Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 21, 2019.

Paper Lovee[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) 21:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:14, 21 December 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.

Rubi Rose[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) 21:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:06, 21 December 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.

Yung Bleu[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) 21:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target, I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:06, 21 December 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.

Ethnic groups in locations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 5#Ethnic groups in locations

Club América (old edits)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per G6. -- Tavix (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect only existed to hold previous edits. Now that those edits have been history merged, this page does not need to exist. Wikiacc () 18:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This redirect is no longer of any use to anyone; deleting it is housekeeping. Glades12 (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not an R with history anymore, not a search term. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 23:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't really needed anymore like the previous two voters have said. Best to delete it. HawkAussie (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above, serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 11:51, 24 December 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.

U:TPWSNBN[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, G6 by User:Anthony Appleyard Lenticel (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find anything saying this should/shouldn't be allowed. I've decided to see what the community says, along with UT:TPWSNBN. Thanks. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:47, 21 December 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.

File:This picture is taken by me on my mobile with front camera that is called Selfie.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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad redirect. CptViraj (📧) 12:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral: This is an obviously implausible redirect title, but I see no real reason to delete it. Glades12 (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too long, and useless in linking; one reason to delete is to prevent a flood of useless file redirects. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 00:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I usually advocate that "File"-namespace redirects be retained per WP:FILEREDIRECT, but this title is just an awkward combination of a vague and precise title. Also, the target file was at this title for less than a day, and I have WP:PROD-ed the redirect's target page. Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 23 December 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.

Umeå BSKT[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to delete this page since "Umeå BSKT" is a club that compete in men's basketball whereas "A3 Basket" is a club that competes in women's basketball. I'm sure that the two clubs at some point in history were the same club but that does not seem to be the case now. Different logos and colors, different names etc. If the redirect stays one might confuse the two clubs with each other and thank that it's the same club when it's really not Jonteemil (talk) 07:05, 21 December 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.

Empire Racing/James Hylton[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) 20:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Hylton and Empire Racing both have articles. Delete per WP:XY. signed, Rosguill talk 06:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A rather obscure partnership as well, and I’m not even sure it merits a redirect on notability. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the one who recently created the page titled Empire Racing. Somebody created a page with the title "Empire Racing/James Hylton" way back in 2014 that was a redirect to the page James Hylton Motorsports. I agree with Willsome429 that the title "Empire Racing/James Hylton" should not have a page or a page that is a redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavanaughs (talk • contribs) 19:13, 22 December 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.

The Room in the Castle[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 The Inhabitant of the Lake and Less Welcome Tenants. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirect without a clear connection to either. I suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 06:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The Inhabitant of the Lake and Less Welcome Tenants (1964)
  2. Cold Print (1985)
  3. Dark Feasts: The World of Ramsey Campbell (1987)
  4. Alone with the Horrors: The Great Short Fiction of Ramsey Campbell 1961–1991 (1993)
The first article is the most-developed of the bunch, and is probably the best target. - Eureka Lott 14:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a reasonable suggestion, no objections from me. signed, Rosguill talk 19:28, 21 December 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.

