Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 10, 2018.

Template:B+[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. TheSandDoctor Talk 01:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m unable to see any practical reason for a reader or template user to utilize these redirects to reach the target template. Steel1943 (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, just Jax 0677 (talk · contribs) being lazy as fuck again and not wanting to type out more than two characters when slathering articles in maintenance tags that they don't even need. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The plus signifies addition, and the "B" signifies Biography of Living Persons.
  1. "Unless a WikiProject [or anyone else, for that matter] has actually expressed interest in usurping [this redirect], I don't see [it] doing any harm." To date, no other use for {{+b}}, {{+B}} or {{b+}} has been suggested at all. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  2. Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete.
  3. "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
  4. "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
  5. "Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it [confused]. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{tlc}} or {{tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors."

--Jax 0677 (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Short abbreviations like this are misleading. There are 40 other redirects to {{BLP sources}}, maybe use one of the four-character ones which are a bit more obvious. --woodensuperman 15:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - CHEAP doesn’t apply when it’s existence is actively confusing. It being this short is not intuitive. In no context does anyone’s mind naturally jump to things like “B=BLP”. Please stop making things like this, it’s getting disruptive at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Many of my redirects, such as {{WPCW}}, {{COP}}, {{1r}} and {{LR}} have stood the test of time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats good. I’m not saying “stop”, it’s more like “slow down” or “be more selective in your creations”. I feel like we’re here discussing your redirects every week or two, and most I’ve observed be nominated end in deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete another unhelpful redirect by Jax 0677. a topic ban would be helpful, but probably won't happen any time soon. Frietjes (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2018 (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.

Tim Maroney[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. TheSandDoctor Talk 01:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not mentioned in target. Hildeoc (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2018 (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:Year[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 replace then retarget. Replace all uses of {{Year}} with {{Year needed}}, then target {{Year}} to {{YEAR}}. It is recommended that we have a separate discussion on whether the uppercase template series including {{YEAR}} should all move to lowercase titles. @Primefac: Thanks for offering your bot's services. Deryck C. 10:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO it makes much more sense for this to redirect to {{YEAR}} than {{Year needed}}. Currently {{year}} only has 68 transclusions. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even better: flip the relationship. Five rationales apply here (that I can think of):
    1. What is presently {{YEAR}} has nothing to do with any acronym, and should simply be at {{Year}} itself. If the redirect already went to YEAR, I would RM it (or, more likely, just go round-robin move it on the spot, since such a move could not be controversial.).
    2. {{Year}} redirects to {{Year needed}} only because the latter was originally created at that short, vague name, in the era before we decided to have template names that are not confusingly cryptic. The redir is just an old {{R from move}}. I think it simply wasn't noticed at that time that {{YEAR}} existed (and would be my own oversight, though my memory for page-moving trivia doesn't go back that far).
    3. It does genuinely make the most sense for "year" and "YEAR" to end up at that particular template, since all it does it output a year scraped from the input. The bare word "year" doesn't convey "year needed", any more than we'd usurp the name of {{Citation}} (a template that outputs a citation) for a redirect to {{Citation needed}}. Similarly, {{Page}} does not redirect to {{Page needed}}, {{Volume}} does not go to {{Volume needed}} (it had actually been temporarily userspaced for repair, and I fixed it just now), {{Season}} goes to the {{Weather}} (and seasons) navbox not {{Season needed}}, {{Pronunciation}} does not go to {{Pronunciation needed}}, etc.
    4. For WP:CONSISTENCY with {{Date}} and other related templates.
    5. It's standard practice to have "FOOBAR" and "Foobar" go to the same target page, unless we have a really good reason not to. We do make exceptions when we need them, on the WP:SMALLDETAILS page-titling principle (e.g. {{DATE}} is a separate, special-purpose template, not a redirect to {{Date}}), but we don't make them for confusing, counter-intuitive redirects , only for actual content/code.
PS: I have upgraded what is presently {{YEAR}} with two new features (output of current year instead of senseless "0" if not provided any parameter input; and safesubst'ing), plus clearer documentation and testcasing.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far there seems to be consensus that {{Year}} and {{YEAR}} should be the same template, and {{Year needed}} a different one. This would require deprecating all existing transclusions of {{Year}}. The debate also remains open as to whether {{YEAR}} should be moved to {{Year}}. I'm relisting this to provide more time to agree on the plan of action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SMcCandlish and Enterprisey: Tavix makes a really good point about the other Category:Date-computing templates being in all caps. Why don't we start by changing {{Year}} to point to {{YEAR}} and then start a broader conversation about whether these date templates should be in all caps. I think we can all agree that {{Year}} and {{YEAR}} should both do the same thing. The discussion about which one should be the actual template and which should be the redirect I think needs more discussion to make sure there is consistency with the other templates. Does that work for everyone? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and close. The argument for sending it there is compelling, and this isn't the place to decide on renaming a whole batch of templates, all but one of which is unrelated to {{Year}}. RFD decisions aren't necessarily permanent; there's nothing wrong with re-retargeting {{Year}} if a discussion decides that {{YEAR}} ought to be at a different title. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This all-caps stuff dates to a different era, and renaming some other templates is probably fine and something we can get around to. Some should probably stay as-is; e.g. {{DATE}} isn't a normal date-formatting template, but something special, always used with subst, inside other templates. Anyway, nothing needs to be "deprecated", just replaced, probably by bot (i.e., change extant calls to {{YEAR}} to be {{year needed}}, then redir {{YEAR}} to {{year}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 06:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What SMcCandlish said. feminist (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2018 (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.

