Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 24, 2018.

UPL[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. Created a quick draft dab with the first line of suggestions from Tavix. Feel free to take the history and move, etc. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts with the intitialism UPL -> Unauthorized practice of law (itself also a redirect). This page was formerly an article on a subsidiary of Universal Entertainment but there is no information present in the article describing what the initialism is, and as such it should be retargeted to the legal definition. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:48, 24 October 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.

Gary Brolsma (Internet Celebrity)[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) feminist (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pointless disambiguation. Gary Brolsma already redirects to the biography section on this article, who would search for "Gary Brolsma (Internet Celebrity)" as if there's another person of this name? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Perfectly harmless {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. The article about him that was merged into the target was originally created at this title so someone at least thought it was necessary. It's been used 138 times so far this year so it seems to continue to be a useful redirect for at least some people. Not everybody knows that there is not currently another notable person by this name. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. It's a bit of an odd redirect, but it clearly has some use to it. Thegreatluigi (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:49, 26 October 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.

Scuppie[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 soft redirect to Wikt:scuppie. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target or elsewhere. While the term is clearly in use in at least two meanings ("socially conscious yuppie" and "safron-clad yuppie"), we have currently nothing to link to. Paradoctor (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Soft redirect Arms & Hearts reminded me that soft redirects are available. Paradoctor (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect to wikt:scuppie. The word isn't mentioned in the target or in any other article, but someone who searches for this is likely to be looking for a definition, which Wiktionary offers. (Deleting this would be preferable to keeping it, though.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:55, 26 October 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.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa[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) 19:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A long form of this title contains repeating "a"s, but not this exact number of them. I think we've had this discussion before for a similar redirect to the same title and the result was delete, but since it's an indiscriminate number of letters I don't have much hope I'll be able to find it. Unlikely that someone would use this random/incorrect number of repeating characters to find this title. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is an implausible redirect. I don't think a reasonable person will type that amount of 'a's' to find the target. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:09, 24 October 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.

Penetration (telecommications)[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) 20:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling —swpbT go beyond 14:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirming my "delete" !vote subsequent to the attribution discussion below. Will respond further down the thread. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for those (like me) who didn't immediately spot the misspelling, the redirect is missing the "un" from the middle of "communications". Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for attribution purposes. This is a result of a page move that happened a week after the page was created in January 2005. Back then merges were only recorded in the history of the original target so we really do need to keep this around. It's fortunate therefore that the redirect is completely harmless and has caused no problems in the nearly 14 years its been around, strongly suggesting it's unlikely to cause any in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. There is no attribution issues at play here. -- Tavix (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you even read beyond the first sentence of my comment? I just described exactly what the attribution issues are and also explained why the redirect is harmless (and thus there will not be any benefits from deletion). Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I read what you believe to be an attribution issue, which I reject. A typo does not require attribution, and there is no significant page history that would need to be preserved per WP:MAD. -- Tavix (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, so what you meant to say was "there are no contributions that I judge worthy of preserving the attribution for" not "there are no attribution issues", the two are very different. I completely disagree with your value judgement, and that's fine, but presenting it as fact is not. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then perhaps you could provide the relevant policy that backs up your standpoint that a redirect left behind as a result of a page move from this era "needs to be kept around" for attribution purposes? Otherwise, no, there is no difference between what I said and what you feel I meant to say. WP:NOATT states that not everything requires attribution, which is directly contrary to what you say elsewhere, and gives guidance on examples that do not require attribution. Fixing a typo is well below that threshold for attribution. -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausible typo, WP:CHEAP, and Thryduulf. In the past four years, there was about one hit every two months, that appears sufficient motivation not to delete, regardless of where exactly the hits came from.
I also found four instances of this typo here on Wikipedia. Paradoctor (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's debatable whether we should have redirects for typos that occur in parenthetical disambiguators at all, and this one isn't even plausible. There's no need to keep the redirect around for attribution as the history is fully available at the post-move title Penetration (telecommunications) (yes, back then the moves themselves didn't get recorded in the history, but the history did get moved to the new title; the only piece of information that is missing from there is the fact that the page was at a misspelt title for a week, and that's not something we would ever need attribution for). – Uanfala (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't get to pick and choose what we need attribution for and what we don't. Legally we are required to attribute every (non-deleted) edit. Fixing a typo in the page title is at least exactly as important as fixing a typo in the body of the page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting idea, but I think most people would agree that the correction of a typo is not the kind of contribution we need to attribute (see WP:NOATT). – Uanfala (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see how you get from that page to not being required to keep attribution for either fixing a typo or moving a page? It's not a quote or a common expression/idiom. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this one isn't even plausible" You read my rationale for keeping? Paradoctor (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the typo in question is the omission of two consequtive letters. Obviously, it's not completely implausible, but "communication" is a long word and there are about a dozen possible typos of this precise kind; there is an equal number of (more plausible) single-letter omissions, two-letter swaps, and a much higher number of typos involving the substitution of one character with another that is next to it on the keyboard. The total number of typos of that, or higher, level of plausibility is in the hundreds. We wouldn't want to create hundreds of redirects for the typos in each moderately long word. We have to draw the line somewhere. The fact that there have been a few instances on wikipedia of this very typo does not, in my opinion, help it pass as this is a really common word and you would expect at least some of the less plausible typos to be attested here. – Uanfala (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we generally preserve page histories when there is content requiring attribution, which is not the case here. Prior to RfD there are four edits in the history: one is the correction of an unambiguous error, and the other is a bugfix to remove whitespace. Neither of these are even close to the level of creative expression required for copyright protection, which is generally the threshold for preserving histories for attribution. This was also not an old-style cut-and-paste move: the only edit preceding the move was this one, the page creation, and it is present in the history of the target (Penetration (telecommunications), itself also now a redirect). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is the attribution of the page move itself that will be lost. Moving a page to a new title is a significant act. Disregarding attribution requirements because its inconvenient when deleting a redirect (a deletion that will not bring any benefits) is completely contrary to the spirit Wikipedia and the license if not necessarily the letter of the legal text. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Histmerge if there is stuff to save. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know if there are attribution issues, but this seems like a plausible typo – Google shows 10,500 hits (and 9,780 hits excluding "wikipedia") – and, most importantly, does no harm: there's no risk that it might confuse or mislead the reader. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having the misspelling inside the brackets makes me think this misspelling is not plausible enough to be a useful redirect title. Deryck C. 10:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think there are attribution issues here, and I don't think this is a useful or likely redirect. I'll add that Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves links to a 2002 email where moving was turned on (as opposed to copy-and-paste). I think Thryduulf is right that in '05 move logs were still only in the target page history, but notably that entry is missing from the history of Penetration (telecommunications). I'm not exactly sure what's going on, but this looks like it was actually just created whole-cloth as a redirect. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:36, 2 November 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.

