Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 16, 2021.

Noldorin[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 Noldor. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems rather misleading to me, since the term in question is actually only indirectly mentioned within the linked section. Also, it will probably mislead in particular users seeking an article on the pertinent language (in analogy to Sindarin or Eldarin, for instance). Hildeoc (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Elvish languages (Middle-earth)Noldor, where it is discussed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: there's no need to bring such redirects here if they're just not well targeted, we can discuss and retarget them directly on their talk pages (with a ping at WikiProject Middle-earth). The primary meaning of Noldorin is the language of the Noldor (elves); it seems to be uncertain whether "Noldorin" is also correctly the adjective for "pertaining to the Noldor", though it's sometimes used that way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chiswick Chap - Would you support a retarget to Noldor (which became an article again after your !vote), as that seems to be the most reasonable way to handle the ambiguity between the language and the group? Hog Farm Talk 07:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ok, we can do that; it should be to a 'Noldor#Etymology' section which explains the different forms (Noldo/Noldor/Noldorin) and links to the language article. That needs a bit of rearrangement in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 19 February 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.

Olivia Sanabia[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 restore article without prejudice to an immediate AfD discussion if anyone wishes to nominate it for that. As Thryduulf stated, redirecting an article with the intention of RfDing the redirect is generally unhelpful - a questionable article should be judged on its merits via the article deletion policy, rather than putting just as much bureaucracy into discussing it in a different form somewhere else. As stated in this discussion, this indeed doesn't seem to be a great redirect given the multiple targets, which makes the decision to make one all the more questionable. ~ mazca talk 23:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article for this actress was recently created, and then subsequently changed to a redirect as her notability is questionable. She does barely meet WP:NACTOR with two major roles, one in Just Add Magic and another in Coop & Cami Ask the World. (General notability per WP:BASIC is shaky at this time.) The redirect is currently on the former TV series, with which she's probably more known. Given that she is barely demonstrating NACTOR, thoughts of draftifying an article about her might be feasible, or should this redirect be kept as is, or deleted? MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is nothing about her at the current redirect target other than she plays a role in that series. With two potential targets now, it is better to not have a redirect at all than point to one with no real information. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article with no prejudice to AfD or draftifying. WP:TROUT IJBall for converting an article to a redirect with the explicit intention of sending it to RfD which is never the correct course of action - it should either be a useful redriect or sent to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and Trout without prejudice per Thryduulf. The article contained a couple of (admittedly not high quality) sources about this actors involvement in notable TV shows that indicated this actor had a WP:Credible claim of significance. A google news search turns up a few bits and pieces of coverage from reliable sources. This should have been prodded or taken to AfD rather than being turned into a poor redirect and immediately sent to RfD. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:08, 24 February 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.

Srenfro's Public Boards[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. Never mentioned at the target, there's agreement that this page probably should have been speedy deleted back in 2007 when it was first redirected. ~ mazca talk 14:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improper article for a non-notable forum was re-directed back in 2007. Topic is not discussed at target, and there is no reason to believe it ever will be. Redirect serves no proper purpose. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 19:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article should have been A7'd rather than being redirected, it seems the redirect creator tried to delete the page but just ended up linking to the deletion policy instead. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redirect is clearly not useful and the article in the page history would be speedily deleted (A7) if reverted to so there is no need to discuss this at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: - for my future reference is there a CSD which would have applied to this page? ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As an article it would have been subject to speedy deletion under A7, but as a redirect there is no applicable criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 17 February 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.

1999 Romanian protests and 1999 Romania protests[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 1999 in Romania#Events. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No such term as the "1999 Romanian protests" exist. There were a series of protests by miners (which are called "Mineriads" in Romania). This would be a plausible redirect if it wasn't because there also was another Mineriad in February 1999, so this redirect is ambiguous. This could be solved by creating a disambiguation page, but I think it would be excessive and inefficient. Super Ψ Dro 16:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, I created a page for the February 1999 Mineriad, which now makes the redirect truly ambiguous. I don't see a good solution to redirect it to "1999 in Romania", the target page is too general and not directly related to the two articles on the 1999 Mineriads (with this I mean that a reader will have to search for the Mineriads in the target's text instead of being directly taken to their pages when typing the redirect). The redirects are just not very useful. Nobody in Romania calls these events as simple protests (and whether they can be considered protests in the first place is questionable, I invite you to read the brief articles). The best solution is to simply get rid of them. Super Ψ Dro 20:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After having read the February article and re-read the January article I stand by my recommendation. The options as I see it are to target whichever is primary, or to target a page that lists both. Deletion just makes finding the content harder for everybody (sometimes much harder) so I oppose doing that. There is no obvious primary topic between them so that option isn't good. That means we should link to a page that lists both. That could be a disambiguation page, but when 1999 in Romania#Events (note I'm proposing to retarget to the section, not the top of the page) exists and links to both with context I see that as better - espcially as most of the January and February sections are directly or indirectly about the events, for which "protests" is a very plausible search term for someone who doesn't know/remember much about them. Thryduulf (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 1999_in_Romania#Events per Thryduulf. These are plausible but ambiguous titles, and if any other notable 1999 protests end up being written about then they'll also be reasonably linked from that section. ~ mazca talk 14:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. These are reasonable search terms that are getting a steady stream of pageviews and 1999_in_Romania#Events does a reasonable job of disambiguating the two events. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 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.

