Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 25, 2019.

MS Mardi Gras[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 3#MS Mardi Gras

Feabie[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feabie is apparently a dating app for plus size women, but is no longer mentioned at the target following copyediting and OR pruning. I would suggest deletion unless a mention is properly reintroduced. signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 25 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.

WP Lutheranism[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 per WP:G7 The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from a malformed WP: prefix, which means that this is a redirect from a manispace title to a WikiProject. I'm pretty sure we generally delete these. signed, Rosguill talk 21:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Sorry. My intention was to permit a "WP Lutheranism" code snippet on talk pages comme-il-faut for convenience. PPEMES (talk) 22:03, 25 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.

General linear groupoid[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 05:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally part of the Groupoid article which was copied here, then immediately redirected back to where it was copied from. However, what was in the article was incorrect and has been removed. There is a topic called this, which may or may not warrant either a separate article or a mention as an example in Groupoid. But until then, the redirect is misleading and is otherwise unused anyway. Recommend deleting. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:08, 25 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.

WikiCup/History/2018/Round1[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 WP:G7. -- Tavix (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed redirect from mainspace to projectspace that is not a WP: abbreviation redirect. ミラP 18:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I created this redirect after I had made an error while setting up the WikiCup pages. I am happy for the redirect to be deleted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:43, 25 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.

Shylock (2019 film)[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. This was just decided at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 10#Shylock (2019 film). -- Tavix (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a 2019 film. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:50, 25 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.

Template:Signature[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. The nominator has been blocked for socking, so nothing more to do here. No prejudice against renomination by any good faith editor at any time. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The template “Signature” simply produces 4 “~”s, and it doesn’t seem to helpful at all, as it can be typed out with a keyboard directly without pressing “special symbols”. This should be also applied to {{~}}, {{2~}}, and {{3~}}. -- Bank Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 09:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This title was created as a template in 2007, was redirected to its current target in 2010, and as a redirect survived an RfD in 2013. In addition, this redirect seems to target the most applicable template for its title. Steel1943 (talk) 13:50, 25 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.

Bhairabi Temple (Odisha)[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 05:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too broad disambiguator: there are many other Bhairavi temples in Odisha. – Uanfala (talk) 01:28, 25 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.

Foo disambiguation -> Foo[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 05:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term for disambiguation page (more unlikely search term for the few non-disambiguation page targets). See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 10#Tiers disambiguation for a previous discussion which resulted in deletion of such a redirect. These do not follow the standard parenthetical (disambiguation) scheme, and while most do target disambiguation pages, some don't, which makes them even more unlikely to be used. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support SALC, and I expect that the others are similar. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all, for not following the standard naming convention (disambiguation). Onel5969 TT me 12:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the Sangamore page is not a disambig page, so yeah, that redirect can absolutely go. Llammakey (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: non-standard, possibly confusing, unhelpful. Mostly seem to come from past moves of mal-titled dab pages. PamD 16:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – non-standard and unlikely to be useful. Readers looking for dab pages will most likely land there directly, via hatnote, or know the correct parenthetical naming scheme. ComplexRational (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unlikely search terms. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and any others like them. Non standard names. Unnecessary search terms because the (disambiguation) pages exist (or in a few cases because the targets aren't DAB pages). If linked, User:DPL bot will report WP:INTDAB errors for the benefit of long-suffering DABfixers. Narky Blert (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all parenthetical format is sufficient.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:13, 29 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.

Kostolac culture[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 2#Kostolac culture

Jireh[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. --BDD (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should this point to Jehovah-jireh instead? feminist (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you have any sources that Jehovah-jireh is referred to solely as "Jireh"? IF so, then a disambiguation page would be fine. If not, we don't usually make redirects from a page that constitutes a portion of a word where there is a meaning for that name of that page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above. (Edit: my apologies for prematurely deleting the deletion template. I shouldn't be doing maintenance tasks on Wikipedia till I have at least one year of experience.) ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 18:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a plausible alternative transliteration, and given as such in Jereh (Iranian village). Narky Blert (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carlossuarez46, WikiWarrior9919, and Narky Blert: Looking at Google Trends results for "jireh" (i.e. people searching with the query "jireh") both in the US and worldwide, I see some topics relating to Bible, but none relating to Iran. feminist (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Google WP:HITS are a notoriously unreliable guide. Narky Blert (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support disambiguation per 59.149's proposal. feminist (talk) 10:23, 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.

