Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 5, 2021.

Complex variables (disambiguation)[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. As Paul notes below, this discussion has been the tail wagging the dog. As long as Complex variables is a disambiguation page, the redirect is required (and I believe would be created by a bot if it didn't already exist). If there's consensus that Complex variables should not be a disambiguation page, or a redirect to one, this redirect can be speedily deleted. --BDD (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed like I didn't need this page because complex variables are already disambiguating or redirecting. Also, it is currently a double redirect. I started the discussion because there may be some objections to changing Complex variables to redirects. --SilverMatsu (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep You were the one who redirected the disambiguation page at the title. This was a bad move on your part. You seemingly also did a WP:CPMOVE of the target to Several complex variables, which is now a malformed disambig that doesn't distinguish topics with this name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several complex variables and complex analysis have been considered for merge once, and it is ambiguous whether to limit complex analysis to one variable. Sure, for a different reason than disambiguating complex variables, but I didn't copy it. Several complex variables are certainly extensions of one-complex variable analysis to multiple variables, but limiting the scope to analysis alone seems a bit narrow. Another reason I would to make it clear that we didn't change the category name. That is, not only as a short name for the Function of several complex variables, but also as a field name. --SilverMatsu (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "complex variables" should be revert to its 2012 revision, and marked as a set index instead of a disambiguation page. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentAlternatively, redirect complex variables to complex analysis and provide a hat note at the beginning of the complex analysis. Currently, complex analysis seems to mainly explain one-variable complex functions, and has the effect of clarifying this as a side effect.--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I support SilverMatsu's previous comment of making Complex variables redirect to Complex analysis. Note that the term "complex analysis" itself carries the same subtlety as "complex variables", where it can broadly mean both complex analysis in one variable and several variables, but commonly refers specifically to the one-variable theory. So I think Complex analysis is the primary topic. The manner/degree to which functions of several complex variables are mentioned there can be left up to editorial judgment on that page. Alternatively, I think the status quo is the second-best option and also reasonable. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Complex analysis with a hatnote to Function of several complex variables. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC) struck Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the consensus appears to be to retarget to Complex analysis, that is not a disambiguation page so this redirect would then be subject to speedy deletion (WP:CSD#G14) and nobody appears to favour deletion so I'm relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
trout Self-trout —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:41, 7 June 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.

TCC Group[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) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search reveals many entities known by this name, though few appear to be covered by Wikipedia. I don't see Taiwan Cement among the results, though. Most mentions on Wikipedia (including one incorrect incoming link) appear to be for TCC Group (Thai company), which redirects to Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi, so maybe this redirect should be retargeted there instead, as an R with possibilities. Paul_012 (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Agree with nom on Google results and Wikipedia mentions. However the Thai page is properly disambiguated and the Taiwan page does have a hatnote to the Thai page. The Taiwan page is not a proper target as it's about Taiwan Cement Corporation which is only one part of the group which is a conglomerate depicted in their website. Also, I believe the terms TCC and TCC Group may have been used interchangeably, as where the group started off from was the cement company. The Thai page is a worse target as it is of a person, not the group of companies. Hence, what we have now is fine, and relist when sometime in the future, Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi is forked and has its own standalone article for the Thai group. - Jay Talk 15:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Jay's analysis, and the target page now does a better job of covering TCC Group. It still needs more work. --Bejnar (talk) 18:06, 8 June 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.

COVID-19 Hospital[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. Nominally no consensus between disambiguate, retarget and delete, defaulting to no consensus due to absence of support for keep. signed, Rosguill talk 05:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is too specific a topic for the redirect title. feminist (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment At one point, this page did have text on it: [1]. However, I agree that the current target should be deleted or changed; perhaps Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospitals? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to me this title refers to hospitals specifically set up for COVID-19, like the NHS Nightingale hospitals, or the insta-build hospitals in China, and not a specific hospital in particular. If this article is to exist, it should be a list of such hospitals or point to such a list. -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With a quick search, I found two articles on temporary hospitals with a COVID focus: Fangcang hospital for China, and COVID-19 hospitals in the United Kingdom. I don't think we have anything on temporary buildings or structures generally (hence my nomination of Temporary structure above), let alone hospitals. The base COVID-19 pandemic has links to the British and Chinese uses, but would require further searching to locate within the article. Besides the current target, Category:Hospitals established for the COVID-19 pandemic has relevant content, so maybe the best solution would be a disambiguation page, which could eventually progress (perhaps via WP:CONCEPTDAB) to a real article. --BDD (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsuitable redirect (and bad caps for an article/dab-page title) since there are too many possible meanings. Whether any of the proposed alternatives are more acceptable is another question. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per BDD with at least COVID-19 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Hospital ships involved in the COVID-19 pandemic‎, Fangcang hospital and a link to the category listed. Pedantically the dab should be at a title something like Covid-19 hospitals but wherever the dab is this title is a useful search term than should redirect to it. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Covid-19 hospitals per Thryduulf. And that can redirect to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospitals per AllegedlyHuman. I would like to see that article dealing with new hospitals set up for Covid as well as existing hospitals modified to treat Covid. Jay (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to "Covid-19 hospitals" and then Delete "COVID-19 Hospital". Jay (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MOVEREDIRECT. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No clue on what that guide is trying to say, however I changed the vote to clarify what I meant by rename. Jay (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving redirects is pretty much benefitless. Just create a new redirect. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving preserves page history, and the redirect has a lot because it was a merge with the target, before the redirect happened. Jay (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no point in moving the redirect anyway because COVID-19 Hospital is a completely normal search term that shouldn't be deleted. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's a normal search term, but there needn't be a page with that search term. Jay (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support all the disambig & retarget to the DAB page Covid-19 hospitals votes. Jay (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: note this is an involved relisting to close the 11 May log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate or delete. Far too generic a term to refer to a single hospital. JIP | Talk 23:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not create a dab page. Too many hospitals serve that purpose. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move page history to COVID-19 Hospital (SevenHills Hospital) (or a talk subpage) to preserve pre-merge page history, and either delete the currently named redirect or disambiguate per BDD. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 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.

