Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 18, 2021.

Anarchism in Somalia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 25#Anarchism in Somalia

Ãushkë[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 25#Ãushkë

Bimeasurable[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) 20:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's a problem, but surely the right action to take is to define "bimeasurable" on Measureable function, not to delete the redirects. It should take one sentence. —Kodiologist (t) 13:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kodiologist: Go on, then... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the redirect. Conceptually, 'bimeasurable function' has more similarity to 'measurable function' than to any other existing WP article. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't tell the searcher anything about the term though? By the way, the term is explained at Schröder–Bernstein theorem for measurable spaces#Comments. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. These redirects both seem misleading, and shouldn't be kept unless someone adds a definition of both of these terms at target article. CycloneYoris talk! 21:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without a mention at the target, these redirects are not at all helpful. I considered soft redirecting "bimeasurable" to Wiktionary, but there is no entry there so that's not helpful either. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 25 January 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.

It's Only TV[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! 21:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense name, not a translation of the French (which would be "Don't touch my TV set"). Name not used, except by Wikipedia mirror sites (as the article was inexplicably at the name for 3-4 years). A few page views per day, but that's because the redirect was linked in many pages, which I've updated to the proper name Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a {{R from move}} and tag as {{R from incorrect name}}. That the article was at this title for several years, and is still linked from mirrors, indicates that it will continue to be a useful redirect going forwards. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the programs uses La télé c'est que de la télé or TV is only TV as its slogan. Plus all the stuff about being a former title for the article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:15, 19 January 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.

Buenaventura language[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 28#Buenaventura language

Lady Gaga's third studio album[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 25#Lady Gaga's third studio album

Redirects to SIE Worldwide Studios[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 all, due to no mention at the target. The technical WP:BLAR objection to deleting Sky Blue (PlayStation 3) is noted but, in this particular case given the extreme age of the outdated page and the tiny amount of content on it, I am comfortable taking the shortcut. ~ mazca talk 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article. IceWelder [✉] 01:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert Sky Blue (PlayStation 3) to the article without prejudice to AfD per WP:BLAR. It didn't have much content but with the infobox and especially after a 1 minute update with things like the release date) there is enough that it does not meet any speedy deletion criteria. No opinion about the other redirects at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all due to the lack of mention, and I especially oppose restoration of Sky Blue (PlayStation 3), it would be inappropriate to restore an article of so little content and that out of date. -- Tavix (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:06, 18 January 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.

Hnsvr[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. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, no relevant search results on Google or Google Scholar, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:30, 18 January 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.

Shabee Ahmad[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. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:28, 18 January 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.

Ben McMillan[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 to encourage article creation. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notable for more than the current target, Gruntruck. He also played in Skin Yard and was a notable figure in Seattle's grunge scene in the early 1990s, I would presume he was notable enough to have his own article, which is incidentally why I think that it should honestly be WP:REDLINKed for now to encourage a real article to be created rather than redirect to only one side of his story. The inspiration from my request comes from Wugapodes' rationale on the deletion of Drug bust just a couple weeks ago. dannymusiceditor oops 18:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for article creation, especially since the person in question played in two notable grunge bands. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 18:21, 22 January 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.

Bang Bang Romeo[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 nomination withdrawn - redirect converted to an article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This currently redirects to the father of one of the band members, who is an actor. His article has no mention of the band or his daughter, so if people are redirected here, they will be confused (as proven with the comment on the talk page). – DarkGlow (✉) 15:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stub created Bang Bang Romeo. Not sure of the etiqutte for removing the discussion template. Bogger (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment I'm happy to withdraw the nomination as the article has a purpose outside of a redirect now. Is this possible on an RfD? – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 18:04, 18 January 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.

