Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 8, 2019.

YFTC (You Failed This City)[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) 01:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem like a plausible search term and not mentioned in the article. This might have been better without the abbreviation as sort of a catchphrase the character uses, but not by a lot. Gonnym (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Either "YFTC" or "You Failed This City" would be plausible redirects (assuming we have relevant content, I've not looked) but not together. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 11 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.

Lamantine[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) 01:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as a redirect to the Pokemon Dewgong. Lamantine is apparently the French name for that Pokemon. Lamantin is the French word for manatee. I don't think either Pokemon or manatees have any particular affinity for French. This spelling should not target manatee. Plantdrew (talk) 22:38, 8 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.

Subchapter[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 18#Subchapter

الاعتداءات الارهابية لجماهير الجزائر على المصريين فى السودان بعد مباراة التاهل لكاس العالم[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) 01:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate gives me a translation of "The terrorist attacks of the Algerian masses on the Egyptians in Sudan after the match to qualify for the World Cup". WP:RFOREIGN aside, I do not think this would be a plausible search term even in English. -- Tavix (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably created while trying to translate from the Arabic wikipedia or an Arabic article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:08, 8 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.

VIDYA - an ngo[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) 01:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No NGOs are listed at the target disambiguation page. Buried in the history of the disambiguation page is former content on an non-notable NGO called "VIDYA Integrated Development for Youth and Adults", which is not otherwise mentioned on Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No relevant entry on the DAB page, no alternative target, malformed title. Narky Blert (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks viable target, non-notable relic. --Bejnar (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:35, 11 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.

Desistance[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) 01:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See RfD discussion above on alternative spelling "Desistence", created first. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_7#Desistence — Preceding unsigned comment added by A145GI15I95 (talk • contribs) 01:24, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - I rescued this from being commented out. That said, for me a Google search for "desistance" gives "desistance from crime" as the vast majority of results (e.g. [1], I think ones like that were nine out of the first ten results, with the tenth a dictionary). Searching for "desistance" and "crime" gives about twice the number of results as searching for "desistance" and "gender", and the top three of those were talking about gender differences in desistance from crime, too. Bringing people looking for "desistance" to "detransition" thus seems far more likely to mislead than to help. Huon (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (Wiktionary Redirect?): I attempted to link this discussion to the previously in-progress discussion (again, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_7#Desistence) to minimize duplication, but since another user has added a vote here instead of there, I'm now copying my same vote from there here: I'm only familiar with the term used as a near-synonym for detransition. I see now Google shows a variety of results for the term. My goal was to help users find the detransition article if they're only familiar with the less-common desistance term. I'm neutral on options: keep, delete, disambiguate, or redirect to Wikitionary (possibly the best option, is that allowed?). A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Current target is inapposite as Huon points out above. The noun really has no separate conceptual existence outside of specific discussions of "desistance from foo". Note: This spelling of the entry is more common (by 94% per google search) over the version ending with "ence". --Bejnar (talk) 17:20, 10 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.

Positive data[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 16#Positive data

0.4[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) B dash (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from randomly created numbers are WP:COSTLY. Since there may be some relations with Derek Fisher#The_0.4_shot, may be disambig? B dash (talk) 15:07, 8 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.

Fall of Capitalism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 16#Fall of Capitalism

Park Inn[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 17#Park Inn

Parivrtta Baddha Stiti Utthita Vayu Muktyasana[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) 01:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pose is not notable and was redirected to List of asanas, where it is not described either (as not notable). Actual deletion seems the right remedy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 8 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.

Eka Pada Sirsa Uttana Pristhasana[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) 01:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pose is not notable and was redirected to List of asanas, where it is not described either (as not notable). Actual deletion seems the right remedy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 8 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.

Kalyasana[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) 01:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pose is not notable and was redirected to List of asanas, where it is not described either (as not notable). Actual deletion seems the right remedy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 8 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.