Experimential[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. ~ mazca talk 23:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ambiguous. Could be a misspelling of either experimental or wikt:experiential (as it was in one, unlinked, instance I found). Narky Blert (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It's quite surprising to find companies with "experiential" in their motto [1] to make this spelling error since I had expected this to only be a spelling error for experimental. Deleting is probably the best option. A7V2 (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Notwithstanding confusion between "experimental" and "experiential", it seems safe to assume anyone including the M indeed is thinking of experiments. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google results are about two thirds for "Experiential" and one third for "Experimental" which is not enough to declare a primary topic, especially for a misspelling. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambiguous misspelling with two valid targets. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 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.

Suffusion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 24#Suffusion

Federated States of America[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 24#Federated States of America

Connectipedia[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 18:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Even though this is listed at the List of wikis, it is probably supposed to only contain wikis with a mention outside of it (at least all entries are linked). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:55, 16 February 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.

Us insurrection[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. There are significant arguments for keeping the redirect, though the rough consensus is that the redirect title is too broad and incorrectly capitalized to refer to the target with confidence. Deryck C. 22:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least to me, the idea of an insurrection in the United States is ambiguous with the American Civil War, as well as a handful of lesser known things. Hog Farm Talk 05:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and a hatnote to List of rebellions in the United States. Every google hit for this term from 2021 refers to the events on 6 January, very nearly all the ones from 2020 are about what Trump could, should or would do if there was an event like that related to the elections that mention the Insurrection Act of 1807. Hits from 2015 and earlier are about either the act or events where the act was or could have been invoked, so it is clear the storming is the present-day primary topic but the list of events serves as a place for people looking for the civil war or "lesser known things" to find what they are looking for. I wouldn't object to retargetting to the list directly, but that's a clear second choice. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is not deleted, the properly capitalised US insurrection should be created as a redirect to the same target. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Looks like a case of WP:RECENTISM. Maybe current search results for "US" and "insurrection" are dominated by the January 6 events, but many other events in US history have been called "insurrection". Two prominent examples: According to a popular online encyclopedia, both the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War are sometimes called the "War of the Insurrection". (Besides, due to the wrong capitalization, I didn't even think of "U.S." at first. More like Insurrection "R" Us. ;)) — Chrisahn (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think that we shouldn't be taking the majority of people to where they want to go right now because they've not wanted to go there for very long (which seems rather pointy), then you should be arguing to take people to the list of rebellions where they can find all the older events listed so they can read about whichever one they are interested in. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vague and inconclusive. WWGB (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm with Thryduulf Gershonmk (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chrisahn.It refers to the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War than this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So why not target the list those events appear in? Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Chrisahn really hits all the right notes. There have been so many attacks in US history that it's hard to call anything a primary topic. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So why not target the list of those events? Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chrisahn or at the very least, re-target to American Civil War as possibly the only marginally relevant topic that this redirect could be used for.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean other than all the sources using it to refer to the January 2021 events? Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read the New York Times every day and not once have I seen it explicitly refer to 1/6 as "U.S. insurrection".--WaltCip-(talk) 17:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The New York Times is far from the world's only source. For example National Geographic, Bloomberg, The Irish Times, CNN, Young Citizens and Fortune all use either the exact term or one very similar to it when talking about the events of 6 January. A google search for the exact phrase returns no hits for any other event on the first three pages, and none at all when restricted to sources from 2021. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote per Thryfuulf. Multiple reliable sources have called it an insurrection, and insurrection was one of the impeachment articles. EEven if it's a loaded term, redirects aren't required to be fair and objective per WP:RNEUTRAL. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Many people have called the 1/6 events an insurrection. But the phrase "US insurrection" implies that this is the only or most prominent insurrection in US history, which is clearly not the case. -LtNOWIS (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Search results show that since it happened this event is the clear primary topic for the phrase (literally nothing else has been called this since it happened), and when we have a primary topic that also has other meanings we use a hatnote rather than delete the redirect. Even if this wasn't the primary topic, we would do what we do when we have an ambiguous search term - take people to a disambiguation page or list from which they can select the topic they are interested in. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What an odd term. "Us insurrection"? Is that like Us magazine? Why is the s lowercased? For all the typos one sees in life, it's unheard of for someone not to capitalize the S if they mean US, as in the United States. With that out of the way, the US has had many insurrections, including a civil war. I have no problem describing the events of January 6th as an insurrection; the issue is that it hasn't been the only one in "Us" history. Moncrief (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly this is all lowercase (the first letter of Wikipedia titles are always capitalised) so your first point is incorrect - this is very plausible. If your problem is that this is ambiguous, why are you not supporting retargetting it to the list? Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just trying to change people's minds with your comments is borderline WP:AADD 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Chicdat. Moncrief (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither pointing out that a comment is factually inaccurate nor asking for someone to explain their conclusion when it doesn't logically follow from their comments are arguments to avoid. Indeed, they are examples of comments that should be included in a discussion (when relevant) as XfDs are not a vote. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really too much! Moncrief (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What is too much? Calling out factual inaccuracies? Asking for an explanation for a !vote? Pointing out that what is alleged to be an argument to avoid is nothing of the sort? I'm trying not to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion, but I really don't understand what people have against this redirect pointing to either the clear primary topic or the list and not one person has actually given an answer, let alone one that is convincing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please mind WP:SATISFY. Good day! Moncrief (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is required to answer my questions, but I am entitled to ask the question. I'm not bludgeoning anybody - nobdoy has been asked more than once, other than (arguably) you who has (bizarrely) made a song and dance about not answering and about not correcting a factual inaccuracy. The point of a discussion is to arrive at a consensus based on the strength of arguments - part of that is point out apparently weak arguments and giving those making them the chance to respond to explain why they aren't actually weak. If they choose not to do that then that is indeed their choice. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. In a year or so's time we may look back on this and decide to retarget to List of rebellions in the United States, but right now the term isn't very ambiguous. I dislike recentism but the purpose of redirects is to aid in navigation; such an approach as I am advocating is not recentist but merely a byproduct of what readers are searching up.
    Delete voters, beware that deleting this redirect is actually considerably more "recentist" than retargeting it to the list of rebellions. This is because the first link on the search page that readers will see if the redirect is deleted is to the January 2021 event and other us insurrections are further down the search page or not there at all. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 06:01, 20 February 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.

