Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 27, 2019.

The Bugs & Daffy Show[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. It doesn't feel satisfying closing it this way since the majority seemed to want to do something here, but I don't see how else to close it. -- Tavix (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. However, The Bugs & Daffy Show is a {{R with history}}; per the history, these redirects seem to not be about the subject at Bugs 'n' Daffy. Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not nearly so clear cut – The Bugs & Daffy Show is how the Looney Tunes were shown in television syndication (in the 1970s and 1980s?... I think on ABC). Anyway, I'm definitely inclined to Keep these redirects (and then maybe add a mention of this at the Looney Tunes page...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last sentence of the lead of Bugs 'n' Daffy states that the block was shown on Cartoon Network, which correlates with my memory. —Ost (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to The Bugs Bunny Show Common confusing names for that show at times, per IJBall; Daffy was featured equally in the openings, so you know some stations and management folks would call it Bugs & Daffy just on memory (these were also used for local indie station compilations of the B/D cartoons which snuck into the public domain). Certainly a less confusing target than just an rd to the series. Nate • (chatter) 05:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:35, 27 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.

Th Long Depression[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) 00:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Th" as a mispelling for "The" is very unlikely. How do I know? These are the only two such redirects in English Wikipedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:31, 27 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.

Hougham[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 6#Hougham

Template:CVG 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. It appears the history doesn't really need to be preserved here, but I can help restore if needed. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect and not something a reader would probably write as it isn't very clear what the "c" in "cvg" stands for. Gonnym (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnndeed. Fun fact though, the C stands for computer and was used when WP:VG used to have computer in the title.--67.68.28.220 (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless the edit history is moved elsewhere, especially considering that this redirect is a {{R from merge}}. Maybe move the history to Template:Infobox CVG character? (I disagree that the "CVG" initialism is confusing and since this redirect is in the "Template:" namespace, in fact, I really do not see a need to delete this redirect, but in the least, the edit history should be preserved.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archive without leaving redirect. We have a precedent in Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_4#1546889086. Archiving to template subspace is the right thing to do when an old template is merged, we want to keep the page history, but we don't want to keep a redirect. Deryck C. 17:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm missing the rationale for preserving the page history. The template was redirected a decade ago and the "r from merge" template was added last month. I don't see records of an earlier merge in the page history. If there is no attribution reason to keep these numerous redirects (from page move/renames), better to strike altogether than to leave them lingering around. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 20:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or move without redirect to "infobox CVG character". Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 30 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.

194.14 g/mol[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) 00:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely pointless, is not a valid search term, and has no incoming links. This is like if we created a redirect to car models based on how much the car weighs. Natureium (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - implausible. We may as well redirect 15.999 amu → oxygen and 207.2 amu → lead, which also seems pointless. ComplexRational (talk) 16:47, 27 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.

Flavored water[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 Enhanced water. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These should have the same target, but neither mentions flavo(u)red water specifically. I am not sure if soft drink is the best here, as the distinguishing characteristic is that they are marketed as water and not (say) cola or tea. Bottled water may be possible. 94.21.204.175 (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to "flavored"'s original target of Enhanced water which seems accurate and could be expanded. Not clear why redirect creator changed their mind about target. Squash is quite different. PamD 13:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Enhanced water per Pam. –dlthewave ☎ 18:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both as above. (Nominator) 94.21.204.175 (talk) 07:23, 30 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.

Labor in the United States[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 United States labor law. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This cross-namespace redirect targets a category that does not comprehensively cover "Labor in the United States": there may be a better target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to United States labor law. PamD 10:29, 27 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.

Wikiredirect[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) 00:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. This is an unlikely search term as proven by the Pageview stats which showed that only 13 people used this redirect in the last year. No pages link to this redirect. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:10, 27 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.

WikipediaDotorg[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) 00:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite an unnecessary and implausible redirect. People can find what they are looking for if they type Wikipedia so the extra "Dotorg" doesn't make it more significant. There have been only 79 pageviews in the last month and no pages link to this redirect. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unusual capitalization and formatting. The redirect's creator has made many useless redirects. wumbolo ^^^ 13:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless redirect. Nothing will link to this and it's not a realistic search term. Natureium (talk) 01:24, 29 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.

The Colbert Report recurring elements[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 Recurring segments on The Colbert Report. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any such list at the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 07:48, 27 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.

Wikipedia:DABCOMBRAND[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. czar 04:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the page mover's admission, these redirects probably qualify for WP:G7 due to their creator creating these redirects, then moving them to different titles soon after. Given that most of the related shortcuts such as these begin with "Wikipedia:DABCON" instead of beginning with "Wikipedia:DABCOM", and since the nominated redirects have no incoming links, I'd say these should best be and can safely be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I generally make moves like these without leaving a redirect, but in this case I had the thought that "COMPROD" sounds like "commercial product", so it wasn't entirely senseless to keep. I won't lost sleep over the existence or non-existence of the redirect, though. bd2412 T 14:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll just withdraw these now that it is clear that the creator did not intend to have them "WP:G7-ed", and there's probably no other target, existing or yet-to-be-created, for them anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:54, 28 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.

Schumer shutdown[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. Consensus here is clear, but just a note on the sources, since typically I'd give that extra weight: they mostly seem to be about trying to make Schumer shutdown a thing rather than reporting that it is a thing, which is a meaningful difference (à la fetch). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find the nickname, and may be confusing that is Schumer who caused the shutdown B dash (talk) 06:21, 27 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.

Umimhaw Kawase Syun[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 delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo Reach Out to the Truth 05:14, 27 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.

Zorua and Zoroark[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 6#Zorua and Zoroark

United States federal government shutdown of January 2018 (version 2)[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) 00:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect, unusable for the word "version 2". B dash (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - completely unnecessary. Onel5969 TT me 02:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this appears to be an artifact of our technical processes, and not anything relevant to real-world usage. bd2412 T 14:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an improper creation. This seems to have been created in the process of moving a page. Natureium (talk) 01:23, 29 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.

Chris Monzel[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 delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target page. PamD 00:28, 27 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_27&oldid=882207558"