Metal Gear Solid Drama CD[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 no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 05:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing by this specific title is mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:17, 25 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.

HIMACHAL PRADESH AND KANGRA AND EDUCATION[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 05:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What these redirects have in common is that they all started out as unsourced stubs, but then got redirected to some pretty general articles, which do not have anything relevant. The original content is unsalvageable, so restoring or merging is out of the question. Even if at some point in the future the relevant articles get created, these won't be suitable as redirects to them (except maybe for Komaragiripatnam, but I wasn't able to verify the place exists). Noting with regard to the third redirect, that the temple it refers to is not the same one as Mahamaya Temple. – Uanfala (talk) 01:21, 25 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.

Kuknalim[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 2#Kuknalim

Required reading[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 05:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, and a WP:SURPRISE; what I had expected was the school practice of requiring students to read certain important or classical books, for example in the United States, To Kill a Mockingbird. IDK what should be done, but I am against keeping the status quo.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also expect to find something along those lines when searching, and certainly not a broad-scope stub. I can't find a suitable target that goes in-depth, though: the best option I found is Reading list (a dab page) where the top entry answers the search (but it does not have its own article). Alternatively, delete per WP:REDLINK, as it may be possible to write an article on the subject; I already found some sources that have more details than anything currently in WP. ComplexRational (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this could be detailed in the syllabus article since there are also textbooks, excerpts of books, and anthology short stories that may be required for a course. This can also be contrasted with Independent reading. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an {{R with possibilities}}. If the nominator thinks that a separate article should exist on this topic, there's nothing stopping him from writing that article. In the meantime this seems as likely a link target as any. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Required reading" is not mentioned in the article, and the term is not a synonym for "syllabus". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Of course it can also mean a "must read" book, but I notice that is red. 84.236.27.55 (talk) 05:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Reading list (disambiguation), but wouldn't mind just deleting as well. The two uses of this link in articles are probably already inappropriate, both as overlinks, and as easter egg links. It's also an unlikely search term. It's also a bit misleading that syllabi have more than just required reading, while required reading doesn't have to be part of a syllabus. On second thought, just go ahead and delete. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:31, 26 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.

