Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 1, 2021.

Witch Lesbians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. There's consensus this is not an appropriate redirect for the current target. Several participants have noted a reasonable target that this could point at, but given the capitalisation and odd phrase structure nobody seems to be arguing that it should point there. ~ mazca talk 18:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be an alternative name for the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The related redirect Gay witchcraft targets Modern Pagan views on LGBT people. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify - I'm not endorsing retargeting there, just mentioning a related redirect. I'm not sure what to do with this redirect at the moment. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Motherland Fort Salem can't be the only mention of witch lesbians in media; it doesn't make sense to redirect there. I'm not sure if the page needs to exist at all? But if it does then should redirect to "Modern Pagan views on LGBT people" as stated above me. Apathyash (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – not an alternate title for the show and quite possibly an attempt to imply a slur. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lesbian witches would be much more natural way of referring to the general idea, and that's red. --BDD (talk) 21:18, 10 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.

WebView[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 9#WebView

Colors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 8#Colors

It from bit[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 John Archibald Wheeler#Participatory Anthropic Principle. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article just got overhauled to remove synthesis of unrelated ideas, and this theory is no longer discussed in detail anywhere on Wikipedia. It is mentioned only in passing even on proposer John Archibald Wheeler's article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:35, 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.

Cityfight[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 8#Cityfight

Rhino (Warhammer 40,000)[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 19:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more broken 40K Vehicle redirects, again these are supposed to be pointing at a section of Vehicles of the Space Marines in Warhammer 40,000, which was deleted in 2011. I can find no coverage of this tank anywhere in the encyclopaedia. If kept this would probably be better targeting Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000), but they're not covered there either, just given a name drop as an example of a transport vehicle. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:42, 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.

Razorback (Warhammer 40,000)[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 19:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another broken warhammer vehicle redirect. This is supposed to be a section redirect to Vehicles of the Space Marines in Warhammer 40,000, but that article was deleted in 2011. I can't find any coverage of this vehicle anywhere in the encyclopedia. If kept this would probably be better targeting Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000) as the army that uses the vehicle, but it's not covered there either 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:27, 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.

Space Marine Predator[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 19:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are three redirects for variants of a space marine tank which is not discussed in the target article. These used to be section redirects to Vehicles of the Space Marines in Warhammer 40,000 which was redirected to the main warhammer 40,000 article (With a bot "Fixing" the resulting double redirects by retargeting them), before being restored and nominated for an AfD discussion, which ended with the article being deleted. These broken section redirects were left behind from the bot retargeting them to the main article, and should probably have been G8'd when the main article was deleted. If kept these would be better targeting Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000), but there's no content on these tanks there, just a name drop as an example of a tank the space marines use 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:04, 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.

Greatest Team of the Greatest Club[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 13#Greatest Team of the Greatest Club

Leman Russ[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 19:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a higly ambiguous redirect because there are two things in the warhammer 40,000 universe called leman russ, neither of which is discussed at the target article - a charcter and a tank. The character used to have an entry at Primarch, which was deleted following an AfD nomination, but is still mentioned in The Horus Heresy. There's also an argument to be made that this should target Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000), as the character acts as the leader of a space marine army. The vehicle used to be discussed in Vehicles of the Imperial Guard in Warhammer 40,000 which was deleted following an AfD nomination, but still has a mention in Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000). The article content in the page history was transwikied in 2007, following which the article was turned into a redirect. Since there are 3 possible targets for this I propose deletion to allow uninhibited search results. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:41, 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.

Nipple H[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 19:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only edit the creator ever made was to create this redirect. The edit summary from 2008 signals that they knew it would come under scrutiny because they denied vandalizing the encyclopedia in it. It's just too bad it took over 13 years to bring it here. They say it's a fan nickname and I don't know if that's true, but if it is then too obscure and defamatory to be useful to us. LM2000 (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete G10 / G3 The only mention I can find of this "Nickname" is an entry on urban dictionary, which leads me to believe that this is either something the redirect creator made up or is pure vandalism. Given the lack of mention of this name in the article and the complete lack of reliable sources covering this it should be deleted due to BLP concerns. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pejorative redirects like this are harmful unless they are actually in wide use, which this one does not seem to be. In any case, there's no discussion of "Nipple H" in the target article. The only other usage I can find for this is a parts description for one sort of valve fitting, which also is not covered in the encyclopedia. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite what the creator claimed it’s not a common nickname. I’m not sure if a speedy deletion works here it’s over a decade old so nowhere near recent enough for G3 and I’m doubt it qualifies as an attack.--70.27.244.104 (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slowly. If you can't find anything with Google searches for a pop-culture topic, it's not currently a common nickname and thus not useful. But given the ephemeral nature of pop-culture topics, especially on the Internet, you can't assume that something obscure in 2021 was obscure (or an attack) in 2008. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 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.

The Scabs (Amercican band)[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! 06:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo, and not linked from elsewhere Ionmars10 (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; the decent amount of pageviews shows that the redirect is linked from somewhere (outside Wikipedia). Ionmars10, please don't move redirects per [[1]]. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The band is mentioned several times in his article. Seems like a sensible redirect.LM2000 (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirect contains a typo; it can be hard to notice and the fact that you didn't notice it adds to the plausibility of the typo. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aye, and apparently I'm not the only one. I've never typed with an extra C into the search bar, but per your evidence, plenty of others have.LM2000 (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above. 50 page views a year is about the level where I consider a typo to be plausible (that's purely my opinion, not backed by policy), but since the correct spelling redirect was only created yesterday I'd be interested to see how many people are still using this in a years time. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947. I don't care how implausible a typo appears to be — if people are using it, and if the properly spelled form would be a good redirect, we ought to keep the typo redirect. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_1&oldid=1011815450"