Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 21, 2021.

Heat emission[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 01:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to also refer to Thermal radiation and Heat transfer, not sure how the best way to handle this is - I'm not the most familiar with science. Hog Farm Talk 22:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Retarget to Heat transfer. While in the strict scientific sense of the word this should probably target Thermal radiation as emission is a radiative process this phrase also has significant use colloquially as a generic term for heat loss. You'll find a lot of results and papers on "Heat emission from pipelines" and "Heat emission from radiators" for example, even though they are predominantly convective processes. I would like to state that this is a weak retarget because I can see the argument for targeting to Thermal radiation, but both the proposed targets are much better than where it currently points. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig my first thought was thermal radiation, but heat transfer is about equally possible and the current target is not incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per Thryduulf. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:09, 22 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.

Goin' Back to the Bridge[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 18:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target or elsewhere on WP. No assistance to navigation. Richhoncho (talk) 20:41, 21 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.

Scoutmaster Robbie[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 18:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another disguise used by Robbie Rotten in "Lazy Scouts," even though it's called "Scotty the Scoutmaster." It's kinda ambiguous as well, so maybe delete it, or if we keep it, retarget it to List of LazyTown episodes#ep10. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#Scotty the Scoutmaster. Regards, SONIC678 17:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 21 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.

Suffragists[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 Suffrage and hatnote, which seems to be where we landed after the relist. -- Tavix (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should Suffragist and Suffragists be made disambiguation pages? They both link to different articles, and both terms could be used (more widely) to refer to Women's suffrage, or (more specifically) to the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (but absolutely not the suffragettes). Bangalamania (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate: per nom. Terms could be easily confused with the two different topics. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: I'm not an expert on disambiguation, so maybe this question is obvious, but I don't want to assume, so I will ask. I presume the plan is to make one disambiguation page that will address all three terms, or would each term have a disambiguation page? IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm also no expert on disambiguation, but yes: I plan to have "Suffragist" as the main disambig page (with "Suffragists" redirecting there) and include Women's suffrage and the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies on there I wasn't sure if I should include the "Women's suffrage in [country]" pages on there too. –Bangalamania (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: It would be helpful to have one main page for Wiki readers on the definition of 'suffragist' compared to the more militant suffragettes.Kaybeesquared (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Suffragist (singular) was not tagged, I've just corrected that. A draft of the disambiguation page would also be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate by using a hatnote. Retarget both to Suffrage (which has a section on Women's suffrage) and put a hatnote there {{redirect|Suffragist|a particular use|National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do what Shhnotsoloud suggests it's a cleaner method of disambiguation. signed, Rosguill talk 01:10, 5 March 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.

Kekekekeke[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 LOL#Related. Nominally no consensus between retarget and delete. signed, Rosguill talk 01:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explained better at LOL#Related. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 21 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.

Rottenella[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 18:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a one-time character from "Dancing Duel," who used to have an article for over a day in January 2010 before that was turned into a redirect. She wasn't mentioned at the target during that time, so I don't really know if we should keep this lying around. However, if it's kept, the most suitable target I can think of would be List of LazyTown episodes#ep32, where she's mentioned, though not by name. Regards, SONIC678 07:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 21 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.

LazyTown Mayors[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 18:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is just misleading. The redirect implies there were multiple mayor characters in LazyTown, but there is only one. Dominicmgm (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This used to be article content. That article content says that there were multiple mayors (if only for a short time). — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Misleading indeed. No source was ever added to confirm that multiple mayors did in fact exist. CycloneYoris talk! 01:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 21 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.

Selena (American pop 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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Gomez is not known mononymously, so it is not plausible for someone to search for her in this fashion, especially with double or triple disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget Selena (American pop singer) to Selena, who mononymously went by that name, even though I'm not 100% sure about this course of action, but definitely delete the other two per nom as implausible search terms. Regards, SONIC678 22:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Ms Gomez is not known mononymously and while Selena was a mononymous American singer she was not a pop singer and was not born in 1992. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and Thryduulf. Selena Gomez is not known mononymously and these redirects are simply misleading and unnecessary. CycloneYoris talk! 01:49, 1 March 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.

Anal people[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 Anal due to the lack of consensus on whether there is a primary topic. -- Tavix (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page Anal person redirects to Anal retentiveness, but the plural form redirects to this completely different article. Keep or retarget? Colgatepony234 (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, fixed that. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:59, 26 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 17:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to add Anal person, since the discussion concerns both redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:53, 21 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.

Onlyinclude[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 18:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence this term has any connection to the target, or even exists. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm assuming this was meant to refer to {{Onlyinclude}}. I'm not aware of other uses of the term. Includeonly and Noinclude are also redirects targeting Inclusion. They all could be retargeted to Transclusion, but there's no discussion of MediaWiki there. The best target I can find is MediaWiki#Templates, and that's not a particularly good option. - Eureka Lott 15:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a relatively obscure piece of wikimarkup that is not mentioned anywhere in the encyclopaedia. The only hits I get in search results are from broken templates. Unless something like Wiki Markup is expanded into a full article I can't see a good target for this. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:51, 1 March 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.