Illusions (band)[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 no consensus. This is a rare close where I see little choice but to simply call no consensus despite the fact that the status quo satisfies no one. Regarding the jurisdictional issue, I can only say that this is an XfD forum, and we can delete any redirect, regardless of how much history it has, if there is consensus to do so. It is equally legitimate for individual editors to object to such a deletion. Regarding these redirects, I can only hope someone will either give a useful mention of the band in an article or take this to AfD, where participants are unlikely to raise jurisdictional issues (please don't let anyone close it as "redirect to Anika Moa" without a mention, though!). --BDD (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the band in this article, and if it's not notable enough for a mention it should be deleted. The redirect arises from a one-line article in 2013. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article and send to AfD. A band with three notable members is clearly not an A7 candidate and no other speedy deletion applies, so the question of notability should be addressed in an appropriate forum. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To add the variant redirect Illusions (NZ band)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this is a notable band with three notable members, you would think it would be mentioned in at least one of their articles. The only source in that article that I was able to access had a brief blurb about the band in the future tense, along with a mention of her mom's band with the same name. So my guess is that the project never came together. I wasn't able to find anything to confirm that either way. -- Tavix (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
important jurisdictional issues. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why I think this should be at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the band is in fact notable, deletion here would not preclude the creation of an article that does demonstrate notability (cf. WP:REDLINK). Even better, feel free to create an article that demonstrates notability if you think there may be anything there. That being said, the article that was redirected does not do this so I do not support restoration at this time (cf. WP:TNT). -- Tavix (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • My objection is to deleting article content at RfD when it is not speedy deletable, not that the article demonstrates notability (I agree it does not) or that the band is notable - I haven't looked. WP:TNT is not an argument relevant to redirects so it is irrelevant here. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Find evidence that the band may be notable and I'll consider a restoration. At this time, I have doubts that it even existed. Until then, I will continue to stand by my !vote. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are completely missing my point that this is a completely inappropriate venue to be discussing whether the article content should be kept or deleted. Your arguments would be perfectly correct and appropriate at AfD, but this is not AfD it is RfD. The redirect is not appropriate so we should revert the bold redirection and send the article to AfD where it can be discussed appropriately. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Redirects for discussion is, in fact, the proper venue to discuss redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • It is, but you were discussing the article behind the redirect as well as/instead of the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • ...which is a feature of the redirect, and something that is handled here. -- Tavix (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • @Tavix: Except it isn't discussed here. If a redirect is inappropriate, and there is undiscussed article content behind it (as here) we revert to that content without prejudice to an AfD unless that content would be speedily deleted (which is not the case here). Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Article content should only be restored when the article content has a chance of being kept, which so far I have seen no evidence of, despite asking multiple times now. I refuse to support the resoration of an article in as bad of shape as the one you are wanting to restore. Such an act is disruptive and time-wasting because it is clear that it will not be kept. -- Tavix (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The only* disruptive thing would be the deleting of article content that does not meet speedy deletion criteria without that content having been either discussed at AfD or prodded for 7 days. While this article is unlikely to survive, it is very important that we do not delete anything from Wikipedia outside of the proper process. Doing otherwise is one of the most harmful things to the project that an administrator can do (and I say this without hint of hyperbole). (*Other than, arguably, advocating for the out of process deletion of content - which is certainly time wasting) Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                          • It is in no way out of process to delete a redirect at redirects for discussion should consensus to delete the redirect develop, regardless of the kind of redirect it is. Most editors at RfD have the common sense to decide whether or not article content should be restored or not, noting that I have advocated for such restorations in the past. However, since you have continued to fail to provide any evidence that this is an article worth rescuing, I am continuing to decline to !vote to restore this article, and will continue to do so if prompted until such evidence can be provided. I hope I have made my position abundantly clear. -- Tavix (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as to jurisdiction (the collapse box before the relisting). Habeas corpus, let us see the body, i.e. restore the article and send it to AfD. While RfD is the right forum to list this, it is perfectly reasonable for RfD to refuse jurisdiction and pass it to another more appropriate forum. (Forgive me for using legal terms but I am using them only by analogy.)
It's important to assess all the facts, and that can only be done with reference to the article content. The best way to do that is to restore the article and send it to AfD. AfD has "watchers" that RfD does not, and in any case those watching RfD will be aware that the discussion has been moved to a different forum. To close down the discussion on the basis of a technicality ("it's a redirect") is open to abuse in a variety of ways, not least that any editor can just turn any article into a redirect, and then either list it here or even take it to CSD if they choose to redirect to a nonexistent target. I think this is the kind of abuse that Thryduulf is trying to prevent in general. It should be enough for editors checking the page's history, but not if we are told to ignore the history of the page and consider it only as it currently stands (as a redirect). That is some kind of statute of limitations that I think harmful: restore the content and take it to AfD. 84.236.27.55 (talk) 05:54, 25 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.

Poreiton[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 05:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a term associated with the (legendary?) first settlers of the place. The target article's History section has mentions of someone whose name contains this term (or title?): Poireiton Khunthokpa, but that will leave readers wanting to know what "Poreiton" is pretty much high and dry. No satisfactory relevant content anywhere else on wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK Poireiton Khunthokpa means "Migration of Poireiton" and details the settling of ancient Manipur. Poireiton is the leader of said immigrants. I think editors with a background in Indian history can make an article out of it. --Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 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.