Baby Neill Constant[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. This should not be recreated unless the information can stand in the target article. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to be an actual established nickname for the target. Delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever seen it here. This could be removed. --Wtshymanski (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This has been discussed at Talk:BNC connector#Baby Neil Constant.
Briefly, this alternate name seems to be a confusion from 'Baby Neill Connector', which although a different design of connector appears to have some history of confusion with the regular BNC connector, most likely due to the same initialism. There is no evidence that 'Baby Neill Constant' exists as a descriptive term for any connector and even Goggle returns zero hits (other than the Wikipedia article).
It also appears that the original editor that introduced this alternate name has not argued in favour of it since 28th November. -RFenergy (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding reliably published source affirming the last letter in the abbreviation reads "constant". The ones that do read it on Google search reference to Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I posted the supporting ref info on talk at BNC earlier this year. After six months with no objections I added the info to the article. I still assert that this is the earliest known reference to the expansion of the letters. (I'm not claiming that it is common or current.) The court case identifies witnesses who had first hand knowledge of the creation of BNC and the origin of the name. That expert testimony under oath convinved the court. I dispute that this ref fails WP:RS. I intend on presenting an argument that something (I'm not particular about the specific wording) be included about it in the page. In general I think that the redirect should be kept, but I'm more interested in improving the section on the origin. It fails to note that the Salati patent was invalidated, for example. The definitive statement about the expansion is not supported by refs which dispute which name is "official." One reference is a dead link. I request that, if deleted, it be done without predjudice to recreation should I be able to persuade other editors about additions to origin. I'll follow up on the article talk. With the holidays approaching I might not get to this for a couple of weeks. --mikeu talk 18:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in the discussion, the supplied reference fails WP:RS in the worst possible way. The document is written by lawyers whom in turn were instructed by clients hell bent on winning a patent dispute. As in any civil case (unlike criminal), no one is obliged to provide accurate evidence (your claim that evidence is given "under oath" is totally wrong - that only is the case in criminal actions). Numerous patent cases over the years have been built on false or invented claims. Further the claims given do no have the backing of any authoritative body. It is effectively WP:SELFPUBLISHED.
I can find no evidence from any other source supporting this name for any connector (and the source doesn't even spell Neill's name correctly, so is not even reliable). Further: as stated, the description 'Baby Neill <whatever>' is a completely different connector - a small version of the N connector and unrelated to the destination of the redirect. As noted, Google returns zero hits other than Wikipedia. -RFenergy (talk) 12:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above: The claim, "... expert testimony under oath convinved [sic] the court." is a dual pronged attempt to misrepresent the source. In fairness to Mu301, I have no evidence that this is deliberate, but may just be a simple lack of understanding of court procedure and what the testimony and judgement represents.
Point 1: As already pointed out, testimony in civil cases is not given under oath. This applies in the US as much as it applies in many other jurisdictions. Thus to claim that this is testimony under oath is misleading as it is not true. Testimony in civil cases is not under oath and does not have to be true (though it would almost certainly harm a case if the other side were able to demonstrate this, but only before judgement was given). However this is largely insignificant because of...
Point 2: The term 'Baby Neil [sic] Constant' is introduced as an expansion of the initialism 'BNC' at only one point in the court document and then only as a throw away explanation of 'BNC' - it having no other pertinence. At no point does any of the outcome of the proceedings have anything to do with what the initialism stands for as it was decided solely only the BNC connector technicalities. The reference does not state that the court were convinced that 'BNC' stood for 'Baby Neil Constant' as claimed as it is never mentioned again. As stated above (and at the relevant talk page), this court paper is not a useable reference to support the claimed expansion.
The court may have upheld the plaintiff's claim that the patent was invalid because of prior art on the 'BNC connector'. But at no point did the judge uphold, or even confirm, any claim that 'BNC' was an expansion of 'Baby Neil Constant'. Indeed, the expansion had no relevance to the case at all and that the court document is therefore not a reliable source that 'Baby Neil Constant' is the correct expansion (especially given that Neill's name is mis-spelt - so it wouldn't have been right anyway). The 'Baby Neill Connector' (a completely different design, and size, of connector) is apparently frequently confused with the BNC connector due to the same initialism and the plaintiff (or the lawyer) probably made the same mistake but didn't get it right (only one word out of the three was actually right). This would suggest that as the plaintiff may have believed that the name of the connector came from a completely different connector that his claim was probably invalid, but that is water under the (legal) bridge as they say. -RFenergy (talk) 14:36, 28 December 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.

Encourage[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. MBisanz talk 13:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the current target is suitable, and I can't find a better one internally. Encourage points at Courage International because it's the name of a subtopic, but I don't think it would be appropriate to point Encouraged there. I would suggest deletion unless someone can come up with a better solution. signed, Rosguill talk 05:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's possible that someone might create a somewhat borderline dab page at Encouragement, which can unpick the lexical meanings of the word, with links at least to Motivation and to Incentive. – Uanfala (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Encouragement was briefly an unreferenced stub about the psychological concept, but it was deleted because of some odd sockpuppetry. - Eureka Lott 17:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a good candidate for Wiktionary since it's just a normal past-tense form. (We are talking about "Encouraged", right? The section heading is "Encourage".) --BDD (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, the section title was a holdover because I mistakenly nominated Encourage as well because I didn't see that it was a subtopic of Courage International. signed, Rosguill talk 22:58, 30 December 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.

Langxie Commandery[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) 20:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Langxie doesn't appear to be another transliteration of Langya as far as I can tell. I would suggest deletion on this basis.signed, Rosguill talk 05:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • wiktionary:邪 gives various other pronunciations including "xie", but also states that it is pronounced "ya" in 琅邪. Deleting is probably best. —Kusma (t·c) 20:17, 22 December 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.