Alice Wiegand[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 18:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:27, 21 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.

Stuart West (Wikimedia)[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 18:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. I could not find any Wikimedia-related Stuart West anywhere else on Wikipedia either. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:07, 21 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.

Jugend[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. Without consensus that the magazine is the primary topic, disambiguation is preferable. -- Tavix (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has redirected to Jugend (magazine) for 10 years. Recently changed to redirect to Youth as a German to English redirect. I propose moving the magazine to the title since there is no other article and no need for disambiguation. No need for a word translation redirect either. MB 04:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @MB: if what you are proposing is to move the magazine article, then you want RM not RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, I am proposing a move but that can be done without discussion if the redirect is deleted. I thought the more significant issue was should Jugend redirect to Youth. MB 15:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we don't disambiguate, just redirecting it to a magazine article with only a few that are interested about the topic (i.e. Architects etc.) is not really a great idea. I say either stick with the current redirect to "Youth" as a translation or disambiguate it. PyroFloe (talk) 06:04, 6 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 18:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:53, 21 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.

Misspellings of Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious[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 Procedural keep. Most participants agree that this nomination is basically a WP:TRAINWRECK, and that it would be preferable to renominate these redirects in small batches so they can be sorted out in a much easier way. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I counted 45 misspelling redirects to this page that do not drop one of the morphemes (e.g. Supercali), or about 5.49 bits of entropy. Does a 34-letter-long word (about 159.81 bits of entropy) really warrant this many misspelling redirects? According to PVS (sample of 9 redirects) the main page has garnered a fairly steady 1693 PVS d-1, while I estimate around 1.8 PVS d-1 among all these redirects. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I tagged all the redirects on behalf of the nominator. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Advances in search technology and autocomplete make all of thse WP:COSTLY and unnecessary. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep per WP:TRAINWRECK. Please split this into smaller groups (perhaps based on what part is misspelled?) - some might be useful search terms but the list here is too long to meaningfully check. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are the misspellings that someone thought useful to create, which obviously does not encompass all possible misspellings. Are a few of these more plausible than others? Sure, but I don't see the need to go through each individually on a discussion of this size per WP:TRAINWRECK. -- Tavix (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trainwreck. 45 redirects is way too many for a single nomination. looking through a few of these the vast majority are getting <10 page views a year and can probably be deleted, some are getting around 50 views a year so are marginally useful and one of them got nearly 200. No prejudice against renominating in small batches so those worth keeping can be sorted out. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trainwreck per above, nominating these in 15 groups of 3 similar misspellings would be way preferable. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:25, 23 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.

Nikolaus von Wacken[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 18:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there is an appropriate local target for this page. Sending readers to non-English content is not helpful. Additionally, the plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). See here for precedents. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, soft redirects to non-English content are not useful and hide that we do not have local content. The only mention I can find of this person is in a picture caption at Congress of Vienna#Participants, which would not be a suitable target (especially as it would create a circular link). Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:R2. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shhhnotsoloud: Not a redirect to another namespace in a sense that would be applicable to that criterion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete anyway, since, as you say, sending readers to non-English content is not helpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for two reasons:
    • Sending readers of the english wikipedia to german language content is unlikley to be helpful as most readers will not speak german and will have to read the article through a machine translator or similar.
    • Per Wikipedia:Redlink this individual appears to be notable enough for a stand alone article and should be red linked to encourage article creation.
If it is desirable to add a link to the German language content Template:Interlanguage link should be used, rather than a redirect. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:45, 1 March 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.

Adsf[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 the disambiguation page at ADSF. I have no idea why this was relisted when there was a clear consensus for disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, but used with different meanings at Resistin, Shannon Lucid, Denver's Art District on Santa Fe, DO-212, and more. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The usage of this acronym with respect to the asian games appears to be "Asian DanceSport Federation". 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're mentioned in Dancesport at the Asian Games. I would suggest Disambiguating since there seems to be multiple valid uses of this Acronym. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If so, then I agree. Disambiguation is the sensible choice. Thmazing (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to new disambiguation page ADSF. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really sure why this was relisted - the nom statment says it is ambiguous and all three people who've commented on this discussion are in favour of disambiguation, with one having written a DAB page. I thought that we had a consensus to disambiguate? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:09, 21 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.

Boah[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a tribe with this name mentioned at Barrobo District. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Barrobo District: per nom - redirect most likely created in the first place as a typo. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or second preference Keep). Barely mentioned at Barrobo District, and that mention is unreferenced. I was unable to find any evidence of mention of this tribe online (except mirrors). Potentially it was a locality ("Tribal area of Boah"), however. In any case, Barrobo District is likely to disappoint or confuse anyone who lands there after searching "Boah". A7V2 (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:52, 21 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_21&oldid=1010866576"