Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 20, 2019.

FrItz the Cat[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlikely mid-word miscapitalization. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:24, 20 February 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.

Shut your eyes and think of England[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 1#Shut your eyes and think of England

Variate[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"variate" ≠ "random variate" [< "variate"] (cf. e. g. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/variate). Hildeoc (talk) 18:57, 20 February 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.

Pages requiring attention[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another cross-namespace redirect that does not meet the high bar required for existence (target is an inactive page). UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:30, 20 February 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.

LKG (2018 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The film was not released in 2018. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:22, 20 February 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.

Complete list of encyclopedia topics[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 Directory of portals, no consensus/keep the others. Complete list of encyclopedia topics and List of intellectual/social/spiritual/artistic reference tables are properly no consensus here, as I find Nyttend's arguments particularly compelling given the redirects' history as well as Thryduulf's note about main->portal redirects. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think these are some other ones that do not meet the high bar for cross-namespace redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Complete list of encyclopedia topics and Directory of portals, weak keep about List of intellectual/social/spiritual/artistic reference tables . (main) to Portal is one of the lowest bars for cross-namespace redirects there are is they are both reader-facing namespaces and with searches like these that clearly take people to the content they are looking for we should just take them there without requiring them to have learned the portal namespace exists first, particularly as they are not in the way of any articles. The one I've marked weak keep is because that's not a likely search term and so it's only really of use if it's linked from somewhere external but the page views tool isn't showing me stats for it at the moment so I've got no basis on which to judge whether that is likely. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the list of portals; not particularly helpful. Keep the others, as they have extremely old history. The really long one title is essentially an early form of a portal, with history dating back to 2003. And the complete list has been a bluelink since 2001; the only reason you don't see edits dating back to then is that (per its history's first edit summary) it was moved to a different title in 2003. See nost:Complete list of encyclopedia topics for proof. Unless it's outright harmful, deleting anything that's been a blue link since 2003 is a bad idea (except for a temporary deletion, e.g. a histmerge), and deleting something with history since 2001 is a terrible idea. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 21 February 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.

Ugly John (comics)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No information at target (info was deleted due to character's minimal appearances [1]); no suitable target as far as I can tell. Should probably be deleted. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 13:00, 20 February 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.

Vibranium (character)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No info at target (was previously deleted out of notability concerns [2]); no suitable target as far as I can tell. Should be deleted. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 12:56, 20 February 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.

Jan Frohike[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No information at target page (info was deleted out of notability concerns [3]); no suitable retarget as far as I can tell. Should be deleted. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 12:40, 20 February 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.

Fontanelle (comics)[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 Courier (comics). — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No information at target article (was previously deleted [4]), no apparent suitable target. Should probably be deleted. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 12:33, 20 February 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.

Thelma Hogarth[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Character is not notable. There is no information at the target page and no suitable target as far as I can tell. Page should probably be deleted. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 12:27, 20 February 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.

Ned Horrocks[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 Ned Horrocks#Foursaken. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No information at target (info was previously deleted due to character's minimal appearances[5]), no suitable target as far as I can tell. Should be deleted. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 12:21, 20 February 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.

Helleyes[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 List of Marvel Comics demons#Others. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No info at target page. Only mention of character on Wikipedia as far as I can tell is in Morbius, the Living Vampire, which is a one-off mention and therefore not a suitable target. Should be deleted. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 12:06, 20 February 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.

Hack (comics)[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 List of X-Men enemies#Solo villains. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No info at target page, and there does not appear to be a suitable target. Should probably be deleted. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 11:52, 20 February 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.

Statsminister[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED, general concept does not have particular affinity for any language. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:54, 20 February 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.

HowDoesOneEditaPage[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 1#HowDoesOneEditaPage

Software Architects[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. a hatnote was added on Software Architects. wbm1058 (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIFFCAPS. Acquired by Cap Gemini (as was) in 2007. The article does mention it, but only in passing. Twelve years later, I think it more likely that people would want Software architect, to which Software Architect and Software architects redirect, but am not sure enough to retarget it boldly. Software architect is being discussed as a move request to 'Software designer'. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without action and reopen once a decision has been reached on the RM. If it stays at the current title, I'd be inclined to retarget, while if it's moved, I'd be inclined to disambiguate, but it might well be best to get further discussion. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 22 February 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.

Famous architect[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 28#Famous architect

Plymouth Duster (L-body)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Car in question doesn't actually exist; there is no L-body Plymouth Duster, as far as I can tell. Nothing links to this redirect page, and as the car in question doesn't exist, it's an oddly specific string of words to search. I move to delete this redirect. GearheadLydia (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Plymouth Duster (disambiguation) says it was an optional trim for the Plymouth Turismo, i.e., the L-body Charger. It may make sense to cover this in its article. Disclaimer: I don't know cars well enough to know if this is all gibberish; I'm just following the disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes a little more sense, but there's no mention of the option package in the article linked, so this may be confusing to some other users. GearheadLydia (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 08:10, 20 February 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.

