Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 31, 2019.

Obiwan Kelnobi[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) 05:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bizarrely misplaced l makes this misspelling far too implausible. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:40, 31 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.

Cross namespace journal redirects[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 Not intended as a nomination per this edit In addition/response, I have placed a note on Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion regarding the WP:CFD discussion in case RfD participants can provide feedback for the incoming redirects.. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Academic journal categories containing exclusively redirects that potentially affects a couple thousand cross-namespace redirects such as:

Canadian Open Arts Journal → Category:Canadian Research Publication academic journals
rather than nominating each rdr individually suggest the conversation take place over there. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @UnitedStatesian: You are essentially promoting a WP:TRAINWRECK with discussions happening in multiple locations by splitting the discussion in this manner. Also, WP:RFD procedures require that all nominated redirects be listed in the nomination, as well as all be individually tagged with {{Rfd}} so that any reader who individually searches one of the titles of the nominated redirects will be aware of the RFD discussion and have a link to lead them to the discussion. (I had to do the aforementioned for a mass nomination I did in November 2014. It took me several hours to compile.) I would recommend updating this nomination to include all of the redirects you are nominating. you don't have to wait for the aforementioned WP:CFD discussion to be closed since the categories' deletions do not make the redirects you are nominating for deletion eligible for WP:G8. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually G8 would apply here if the categories get deleted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: You are right. *figuratively slaps self on head*. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which is precisely the reason I thought it best to provide a notification here at RfD. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@UnitedStatesian: I agree, so I placed a note on Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 31 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:Rfd relist[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 8#Wikipedia:Rfd relist

Wikipedia:JCW/CRAP[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 8#Wikipedia:JCW/CRAP

Last.FM upon CBS Interactive's due diligence[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) 05:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a redirect that doesn't make any sense, particularly given that nothing about due diligence is mentioned in Last.fm any more and hasn't been for about 5 years. I've already removed the incoming link from Growth–share_matrix "Six by nine. Forty two." (talk) 20:24, 31 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.

Fomor (comics)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 10#Fomor (comics)

Bres (comics)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 10#Bres (comics)

Dow Jones[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. Page is now a disambiguation page. Inbound links being fixed. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Dow Jones & Company#Requested move 13 January 2019. No consensus on whether the company is the WP:PTOPIC for "Dow Jones". feminist (talk) 12:32, 31 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.

Template:IBA team[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 7#Template:IBA team

Template:ABA team[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 7#Template:ABA team

Intel Core gen10 (TigerLake)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 7#Intel Core gen10 (TigerLake)

Donald Trum[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 8#Donald Trum

10th province of the kingdom of armenia[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 Artsakh (historic province). (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No clue what this could be referring to. A Kingdom of Armenia and the Republic of Artsakh don't overlap chronologically, so at least I know that the current target is incorrect. -- Tavix (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tavix: The unsourced Republic of Artsakh#Kingdom of Armenia claims that present-day Artsakh was part of the empire in antiquity. Dunno if that's too tenuous or not, but presumably that's the connection? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That led me to a bit more digging, and I found Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)#Provinces, where it lists 15 provinces. The articles for most of the provinces, including Artsakh (historic province), give a ranking (eg: Artsakh was the tenth province (nahang) of the Kingdom of Armenia), but I am having a hard time figuring out what the ranking is referring to. The closest I can find to a reliable source using this ranking is from Utik: According to the Armenian geographer Anania Shirakatsi's Ashkharatsuyts ("Geography", 7th century), Utik was the 12th among the 15 provinces of the Kingdom of Armenia. All provinces give a date of 189 BC, so I don't think it's ranking of when they joined the kingdom (a la 50th State), but I'm not sure what else it could be besides an arbitrary number. -- Tavix (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Artsakh (historic province) per Deryck Chan, works for me. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:47, 31 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.

Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI) Journal[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) 05:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a mishmash of full name and acronym out of nowhere. Unlikely search term. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:35, 31 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.

Educational Research (journal)[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. There is adequate consensus to delete this redirect as to avoid confusion and due to the fact that the two journals are not one and the same. TheSandDoctor Talk 17:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Educational Research ≠ Educational Researcher

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:25, 31 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.

Dnald Trump[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) feminist (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • @MB: Please confirm that this is your intended rationale for this nomination as it was not listed on the previous day when I moved the other nomination over to today. Steel1943 (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Searching "Dnald Trump" on Twitter and setting it to latest gives me plenty of examples of people saying it, so I don't think the nomination is convincing. Harmless enough to retain either way. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) 01:31, 31 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_31&oldid=882702724"