Hulled corn[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 30#Hulled corn

Conor Mc[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous partial title match. There is more than one Conor Mc-----. See Conor for further possibilities. Utopes (talk) 03:19, 21 December 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.

Lauren W.W.[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partial title match. There is more than one Lauren W, and Lauren W W is still ambiguous to whom it would target. Utopes (talk) 03:18, 21 December 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.

YTUWR[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous redirect that stands for "YouTube Unofficial World Record". While it may be terminology in the Speedcubing community, it does not refer to Speedcubing. Utopes (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Corrected. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; My vote still stands for deletion, with my rationale being that the term "YouTube Unofficial World Record" could have more potential applications outside the realm of speedcubing. It would literally apply to any World Record that is recorded unofficially via YouTube. However, this adjustment to the target does help the case for keeping, and I am okay with being convinced to withdraw here. My point is this: how do we know that somebody who wants to find information on a YouTube unofficial World Record wants learn about how it is used in the speedcubing community? Does the term YTUWR "belong" to them? Not literally of course, but here's an example. Let's take a redirect that goes to a subsection on speedrunning, namely Any%. The term "Any%" basically belongs to speedrunners, even though it stands for "any percent", which could potentially be applied elsewhere. I'm not convinced that "YTUWR" is only associated with speedcubing, and feel like it could potentially be retargeted to Social impact of YouTube, if at all. Utopes (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: A search on YouTube only showed cubing records. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - special interest/fancruft. Graywalls (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the term is too vague and too random to be useful, unless you already know which topic you are talking about. Judith Sunrise (talk) 20:49, 23 December 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.

Range Rover SVR[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 29#Range Rover SVR

Abraham Lincoln Brigade[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 XV International Brigade. signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this redirect should target its current target or XV International Brigade. I've read through both articles, and I can't figure it out. Every time I read both articles, the more and more I think the two articles should be merged. I'm ... stumped. What's even more confusing is that per the Catalan Wikipedia, the subject of the redirect, the subject of the target, and the subject at XV International Brigade are all separate notable subjects. Steel1943 (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did the redirect based on Spanish Wikipedia, where "Brigada Abraham Lincoln" redirects to "Batallón Abraham Lincoln". Castilian Spanish pages on Civil War Spanish Republican Army units are well-referenced, so they are generally reliable. The Catalan Wikipedia says that: "The Abraham Lincoln Brigade was, according to North American terminology, the (term applied to) all US volunteers who fought in the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War —no matter which unit they were part of. It should not be confused with the term "Brigada Abraham Lincoln" which sometimes is used referring to the XV Brigada Internacional —where most US volunteers fought." The problem is that this statement is lacking a reference. So should one place more trust in the Spanish or in the Catalan Wikipedia? Xufanc (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In the same manner as the other brigades of the Spanish Republican Army, the International brigades had a mixed brigade structure, which included four battalions. The Lincoln Battalion (the 17th) was part of the XV International Brigade, being one of its four battalions. The others were the British Battalion (16th), the Dimitrov Battalion (18th) and the Sixth of February Battalion (19th) as of January 1937. Xufanc (talk)
The website http://www.alba-valb.org/about-us/faqs/ provides the following: "What’s the difference between the Abraham Lincoln Battalion and the Abraham Lincoln Brigade?
Most U.S. volunteers in the Spanish Civil War were initially assigned to the Fifteenth International Brigade, which eventually consisted of four battalions. In February 1937, the volunteers voted to call themselves the Abraham Lincoln Battalion. Volunteers who arrived later joined the George Washington Battalion or the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalions (which were also part of the Fifteenth Brigade). Still others served in the transport group (Regiment de Tren), the medical corps (American Medical Bureau to Save Spanish Democracy), the John Brown Artillery Corps, or other units. Collectively, all the U.S. volunteers called themselves Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade when they returned from Spain." Boston1775 (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Using the explanation above it would seem the "Abraham Lincoln Brigade" was another name for the XV International Brigade by the U.S. volunteers of the XV International Brigade and as such the "Abraham Lincoln Brigade" should link to the "XV International Brigade" page. On the other hand the "Abraham Lincoln Battallion" was another name for the "Lincoln Battalion" so if a page was created called "Abraham Lincoln Battallion" then it should redirectd to the "Lincoln Battallion" page. Boston1775 (talk) 13:45, 28 December 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_December_21&oldid=934146944"