem to satisfy WP:RLOTE. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I notice that tr:Kraliçe İkinci Elizabeth does not exist. Could a Turkish speaker clarify whether this is a plausible phrasing in Turkish? Striking my !vote on #1 till then. (tr:Kraliçe Elizabeth redirects to tr:II. Elizabeth, but I don't think that has much bearing on our own decision of "II" vs. the DAB.) -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 18:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it plausible? Yes and no. It is correct in the sense of how one pronounces it (cf. 'Queen Elizabeth the Second'), but it would be normally written as II. Elizabeth (as indeed the Turkish wiki article has it). Whether anyone would actually search for it like that, even on the Turkish wiki, let alone the English-language one, I have strong doubts. (Then again, I can't for the life of me see why anyone would search for this subject in Turkish on the English wiki, using any search term!)
As for the language of Akrotiri & Dhekelia, the only official language there is English; Turkish speakers are a small minority, and based on the Cypriot politics of the last half century, I would guess their loyal toasts are aimed in the direction of Ankara rather than London. I think the whole A&D issue here is a red herring. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:57, 3 May 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.

Hadelin De Ponteves[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. ✗plicit 00:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. This appears to be the name of a data scientist based on Google Scholar search results, but unless they are discussed at the target there isn't much use for the redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems like an attempt at SEO by associating a person with a subject. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Redirect was created on 16th April 2021, eligible for WP:R3. I added a tag. SCP-053 (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This redirect is not a misnomer – R3 is not a catch-all for bad redirects. And you broke the RfD template. So reverted as an incorrect tagging. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not mentioned at target, and unlikely ever to be. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:57, 7 May 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.

Shenley AV[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 G7. (non-admin closure). Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been from an accident or vandalism in GeoNames, see the edit history of the entry for Shenley settlement. Google results bring up Shenley Road (presumably thinking Shenley Avenue) and mirrors of GeoNames. The redirect is therefore ambiguous and incorrect since its from a source error that existed from 2010 to 2017 but has now been corrected. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was vandalism; other changes from the same GeoNames account include renaming Kings Langley parish to "St.Jde's Avenue", moving Leavesden Green a few miles from its real location, and adding "Lake lala". Most of the Swedish and Cebuano articles for places in Hertfordshire were created by a bot, and say that "Lake lala" in St Albans is the highest point in the county (at 1,546 metres above sea level, which would make it higher than Ben Nevis). Peter James (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear case for deletion then S a g a C i t y 15:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a speedy tag to the page. SCP-053 (talk) 23:46, 6 May 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.

Tipoca City[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. ✗plicit 00:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only mentioned on enwiki in passing at Clone trooper and in the name "Interior Tipoca City" in a cue list at Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (soundtrack). IMO neither of those are helpful targets, so deletion is best unless a sourced mention is added somewhere. Hog Farm Talk 17:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We have no content on Wikipedia that discusses "Tipoca City". SCP-053 (talk) 23:42, 6 May 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.

Vinyl iodide[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article about the base compound. Should this redirect be deleted per WP:REDLINK, or should the target be moved over this redirect or to another title? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - until an article about the base compound is actually written. Information on the subgroup overlaps significantly with the compound. --awkwafaba (📥) 16:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no chemical compound called "Vinyl iodide". SCP-053 (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until an article about the compound is written, consistent with WP:RED. No incoming links in articlespace to worry about, and searchers will still find the current target once something close to vinyl iodide is entered. I think the current target should be moved to Vinyl iodide group per WP:CONCISE and consistent with at least some other functional group articles, but perhaps that's a question for a requested move, and the naming conventions of the functional group articles are kind an inconsistent mess anyway, so I'm not worried about such a minor improvement at the moment. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The current target is closely related to the topic, and contains the most relevant content to what the reader is looking for. The redirect can be expanded into an article later, but it currently lands the reader to information they are looking for. Hog Farm Talk 00:54, 8 May 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.

George Trebek[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 8#George Trebek

Frederick Joseph[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 Fred Joseph. ~ mazca talk 09:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect that is not explained in the target article, but was created twelve years ago by an account that has now been globally locked. In the absence of a better explanation, suggest that the redirect be viewed as vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:01, 30 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.

MJ (South-Korean Singer[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. ✗plicit 10:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RDAB, implausible typo with missing right paren. Was only an article for a mere 10 minutes in 2016 before being changed to a redirect. —Bagumba (talk) 10:04, 30 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.