Maroon 5's sixth studio album[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. Editors are divided between delete !voters arguing that these are not helpful redirects and keep !voters arguing that they are nevertheless harmless. signed, Rosguill talk 20:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, whoever wants to know this band's sixth studio album would go straight to either Maroon 5 or Maroon 5 discography. Who would search this? I'd consider deleting this nonsense redirect. HĐ (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the same rationale, I would like to propose the following redirects for deletion:
  • Delete. @HĐ: You can clearly see that Red Pill Blues was originally created at Maroon 5's sixth studio album by another editor before I moved it. I did not create this redirect (it was left behind as a result of a page move), so it's not as if this redirect was made by somebody as a potential search term for someone wanting to find Maroon 5's sixth album. When an album does not have a title yet, editors often create them at titles such as this. I believe I moved this article before I had the ability to not leave a redirect behind when I move pages. Ss112 06:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in addition to being a {{R from move}} it's correct, unambiguous, harmless and a plausible search term. @Se112: you should not be supressing redirects like this when moving pages. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But who would search for "[an artist]'s [nth album]" when you can go directly to their discography page. Oftentimes this kind of titles are created as a response to a newly announced project, so it is of temporal effect that ceased to exist after it was released. If this kind of redirects is allowed, I am pretty sure we can have "Queen's 1st--2nd--3rd albums" or "Beatles' 1st-2nd-3rd albums" and so on, and it is unnecessary to have such redirects. HĐ (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: Your ping didn't work, because I have pings turned off, and because my user name is Ss112, not "Se112". I would think an admin would make sure of these kinds of things. I haven't suppressed any such redirects, and I didn't even say I would. I implied that I would because I agree that I don't think it's a particularly likely search term. There's absolutely no need to be sternly telling me I shouldn't be doing things I haven't even done. We have no such statistics on how many readers would know to type in or even be typing in "Maroon 5's sixth studio album" to find the topic Never mind, remembered Pageviews Analysis is a thing, and the only time either of the pages got views was when the articles were located at these names. Since then there's been no visits aside from I assume HĐ's visits to nominate the pages for deletion. It's far more likely readers already know the title of the album, or would navigate to Maroon 5 or Maroon 5 discography, or heck, use Google to find out the title if they don't. I have rarely come across people in the general public, i.e. not Wikipedia users or people with a vested interest in music, who know how many albums a musical act has released, or would be counting that this is/was Maroon 5's sixth, so there's that against it as well. Ss112 12:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a plausible search term. The original article should never have been created per WP:HAMMER and WP:TOOSOON. Two wrongs don't make a redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Thryduulf. I could understand (and support) deletion if there weren't individual articles for all of these albums, but someone searching for these (which even though it's not many, so apparently do) will be taken to what they are looking for. There's no reason to delete. A7V2 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @A7V2: No reason to have created these redirects in the first place, either. They are the results of TOOSOON, and keeping them would just make it cumbersome to navigate through the artists' discography, especially when there are already lists of discography of these artists. Inconsistent format (capitalization, possession etc.) also doesn't help. HĐ (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow... how does keeping them make it cumbersome to navigate through their discography? These redirects do nothing to stop a user looking at those list articles. I agree these redirects will no see an enormous amount of use, but what benefit comes from denying someone searching these terms the article they were unambiguously looking for? None of the reasons in WP:RFD#DELETE apply so I can't see why you would want to delete. A7V2 (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially meet criterion 8--obscure synonyms for article names. HĐ (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If someone did not know the name of an album, how likely are they to know the album chronology or the year of release? Implausible. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's been a while since I invoked my principle of "RfD zen": should not have been created, but should not be deleted. Walter Görlitz has accurately explained the former, but the cat is since out of the bag. As such, the redirects are harmless and unambiguous, so I see no benefit to deletion, and some potential harm. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 26 January 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.

