Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 19, 2021.

Ephriam (fire emblem)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 26#Ephriam (fire emblem)

Mani Katta[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. ✗plicit 23:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect from way back in 2005 that didn’t exist as an article for very long. The ingame sword is called the Mani Katti, not the Mani Katta, and Mani Katti got redirected to FE7. Only edit history is redirect stuff, such as from the move earlier today. Dudhhr (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not seem like a realistic typo people would make and is gamecruft anyway.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's only a misspelling of a single letter. Keep per WP:CHEAP unless someone can make a case this is likely to be confused with something else. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since the sword isn't mentioned in the article anyway. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - error for a trivial element; pageviews are fairly low and suggest that people aren't really searching for this variant. Retarget the correctly spelled variant Mani Katti to List_of_magical_weapons#In_video_and_computer_games, as the sword is mentioned there but in the current target. Hog Farm Talk 19:52, 26 May 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.

Scream: A new Beginning[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) 17:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made up. No such film has been made and as far as I know no Scream film with the title "A new Beginning" was ever in the works. ★Trekker (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete G3 per Dudhhr. Dominicmgm (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It takes less than 10 seconds to verify that it is not a hoax, but a fan film. Yet that seems too hard for the previous participants. I'm not suggesting this should be kept, but suggesting something should be speedily deleted as a hoax without doing an exceedingly basic check as to whether it is a hoax is purely ridiculous. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slowly. Not a hoax, but equally it is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia that I can find. I have no opinion about whether it should be mentioned, but unless and until it is the redirect is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slow delete (good line, Thryduulf). No mention in the target, no particular use to readers, no meaningful coverage I can find to permit mention and justify its existence. Vaticidalprophet 15:32, 20 May 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.

Opposition to trade unions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 26#Opposition to trade unions

Checkgate[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 26#Checkgate

Tang-e Shur[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 26#Tang-e Shur

The Love Ducks[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. ✗plicit 13:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was an element in an episode, but it's not mentioned in the target. Dominicmgm (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added Love Ducks to this nomination, as if kept they should end up pointing to the same target. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. I can't find any relevant use of "love ducks" in mainspace. I did find, and revert, some vandalism that had been overlooked since January though (the motto of Sorell School is not "I love ducks"). Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per Thryduulf: not mentioned anywhere. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Arthur_(season_4)#ep75b. It's better to direct readers to the episode where the Love Ducks are a major plot element, as this is more specific and verifiable than the series page/characters list. Scrooge200 (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem is, the Love Ducks aren't even mentioned there or anywhere on the English Wikipedia for that manner. Dominicmgm (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:19, 18 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) 15:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Looking at it more closely, I probably could have just waited for an admin to come and close it as delete. I'm not sure that relisting it hurts anything, though, and I don't see how being involved in a discussion makes me unfitted to relist (which is just a request for more discussion). —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Not mentioned in either target article. Johnnie Bob (talk) 16:46, 20 May 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 2001: A Space Odyssey trivia[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, but restore and send to AfD. Though it seems to favor one side, I see this outcome as analogous to a WP:NCRET, since almost no one wants to keep things as they are (apologies to Vaticidalprophet), but there clearly is not consensus to delete at RfD. I will list this at AfD as procedural action. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No trivia section labeled, or list in the article. Delete unless a justification can be proven. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • REVERT to this version, which was the last version before an edit war occurred about the existence of the list. It was a controversial redirection, so should have had a discussion, but did not occur, according to the talk page. Therefore, it should be reverted to the list article, and sent to AfD, which was bypassed even though a prior AfD exists for the article. The talk page mentions converting the trivia list into a Making of 2001 film article. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any controversy has dissipated since 2007. Wikipedia is not IMDB. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert without prejudice to AfD per the IP. RfD must not be used to delete article content, especially when there was no consensus at AfD to delete the content. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to userspace. This'd fall afoul of being an indiscriminate collection of information in the mainspace, but at the same time we don't wanna delete the content, so it's best to revert the content and userfy it. Dominicmgm (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and AfD - the content here survived a prod and an AFD discussion before being edit warred out of existence, so I think the article needs a proper AfD discussion as it's deletion is clearly not uncontroversial. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was an indiscriminate collection of trivia. We don't do that here. There's no way the 2007 version of the article will surive an AfD today. Let's skip the bureaucracy and take care of this here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:20, 18 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) 15:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:COMMONSENSE - a list of trivia would obviously not pass muster of AfD in modern Wikipedia.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This seems like 2001: A Space Odyssey should be given a trivia section then the redirect should be change to that section. Note that I'm just glancing over at this section and I'm not fully comprehending the discussion. UppercutPawnch (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Messed up my formatting, changed. UppercutPawnch (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep where it is and pretend this RfD never happened, because it shouldn't have. Restoration would, as Compassionate says, have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving the process. Deleting that history -- an important remnant of another age of the project, and far less a NOT violation hidden where only a wikiarcheologist would look for it -- would in turn be both totally inappropriate at RfD, and a completely unnecessary destruction of something that was hard-worked-on and represents an important history solely for the reason of "well, RfD said we should do it" if done at AfD. The redirect is harmless and allows the access of content that is also harmless, even if it should no longer be reader-facing. Such content is not infrequently linked offsite, e.g. this piece by a former admin that links a similar redirect to discuss its history. Removing this now is just deletion for the sake of deletion. Vaticidalprophet 15:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's nothing stopping anyone from copying this over to the 2001: A Space Odyssey Fandom if they want to, but if I had to guess, all of this content is probably already there, in one place or another. If it is indeed being linked from somewhere for purposes of discussing the project's history, that might reason to keep, but the pageview history suggests this redirect is going totally unused. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:56, 26 May 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.

"lock-on technology"[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. ✗plicit 13:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The use of quotes makes this implausible. Dominicmgm (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't think that this is worth keeping. People wouldn't search this way. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:55, 19 May 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.

Wajid Khan (Khan music duo)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 26#Wajid Khan (Khan music duo)

TGBL[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 Tata Consumer Products. ✗plicit 13:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"TGBL" is not a legitimate alternative initialism for "LGBT" (unlike GLBT) Bangalamania (talk) 11:20, 19 May 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.

Flags of German flags[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. ✗plicit 13:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this redirect does not make sense but not too nonsense for G1. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, makes enough sense to be confusing (why does the flag have a flag, or is this just the Flag of Redundancy Flag?). Was at this title for only a few hours, so I don't think there's any real need to keep it. —Kusma (t·c) 11:38, 19 May 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.

Assorted minor characters from Fire Emblem games[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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) dudhhrContribs 16:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This list will be very large, so I created a temporary maintenance category for these pages at Minor FE character RFDs that can get g6'd when this is done.

Note to closing admin: If the consensus is to Delete, delete all redirects in Minor FE character RFDs and speedy delete the category under G6.

Mostly redirects to nonexistent sections and not mentioned in the plot summaries. These characters should be on the FE wiki and not here. Dudhhr (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you please list the redirects here too? You can make the section collapsible if it's too long. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very open to soft-deleting these redirects so anyone can request undeletion or userfication. Dudhhr (talk) 23:18, 19 May 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_May_19&oldid=1025323842"