Gaza genocide[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a neutral wording. Not linked from anywhere. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unaware of any reliable sources that consider this particular conflict to be genocidal. If so, why this one and not the other dozen+ conflicts in Gaza. Makes no sense. -- GreenC 03:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 10 § Gaza Holocaust. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 03:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Gaza War (a DAB page which has a see-also to the Gaza conflict DAB), mirroring precedent with Gaza Holocaust, and tag as {{r non-neutral}}. Google results suggest that this term is used at least occasionally, in fact probably more often than "Gaza Holocaust", but also that it's not clearly used to refer to one incident more than any other. (Retargeting to "Gaza conflict" would also be reasonable; if that's the consensus, someone should re-RFD "Gaza Holocaust".) -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 05:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Incorrect term for the conflict. Negligible page views. The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict report did not mention this as a genocide. WP:RNEUTRAL does not apply. The redirect was created as a new page redirect by a now inactive user who, at the same time created the redirect Gaza massacre (which was subsequently retargeted to List of massacres in the Palestinian territories, which is fine for that redirect, but not for one that says genocide). Jay (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. A quick Google search of "Gaza genocide" returned links to a book available via Springer and a document published by a major advocacy group (Center for Constitutional Rights), so the term has at least a little bit of currency among scholars. I'm not convinced that Gaza conflict is the best target; I would prefer to target it somewhere that discusses Israel's treatment of Palestinians, which is somewhat frequently accused of amounting to ethnic cleansing. (Genocide and ethnic cleansing aren't the same, of course, but the former is sometimes used by demagogues to speak of the latter.) However, our collection of articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict is rather sprawling, so I'm not sure where to look for that information. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Gaza War; I largely agree with Compassionate727's reasoning, but further believe that by including "Gaza" in the search term, the reader is almost certainly looking for one of the wars in that region, rather than Israeli treatment of Palestinians more broadly. signed, Rosguill talk 19:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't want to second-guess the "Gaza Holocaust" close, but this should really point somewhere where accusations of genocide vis-à-vis Palestinians are discussed. I was surprised to not be able to find such content on Wikipedia currently. The closest thing I could find was The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, but that's a specific book. Retargeting to Gaza War is far too squishy for me, because what are we suggesting? Each one is a genocide? Taken together, they add up to a genocide? That blasts past WP:RNEUTRAL into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and note that the only thing close to a mention of genocide at any of those articles is a quotation at 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis about "genocidal songs of vengeance". --BDD (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD's and GreenC's arguments. Gonnym (talk) 18:39, 6 June 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.

Tinkling[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 not defaulting to keep. I initially tried to disambiguate this, but Harmonic oscillator does not discuss the sound tinkle (that word is not used in the article at all, nor is the synonym "ring" nor even the word "sound"), disambiguating would result in basically two dictionary definitions of tinkling rather than two pages that discuss it, and Wiktionary is better suited to handling that, so I have gone with the soft redirect option. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Urination does not say that tinkling is a euphemism for urination (in fact it describes tinkling as a sound). I don't think having this redirect is helpful and a better target may be soft redirect to wikt. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as it can just as easily refer to the sound. MB 16:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary - there's more and better information there than there is on Wikipedia. Urination mentions tinkling as a sound, but I can't find any target which describes the sound in any kind of detail; harmonic oscillator is an article about physical mechanics and doesn't describe a tinkling sound nor any sound at all. Any disambiguation we could create would just be a poor WP:DICDEF substitute for what's already written on Wiktionary. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate It might also mean telephoning or working as a tinker. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary per Ivanvector. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or disambiguate. I think the current target is the primary topic, but that doesn't seem to be the consensus here, so disambiguate the topics mentioned above and include the Wiktionary link there. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:58, 5 June 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.