Miss Multinational 2018[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 keep. Withdrawn. No longer necessary. (non-admin closure) Adam9007 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created redirect from a misnomer. R3 declined because it's the result of a page move. Adam9007 (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2018 (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:Ctie book[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. TheSandDoctor Talk 01:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlikely misspelling. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2018 (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.

Hope (comics)[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. TheSandDoctor Talk 01:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Hope" is too vague a name to warrant a redirect to a minor character like this. I'm sure many other characters in comics are also called Hope - Hope Summers (comics) springs to mind instantly. This should probably be deleted. --woodensuperman 13:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is Hope Summers frequently referred to as "Hope" alone? Externally, I mean, not just with characters talking to each other. "Peter Parker" is well known, but Peter (comics) redirect to Spider-Man would strike me as somewhat ludicrous. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it would be equally ludicrous for Peter (comics) to redirect to a little-known minor character that is barely mentioned in a section of another character's article. --woodensuperman 12:22, 14 December 2018 (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.

Self titled debut album[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trope not discussed on target article. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This seems related to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_14#Debut_album. While the 2015 discussion's result would point towards deletion of this nomination's redirects, that discussion had more discussion so it may be worth leaving this discussion open for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the previous discussion that Deryck referred to in the relist. These should be WP:REDLINK'd until Wikipedia has this topic. -- Tavix (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2018 (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 Hill (newspaper[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. TheSandDoctor Talk 01:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? No precedent. Dropping the trailing paren isn't a likely "misspelling" or alt punctuation. MB 17:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Qualifies for WP:CSD R3. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It’s not broken. But also, I created it because there was a red link to it. Creating the redirect silently but gracefully repaired the problem and sent the user to the intended article. —LLarson (said & done) 20:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The resolution for the red link you found would have been fixing the red link to The Hill (newspaper) and not creating this redirect to accommodate one bad link someone created. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, but I am supposing that if one errant editor created a misformed link with an unambiguous target in the article namespace, that the same mistake is almost certain to occur again in the future. This redirect applies the robustness principle to ensure that future readers end up where they intended to go, rather than being invited to create a new article. —LLarson (said & done) 15:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By that token, every single article title with a parenthetical disambiguator in it at all should always have a redirect in place from the form that's missing the closing parenthesis, because any Wikipedia user could potentially make the exact same error for any article title with parentheses in it. There's no reason to presume that The Hill is somehow uniquely more prone to this error than any other disambiguated title, and no reason why a comprehensive program of creating redirects from unclosed parenthesis errors for every disambiguated title would be a valuable or productive use of our time — but one or the other of those things would have to be true to warrant keeping this. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Parenthesis-closing errors in links do happen from time to time — I've done it myself a few times, when my fingers were moving faster than my brain — but they are better corrected by fixing the broken link rather than by creating redirects from the error. WP:RDAB even explicitly cites unclosed parenthesis errors as an example of where creating a redirect is not valuable or justified. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2018 (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.

