Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 19[edit]

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

Willamette Stone and Willamette Meridian[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 27#Willamette Stone and Willamette Meridian

MediaTek Camera Application[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#MediaTek Camera Application

Melon (color)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Procedural keep. Topic is now described at target article. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target article doesn't mention "melon", and because there are many different types of melon of different colours (inside and outside), I suggest this is ambiguous and should be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Color name without an established definition, as evidenced by comments above. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added another reference in the target for the hex and RGB values. Jay (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now that the topic is described at the target article again. - Eureka Lott 04:06, 23 November 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.

Acolnahuacatl (deity)[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. MBisanz talk 04:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear why this redirect goes here, and without explanation it's confusing. The redirect is present in Template:Aztec mythology. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:13, 19 November 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.

Judo at the South American 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading, especially in templates like Template:South American Games Judo & Template:International judo And pages such as South American Games. Should be deleted to invoke page creation. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:13, 19 November 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.

−3[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 8#−3

Detroit subway[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 Transportation in metropolitan Detroit. MBisanz talk 04:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target topic is a transit system that is entirely overground, and hence would not be referred to as a "subway". feminist (+) 09:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it should probably be redlinked. Several subway proposals have been made for Detroit over the last century, that could be documented in a "Detroit subway" article, including the 1970 version that lead to the DPM People Mover, and the original 1909 proposal. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Transportation in metropolitan Detroit, where a couple of those proposals are mentioned, although not having a section to link to is a bummer. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep People outside of Detroit looking for information on the Detroit metro may not be aware that the system is overground, and would look up 'Detroit subway', assuming that, similar to many other major cities, Detroit's metro system is underground and therefore a subway. In the U.S., at least, 'subway' is synonymous with 'metro', and therefore it's a plausible search term. This redirect would only be an issue if Detroit happened to have a true subterranean metro/planned one, in which case this would be retargeted. But it doesn't. Searching 'Detroit subway' looking for the Detroit transit system is a perfectly plausible scenario. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 03:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per filelakeshoe. The Detroit People Mover shouldn't be confused for a subway. It doesn't compare in terms of scale, capacity, elevation, or robustness. - Eureka Lott 04:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per filelakeshoe and Eureka Lott. Useful search term, no reason for deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 01:18, 27 November 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.

C10H14N2 (film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#C10H14N2 (film)

Specifier (linguistic)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 27#Specifier (linguistic)

Radio supernova[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Radio supernova

TERF island[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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Loaded, partisan title. While I am aware that partisan redirects can be allowed, this one is not even mentioned in the article, and it opens the door for others with anti-trans views to add their own WP:POINTy redirects. For comparison "Amerikkka" redirects to satiric misspelling, not Racism in the United States. We wouldn't allow other POV online memes redirect to pages through the backdoor, I have seen recently that the redirects "Rapefugees" and "Chimp out" were rightly deleted as POV. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The term is fairly widely used. This is not a neologism being coined here on Wikipedia. People might well search for it and it is helpful for them to know that it refers to the UK. I would support (brief and well referenced) coverage being added to the target article explaining that there is a perception that the UK has become a major base for the promotion of pseudo-intellectual/pseudo-feminist transphobia internationally and that this has led to this particular term coming into use. I think that the redirect target is probably correct. The other possibility might be Anti-gender movement but only if coverage of the UK was to be added there. It doesn't have a UK section at all at the moment. I don't think that this redirect is really comparable to those slurs that got deleted. The term is critical of the UK but it is not a slur against the British or any protected group within the UK. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've googled it and the main results were blogs and social media. An NYT article came up, but probably through related algorithms, as the article doesn't mention the two-word term itself. [1] The nearest thing is an opinion piece on Open Democracy quoting a friend [2] I have no opposition redirecting just to TERF, keeping it redirecting to this page, or making a whole article on the word itself - if sources can be found. The way the redirect is now seems particularly backdoor in my opinion. Also, if we are talking about whether or not the redirect has slurs or not, see TERF#Opposition to the term and TERF#Slur debate, this is contentious. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that TERF might be another plausible target, if the term were to be explained there. The objective here is to serve the readers best. To do that it needs to go somewhere plausibly on-topic and that somewhere should briefly explain what the term refers to. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A plausible search term and a very widely used term describing the bizarre and unusual (compared to the US and Western Europe, and Australia, and Canada) phenomenon of widespread transphobia among self-declared feminists in the UK (in other countries such as the US only the right wing is associated with transphobia). Transgender rights in the United Kingdom also seems to be the most appropriate and plausible target, i.e. what readers are typically looking for. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no other island country this term is applied to; Amanda A. Brant is right that a redirect to Transgender rights in the UK is the best option, and that article ought to mention the very specific nature of British transphobia anyway, even if it doesn't already. British transphobia is unlike that I've seen anywhere else, and as a particular phenomenon, I've seen the epithet 'TERF island' used very commonly. If we can keep a mention of 'TERF bangs' in one article, we can keep this redirect, though we could possibly redirect it to a specific section of the article. I think a redirect to TERF is misguided judgement, as it doesn't make clear that it's a term used to describe the specific nature of transgender rights at present within the UK.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:23, 20 November 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.

