Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 28, 2019.

Zoness[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 19:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Setting not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 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.

Big cocks[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. -- Tavix (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page at the target does not disambiguate "Big cocks". Perhaps Human penis size? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom as a plausible search term. The entries in the dab page are all proper names in the singular, and I take it that no-one who types this with will be interested in gigantic roosters. – Uanfala (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Human penis size is already included at the dab page so anyone looking for that can still find it. Given the various Big Cock options listed at the dab, I think we should keep the current target to avoid surprising readers. signed, Rosguill talk 00:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while I suspect most of the searches will be for the lulz, a DAB page is the best place to land for the serious ones. Human penis size is listed there for those looking for that specifically. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nothing defuses someone immaturely searching "big cocks" like a completely straight-faced disambiguation page with no cocks on it. Retargeting to an article on penis size doesn't seem necessary, given the disambiguation page does offer that link if someone was honestly looking for it; and any of the targets listed on the page could easily be mistakenly pluralised. This is probably a page that wouldn't need to exist if it wasn't a dirty phrase - none of the targets actually have independent pages - but I certainly think the present situation is optimal given all that. ~ mazca talk 22:51, 5 January 2020 (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.

Concord, Buckinghamshire[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 19:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there isn't a settlement or even "other feature" with the name on the OS maps, however there is Concord House at SP8806. There was a previous RFD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 13#Hazeldean, Buckinghamshire for similar redirects and I assumed they had been deleted until I checked List of places in Buckinghamshire. Vision of Britain also doesn't return anything for this, nor is it in the Domesday Book. While we have a low inclusion bar for redirects I don't think we can have them to a town that might contain many that are unverifiable names, that is to say the plain name "Concord" has no verifiable usage. Google or Books also does't bring up anything. 20th century maps do however show "Concord" but its quite possible that that only applies to a single building. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:55, 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.

South Sudanese English[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 19:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No relevant info at the current target (that's completely the wrong article), or the previous target (English language: too broad to ever have anything relevant). Nothing relevant either at the two other potential targets: Languages of South Sudan and Education in South Sudan – they might both mention the status and use of English (and so would be suitable targets for a redirect like English in South Sudan), but they don't have anything to say on the presumed variety of English that's peculiar to South Sudan. If such a variety exists, then it's probably best to have a WP:REDLINK incentive for article creation. – Uanfala (talk) 22:52, 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.

Redirects created by Sk1728[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 Redirect Mindy Basser to Jonathan D. Gray, delete others. signed, Rosguill talk 19:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of these people at the target articles. I would suggest deletion per WP:REDLINK. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget Mindy Basser Gray to Jonathan D. Gray, where she (or someone else by her name) is mentioned. Delete the others who seem non-notable (I can't find sufficient independent, reliable coverage of either of them to even warrant a mention in a list). Glades12 (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, retarget, delete per Glades. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:12, 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.

Juul and Alexa PenaVega[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. Neither target seems to have any relationship with the languages the redirects are in, leading to consensus that these both are inappropriate redirects per WP:FORRED. ~ mazca talk 22:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No relationship with post-Soviet States. 49.146.12.240 (talk) 16:19, 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.

Liberal consensus[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. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redirects only to specific and quite limited information, would be better expanded to full article. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonpatterns: Isn't it just the same thing as the Washington Consensus about the Bretton Woods system? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some research it looks like the term has a number of uses, one is specific to American politicsm another being Embedded liberalism - which produced Bretton Woods. Therefore, I've a converted the page into and disambiguation page. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:02, 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.

K.A.M.[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 Kam (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides being out of line with MOS:INITIALS, these redirect are partial title matches that could refer to other targets, such as K. A. Mani or K. A. Mathiazhagan. I would suggest deletion due to the ambiguity. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:51, 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.

Starship orbital prototype[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 5#Starship orbital prototype

Tau Neutrino[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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrino is not a proper noun and should not be capitalised. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The redirect has existed for over 14 years. It is possible that there are external links that would be broken by deleting the redirect. Keeping it causes no damage to the encyclopedia. There is no reason to delete it. ~ GB fan 13:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – while I agree that it shouldn't be capitalized, this redirect is a cheap, harmless {{R from miscapitalisation}}. ComplexRational (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as nominator, tagged with {{R from miscapitalisation}}. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:10, 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.

Electron Neutrinos[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 Electron neutrino. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect capitalisation, neutrino is not a proper noun. I don't think a redirect from the plural form is useful in this case anyway. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget Keep The redirect has existed for over 10 years. It is possible that there are external links that would be broken by deleting the redirect. Keeping it causes no damage to the encyclopedia. An article name shouldn't be a plural but there is no reason a redirect can't be a plural. There is no reason to delete it. ~ GB fan 13:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC) (Edited) Retarget to Electron neutrino. ~ GB fan 01:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep only for the possibility of preserving links and 70 pageviews in the last year (not a lot, but I've seen far fewer). Redirects are cheap, but I'm not convinced that both incorrect capitalization and pluralization are useful in contrast to only one of them (which would be far more likely). ComplexRational (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to weak retarget to Electron neutrino or delete per Uanfala below and the rest of my comment above. I can't believe I overlooked electron neutrino. trout Self-trout ComplexRational (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Electron neutrino or delete: a separate article has existed since early 2010, and the fact that as a result the redirect has been targeting the wrong article for almost a decade is, in my opinion, a strong argument against its existence. That's the true cost of a redirect: the misleading of readers when a redirect hasn't been updated to keep pace with the encyclopedia's evolving topic structure. – Uanfala (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Electron neutrino as an alternate capitalisation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Electron neutrino, obviously. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:13, 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.

Bill Gowers[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. Nobody's been able to spot any evidence that the current target is ever actually referred to by this name. ~ mazca talk 15:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't mention, and I can find no source, that Timothy Gowers is known as "Bill". I suggest delete since Bill Gowers is potentially ambiguous with Billy Gowers. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – I also can't find anything calling the footballer "Bill Gowers", so it's potentially misleading and not clearly useful. ComplexRational (talk) 17:31, 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.

Second party[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 5#Second party

First-party source[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 5#First-party source

Arıana Grande Býtera[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. It's now been identified as to what language this actually came from, but regardless the consensus here is that this is an inappropriate foreign-language redirect as per WP:FORRED ~ mazca talk 15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this is clearly the official romanized Ариана Гранде Бутера. 49.146.12.240 (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not sure I understand the nom's statement, but WP:FORRED would appear to apply nonetheless. signed, Rosguill talk 04:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. I don't understand how it is the "official romanized" name of a person whose full name is written in the Latin alphabet as Ariana Grande-Butera. The "i" in "Ariana" is actually U+0131 LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS I, the Y is U+00DD LATIN CAPITAL LETTER Y WITH ACUTEU+00FD LATIN SMALL LETTER Y WITH ACUTE. These are indeed used to transliterate Cyrillic letters, but this is an erroneous back-translation. 84.236.27.55 (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is Ariana Grande's full name in Latin-script Kazakh (see her article in Kazakh Wikipedia, which still uses Cyrillic, and lists her name as what the nom gives). As she does not seem to have any ties to Kazakhstan, WP:FORRED should apply. Double sharp (talk) 14:07, 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_28&oldid=955612470"