DK-King of Swing DS[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 5#DK-King of Swing DS

Blood Orange[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 Blood orange (disambiguation). signed, Rosguill talk 22:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this redirect should be deleted, as there are two films with the title 'Blood Orange' and people looking for an article about one of the two films are being redirected to the page for Dev Hynes. AlanD1956 (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Blood orange (disambiguation). The current target doesn't seem to be WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Per WP:DIFFCAPS someone typing in title case probably isn't looking for the common noun blood orange. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per anon. - Eureka Lott 19:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per everyone. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambiguation as above. Multiple media with Blood Orange, both words capitalized. None are primary topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, but to Blood orange. Sorry to go against the tide, but DIFFCAPS should be invoked sparingly given all the ways to do caps-insensitive searches. Since cultivars/subspecies/breeds/etc. often get title-case capitalization, a user could very well be looking for the fruit, and the disambiguation page remains a click away. Also, if the intent is to treat this as ambiguous (i.e., no primary topic), we might as well move the disambiguation page to the capitalized version. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blood oranges are not called that in the UK I think, so many readers will perhaps consider the film titles first, rather than the fruit. Just putting the DAB at the base title makes it far more likely that most of our readers get where they want in one click or tap, rather than a mess of hatnotes and DIFFCAPS. This is pretty much in line with what BDD said before the relisting. 85.238.91.41 (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To add salt to the fire, Oranges redirects to Orange (fruit), presumably with the notion that someone looking for "oranges" is looking for the fruit, not a range of colors. It is trickier here with Blood Oranges and I am not sure what we can do about that, my own prefernce would be to move that to Blood Oranges (band) or similar and have Blood Oranges as a redirect to the DAB-to-be at Blood oranges. 85.238.91.41 (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion is welcome, but it would also be helpful to get a clarification as to whether the two IPs are different editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rosguill: it would also be helpful to get a clarification as to whether the two IPs are different editors yes, we are. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:10, 27 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.

AKC Groups[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 no consensus for most, delete Miscellaneous Class. signed, Rosguill talk 05:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All were alternate searches for the long ago redirected American Kennel Club breed groups, Miscellaneous class or Non-sporting group, all are unnecessary.Cavalryman (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason for keeping the Non-sporting group entries? William Harristalk 05:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a classification that AKC has defined and is widely popularized. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no value. William Harristalk 05:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most, as they're clearly useful to readers. The target article lists AKC breed groups and provides further information by linking most of them and listing which breeds are in which groups. Disambiguate Miscellaneous Class, since the Cat Fanciers' Association uses one too. I've drafted one below the redirect. --BDD (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of these redirects are included on any main space pages and the original merged redirects are not being nominated, only the alternate capitalisations and hyphenations, I think the search function has progressed to the point that it can account for such searches. Further, the breed groups on the AKC page are linked to the actual dog types. Cavalryman (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Additionally, Miscellaneous class has no main space links, rather than disambiduate an unused redirect let’s just delete it too, I had not considered the cat fanciers. Cavalryman (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Miscellaneous Class as ambiguous. Neutral on the others. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:42, 25 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.

John D. Kelly[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 John Kelly. Really this is no consensus, but among keep votes there was consensus that the redirect should not target a section. Since no consensus defaults to keeping the redirect, I think that it's unlikely that disambiguate- or delete-voting editors will object to this change in favor of the status quo ante signed, Rosguill talk 05:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Artist John D. Kelly (artist) painted a representation of the opening of the first Welland Canal.
(1), John Kelly is a very popular name. There are multiple individuals who are potentially notable, named John D. Kelly. (2) it is another redirection to a subsection, where the subsection name has been changed.