H2S04[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 27#H2S04

125th station[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28#125th station

List of organisms named after famous people (born 1900-present)[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 all to List of organisms named after famous people. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is the old title of a list article that was split and renamed, so it is no longer representative of the content it redirects to. No other article links to it so it can be safely deleted. El monty (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of organisms named after famous people. This should be kept for its history/attribution, and this broader target would get anyone using the redirect to the appropriate list. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see this was not the result of the move, as it uses a hyphen, whereas the redirect from the move properly contains an en dash (List of organisms named after famous people (born 1900–present)). The hyphenated could be deleted, but probably should be kept to target where the dashed form targets, and I would argue for both to be retargeted as above. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both hyphenated and dashed forms per above. As the former location of the article/minor modification of the title, it is likely to have collected external links that we should not break if we can help it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is also List of organisms named after famous people (born after 1900) which should probably be treated similarly. Perhaps these should be bundled here (by someone not involved)? Mdewman6 (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I bundled those two redirects into the discussion here so they can also be discussed. Regards, SONIC678 02:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This search term is actively not useful as it redirects to an article that only gives the reader half of the information they want. I don't think that there's a need for retargeting as nowhere in article space links to any of these pages.snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 13:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite being the only thing listed at whatlinkshere, current revisions of English Wikipedia articles are far from the only place that can link to Wikipedia pages - every other site on the internet, bookmarks, offline resources, etc. are all sources of traffic for English Wikipedia articles. Retargetting has infinitesimally small costs and significant benefits, deletion has no benefits and significant potential harm from broken links. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving it one more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per above: one of the redirects was the title of an article for for months until October, so there is potential for breaking incoming links if it got deleted, and the other redirects are simply its modifications. I don't see any harm or any potential to mislead readers. – Uanfala (talk) 00:32, 22 November 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 offenders scheduled to be executed in the United States in 2020[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 all per Evil Sith Lord. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The year 2020 has passed, so no need for this redirect to exist anymore. Same with 2018 and 2019. Inexpiable (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I went ahead and merged these redirects for you. I can't imagine why someone would have differing opinions on these. -- Tavix (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are harmless, while deleting them could potentially break some backlinks from external sites. In general, I think the only redirects that need to be deleted when they become obsolete are ones with words like "upcoming" in them and (per a recent precedent) ones that, if asserted as fact, would violate BLP. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. It is plausible that someone will be looking to see who was scheduled to be executed in these years, whether they were or not. Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in contrast to Thryduulf. If the target included everyone who was scheduled to be executed in these years, these would be valid redirects. However, that is not the scope of the target; it only includes future scheduled executions. The lists for past years do not include when people were scheduled to be executed, it only records the executions themselves (eg: List of people executed in the United States in 2020.) For example, Oklahoma's scheduled executions were postponed for several years following the Execution of Clayton Lockett. -- Tavix (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Exactly with what has been said above by Tavix. Scheduled executions for those years have long been deleted/disappeared from the redirect target page. Furthermore, where would you suggest these pages even redirect to if they are kept? A more logical thing to do would be to re target them to each year, e.g. the List of offenders scheduled to be executed in the United States in 2018 redirect, should (if kept) be at least redirected to List of people executed in the United States in 2018. That would make more sense if you're going to keep them, but I think they should just be deleted. The years and info have now long disappeared/passed Thryduulf Tamzin. Inexpiable (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Tavix. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix if there's no relevant content in the target article. Unless we turn these into soft redirects to earlier versions of the article's history? – Uanfala (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retargeting per Evil Sith Lord is the better option: the proposed targets don't list specifically those scheduled for execution (only those that actually got executed), but these are the closest thing we seem to have and I don't see potential for readers to be misled. – Uanfala (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the 2020 redirect to List of people executed in the United States in 2020, the 2019 redirect to List of people executed in the United States in 2019, and the 2018 one to List of people executed in the United States in 2018. In the event that someone uses these, either from an external site or by just not thinking their search term through all the way, it is far more likely that they are looking for people who were executed in the year that they specified than a list of people who are scheduled to be executed in the future. Evil Sith Lord (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget the redirects to the lists of people executed in the United States in their respective years per Evil Sith Lord. Although these years have already passed, and the titles might no longer appear useful because they executions aren't in the future for the preceding reason, it's still the closest thing we have to a feasible target. Regards, SONIC678 04:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:06, 19 November 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.

Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death

Hurricoaster[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 speedy deleted by Fastily per G7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See FlyingKitty for another example. This redirect redirects to a very small portion of his actual work and I don't believe the redirect can be converted into an article. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 07:19, 19 November 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.

Benzofuran-3-one[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. As there was no opposition to the deletion. Jay (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target is a substituted derivative of this compound, but there is currently no content about this compound on Wikipedia. Delete to encourage article creation (if notable) and avoid confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:03, 19 November 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.

Malzahar[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Malzahar

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_19&oldid=1059234739"