Featured article candidates[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 26#Featured article candidates

Poet Warrior[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. Article creation at this title is strongly encouraged. Deryck C. 12:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No longer appears in the target article. Nor does the section, as it was appropriately removed per WP:TRIVIA. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as it is taking the place of a legitimate topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may want to convert the redirect to an article about your linked topic. feminist (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, retarget or create article - It appears there now, so one should keep, retarget or create article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. No alternative target for thisbredirect has been presented (and I cannot find an alternative target myself), and the suggestion to "create article" is also validation to delete this redirect per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2018 (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.

Mercedes-Benz CLE-Class[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. (The redirect was created when the article previously here was redirected here via 3 years after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercedes-Benz CLE-Class; this redirect is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops, that's the same page as the one you linked. I think you messed up, because the discussion resulted in "keep", not "redirect". Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oy yah, 3 year delay on that change. Striking. Steel1943 (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a good example of why WP:CRYSTALBALL is a good idea. An article was created on a rumored vehicle class, survived a VfD, and the article survived another three years before being unceremoniously redirected. Then the redirect lasts another ten years before being discussed now. I cannot find anything beyond rumors; there's no evidence that this was/is/will be an official Class. -- Tavix (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2018 (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.

6-2[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 6/2. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term "6-2" is not exclusive to volleyball, and could refer to a variety of subjects. This could even be a score in various different sports games. Steel1943 (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate for Volleyball#6–2, 6–2 defense, February 6, June 2, and any others. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Or just retarget to 6/2, a page I just found? Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Retarget to 6/2 better solution per WP:DPAGE: A single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms. Sets of terms which are commonly so combined include: Terms that differ only in capitalization, punctuation and diacritic marks 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2018 (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.

Sony TV[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate.

There is a consensus that having a page for navigation would be appropriate. Whether the page is described as a DAB or a SIA is not as important as they are both for navigation. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they being redirected to an Indian TV channel? They may refer to the television sets manufactured by the Sony Corporation in Japan, or some other TV channels operated by Sony Pictures. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 14:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Does sound like a good idea to create a disambiguation page, to list about Sony TV channels, and also about Sony televisions such as Bravia and Trinitron — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicdragon136 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've bundled in Sony Television, which has the same ambiguity issues as the redirects already nominated. Deryck C. 11:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: I don't think this is suitable for a single set index, because television hardware and television programming are very different things. --Slashme (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2018 (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.

Sharpe's Rifles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 20#Sharpe's Rifles

F. P. Lutke[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a typo in the redirect itself. Target says "T.P. Lutke" is the author abbr in botanical context. There is no redirect for T.P., which would be useful. But F.P ? MB 17:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google search comes up with lots of references to F.P. Lutke for the subject targeted. His name in Russian is Fyodor Petrovich Litke. Examples here and here for example. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it was very common in the 1700-1800s to refer to people by initial, initial, last name. The botanist link at the bottom of the page however, seems to be an error so I have removed it. There does not appear to be any plant experts by this name in the database or our article List_of_botanists_by_author_abbreviation_(T–V)#T. This man was a geography guy, no stated interest in plants. Legacypac (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless someone finds a competing topic. The first line of the article provides an alternative given name + patronymic "Fyodor Petrovich", which makes F.P. Lutke a reasonable indexing term for this person in an English book. Deryck C. 11:30, 19 December 2018 (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.

