Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 19, 2019.

C11H17N2O2S[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C11H17N2O2S was created by mistake: formula of Sodium thiopental is C11H17N2NaO2S. I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula C11H17N2O2S. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2019 (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.

C14H18NO10S2[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C14H18NO10S2 was created by mistake: formula of Sinalbin is C14H19NO10S2. I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula C14H18NO10S2. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2019 (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.

C25H33F3N3O4[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C25H33F3N3O4 was created by mistake: formula of Silodosin is C25H32F3N3O4. I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula C25H33F3N3O4. I propose to delete it. (C25H32F3N3O4 is in the list of redirs to create by bot so I didn't create it manually.) Gyimhu (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2019 (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.

C31H35N3O2[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C31H35N3O2 was created by mistake: formula of Saredutant is C31H35Cl2N3O2. I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula C31H35N3O2. I propose to delete it. (C31H35Cl2N3O2 is in the list of redirs to create by bot so I didn't create it manually.) Gyimhu (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2019 (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.

C18H12N2O[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C18H12N2O was created by mistake: formula of Safranin is C20H19ClN4. I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula C18H12N2O. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2019 (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.

Philippine Ancestral Houses (1810–1930)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 27#Philippine Ancestral Houses (1810–1930)

Corrupt children[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost no usage history, not mentioned in the target, I'm not sure this is a close enough paraphrase to justify the redirect and would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Think about the children is about not corrupting children. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure what people would search "corrupt children" for but I really doubt they would be expecting that article. I could perhaps see corrupting children by Gleeanon's reasoning though. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 21:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are forms of the same phrase, we don’t want to corrupt children as we are against corrupting children. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant question for whether a redirect is suitable is, given that someone has searched for a specific term, are they likely to be looking for the target page? I don't think that a case has been made that someone who searches for "corrupt children" is likely looking for Think of the children. signed, Rosguill talk 00:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I saw it as a part of moral panic. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Corrupt" in "corrupt children" would probably be intended as an adjective and not a verb, which changes the meaning quite a lot. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 11:44, 20 August 2019 (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.

Zebagna[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 Kebur Zabagna. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what the purpose of this redirect is, I would suspect that it's a translation of the term in another language, but I can't figure out which one or if it's sufficiently relevant to justify a redirect. Note that we also have an article for Kebur Zabagna, which may be a more appropriate target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopia? "It was not, however, part of the organizational structure of the Ethiopian regular army as it was part of the Zebagna, the Addis Ababa Guard." Imperial Ethiopia's Honor Guard: Kebur Zabagna Khemehekis (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the only language that uses Zebagna as a term for gendarme, then I think redirecting to Kebur Zabagna is the clear appropriate target on enWiki. signed, Rosguill talk 23:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support changing target to Kebur Zabagna. Khemehekis (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2019 (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.

Modern Germany[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 Modern history of Germany. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a potentially surprising or misleading redirect. While "modern" can refer to very recent history, it can also refer to the Modern period, which depending on location and interpretation can stretch from the 16th century to the present day. When I searched for "Modern Germany" in Google Scholar, article scopes varied from the Reformation on, 19th-20th century history, or post WWII. Very few results seemed to focus exclusively on post-reunification Germany. signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 19 August 2019 (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.

Johann Friedrich Zöllner[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) 15:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While Johann Friedrich Zöllner is mentioned in the target, he is only peripherally relevant to the subject, and the target article has little information about him. Searching other Wikipedia articles, it seems like Berliner Mittwochsgesellschaft, of which Zöllner was a member, may be a more appropriate target. Further complicating matters, however, is that the existence of this redirect could impede people looking for Johann Karl Friedrich Zöllner. Due to the various possible targets, I'm leaning toward recommending deletion (it's also quite likely that JF Zöllner is notable in their own right). signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete This seems to be obvious. There is a disambiguation page for "Zöllner", and at the least a line should be added for JFZ. (If need be, one could just make the direct at that line, not that I think that that is a good idea.) There is a brief article for JFZ in the German Wikipedia. I suggest that it could be the basis for an English article. TomS TDotO (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2019 (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.