A redirection here hides the fact that there are missing articles. Far better to delete this redirect, and leave a redlink, so contributors can see the article(s) is missing. Geo Swan (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there are multiple people named John D. Kelly, then there is no reason not to have a freestanding disambiguation page at that title. Including a middle initial isn't a WP:INCOMPDAB violation. BD2412 T 02:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate A search here found 2 John D. Kellys, both war veterans. With multiple targets, making a disambiguation page is best. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 15:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though it shouldn't point to a specific section. I'd hesitate to create a spinoff disambiguation page. John Kelly is getting large enough that I'm not totally opposed, but I only see three people listed there that would definitely go on a separate John D. page. I haven't gone through and hunted for middle names not listed on the main page. --BDD (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • BD2412, there is already a John Kelly (disambiguation) page, so I would question the utility of adding a John D. Kelly (disambiguation) page.
    • James-the-Charizard the 2 war veterans named John D. Kelly does not exhaust the potentially notable individuals named John D. Kelly - see the painting I included.
    • I continue to think a redlink, rather than a misleading redirection to a disambiguation page is appropriate. Geo Swan (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • After reading this, and rereading the nominaton, I agree with you, thus I have struck my vote. I say delete. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 03:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Geo Swan:: the utility of having a disambiguation page at John D. Kelly (which is where it would be) is that it would give people who are specifically looking for a "John D. Kelly" a list of those people, and only those people, so they would not need to hunt through names of people who might have a middle name starting with a "D" that is not included in their article title. BD2412 T 03:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate It seems to me WP:DAB applies here. If someone searches specifically John D. Kelly, which is possible, they should be provided with a disambiguation page. SportingFlyer T·C 04:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, is anyone still defending the current content - that is a wikilink to a non-existent section, which would not accommodate John D. Kelly (artist)? Geo Swan (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone's saying "change absolutely nothing", but that's a red herring. Remove the section redirect, of course, but what of John D. Kelly (artist)? It has no incoming mainspace links, so it's inappropriate to list at this or any other disambiguation page. If it got some incoming links, it could be added per WP:DABMENTION or something. Minus the dead section link, the current arrangement doesn't "hide" anything. --BDD (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove section link and keep current page target. This remains an ambiguous name. In addition to the people mentioned above, the disambiguation page includes a link to John David Kelly, who was also sometimes referred to as John D. Kelly. Creating a disambiguation page would also work, but it's more work for very little reward. A redlink would be a disservice to users. - Eureka Lott 15:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:19, 25 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.

Fielding Hurst[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 05:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since the target article contains very little info about him, and deleting this redirect encourages creation. RekishiEJ (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Yeah, it would make more sense to have a proper article, but this does provide readers with information in the meantime. Still, he isn't a particularly well-known figure, so it's entirely possible we won't be telling readers anything they don't already know. I'll notify WP:MILHIST. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect should not be a back door to have some unnoticeable name here. Redirects should be to take someone to the correct page when they are using a search term that a user would reasonably use but which may not be the title of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose "well known" is subjective. I'm still ultimately a "keep" here, but don't have a great deal of confidence the status quo will tell readers much more about Hurst than they already know. --BDD (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; redirects are cheap. Obviously pertains to this article; don't see why not to keep this. J947 (c), at 04:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Tennessee Encyclopedia has a decent biography of Colonel Fielding Hurst here https://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entries/fielding-hurst/ Boston1775 (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem the creation of a page dedicated to Colonel Fielding Hurst with correct links to the page "6th Regiment Tennessee Volunteer Cavalry" and deleting the redirect could be accomplished in short order and resolve this discussion. Boston1775 (talk) 14:08, 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.

2019 LendingTree Bowl[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. signed, Rosguill talk 05:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The event never happened and 2019 is not mentioned anywhere in the article. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep It's the Lending Tree Bowl for the 2019-20 season. Since one didn't take place in calendar year 2019, and the 2018-19 edition was played in 2018, this could be useful. I do note that there's no 2006 GMAC Bowl redirect; if we do find consensus that this one is helpful, we may want to create it pointing at 2007 GMAC Bowl. I could see this sort of practice getting messy for some other bowl games, but it need not apply to them. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not concerned over the result of this redirect, and will not vote as the creator. My rationale: Looking into the history of the Lending Tree Bowl, this Bowl Game has been played in late December since 2015. However, it is being played in early January for the 2019-20 season. This redirect would be useful for sequential purposes, as it is the game for the 2019 -20 season. Utopes (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD and Utopes. It is likely that someone will be searching for this content at this title, so we should take them to the content we have rather than imply we don't have an article for this season, despite having one for every previous edition. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. If someone is searching for the edition of the bowl that was played in the 2019 NCAA Division I FBS football season this redirect will take them to the correct article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to LendingTree Bowl it might be better to point to the list of games and let the searcher figure out which 2019 they want (2018-19 or 2019-20). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @AngusWOOF:, not trying to be intrusive, but did you check out the article for LendingTree Bowl to see the date that this bowl had been played? Before this year, the Bowl was titled the "Dollar General Bowl" during the 2018-19 season. Consequently, this is the first "LendingTree Bowl" stylized under this new name. Therefore, the "2019 LendingBowl" could only point to the 2019-2020 season, if it should exist, as there was no LendingTree Bowl for the 2018 season. Utopes (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    While it could be argued that because the name was changed, that it would be plausible that "2019 LendingBowl" could refer to the "2018 Dollar General Bowl" that took place in the 2018- 2019 season. However, at that point, a new redirect should probably be created for "2019 Dollar General Bowl" instead because those two titles are very different, and hard to mistake. Just thought I'd include that, because I somewhat understand your thread in logic. I just don't see that situation being very likely that somebody would use the new name and "2019" to find the game with the old name and the previous year at the same time. Utopes (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Utopes, might be better to delete then as with 2006 GMAC Bowl, if the bowl didn't have an actual year associated with it and make the searcher type in GMAC Bowl to find the bowl they want. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:14, 25 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.

