Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 26, 2021.

Not Even Doom Music[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. Feel free to create if it gains a mention somewhere. -- Tavix (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not even mentioned at the target article. Going through the edit history it appears to be a non-notable meme. Dominicmgm (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Not even mentioned? I see what you did there ;) Also, would it be possible to add some information about Not Even Doom Music to the article? It was fairly popular back in the day, at least from what I can remember. DesertPipeline (talk) 07:37, 19 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 21:51, 26 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.

Carolyn Bothwell[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 no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 04:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on the similar Carolyn Bothwell Doran redirect I assume this is Carolyn Doran mentioned in the text? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello fellow Wikipedians - In this Washington Post article (which is used as a citation at the pertinent part of the Wikimedia Foundation article, we can find the following quote: "Before she left the foundation in July, Carolyn Bothwell Doran, 45, had moved up from a part-time bookkeeping position and spent six months as an executive responsible for personnel and financial management.". Hope this is helpful. KConWiki (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per KConWiki and the IP, and add a mention if needed. CycloneYoris talk! 00:35, 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 21:46, 26 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.

HERMES-A/MINOTAUR[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit odd: I can't work out if it means HERMES-A and MINOTAUR, or HERMES-A also known as MINOTAUR. Anyway, the target article has no information about either or any indication of why the redirect targets there. At one of the linked articles NEE-01 Pegaso, HERMES-A is mentioned but MINOTAUR is not: this might be a better target if this redirect is kept, but it might be better to delete since Enwiki seems to have no information about the project. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you review the page history? This was an article from 2010 to 2013, and I think the former article answers your questions. - Eureka Lott 05:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you're right: this is HERMES-A together with MINOTAUR. I suppose restoring that 2013 blank & redirect is an option. But the current situation is just confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:12, 19 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 21:44, 26 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.

New Jersey–New York relations[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) 23:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These search terms are not equivalent to the target article, nor does there appear to be any other appropriate target. Delete unless a justification or alternative can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. While the Port authority does oversee some shared infrastructure for these two states the target page is not equivalent to "New Jersey–New York relations". I was unable to find anything that would be a better target. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. - Eureka Lott 14:53, 6 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.

Kalininia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 6#Kalininia

Wolfgang Becker (director)[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! 08:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This was a speedy delete request denied, and turned into a redirect to a DAB page. I stand by my original reasoning for delete: This relink page should never have been created in the first place, since there are two German film directors of the same name, who I've moved to Wolfgang Becker (director, born 1910) and Wolfgang Becker (director, born 1954) now, after this discussion. This frees up Wolfgang Becker to be the disambiguation page. There is no plausible use for this former relink page, since it cannot target both directors at the same time, nor become a disambiguation page. But its continued existence can lead to plenty of confusion and false linking. The tag given to it now (from incomplete disambiguation) may be technically true, but doesn't help to address the potential harm, and lack of usefulness it has going forward. Sprachraum (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as {{R from insufficient disambiguation}}. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is nothing confusing about redirecting "Wolfgang Becker (director)" to a dab page that only has two Wolfgang Becker entries that are both directors. Having incomplete disambiguators redirecting to the DAB page is a good thing. ~ GB fan 12:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GB fan. {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} redirects are very useful as they enable people to find the content they are looking for if they know that the person they want to read about is a director but don't know that there is another director with the same name. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Both people on that page are directors. Links are not the only reason to have redirects, for example they can be searched for (not at all unlikely in this case). A7V2 (talk) 07:53, 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.

