Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 19, 2019.

Satari (Sub district)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. MBisanz talk 01:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused redirect, created in a spate of disruptive page moves Spike 'em (talk) 23:07, 19 January 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.

Archieve[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) DannyS712 (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides bringing a possible misspelling for its target, I've also seen this misspelling also represent a misspelling for "achieve". So, this misspelling seems to be ambiguous in what it could represent. Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as plausible misspelling. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While there are a handfull of uses of it to mean "achieve" the primary use (on a google groups search at least) is very clearly people meaning "archive", so combined with "Achieve" itself being a redirect (to Achievement) I think the best thing to do here is keep it as is. Sometimes when you misspell something you happen to get the correct spelling of something else (e.g. as a kid I used to frequently misspell "shoes" as "shows") and there isn't much we can do about that. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep common misspelling, I myself also often misspell "archive" as "archieve" --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 21:07, 20 January 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.

Episodes from Ed, Edd n Eddy, Season 5[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 based on Steel1943's proposal. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. Paper Luigi T • C 08:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Though I have no feelings on whether or not this is redirected or deleted, I am clarifying the implausible statement here. Those Episode pages were created as lists of each episode per season, it was the consensus of the community to have them combined into one Episode list page for all seasons. The redirect is purposeful at the time because of the traffic those pages received that would have otherwise been a dead link, hence the purpose of the redirect. A better statement as to why they should be deleted: Redirect no longer required. «»Who?¿? 16:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:44, 19 January 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.

City of Atlanta, GA.[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 30#City of Atlanta, GA.

Aperspectival[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 soft redirect to Wikt:aperspectival. MBisanz talk 01:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not mentioned in the target and is not exclusively used in Wilber's work. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft retarget to wikt:aperspectival as no suitable article. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per Rubbish computer. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Assuming there is no other topic to which to redirect, this isn't a topic, it's an adjective, so the soft redirect to Wiktionary is unneeded. --Bsherr (talk) 19:18, 24 January 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.

Four-year college[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 College. MBisanz talk 01:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These articles should redirect to the same place. Mstrojny (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: why should they redirect to the same place? Do you have better targets in mind? Why does it need to be discussed here? The existing targets appear to be good articles for people searching for those terms. Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2-year college and Two-year college since these terms could also refer to Community college. No opinion on the "4-year" ones at this time. In addition, I disagree with the nominator that the "2-year" and "4-year" redirects should target the same place, but now that I'm aware of the "2-year" redirects, I believe that they should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (Struck our parts that no longer apply to this nomination due to the nomination being split.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything at Junior college seems to indeed be two-year, though. That's not true of Community college, so this seems unwise. I'll also register my disagreement with the initial nomination that all four of these should point to the same place. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Junior college and community college are very nearly the same thing in the US, and generally 2-year colleges, but often very different elsewhere and not necessarily a 2-year college. One or the other still seems like the best target unless anyone comes up with something better. There is Community colleges in the United States - could that be what a majority of people are looking for when they type 2-year college? Lithopsian (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lithopsian, Steel1943, and BDD: Sorry about the nominations. I got confused. Is it OK if I partially withdraw the nomination by withdrawing the four year college redirects, but leave the two year college redirects up for discussion? Mstrojny (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, while you have the two "four-year college" redirects here, I think there is reason to discuss them. See below. --Bsherr (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the two "four-year college" redirects to College. Whether a college is four years or not is not the distinction between a college or a university. Thus, a four-year college is always a college but only sometimes a university. I think those two should therefore be retargeted. --Bsherr (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could anyone be so WP:BOLD as to split this nomination before it becomes even more of a potential WP:TRAINWRECK? Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I have not modified any of the above comments, since most touch on both the four-year and two-year redirects. Anyone should feel free to modify their own to suit the split nominations, though. This diff shows the single discussion pre-split. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this could remain at College but can also redirect to Undergraduate education. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. another option is Bachelor's degree which implies the four years typical study period, but that would be a degree and not a college. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:22, 19 January 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.

Smux[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) 18:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 17#SMUX (where I was also the RfD nominator). 84.250.17.211 (talk) 17:00, 19 January 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.

5-digit numbers that are all the same digit[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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not looking for deletion of either one, but 22222 and 44444 should have similar targets. 77777, 88888, and 99999 are valid redirects, and the rest (0, 1, 3, 5, and 6) are red links. For those not from the US, 44444 is Newton Falls' ZIP code. HotdogPi 16:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. At least until more explanation is given. Why should the targets be changed, and to what? --Bsherr (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. While I knew both numbers were both ZIP codes and tilings, it turns out that 44444 would refer to order-10 square tiling, which we do not have an article on. Therefore, 44444 cannot point there. HotdogPi 21:18, 20 January 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.

Throttle (musician)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 28#Throttle (musician)

Fluker (disambiguation)[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. Early close since the rationale no longer applies, given the expansion of Fluker as a disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed - I created this redirect thinking that Fluker was a disambiguation page but I was mistaken; it is a surname page. Hatnotes at the top of Fluker and Fluker, Louisiana should take care of navigation needs. Leschnei (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the target functions to disambiguate between articles, it is thus useful for navigation. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without any incoming links, it doesn't seem useful to me. --Bsherr (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Lack of incomming links is not a reason to delete a redirect - many users search for pages ending in (disambiguation) when they know or suspect the topic they want is not the primary topic but don't know what the page title is. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's interesting, but I'm frankly still skeptical. What's your evidence that users search with "(disambiguation)"? --Bsherr (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do it, I've seen other users do it, and many discussions where this is brought up have comments from others that they do it too. When you've been reading Wikipedia a while you get to know that disambiguation pages exist and that they are a good way of finding what you are looking for when what you are looking for is not (or might not be) the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. As required by WP:DABNAME, after Tavix's edit. --Bsherr (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have converted the target to a disambiguation page, which should resolve this issue. -- Tavix (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Fluker, Louisiana is a full title match. The (disambiguation) redirect is required to exist by WP:INTDABLINK. Narky Blert (talk) 12:13, 24 January 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.

Laguna Harvey[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) 18:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A minor character that was removed from the target article three days after this redirect was created. In 2009. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:05, 19 January 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.

Poison Ivy Gotham[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) 18:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect disambiguation that misleadingly implies it's part of a character's name. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:41, 19 January 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.

Plant Monster[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) 18:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague, there are many fictional plant monsters. But there's no appropriate article to point this to. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:39, 19 January 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.

Poisin ivy batman[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) 18:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miscapitalised, misspelled, incorrect disambiguation method. Should I have just speedied it? Probably. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:37, 19 January 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.

Dagang Oilfield[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) 18:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dagang is at Binhai New Area, Tianjin, China while Daqing is at Changchun Province in the Northeast China, two oil fields are totally different places. See zh:大港油田 (Dagang Oilfield), zh:大庆油田 (Daqing Oilfield), Dagang District. Y814756748 (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - incorrect and misleading redirect. -Zanhe (talk) 17:13, 20 January 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.

Coyovembyote[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) 18:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Term not mentioned at target or anywhere else in Wikipedia. In a Google search it appears only in spam sites which copy WP:RS content and substitute words at random in an attempt to avoid being detected as duplicate content by search engines. Possibly it's a transcription of a foreign word for November that's originally written in some non-Latin script, but I'm not sure from which language, and in any case that would fail WP:FORRED. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:56, 19 January 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_January_19&oldid=880963952"