Henan dialect[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 19#Henan dialect

Hebei dialect[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

错误重定向。尽管河北大部分地区的方言属于冀鲁官话，但河北境内仍分布有晋语、北京官话和中原官话，而且冀鲁官话也不仅仅分布在河北（冀），他也广泛分布于山东（鲁），冀鲁官话和河北话无论如何都并非同一个概念。这个页面应该被删除直到有人以正确的定义重新创建他。 Ngguls (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google Translate states that the previous comment reads as follows:

    "Error redirection. Although the dialects in most parts of Hebei belong to the official language of the Lulu, there are still Jin dialects, Beijing Mandarin and Central Plains Mandarins in Hebei, and the official language of Lulu is not only distributed in Hebei (冀), he is also widely distributed in Shandong (Lu). The official language of the Lulu and the Hebei dialect are not the same concept anyway. This page should be deleted until someone recreates it with the correct definition."

    Steel1943 (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Human translation: "Wrong redirect. Although most areas of Hebei speak dialects that belong to the Jilu Mandarin dialect group, there are also Jin Chinese, Beijing Mandarin, and Central Plains Mandarin. Furthermore, Jilu Mandarin isn't only found in Hebei (Ji), but also broadly in Shandong (Lu). At any rate, "Jilu Mandarin" and "Hebei dialect" aren't the same concept. This page should be deleted until someone recreates it with the correct definition. Deryck C. 11:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. There is no "Hebei dialect". This Zhihu post explains that Hebei is a political creation and that the province of Hebei is linguistically fractured, with dialects in each area more similar to dialects across the border in the next province than with other parts of the same province. Deryck C. 11:08, 19 December 2018 (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.

Town tramp[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. Deletion hasn't been explicitly suggested, but Xezbeth's and BDD's comments are compatible with deletion. The consensus is that the existing target isn't very good and we can't agree on a good alternative target. Deryck C. 11:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be a nickname that is associated with this fictional character. Not mentioned in article. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to tramp as there isn't an article for it like town drunk. Several celebs, most notably Dolly Parton have used the moniker. [1] [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How helpful will that be? I don't know. If a reader knows the term "tramp" but is looking for "town tramp" specifically, this will be unhelpful or condescending. If the whole phrase is unfamiliar to the reader, that could be helpful. There are a few uses of the phrase on Wikipedia, but none that make good targets. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:42, 10 December 2018 (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.

Forced birth[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. TheSandDoctor Talk 01:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase could also relate to situations where a mother has to give a forced/early birth. This phrase does not seem to have exclusive affinity with its current target. Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question My first thought is a situation in which birth is induced early due to problems, e.g. someone I know recently bore a child a little early due to a diagnosis of Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. Is that what you're talking about, or do you mean something different? Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m not 100% sure. I mean, for example, a Caesarian section could be loosely considered a "forced birth". I think what I’m trying to say is that unless the redirect has some sort of strong connection to its current target, it may be a WP:SURPRISE and may best assist our readers if the redirect were just deleted so that the Wikipedia’s search function can help readers find what they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't really make sense, especially (as you note) it could also apply to someone "from his mother's womb / Untimely ripped" via C-section. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nyttend. Ambiguous. feminist (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2018 (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.

Anti-abortion movement/version 2[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 delete. Clean-up after page move and page history split. Deryck C. 11:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects with unlikely names existed so that their edit histories could be moved to these titles. Their edit histories have now been moved elsewhere, and these redirects are unlikely search terms for their target. Steel1943 (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Steel1943: They are both strings of redirects (created by a page being moved many times in succession) which were moved aside out of the way of an incoming move, beause a deleted parallel history sitting under a visible edit history is liable to accidents if a page must be temporarily deleted. (We need selective delete, and selective move of visible edits, and ability to move deleted edits either all or selective.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clean up these leftover redirects unless there is some technical need for their continued existence. –dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 11 December 2018 (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.