阿裡巴巴公司[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. ✗plicit 10:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Traditional Chinese form of the company name. 里 in Simplified Chinese corresponds to two different Traditional characters, 里 ("mile") and 裡 ("lining, inside"). The company name uses the former, not the latter (see e.g. zh.wp, yue.wp). Deryck C. 09:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sun8908 Talk 19:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep tag as {{R from typo}} per the nominator. If the simplified Chinese character corresponds to two different traditional Chinese characters, obviously, it will be a typo. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Due to the nature of how Chinese input methods work, this is a WP:R#D8 implausible typo. If you type the whole phrase "a li ba ba" into a pinyin-based input method, 阿裡巴巴 wouldn't even show up. If you input individual pinyin syllables one by one, you are no more likely to mis-select 裡 than any other dozens of homophonous characters. In Cangjie, typing 裡 (LWG) instead of 里 (WG) requires you to hit "L" by accident all the way on the other side of the keyboard for no reason, no more likely than misspelling Alibaba Group as Alibaba Lgroup. Et cetera. Additionally, even plausible foreign-language typos are probably a bridge too far for WP:RLOTE. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's not a plausible typo. I suppose it's a somewhat plausible misspelling – someone who is accustomed to simplified characters but trying to write with traditional characters might use 裡 in this word by mistake. But is that reason enough to keep the redirect on the English-language Wikipedia? Probably not. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an input method argument for typos, not someone trying out character input recognition method, and then dumping that into Wikipedia's searchbox. If they misidentified the traditional character and used it, it should exist as a redirect. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with 61.239.39.90. Implausible as a typo. feminist (+) 17:27, 6 May 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.

Millimetre of rain[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 Rain#Measurement. ✗plicit 10:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted per WP:R3 (implausible typo). Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 21 overturned the deletion and sent the redirect here for discussion. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 09:38, 30 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.

Starmaya Coffee[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. ✗plicit 10:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article is brand new. Was moved from namespace (1st redirect created) then moved again to correct title case (2nd redirect created). 2nd redirect created a double redirect that a bot later correct. However, because the article is brand new, no redirects are necessary and any future redirects will again create a double redirect. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is a harmless {{R from other capitalisation}}. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I meant to mention that - this kind capitalization redirect is almost invariably retained as being a plausible alternate search term someone might type in. Don't bother yourself about it :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems a logical and plausible alternate search term. And harmless, as well. Hog Farm Talk 22:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless redirect from capitalisation. Should only be deleted if target article is also deleted. JIP | Talk 15:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even though keeping it is harmless and the redirected version is a plausible search term, the search function is case-insensitive. When one searches for "Starmaya coffee" two things of note happen: 1) after the word "starmaya" is entered, it automatically provides both versions (making the case of "coffee" moot) and 2) regardless of which version one searches for, both versions appear in the results field. My last point is that because the article was new, there were no links to be corrected (the only benefit of non-disambiguation redirects is preventing previous links from being broken). I understand redirects are "cheap" and normally kept, but neither should be the sole reason for a redirect's continued existence. If the original reason for the redirect is simply the case of the title, not disambiguation, and it's a new article, then according to that logic we should include redirects for all case combinations of all new articles, which isn't done. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add (and *try* to leave it at this) that it is stated that redirects can be suppressed for "...userfying recently created malplaced items..." which succinctly describes this situation: a recently created, malplaced item. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that the search function is case-insensitive, but the internal search engine is not the only way people navigate to Wikipedia articles. There are many other methods that are also used, some of which are case sensitive. We only delete redirects when they are harmful - i.e. their existence causes problems of some sort that are greater than any benefits they bring. In this case though the redirect has benefits and causes no harm at all. Thryduulf (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:CHEAP, it's a clear "R from other capitalisation" that isn't causing any harm. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also clear that redirects shouldn't be created for their own sake: "this does not mean we should pre-emptively create redirects for their own sake." Again, this redirect is not the case of meaning disambiguation nor were there any pre-existing links. It was a new article just moved from namespace. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This redirect is harmless, so it should be kept. SCP-053 (talk) 23:30, 6 May 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.

Johnson Aviation[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. ✗plicit 10:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly confused by this one. "Johnson Aviation" is not mentioned in the target article, and it wasn't mentioned in the revision current when this was created, either. WP:BEFORE turns up aircraft companies in Iowa and Texas, although I did find one site I don't think is RS connecting a Ft. Lauderdale DEA office and "Johnson Aviation". Unless a clear connection can be formed, I don't think this should exist. Hog Farm Talk 04:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commment - perhaps the intention was to add this as a front company for surveillance aircraft used by the agency? I only mention this because there is similar content on the US Marshals Service page. Just a thought. Obviously more info (sourced) would be needed, or this should be deleted. - wolf 05:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without a mention in the article, this redirect is at best confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this implausible redirect. SCP-053 (talk) 23:28, 6 May 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.

Meeting on Vjun[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. ✗plicit 10:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While there are a few scattered mentions of Vjun on enwiki that my attempts at using the search function turns up, none are in the current target, and all are about a castle, not a meeting. Doesn't seem useful. Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:27, 30 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_30&oldid=1023869947"