WWAFAWDWG?[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. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_25#WWAFAWDWG -- dylx 17:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill, Daybeers, MaranoFan, AngusWOOF, and Rubbish computer: pinging users who participated in the previous discussion. -- dylx 12:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the previous consensus. The addition of a question mark does not make a significant difference. Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. A google news search shows a few sites using this acronym to refer to the album, the version without the question mark seems to have been used as a twitter hashtag to promote the album, and it doesn't seem to be ambiguous with anything else. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mostly fanmade acronym that is of no encyclopedic significance, not mentioned at target.--NØ 12:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Presumably nothing else this could refer to. Harmless, and possibly helpful. --BDD (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essentially as a matter of stare decisis. I think I would have !voted keep in the past RFD, but given that it closed as unanimous delete, and that it's only been two years since then, this outcome should mirror that one. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The previous discussion bears no more importance than this one. If this discussion results in a keep then WWAFAWDWG should be recreated. Consensus can change. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a reasonable acronym used in sources that is unlikely to ever mean anything else. I agree that WWAFAWDWG should be re-created. I'm skeptical of the conclusion in the previous RfD because it evaluated the redirects as a group and did not consider the merits of this one in isolation, plus mentions like [5] were made after that discussion. — The Earwig (talk) 07:27, 12 June 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.

Kobe Jones[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 not defaulting to keep. Given the general dissatisfaction with the current status quo, I have followed the most supported option, which was retarget to Cobi Jones as an {{R from misspelling}}. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for this redirect (and potentially stops this page from being filled out if need be) Debartolo2917 (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. The redirect can always be boldly turned into an article once he plays a regulation game. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert back to being a misspelling redirect for Cobi Jones, the status quo since 2007. If the other Jones becomes notable, it can be overwritten with an article. Either way, there's a long precedent of deleting redirects to season articles so the current set up is unhelpful. -- Tavix (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Atlanta Falcons#Current roster. I don't know if there's a usual practice for NFL players, but this one surprisingly isn't an WP:XY situation where he's also on college team pages, development leagues, etc. Unless this is wildly against our normal practice, this seems like an acceptable {{R from subtopic}}. --BDD (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:49, 5 June 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.

Pseudophysics[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 List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Physics. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was the original title of an article Pseudoscience (physics) about a non-notable neologism defined as pseudoscience in the domain of physics. After a convoluted process, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudoscience (physics) (2nd nomination) resolved to delete the article and redirect to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Physics. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as proposed. This didn't need to be relisted: it's the obvious outcome of the deletion discussion, and nobody has proposed doing anything else with it. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right. I relisted it because I couldn't tell what the nominator was proposing, which is just silly; now that I'm not sleep deprived, it's incredibly obvious. I'll close it now. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:38, 7 June 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.

Porte des Lions[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 Louvre Palace#Denon and Flore Wings. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target or its corresponding frWiki page, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:44, 5 June 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:Str rt[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. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unclear template redirect. User:GKFXtalk 09:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep spelling variation, as "str" is clearly abbreviation for "string", rt is clearly abbreviation for "right"; and a commonly used abbreviation for right. (indeed, some programming languages use RT instead of RIGHT) -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned above the Str_ part is OK and fits a convention, it's the rt that I object to. I wouldn't expect people to search for rt if they meant "right", and it would not be that clear if part of template markup. User:GKFXtalk 18:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • RT is a common abbreviation for right, so I would think that some people would search this way, and it probably is a WP:CHEAP redirect as it is. RT is a recognized abbreviation for right [9] and found in some programming languages [10] ; so I think it is a reasoanble redirect and search term -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:44, 5 June 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.

Moues[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 12#Moues

Gender and Sexual Minorities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 12#Gender and Sexual Minorities

Sea trade route[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 12#Sea trade route

Katie Britt[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 Wesley Britt#Personal life. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to [11], Katie Britt is President & CEO of the Business Council of Alabama, and was previously Richard Shelby's press secretary/campaign manager/chief of staff. She's not notable on her own and there's no info on her at the target, so delete. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:I raise no objection to this page being deleted, so delete unless Katie Britt is a candidate in the 2022 United States Senate election in Alabama, which is likely. Muhibm0307 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I changed the redirect target to 2022 United States Senate election in Alabama, because Britt has an announcement pending for that election. Do we need to delete this now? Muhibm0307 (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not change the target of the redirect while it is under discussion. - Jay Talk 20:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:56, 5 June 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.