Eureka (iPhone application)[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 17:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, nor at List of Wikipedia mobile applications. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:38, 16 February 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.

Quendya[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 Quenya#Use by Elves, Valar, and Men. signed, Rosguill talk 17:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Quenya#Use by Elves, Valar, and Men where it is discussed. It is the usual name for the Vanyarin dialect of Quenya. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:53, 16 February 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.

Marketing Solutions[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 Premium Subscriptions to Subscription business model, delete the rest. signed, Rosguill talk 17:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Highly ambiguous: not exclusively related to LinkedIn. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:53, 16 February 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.

Bleeding heart liberal[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 Modern liberalism in the United States. There's no good mention anywhere here, but the other suggestion (Neoclassical liberalism) only mentions it in the context of "libertarianism" rather than "liberalism". A majority of participants consider this to be the best intended meaning the term has, and a mention can and probably should be added. ~ mazca talk 16:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Liberalism a better target than the current disambiguation page? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Neoclassical liberalism which has " bleeding-heart libertarianism" as a sourced alternate name in the lead? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This probably refers to liberalism as commonly used in American English, i.e., concern for social justice and an active government. It's a common phrase, but not used much on Wikipedia. There's a see-also listing for the libertarian usage at the disambiguation page Bleeding heart, but I'd be very surprised if anyone outside of libertarian circles uses the phrase this way. I'm leaning delete. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the specifier "bleeding heart" refers more specifically to criminal-justice issues and to those who find the current penal system too harsh. As in A Gift from Earth. I tend to agree with deletion — no canonical target, not useful for internal links, marginal search term. --Trovatore (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's an Americanism, and it refers to liberals (as defined in the US) being too soft-hearted, not just in regard to the criminal justice system, but also to welfare, food stamps, and other social programs to assist the poor and disadvantaged. It has nothing to so with neoclassical liberalism, so re-targeting it there would be a mistake. Retarget to Modern liberalism in the United States Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The one issue I see is that Neoclassical Liberalism page actually mentions the term whereas the Liberalism in the United States article doesn’t.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 02:25, 17 February 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.

Liberally[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 soft redirect to Wikt:liberally. (non-admin closure) 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page Liberal does not disambiguate "liberally" and I'm not sure it's helpful to redirect this adverb there. I suggest delete. Nb this is a Neelix creation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)]][reply]

  • Soft Redirect to Wiktionary, given there is no good target here and is unlikely to be one in the future. BlackholeWA (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary per BlackholeWA. The stats show that people are searching for this term, but we don't have anything useful to give them. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 16 February 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.

Category:Commandants of the of the Royal Air Force College Cranwell[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 17:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo, categories are usually moved without redirect. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:35, 16 February 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.