Lists of Google Doodles[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 no consensus. WP:TRAINWRECK, Consider renominating in smaller batches. signed, Rosguill talk 05:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No such lists at target article, and should probably not be since such content would violate WP:NOTWIKIA as it would belong on a Google Wikia-like web site and not here. Note: Lists of Google Doodles, List of Google Doodles (1998–2009), List of Google Doodles in 2010, List of Google Doodles in 2011, List of Google Doodles in 2012, List of Google Doodles in 2013, List of Google Doodles in 2014, List of Google Doodles in 2015, List of Google Doodles in 2016, and possible more are {{R with history}}s. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep List of Google Doodles (and probably Lists of Google Doodles). Google Doodle#Interactive and video doodles does indeed contain a list of specific doodles that made the news for various reasons, and Google Doodle#Common themes contains a list of said themes. It is therefore somewhat inaccurate to say that there are "no such lists at target article", since the target article contains two sets of information which are unequivocally lists. No opinion on the date-specific entries, although I note that there are certain years for which there are multiple entries within the list at the target page. BD2412 T 22:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't understand why we want to get rid of the articles in the first place... KConWiki (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So I'm assuming such lists were there at one point so what happened to them? Can we not salvage a single one of them and perform some kind of selective merge? Seems like a useful bit of information for our readers.. -- œ™ 12:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See Talk:Lists of Google Doodles#Request for Comment for background, though I will add that the suggestion of creating List of notable Google Doodles is flawed because it would be a self-referential title. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by self-referential title, I don't see how "List of notable Google Doodles" references itself. Could you explain please? -- Ϫ 09:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant "self" in reference to Wikipedia, in that the title references Wikipedia's notability guideline. Per WP:LISTNAME, list titles should avoid self-referential words such as "notable" or subjective labels such as "famous", "noted", "prominent", etc. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah ok, I understand. I would just say that Wikipedia does not have exclusive ownership of the word "notable", and if any reliable sources make reference to a Google Doodle being "notable", "famous", or "prominent" etc. then that would no longer be self-referential. -- Ϫ 03:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all due to only those that have substantive page histories. -- œ™ 03:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of these are valid redirects irrespective of their page history. BD2412 T 18:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Possible WP:TRAINWRECK here. Any suggestions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except List of Google Doodles as WP:TNT. Also the list would imply that images would be made of the Doodles, but per https://www.google.com/permissions/logos-trademarks/ "Google Doodles are very special to us, and we like to limit the use of them to our homepage. Thus we cannot allow third parties to use them." I think notable ones can be listed on the main Doodles page as they already are, so the List of Google Doodles can redirect to that section. In the event that more Google Doodles are licensed for sharing, then you can add commons category.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as having history. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't get past the "no such list" point, nor can I ever see us setting out to list every single Google Doodle. That some of these have history seems irrelevant if we're making a decision that we don't want this content. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:09, 25 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_25&oldid=934147152"