Draft:King Ali[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 move to mainspace. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the aim was here, but quite sure there shouldn't be a Draft->mainspace redirect like this. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since this redirect is not an {{R from move}}. Steel1943 (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking out my comment due to the creation of a draft at this title. Steel1943 (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promote to mainspace probably the aim was to have King Ali redirect to Ali of Hejaz (as IPs & new users can't create mainspace redirects or articles), in which case it should have gone through WP:AFC/R. However in this case the lemma is ambiguous, so I've drafted a dab page like the others in Category:Title and name disambiguation pages. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to mainspace, as this is a good disambiguation page for putting at King Ali (although I'm guessing it's rather incomplete), and now that it's not a redirect, deleting it here would be a bit absurd. Per Steel1943, the crucial factor here is that the target wasn't moved from the draft title; we routinely keep draft titles when pages are moved from there to mainspace, but it's a bit bizarre to create a draft as a redirect to something else. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's changed radically under my feet since I RFDed it and I guess now looks like a plausible mainspace diambig... but I fear it might need some attention to determine if the pages linked are actually individuals who might been known as "King Ali". (Granted they are all kings with the name "Ali", but how royals are commonly referred to varies from place to place and time to time....) Pinkbeast (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2018 (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.

Tony Bray[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 20#Tony Bray

ARC (language)[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 ARC (i.e., disambiguate). Aramaic has since been added there. If it's ever removed, I think the link between that page and Arc will be sufficient, but we can cross that bridge if we get to it. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An WP:XY situation: this is an implausible incorrect name that one could equally well attempt to connect to either Arc (programming language), or ARC Macro Language, or, apparently, to Aramaic language (whose ISO 639-3 code is "arc"). Just noting that this was kept after a recent batch nomination. – Uanfala (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or disambiguate. ISO 639-3 is not case sensitive to ARC and arc are both correct, if kept then hatnotes can be added. This is nothing to do with WP:XY. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Uanfala that this is a situation in which the disambiguator "(language)" doesn't sufficiently disambiguate between the potential targets, and it is better to delete so users find ARC instead. --Bsherr (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is an argument for disambiguation or retargetting to ARC (the dab page) as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} not an argument for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it could be if someone were likely to search for or link to this term with the disambiguator, but that seems unlikely. Bsherr (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've explained on other similar redirects the use that these redirects have, which apply equally here: Language code plus disambiguator to guarantee a link to the correct article, as neither language names nor language codes are guaranteed unambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except that here, language code plus disambiguator could justifiably link to other targets, as set forth in the nomination. While that kind of uniform scheme might be nice, it needs to yield to the regular practice of how we use redirects and disambiguation, no? --Bsherr (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • It does - we do not disambiguate programming languages or macro languages using "(language)". Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • We apparently sometimes do, even if we shouldn't (I know of about two dozen redirects like Basic (language), if anyone's interested in the full list, give me a shout). But speaking of what we do and don't do, can I check we're still aware that we don't disambiguate languages using ISO 630 codes? – Uanfala (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Tavix (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate there's no possible redirect target. Not sure if ARC is sufficient; Aramaic is only on Arc. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Linguist are often presented with data that use ISO 639 and want to look up wider information about the language. I expect [ISO 639 code] + "language" to at least take me somewhere that points to the relevant language. If there is ambiguity with the name of another natural language or computer language, take me to a disambiguation page where I can find the language represented by that code. Deryck C. 12:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, linguists who are in the business of looking up languages by their ISO code will use redirects of the form ISO 639:arc. These have the advantage of covering all 8,000 or so ISO 630 codes (and not just the few dozen of the form ARC (language)), they were chosen as they were unambiguous, and they aren't as obscure as they might seem: they're used for linking to wikipedia by SIL (the custodian of the ISO 639-3 codes), and by the two most widely used languages databases: ethnologue and glottolog. And if we're going to ascribe behaviours to linguists, it's probably not completely irrelevant that the only user who created redirects of this type wasn't one, and the two linguists that I know of who've commented in these recent discussions have both supported deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This particular redirect cannot be disambiguated per WP:INCOMPDAB. What can be done is to retarget to a disambiguation page, such as ARC (although deletion is still the better option). -- Tavix (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Human life begins at conception[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#Human life begins at conception

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_10&oldid=1036305566"