Larry Warren (Rendlesham)[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. Deryck C. 10:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated for AFD however even at the time, there was no mention of this person, so it seems rather silly and useless to have a redirect where there is no mention of this person. Praxidicae (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added others as they're virtually the same. Lawrence Warren, Lawrence P. Warren, Lawrence Patrick Warren. Praxidicae (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not mentioned in the target or in any other article. (A few articles mention "Lawrence Warren," but it looks like none actually refer to people by that name.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:27, 26 October 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.

File:FIA logo.svg[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) 19:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect shadowing commons, Mainspace links updated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:42, 27 October 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.

File:Dwelling.jpg[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) 19:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect shadowing commons. Mainspace links updated ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:42, 27 October 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.

File:Cool.png[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) 19:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect shadowing commons, mainspace links updated ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:42, 27 October 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.

File:Torn.jpg[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) 19:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect shadowing commons, links updated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:42, 27 October 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.

File:Airborne.jpg[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) 19:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect shadowing commons... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:42, 27 October 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.

Qaum[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 Restore article. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in article Abote2 (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article This was an article about an arabic word meaning "nation" or "kinship group". Since October 2017 it was tagged as being suggested to merge the article into Nation but no discussion of that took place. On 29 July this year user:2a02:c7d:b910:3d00:d16c:d88c:e83d:7b31 redirected a whole series of articles, using an edit summary indicating that content had been merged, but without actually merging anything. Their actions apparently still need to be cleaned up, which I'll take a look at later. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've now cleaned-up up all the mess they made under this IP address, other than this redirect which I've left so as not to prejudice this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article per Thryduulf's recommendations. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that investigation, primarily by Ivanvector at AN/I has shown that the user continues to edit from a very dynamic IPv6 address. While their most recent contributions don't seem problematic at first glance it's unknown whether they converted other articles to redirects with an edit summary indicating a merge but without merging anything, so this is something that people should be aware of (basically, look at the history of the redirect to see whether there is an edit summary indicating a merge, and if so check the history of the target for any edits on the same day that did merge content.) Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 25 October 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.

Death tape[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated incorrectly at WP:RM by 114.75.67.23 (talk · contribs), with the following rationale:

The title "death tape" is overly ambiguous for this redirect, as it would appear to the casual observer that it refers to recordings of deaths and/or suicides in general—in the same way that "sex tape" refers to amateur pornography in general. I suggest that the title of this redirect be changed for proper clarity.