Maroon 5's Third Studio album[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 16:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, whoever wants to know this band's third studio album would go straight to either Maroon 5 or Maroon 5 discography. Who would search this? I'd consider deleting this nonsense redirect. HĐ (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unambiguous, correct, harmless and a plausible search term. I cannot understand why the nominator thinks this is remotely close to nonsense. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wouldn't consider it nonsense as a term, however, the random capitals on "Third Studio" like it's a proper noun are nonsensical. Clearly made by somebody who knows nothing about title conventions. Ss112 12:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a plausible search term. The original article should never have been created per WP:HAMMER and WP:TOOSOON. Also, the capitalization is completely wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems like an extra redirect. - Dyork (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf and my comments above. No benefit to delete. A7V2 (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No benefit to keep either. Suppose the readers want to know what albums have this band released, they would go straight to Maroon 5 discography. A redirect to "Maroon 5" certainly does not bring any benefit. HĐ (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because that is the way that you would search (which will not be in any way impeded by this redirect) does not mean that is the way everyone would search. Per WP:CHEAP redirects should not be deleted unless there is some benefit to doing so, and I'm just not seeing that at all here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:COSTLY this kind of redirect may actually be a burden ("Unhelpful titles whose existence might encourage the few readers who stumble upon them to assume that there exist redirects of the same type for other targets as well"). Suppose this kind of redirect is encouraged, then the format "[artist] + [nth] + [studio album]" should exist for every and each of the album article within the scope of WP:ALBUMS. Also this redirect can (arguably) satisfy criterion 8, that is obscure synonyms for article names. HĐ (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:19, 18 January 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.

List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Hog Farm Talk 16:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No list of vehicles exists in the target article. WP:GAMECRUFT #7 (list of vehicles) Dominicmgm (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No list of cars is included in the target article and as stated it is unlikely there ever will be a list as it would fall afoul of WP:GAMECRUFT. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear violation of WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and IP. Enjoyer of World — Talk 06:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too trivial; most likely created when there was a trivial subheading of "Vehicles in San Andreas". This is Wikipedia, not GTA Wiki. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 18:23, 22 January 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.

½ VW engine[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 Volkswagen air-cooled engine#Half VW. Refined to appropriate section within the same article. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action. Not mentioned at target. 122.61.73.44 (talk) 05:25, 18 January 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.

Joganosh[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 16:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No content about this anywhere on enwiki that the search bar can turn up using the wildcard character *, doesn't seem useful. Hog Farm Talk 05:02, 18 January 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.

Green Nigger[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 16:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article (or anywhere else it seems), doesn't appear useful. Hog Farm Talk 04:59, 18 January 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.

Zog lover[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 16:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, and I didn't find anything explaining this on Google, although admittedly I didn't look too hard, because I have a feeling I probably don't want to find out what this means. Created by a user blocked for vandalism. From look at their page creation history, a number of their redirects have been very abusive and dreadful. Hog Farm Talk 04:56, 18 January 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.

Human Genetic Branching[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 25#Human Genetic Branching

PlayStation(R)Vita[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! 05:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one would type the (R) symbol. Violates MOS:TMRULES. Dominicmgm (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Original redirect creator, personally I wouldn't mind if this redirect is deleted, however please note my original edit summary:

06:57, 6 March 2014‎ Benlisquare: This name ("PlayStation(R)Vita") is used within camera EXIF data when an image is taken using the device's camera. Making redirect from redlink, so that ENWiki and Commons images have somewhere to link to in the EXIF table.

This problem still applies: Any image taken with the PSVita camera and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons will continue to have the same value appear in the file EXIF data, and this will result in a redlink. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per benlisquare. 122.61.73.44 (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. I've tagged it as {{R from EXIF}}. Thryduulf (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous discussions. Yet there is another one. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per benlisquare. Unlike the redirects discussed in previous discussions which were created by a bot parsing the Registered trademark symbol this one does have a reason to exist. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good rationale provided by benlisquare. Enjoyer of World — Talk 06:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the creator's rationale. It may be wise to reevaluate similar discussions to see if they fit the same mold and perhaps restore them because they may indeed be useful. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the findings of Benlisquare. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 18:25, 22 January 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_January_18&oldid=1019413673"