Donald Trum[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. Since any other redirects than Donald Trum were not technically nominated during this discussion, no prejudice for giving any other redirects during this discussion an official WP:RFD nomination if need be. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo MB 14:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's 4 views per day for the redirect and 49,000 per day for the target since the redirect was created, which suggests that only those who do not bother to finish typing use the redirect.
  • Delete all with the last letter omitted, because if one manages to type that much in the search bar, the intended target is obvious and will be at the top of search results, rendering these redirects useless and perhaps costly (WP:COSTLY, as topics that can easily be found with a search). ComplexRational (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The search bar does not autocomplete for everyone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless, and not implausible. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all that have the last letter missing, except for Napoleon Bonapart, which matches the pronunciation and so is plausible. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In case some of you aren't aware, not everyone uses the search bar. It's easy to leave off the last letter by mistake (just move your little finger too fast, and you'll hit Enter before P), and you don't get autocompleted when you're going to a specific URL that you've not previously visited. And if we got rid of topics that can easily be found with a search necessarily, we'd have trashed Unites States long ago. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:Redirects are costly. We don't want to be keeping every search term missing a last letter. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As others have said, there's no reason to have this, and if it is kept, others might end up creating redirects for every biographical article that are missing the last letter. Goveganplease (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend. I respectfully disagree that the search term is implausible and rehighlight the fact that the search bar doesn't always autocomplete and not everyone uses it. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 09:59, 8 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:JCW/CRAP[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 Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CIVIL, before these get 3,000 inbound links like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Reminiscent of last month's Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 13#Wikipedia:Great Firehose of Ordure. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per no reason whatsoever to delete. These shortcuts are useful (alongside WT:CRAPWATCH/WT:JCW/CRAP/WP:CRAPWATCH/SETUP), are in use (see [2] and [3]), and do not violate civility whatsoever. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As the nominator from that discussion, I'd agree that these are unlike "Great Firehose of Ordure"; the insult is to dubious external sources, not Wikipedia contributors. --BDD (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, this is an inappropriate and puerile way to describe this content. -- Tavix (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia:CRAPWATCH because the redirects are essentially prejudice in nature. Weak delete Wikipedia:JCW/CRAP for the same reason, but "weak" since the parent page of the redirect, Wikipedia:JCW, makes the redirect clear where it's trying to lead readers. Steel1943 (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a note, no 'reader' will encounter those. Those are purely for editors. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These sources are crap. We need to watch them. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • True or not, these redirects are fairly new. How can there by any guarantee with at least Wikipedia:CRAPWATCH that the reader is locating the crap they are trying to find? What does crap have to be exclusive to academic journals? There's more crap on Wikipedia than that. Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The existing of other stuff being crap (and not in the sense of WP:OTHERCRAP) has no bearing on this project being call the crapwatch in the first place. If you delete the redirects, it's still going to be called the crapwatch. If WP:CRAPWATCH ever gets ambiguous, we can add hatnotes like we do for anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well, now that I think of it, I consider all XfD forums a crap watch. I consider all administrator noticeboards a crap watch. Crap happens everywhere on Wikipedia. Why do you assume that readers are wanting to find a list of questionable academic journals??? Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's literally what the project is called. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...By a specific niche of editors on Wikipedia. The target isn't Wikipedia:WikiProject Crapwatch; if it was, I'd consider it an exception. WP:CRAPWATCH is ambiguous, and new enough to where it really should be deleted or be converted to a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Crapwatch now redirects to WP:CRAPWATCH, thanks for pointing out the omission. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...and added. -- Tavix (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And every single use of WP:CRAPWATCH specifically refers to the crapwatch list. Again, if it's ambiguous, that's what hatnotes are for. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...And disambiguation pages, which is what WP:CRAPWATCH should become if not deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except usage shows it's clearly not ambiguous. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...Because it is not a disambiguation page, and the target doesn't have a hatnote at the present time. It's like forcing someone to buy a specific brand of a product by telling them that no other company sells that product, but other companies do sell that product. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or because there is no demand for other products to be called by another brand's name. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...Because there is no disambiguation page or hatnote to let people know there are other choices. Anyways, circular conversation is now occurring, so I'm done for the time being. Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other choices, nothing else is called the crapwatch on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is the "Wikipedia:" namespace, there are as many choices as one desires. And this somewhat-reprehensible redirect did not exist at any point in the almost two decades of Wikipedia's existence ... until last year, and probably for good reason. The thought of a minuscule amount of editors on Wikipedia basically being given the self-proclaimed authority to call a very niche list of subjects "crap" without going through the community as a whole reeks of "WP:SUPERVOTE" and "WP:OWN", regardless how potentially true the opinions on the sources being reliable may be. Steel1943 (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 'good reason' why the redirect didn't exist is very simple. The crapwatch simply didn't exist before then. As for your information, it is based on various expert sources on the topic of crap publications. See WP:CRAPWATCH/SETUP#Sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for validating each of my concerns I just made. Steel1943 (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's just about the most ridiculous concerns I ever heard. Do we now need to delete everything that was ever done on Wikipedia after August 2018 and be locked in a perpetual statis? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, either way, feel free to continue linking WP:CRAPWATCH on whatever pages you can so that you can continue to make an argument that WP:CRAPWATCH has a number of incoming links because you are continuing to make them while this discussion is in progress. Pretty sure that's a bit of bad form. Anyways, this line of thinking is getting so interesting that I think I'll drop the stick now. Happy editing. Steel1943 (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Wikipedia:JCW/QUESTIONABLE and Wikipedia:QUESTIONABLEWATCH. QuackGuru (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If deleted, edit all incoming links e.g. in XFD discusions. – Fayenatic London 14:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about a rename to WP:JCW/PU and WP:PUWATCH? The PU would be for Potentially Unreliable, and it also has a slang sense that would be similar to crap without actually labeling things in that manner. -- Tavix (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to create those on top of WP:CRAPWATCH/WP:JCW/CRAP, be my guest. But that's still not a reason to delete the others. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'm trying to see if there is an amenable compromise so the page can move forward without such a controversial name. -- Tavix (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shortcut to a list of mostly crap journals, with the appropriate disclaimers in place. If you don't want to use WP:CRAPWATCH for shortcut, or WP:JCW/CRAP, then make other shortcuts and feel free to use those. But there's no need to police how editors want to refer to the crapwatch list.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what you personally call it, but it shouldn't have such a disgusting shortcut as an "official" way to refer to it. At the very least, the current references to that shortcut needs to be removed from the list and be replaced with something that is more appropriate. -- Tavix (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't care what you personally call it" obviously you do, since you don't want anyone to use the shortcut, want to amend past discussions to remove the shortcut, and want to prevent future use of the shortcut, and for no other reason that your personal dislike of the word 'crap'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a shortcut: Yes, no, yes, not just me. -- Tavix (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can't leave old discussions unmodified if it gets deleted, since those discussions get broken and no longer make sense. So that's yes to pretty much all. And if you are offended that a project to monitor citations to crap journals is described as a project to monitor citations to crap journal is really, well, I suggest this advice from Steve Hughes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you can. The deletion summary would have a link to this discussion for context. And no, I'm not offended by the word but thanks anyway. -- Tavix (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A deletion log means the link is broken and non-functional, and has to be updated for people to be able to follow the discussion. And being offended is the only reason you put forward for deletion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That may be an issue in mainspace, but I don't see it as an issue in discussions. Those who would be reading the discussions where the link has been used almost assuredly knows what it means and anyone else looking for context can follow the deletion link. Once again, I can assure you that not offended by the terms and I would ask that you not put words in my mouth. I just don't want them used as a shortcut. It's the difference, in my opinion, of Wikipedia terming something crap, which I don't think is appropriate, and you personally calling something crap, which is your opinion. I don't care if you continue to use the terms even if they are deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no policy reason to delete: Wikipedia:Civility concerns how editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect and I don't see how it applies to a non-mandatory redirect, and the language here is not grossly offensive or profane. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:51, 10 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:Rfd relist[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) 20:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirects that potentially lead to confusion, especially considering that the target template page is meant to be substituted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or retarget. I would have said "keep" if someone hadn't proposed a redirect; I just don't think they should be deleted. It's quite reasonable that someone would look for WP:Rfd relist, for example, in hopes of finding instructions on the process, and such instructions are indeed found at the target. Cross-namespace redirects are more of a problem when coming from public-facing titles, e.g. you likely wouldn't want to redirect Rfd relist to this target, but this time, both redirect and target are on the inside-of-project side of things, so it's not really much of an issue. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend. The most likely information being sought is found at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 09:58, 8 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.

Root two[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 16#Root two

Sekolah Kebangsaan Seri Setia[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) 01:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:RDEL criteria 10, since "the target article contains virtually no information on the subject" except the name passing. Not every school needs a redirect to the list. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:14, 8 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.

Pseudocoremia rudisata ampla[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) 01:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are subspecies of a species which does not now have a Wikipedia article. They now redirect to the genus article which does not include any information about the subspecies.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:52, 8 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.

Pseudocoremia berylia[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) 01:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are the names of closely related species of moths. Right now they redirect to the genus page, Pseudocoremia. They should be red links on that page to encourage creation of new articles.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:19, 8 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.

0,9[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 16#0,9

Desert Desert[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 16#Desert Desert

GTK+[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 GTK. Early close since the primary concern by the nominator seemed to be that the redirect targeted itself, which has now been resolved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the intention here and am just confused by looking at the page history. This is a circular redirect. GTK (disambiguation) says this is primary topic of GDK, but there is no article. MB 02:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was a result of a cockup during a move of GTK+ to GTK. – Uanfala (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed it now, taking the liberty to also remove the RfD notice as this is a high-traffic redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 03:16, 8 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_8&oldid=896381453"