-- feminist (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • See Talk:Death tape for previous discussion. feminist (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Jonestown tape is the overwhelming primary topic for "death tape" as an exact phrase, even when hits for "Jonestown death tape" are excluded it is still the most common result on both Google and the internal search engine. None of the other results are for things we have any content about (there is a non-notable TV movie, an EP by a non-notable band, and various other non-notable things - almost all of which seem to be named for the Jonestown death tape). There are two results on the first page of an internal article-space only search for "death tape" that are not about the event in Jamestown: the first is the phrase "infernal death tape" at Death (metal band)#Biography but in context this is clearly not relevant: "In 1985, the Infernal Death tape was recorded and released.". The second is 13 Reasons Why#Season 1 (2017), but here the words turn out to be split over two paragraphs: the final words of the final sentence of Episode 6: "...despite her role in Hannah's death." with the first word of the episode footer: "Tape subject: Marcus Cole, for...". If there are other notable meanings I've not found then this is best dealt with using hatnotes. Of course none of this precludes the creation of redirects from titles like Jonestown Death Tape if anybody wishes. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Death tape is significantly notable in its relation to Jonestown. Agree with and thank Thryduulf for the legwork. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Firstly, I would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused by my incorrect nomination of this redirect at WP:RM: it is the first time that I have nominated a redirect for renaming, and I was not properly aware of the correct procedure. With regards to the redirect itself, I agree that the majority of results on search engines for the phrase "death tape" are for the Jonestown death tape, but I have found at least one use of the term that specifically refers to a recording of a killing unrelated to the Jonestown case: in this article by Australian national newspaper The Australian, the heading refers to the recordings of Jamal Khashoggi's killing reportedly in the hands of Turkish authorities. Several other news results, while not specifically referring to a "death tape", do refer to recordings that capture the final moments of an individual or individuals before their deaths. Perhaps the redirect should be made a disambiguation page with the Jonestown death tape as the top suggestion, and links to other related articles such as murder and suicide, which would prevent any potential confusion. 114.75.67.23 (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Upon further consideration I am now coming to agree with "Thryduulf"'s reasoning regarding using hatnotes for disambiguation. However, I still believe that the title "death tape" (in sentence case) is somewhat confusing, so I would suggest at least renaming it to "Death Tape" (in title case) to make it more clear to a user viewing the suggestions when entering into the Wikipedia search bar that the term refers to something specific rather than a general coverage of the subject of death tapes. Additionally, I also agree that a redirect titled "Jonestown Death Tape" (and possibly "Jonestown death tape" as well) should be considered for creation. 114.75.67.23 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would argue that both Death tape and Death Tape should be redirects - both capitalisations are used in sources and are probably equally likely to be searched (the internal search engine is only one of many ways of finding Wikipedia content, pretty much only those people using it who have javascript enabled and some of those using mobile apps get search suggestions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that you are right, and to avoid possible confusion a hatnote should be added to the relevant section of the Jonestown article (Jonestown#Deaths in Jonestown) explaining that "death tape" redirects there. However, I still wish to gather more opinions, so I will leave this discussion open for now. 114.75.67.23 (talk) 01:41, 26 October 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 wiki[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 2#The wiki

Sun d[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. Only Sun d was tagged for RfD, but all the others have:
  1. Been listed here for seven days
  2. !votes specifically mention them
  3. They're of the same manner and style as Sun d
  4. As noted, the creator has a history with improper redirecting

As such, I'm deleting them all per consensus, despite not being appropriately tagged. If anyone objects, I'll restore and relist. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't make much sense out of this redirect, even after Googling it a couple of times. I'm sure it probably means something, but it must be pretty obscure... Also, the guy who created this has something of a history of creating unhelpful redirects.

Of course, considering my track record with RfD, this may well be a completely valid redirect, and I've just overlooked something obvious. Thegreatluigi (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is getting plenty of uses, but looking at google it seems unlikely that anybody is using it find the current target. There are several different uses - most commonly a partial title match for Sun d'Or (an Israeli airline), but excluding them we get a display screen brand or technology (I'm not sure which), a lighting company, a 3D printing company, two probably different authors of academic papers named D. Sun, a French brand of vitamin D supplements, etc. I haven't investigated whether any of these are notable, but I don't think we have content about any of them. Searching for "Sun d" "earth" -Wikipedia -"Sun d'Or" gives only pages where the sun is item (d) in a list that also includes earth or where d is an abbreviation for either diameter or distance in mathematical formulas. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all the others identified by Tavix below as well per their reasoning. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It appears to be some kind of numbering system, but I can't figure out any other details. There exist other redirects such as Sun b and Sol b → Mercury (planet), Sun c and Sol c → Venus, etc. They should probably all be discussed together. -- Tavix (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to sort-of be the Exoplanet naming convention (which I found via [1]), but by that system earth should be "Sun b" (or "Sol b" possibly, I'm not sure) as Earth was discovered before Mercury. I'm not convinced this is actually a useful redirect though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (which I have listed below). Thanks for filling in the gaps, Thryduulf. This convention is specifically for exoplanets, of which the solar system's planets would not be members of. Even if we did apply this convention to our local planets, the letters are in order of discovery, not by distance from the star. Since multiple planets were known in antiquity, there isn't a set "order of discovery" with local planets anyway. -- Tavix (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
  • Delete Sun (letter) per nom. Not commonly used and rather confusing. No opinion on Sol (letter) as that could be the scientific naming for planets in Sol? Sun d also confuses with Sunny D and Sunday (sundee pronunciation) and Sund. Sun Bee or SunBee is the name of a K-pop artist. Sun E confuses with Sunny and Sunee (more non-notable K-pop names) Sun g would confuse with Sung and Seung-gi AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • With that logic, Sol b is confusing with Solbi (a K-pop singer), Sol d with Sold (a disambig), Sol e with Sole and Soli (disambigs), Sol f with Solf (a disambig that possibly should be a redirect to a minor planet), and Sol g with Solgi (a rural district in Iran). Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 25 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_24&oldid=1142586790"