PAGE FAULT IN NONPAGED AREA[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 Trainwreck averted. Bystanders warned people about the danger of an oncoming train, successfully pulling most passersby to safety instead of wasting time on a discussion that could not go anywhere. signed, Rosguill talk 04:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop error codes not mentioned in target, and even if they were these search terms are very implausible. So delete. Aasim (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't looked in detail yet, but these are extremely plausible search terms as they are exactly the sort of thing people will be looking on Wikipedia to find information about. If we have anywhere with relevant content at least most of these should not be redlinks. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trainweck. There are too many and too different redirects here to reliably evaluate. Thryduulf (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tempted to call this a Trainwreck - way too many redirects nominated at once and a lot of these do have valid alternate targets. Some of the ones I've found so far:
etc. Someone with more knowledge of these error codes might be able to find valid targets for the others too 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Screech... crash. Split per above. Dominicmgm (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per above.CrazyBoy826 19:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @CrazyBoy826: which redirects are you advocating be deleted and which are you advocating redirecting and where are you advocating redirecting them to? Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: The ones the IP said above. CrazyBoy826 20:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment is by no means an exhaustive list of possible targets, it's just the ones I was able to find in about 15 mins with a bit of searching. I have no opinion on whether the others should be kept or deleted. As I said someone with more knowledge of stop error codes might be able to find suitable targets. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why? Would? Anyone? Create? This? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    because they experienced the error message and were searching for information about what it means. Many of these are extremely plausible search terms that should be kept if we have relevant information, but there are too many disperate ones here to avoid a trainwreck. Thryduulf (talk) 05:02, 6 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.

One-ring fraud[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 5#One-ring fraud

Gregor Eisenhorn[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 Eisenhorn. signed, Rosguill talk 16:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a character from the Warhammer 40,000 universe who only has only a passing mention in the main Warhammer 40,000 article in the section about a proposed TV adaptation. He is however the protagonist of a trilogy of books (Eisenhorn) a video game based on the books (Eisenhorn: Xenos) and the aforementioned planned TV show based on the books. I propose retargeting these to the article on the book trilogy as the main work the character has appeared in. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:11, 26 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.

Immolator[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 Immolation. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is the name of a tank from the warhammer 40,000 universe used by the sisters of battle faction. The tank is not mentioned in the main article, and the article it used to target (Vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000) was deleted in 2011 following an afd nomination. The other potential target (Sisters of Battle) was converted into a redirect a couple of years ago after an AfD nomination. I propose retargeting this to Immolation. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:02, 26 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.

wiki sandbox[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 close - wrong forum. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 26 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.

Water Pasteurisation Indicator[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 9#Water Pasteurisation Indicator

Homosexual promiscuity[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 no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 02:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While the page does discuss promiscuity and gay men, this title seems unnecessarily derogatory and stereotypical; heterosexual promiscuity doesn't exist as a redirect, so why this? Bangalamania (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Could be a plausible search term. How many pageviews does it get? I can't check via the "stats" link, because Toolforge requires Javascript (probably) to be enabled :( DesertPipeline (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    16 Page views in the last year, 48 in total since creation. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: It doesn't get many page views as 86.23.109.101 mentions, which is why this is only a "weak" keep, but I can't argue that the redirect serves no purpose, so I wouldn't really agree with deletion. DesertPipeline (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to LGBT stereotypes#Sex and relationships. Possibly a non-NPOV redirect, but this target is the most relevant section for the stereotype as a concept. BlackholeWA (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep that a redirect title is biased is not a reason to delete it (WP:RNEUTRAL), redirects can take readers from non-neutral titles to neutral ones. Google immediately finds reliable sources using the term [1][2][3]. Promiscuity strikes me as a better target for the term as it has a much more substantial discussion of promiscuity amongst homosexual men compared to LGBT stereotypes#Sex and relationships. Hut 8.5 18:41, 2 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.

Homosexual prostitute[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 02:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While 'homosexual' generally means 'homosexual male' in English, in theory 'homosexual prostitute' could still refer to lesbian prostitutes/sex workers, or women prostitutes who have sex with other women. Bangalamania (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Hypothetically. But how likely is the phrase to be casually used/searched that way? (If someone was thinking of women who have sex with women for pay, they'd probably type "lesbian prostitute".) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Lesbian prostitute does not exist. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that they do. :) But female sex workers with female clients are not common, and as far as I can tell we don't have an article with information about them. Is "homosexual prostitute" a topic that someone might plausibly look for? I think so. Do we have an article with the information they want? I think that's very likely to be male prostitution. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Prostitution per nomination. The current redirect is misleading, and there's not enough notability to distinguish it over other forms of prostitution. --wL<speak·check> 00:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ambiguous and not well used - only got 10 page views in the last year. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ambiguous and hardly used. I don't see much point in retargeting to Prostitution as that doesn't have a discussion of homosexual prostitution specifically. Hut 8.5 18:27, 2 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.

In the hood[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 9#In the hood

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_26&oldid=1123483977"