Wikipedia:How to edit a page/HowDoesOneEditaPage[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. --Bsherr (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page was only preserved for its history, but the history does not seem worthwhile to preserve or necessary for attribution. Suggest deleting. Bsherr (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Limited history is no reason to keep. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep history going back to the second month of the project is very much a reason to keep. Absolutely nothing will be gained by deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What benefit do we get from deletion? See WP:Redirect, which twice mentions CamelCase as a reason to keep and maintain redirects. Also remember that Wikipedia is big enough and old enough that researchers periodically examine the site's history — although not in the usual way, this page is a content page for such researchers. Don't make things hard for them. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The benefit is: these redirects pollute Special:AllPages results (where there is no way to suppress redirects) and the Wikipedia searchbox. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having a page with some significance listed at Special:AllPages is a Good Thing - the only people looking at that are interested in having a list of all pages, including ones that some people don't like and ones that are kept for their history. The "pollution" of the search box is extremely trivial given that it only affects some users and if someone does click on it their either (a) looking for the target page and so the redirect has helped them, or (b) curious about it in which case the redirect has neither helped nor hindered. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on both counts: I for one use Special:AllPages to look only for pages that are relevant, and do not want these to appear. And because the search box only displays ten suggestions, any pollution that pushes more relevant results into result 11 or higher is detrimental to the user. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is "relevant" depends entirely on what the individual is looking for and special:Allpages is the wrong tool to use to find subsets of pages - when I use it I explicitly want to see absolutely every result (special:Prefixindex allows for hiding of redirects for example). The same is true of search suggestions - just because you don't think this result is relevant doesn't mean that is true of everybody. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original instructions on how to edit a page from a co-founder of Wikipedia is meaningful enough to preserve IMO. It's a shame it's buried like it is, is there not a "museum of Wikipedia" this can be moved to? -- Tavix (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is Wikipedia:Historical archive that could do with being more prominent. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix and Thryduulf: I appreciate the feedback and, because of it, I have been looking into it further. I found that the revision you've identified is a remnant of a cut-and-paste move. I have identified it for a history merge with Wikipedia:Editing. The additional benefit is that is a much more obvious place to find this revision, too. Once that is complete, that resolves your concerns with deleting, right? And I think yours too, @Nyttend:? --Bsherr (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't. You're attempting to break a link that's been blue for most of history of this project (and in the other discussion, blue for virtually its entire history), in direct defiance of WP:RKEEP #4. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bsherr: Nyttend has it spot on. Deleting page titles that have existed for a long time will break countless links from old revisions, external sites, bookmarks, etc - the longer a page has existed the greater the likelihood of causing serious issues - we strive to be good internet citizens and one of the best ways we can do that is by not creating unnecessary linkrot. This is even more important in cases like this when the only benefits from deletion will be (at best) trivial or (most likely) none existent. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you must be mistaken. This page only has six links, and was created in 2007 as a result of a page move. --Bsherr (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And no redirects to it. --Bsherr (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    2007 is 12 years ago, and what links here shows only links from current revisions of pages on en.wp, it does not (and cannot) show links from elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: What I'm trying to say is that this page was moved basically to bury it. Who would bother to direct link to this obscure subpage? All of the outside links probably point to the original page. And if so, the real solution is to move this page. Does that make sense? --Bsherr (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No! Once again, you can't see links in old versions of page histories, let alone links from off-wiki sites. You're trying to delete a harmless page with page history going back to the first two months of the project, and the title has been around for well more than a decade. It's harmless in its current location, and off-wiki studies of Wikipedia may have linked to it merely because it's so old, and yet you want to turn it red and create linkrot. Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless, I'm informed that the history merge is not technically feasible until we locate the missing revisions because of the quantity of revisions to Help:Editing. So this page must not be deleted for now for attribution. @UnitedStatesian: if you concur, we can close as speedy keep. --Bsherr (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm 100% fine with that, you are the nominator. And thanks for the ping. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ob-Law-Di, Ob-Law-Da[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to a page regarding a podcast, but no clear mention of said usage of the phrase in the podcast. Goveganplease (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not mentioned in the target page and interfering with searches for the Beatles song. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:40, 23 February 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:Nindu Masasulu.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 keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling mistake. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Spelling mistake" is not a reason to delete a file redirect per WP:FILEREDIRECT. That, and the target file was uploaded to the redirect's title in January 2018 (over a year ago), so the redirect is possibly useful to third party searches and is causing no harm existing. Steel1943 (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously plausible, since someone put it at this title to begin with, and as Steel1943 says, don't create linkrot. Nyttend (talk) 22:54, 21 February 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.

Southern Arabs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 28#Southern Arabs

Rajasekhara Reddy (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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was redirected at AfD after notability was questioned; redirection is not appropriate for a film that was never released and is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article (such as it was) was unsourced and had no meaningful content, I don't see any value in keeping the redirect. PC78 (talk) 18:45, 21 February 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.

Hot Pepper (1973 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. Besides this topic potentially being notable, this existence of this redirect prevents the article at Hot Pepper (1933 film) from being at Hot Pepper (film). Steel1943 (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 01:54, 22 February 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_February_20&oldid=885707441"