Genius Labs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 23#Genius Labs

Blogger Brasil[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 17:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from a mention that Blogger supports Brazilian Portuguese, the target article does not have anything Brazil-related. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:45, 16 February 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.

Trending topic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 23#Trending topic

Twoosh[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 soft redirect to Wikt:twoosh. signed, Rosguill talk 17:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target; as such offers no explanation to the reader. Wiktionary redirect to wikt:twoosh might be an option, otherwise delete. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or soft redirect to Wiktionary, unlikely slang to refer to Twitter as a whole rather than what Urban dictionary and Wiktionary states "tweet that perfectly fits the 280 character limit". PyroFloe (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary:twoosh as this is the appropriate target. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:37, 18 February 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.

Template:WP:ub[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 17:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wp:ub was deleted recently; I don't think this redirect is plausible either. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Weird triple double nested namespaces, uses ub rather than the standard UBX and only got 18 page views since 2015. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this "triple nested"? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose it's probably double nested thinking about it, A Userbox namespace in a Wikipedia namespace in a template namespace. Depends if you consider UBX where a load of userboxes are located to be a pseudo namespace or not. Either way it's unused, doesn't follow the standard format for wikiproject shortcuts and a fairly implausible search term, which makes it useless as a shortcut redirect. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:42, 16 February 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.

Timeline of women the in history of America[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 17:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are leftovers from page moves to the grammatically correct titles, and don't seem to be used much anymore, possibly because in part of that reason. It seems unlikely that someone would search "the in" in cases like this. Regards, SONIC678 05:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Both per nom. Transposing "in" and "the" is not a plausible typo, as can be seen in the non-existent page views. The first one had an article for 3 mins in 2016, the second had an article for 1 min in 2011, so it is unlikely there will be any incoming traffic. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:44, 18 February 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.

Hammersmith, Derbyshire[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 23#Hammersmith, Derbyshire

Letterbox[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 Letter box. signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously moved this, but it was reverted and upon examining the incoming links, see that they are overwhelmingly to the current target - most left over from the page move in 2012. I see that the Letterboxing article is more popular than Letter box in terms of page views, but in my opinion, Letter box (often spelt as one word, including within the article) is a much more logical target for letterbox. Letterboxing is also a DAB page. I think this is worth discussion, although I realise that the amount of work involved in shifting all of the incoming links could be a valid argument against it... ??? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget to Letter box as a {{R from other spelling}} and add a hatnote there. Every single hit on the first 4 pages of google results for "letterbox" -wikipedia is related to the opening for letters. Retargetting the incomming links will be a task, yes, but I wonder if it could be aided by creating a temporary dab page at Letterbox (disambiguation), retargetting the redirect there and using dab fixing tools, then retargetting the redirect again when that's complete? Thryduulf (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Letterbox" is not a typo or misspelling of Letter box, it is a video term. To quote from Glossary of British terms not widely used in the United States, "Letter box" is "1. a slot in a wall or door through which incoming post [DM] is delivered...", "See also Letterbox (US & UK): a film display format taking its name from the shape of a letter-box slot" MB 05:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Letterbox" is not a typo or misspelling of Letter box indeed, it is a correct spelling for the receptacle for letters. It is also a correct spelling for the video term, but the former usage is very clearly the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Possible search term that is not a misspelling. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Collins and dictionary.com give letterbox as one word, with the primary meaning as a receptacle for letters. It seems to be a common Australian spelling. And as a common object, rather than a term derived from the object, I would argue that it's the more obvious target. Perhaps it qualifies as a permanent DAB? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and hatnote per Thryduulf. I did a google search for "Letterbox" as one word and 28 of the top 30 results are using the word to mean "the place you put letters", with only 2 of the results relating to filming (and one of those was the Wikipedia page, which probably shows up due to this redirect). In my view the clear primary topic of "Letterbox" is therefore "Letter box" so the redirect should point there. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We probably need at least one disambiguation page. There's also Letterboxing (hobby); Letterbox (album), which redirects to Marie Miller; and "Letterbox" on Flood (They Might Be Giants album). --BDD (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Letter box with hatnotes/disambiguation pages as appropriate. That is definitely the primary topic. A7V2 (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Letter box per above. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have changed the ~360 incoming links to point to letterboxed, so changing links is no longer any concern in determining the target. There were none that should have been letter box, although there were a couple that were Letterbox (game show). The film term was overwhelmingly how this link was being used within WP. MB 18:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those edits were benign, but would the "letterboxed" form be used for anything else? Wiktionary just shows the one use. Would British English users say a piece of mail was "letterboxed" once it's put into a letterbox? Just a note that we can probably leave letterboxed alone. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Would British English users say a piece of mail was "letterboxed" once it's put into a letterbox? No. We'd say it had been "posted" or "delivered". Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 20 February 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_February_16&oldid=1138583070"