Oulo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 12#Oulo

MKSA system[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. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects should rather redirected to MKS system of units or to a section of International System of Units, since these articles are more directly related to the topic (MKSA is an extension of MKS and the base of SI) and since Giorgi did not directly propose this exact system, he proposed a system with any practical electrical unit as a fourth base (so MKSV or MKSΩ would also be consistent with his proposal). --Lukflug (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. In the current state of affairs a section in the MKS system of units or the Giovanni Giorgi article would, IMO, both be appropriate targets for the redirects. The International System of Units article, however, seems to be too off-topic already. When I created those redirects I linked MKSA to the Giorgi article because it had (and still has) a little bit more information about the topic than the MKS article, however, this is something that might change over time through normal article development, and, from a logical point of view, the MKS article might be the slightly better target long-term.
So, I can support switching the target link to point to a section of the MKS system of units article if we add a dedicated MKSA link to the Giorgi article and decide that, for adding more information on MKSA in the future, the MKS article would be the better place, given that MKSA is, in fact, only one of the possible systems suggested by Giorgi. However, in the current state of affairs I still do not see a strong need to switch the target, so I'd also be happy if we keep the links as is for now.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:46, 5 June 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.

Ofenbach[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 Offenbach. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The pageviews indicate that Ofenbach (DJs) is the more likely intended target. A recent RM to move the article to the basename has just closed with no consensus. Recommend the primary redirect to Ofenbach (DJs) instead, with accompanying hatnote at Lanzenkirchen. 162 etc. (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See pageviews. 162 etc. (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then make it a disambiguation page. Given the pageviews, the current primary redirect to Lanzenkirchen is indefensible. 162 etc. (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there are plans to make the DJs the primary topic again, it can be proposed again in a few months with stronger evidence or strengthened arguments. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. There should be one DAB headed Offenbach or Ofenbach can refer to... or similar. Andrewa (talk) 20:40, 7 June 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.

Philip Thomas Tucker[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! 01:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY issues, as Tucker has written many other books. While this is currently the only book of his we have an article on, searching for reviewing on EBSCO indicates that this work Exodus from the Alamo is notable, and his bio of John S. Bowen likely is as well. I think it's too narrow to point this to a single book of Tucker's. Hog Farm Talk 06:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep on the basis it is the only currently existing target... GiantSnowman 09:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GiantSnowman and until a better alternative exists. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation and to facilitate uninhibited Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until more works show independent notability. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GiantSnowman, Jauerback and AngusW. - Jay Talk 15:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GiantSnowman, Jauerback, AngusW and Jay. There is no evidence that lack of a target is more likely to promote the creation of new articles. --Bejnar (talk) 16:13, 8 June 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.

Kudanzaka[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 Chiyoda, Tokyo#Geography. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion. This hill does not meet the general notability guideline. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - qualifies for WP:G5, and there is no information at the target nor anywhere else I can see. Google suggests the hill may be notable and/or may have had a notable light feature, but it isn't listed under List of lighthouses in Japan (not sure if that would be the right target anyway) so also delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it qualifies for G5: the redirect was created on 13 September 2011, but the master was not blocked until 18 October 2011. -- Tavix (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • may have had a notable light feature. The lighthouse -- or at least a copy of the lighthouse, I don't have my notes handy to tell me which it is -- is still there [12]. --Calton | Talk 23:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We also have an article on The Kudan, a notable residence in Chiyoda and which mentions Kudanzaka in passing but without much information. I don't read Japanese but ja:九段 (via Google Translate) seems to be more about the surrounding neighbourhood, and also includes some description and history of the slope. Maybe someone more proficient can use that to construct an article, or add something to the Chiyoda article? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:34, 5 June 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.

Oyata[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 13#Oyata

Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 12#Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development

Hyper Potions[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) 15:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target has nothing to do with the article's subject other than writing 2 songs for it, despite the group having done things other than just that Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:48, 5 June 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.

TLC Beatrice[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 Beatrice Foods. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this redirect to Beatrice Foods, the company this was split off from, if at all? Paul_012 (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:30, 5 June 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.

Bong Go-class frigate[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) 15:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While "Bong Go" is a subject of controversy regarding a government deal involving these frigates. This is not a plausible search term. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Created as a leftover from page-move vandalism in May 2020. An unlikely search term, though it does have Google hits, hence the "weak" qualification. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no value added by this redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 14:58, 11 June 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.

Lake Pyhäjärvi[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 Pyhäjärvi (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Lake Pyhäjärvi" literally means "Lake Holy Lake". There are quite many lakes named Pyhäjärvi in Finland, the one in the Tampere region is by no means the primary topic. This should redirect to Pyhäjärvi (disambiguation) instead, as Pyhäjärvi itself is a town in Finland. JIP | Talk 00:15, 5 June 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_June_5&oldid=1028813153"