Iocaine[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. MBisanz talk 18:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft, setting aside that this redirect currently points at a dab page, none of the articles listed there mention iocaine powder. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (Likewise Iocaine powder) The obvious target is somewhere within The Princess Bride and this is a significant enough term and traffic to keep. If the target is poor, fix the target. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Setting aside that I've never considered "fancruft" a legitimate reason for deleting stuff from Wikipedia, the powder is mentioned here in the article on the novel: "The man in black accepts the challenge and chokes Fezzik until the giant blacks out. He then catches up with Vizzini and proposes a battle of wits, guessing which cup of wine is poisoned with iocane powder. They drink, and Vizzini dies, after which it is revealed that both cups were poisoned, but the man in black had developed an immunity to iocane powder." Even if there were no mention (yet), it's such an iconic part of The Princess Bride (like the Rodents of Unusual Size) that the article would deserve to be fixed by editing the summary to add a mention of iocaine powder. Khemehekis (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like having it point at a disambiguation page where it's not mentioned, though I'm surprised we haven't declared TWODABS for the base title. I started an RM. If the base title is about the film, this will be an easy keep for me. --BDD (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2019 (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.

Hulk Hogan 2020 presidential campaign[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 27#Hulk Hogan 2020 presidential campaign

Echo Sounding[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. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Dawnseeker2000 17:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete trivial case difference. No proper names likely. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rather harmless {{R from miscapitalisation}}. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep miscapitalized first letters are fully plausible errors people might make in hyperlinks, so this is fine.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943 and ZXCVBNM. This is plausible and unambiguous. What benefit is there to deletion? Geolodus (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2019 (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.

Mario woman in pink[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) 18:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term Reach Out to the Truth 17:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even if someone didn’t know Peachs’ name I can’t imagine them typing this as a search term. We also won’t have Star Wars man in black redirect to Darth Vader.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible, something like "Mario princess" might make more sense. –Sonicwave talk 05:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above - I agree with Sonicwave "Mario princess" would make a lot more sense than this redirect. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 15:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would be problematic as well since we have an article for another princess in the Mario franchise.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah good point, Well I guess a disambiguation could work ?. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 17:06, 20 August 2019 (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 MPs for constituencies in England 2015–20[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) 18:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is inaccurate since target list ends with 2017. Steel1943 (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, one consequence of Fixed-Term Parliaments not being quite as fixed-term as people expected. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 21:17, 19 August 2019 (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 MPs for constituencies in England 2015–[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No longer accurate due to assumed "...to present" date range. Steel1943 (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I'm ambivalent on this one because I think these redirects can still plausibly be interpreted and used as "elected in X" and have an obvious target, but I can see the argument for deletion. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 21:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no longer useful. -- Tavix (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Outdated, and they'll only become more so. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2019 (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.

Tertius gaudens[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 27#Tertius gaudens

Blazing dragon[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 without leaving a redirect and retarget per ZXCVBNM. There's truly no consensus here, nor does anyone want the redirect kept as is, but this solution seems to address most of the concerns. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user who created this redirect apparently got confused since the roller coaster this redirect refers to (or at least intended to) is called "Iron Dragon" and not "Blazing dragon". I suggest deletion or a retarget to Blazing Dragons with an {{R from incorrect name}}. CycloneYoris talk! 22:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This could be possibly redirected to just Dragon given that dragons are often depicted as breathing fire. Sakura CarteletTalk 23:49, 25 August 2019 (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.

Sengkang Punggol[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 by nominator, no comments in disagreement. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sengkang Pungool has nothing to do with Hougang FC, and I don't think it should be kept for this reason. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 08:39, 19 August 2019 (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 characters in the Call of Duty series[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Call of Duty characters (2nd nomination), there is no list of characters. These redirects will only mislead. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Geolodus (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, there can be no general list of characters since they'd have to be segmented by game anyway.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 15:36, 20 August 2019 (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-methoxyphenol[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The resorcinol article does not contain 3-methoxyphenol anchor. Resorcinol is 3-hydroxyphenol not 3-methoxiphenol. Gyimhu (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: The anchor and related text were deleted by User:Jytdog on November 29, 2016, but not this redirect. Mediawiki enhancements or robot could be used to avoid similar problems in future.Teaktl17 (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The redirect is not currently useful and is likely to be more misleading than anything else. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:19, 19 August 2019 (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/2019_August_19&oldid=913372094"