Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 6, 2019.

Category:Space theorists[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. --BDD (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this category was deleted in August 2017, as you can see at the discussion, is that "Space theorist" is a made-up neologism. Thus, it shouldn't exist as a redirect either. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:29, 6 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.

Badminton at the 2019 Pan American Games[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) 22:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too early for this. Qualification doesn't begin till April. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and draft move previous version (prior to redirect) to draft. Add R with possibilities. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is suitable as a redirect because the target article contains content on badminton at the competition. No need to draft because the previous version remains accessible in the article history. feminist (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per feminist, though judging by Category:Events at the 2019 Pan American Games, we can probably just build this out as an article now, never mind redirects or drafts. --BDD (talk) 22:23, 16 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.

Warsaw Film Festival NETPAC Award for Best Asian Film[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 15#Warsaw Film Festival NETPAC Award for Best Asian Film

Witches' Church[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 15#Witches' Church

Witches' Cathedral[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. Implausible search term not mentioned in the target. Thus, it is reasonable to delete this redirect. TheSandDoctor Talk 23:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, not mentioned in target buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 20:51, 6 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 People of the Witches[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. Implausible search term which is not mentioned in the target. Thus, it is reasonable to delete this redirect. TheSandDoctor Talk 23:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, not mentioned in target, google search for the term does not turn up anything about Galicians but instead people executed for witchcraft. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 20:49, 6 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.

Year Supply of Fairy Cakes[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. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not even mentioned in it's targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:05, 6 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.

Richard Clough Anderson[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. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are two notable people named Richard Clough Anderson: Richard Clough Anderson Jr. and Richard Clough Anderson Sr.. Because this redirected to Jr., some articles referring to Sr. mistakenly wikilinked to Jr. (e.g. [1],[2] that I had to correct). I think it would be better not to link to either of them to avoid further confusion.

Any place with a wikilink that said just Richard Clough Anderson (which uses the redirect) I changed to a wikilink to either the Jr. or the Sr. article. If you click on what Richard Clough Anderson links to, you will see there are no articles in the list now. To see which articles I corrected, look at these recent contribs: [3] --David Tornheim (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC) [revised: 19:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)][reply]

  • disambig as it will continue to attract links and is a very likely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Good idea. Not sure why I didn't think of that. Can I delete this request? --David Tornheim (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, my concern was (and still is) that if someone Wikilinks to the name Richard Clough Anderson it will show up as blue rather than red, and they won't realize they should chose between Sr. or Jr. But I do see the advantage of a disambig page for the reason you mention. Rather than try to withdraw this request, I want to see what other editors say. In the meantime, should I turn it into a disambig page, or would that be too confusing? --David Tornheim (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of people who fix links to disambig pages (assisted by various tools and reports), so that's not a significant issue. While the discussion is open, don't replace the redirect but drafting a dismabig page below it is encouraged. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate I can't tell who is primary topic. If one or the other is obvious, please indicate so, and then it can be a hatnote, otherwise give the reader the two options. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:29, 7 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.
  • I'm second guessing myself a bit now and wondering if this should've just been retargeted to Richard Anderson, where both are listed. A separate page allows a see-also for Richard Clough, but that may be unnecessary. I'll just leave my thoughts here if anyone wants to follow up. I wouldn't object to a WP:BOLD redirect. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tsmnia[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo - we don't need this redirect. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:07, 6 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.

东京湾[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 東京灣. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May be confused with Tokyo Bay in Chinese B dash (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig. Gulf of Tonkin and Tokyo Bay are written identically in their native languages (Chinese, Japanese, and older Vietnamese). -Zanhe (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per Zahne. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig at 東京灣 and retarget there. feminist (talk) 01:55, 13 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.

東京灣[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. --BDD (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May be confused with Tokyo Bay in Chinese B dash (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig. Gulf of Tonkin and Tokyo Bay are written identically in their native languages (Chinese, Japanese, and older Vietnamese). -Zanhe (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per Zahne. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig at this title. feminist (talk) 01:54, 13 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.

Polyisobutene[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 Redirect overwritten by an article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was boldly merged and redirected in 2006 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polyisobutylene, but it seems to be covered also and maybe better at Polybutene (article started 2008) so I think it might be best to retarget it there. I'll ping the Chemistry and Polymers wikiprojects (which tag both articles) as subject knowledge may be useful here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • We are 10 years further ... maybe there is room for more articles. IIRC there is a distinct difference between isobutene polymerisation on one side (radical?), and 1 & 2-butene on the other. And then there is the polymer of the mixture. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: User:Smokefoot independently turned the redirect into an article following the same reasoning as in my remark above. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Beetstra and Smokefoot: The article isn't perfect by any means - as a non-chemist it tells me almost nothing and it didn't link to either of the above targets (I've added a see also section to resolve the latter issue), but that's not an RFD matter and it's out of scope now anyway, so I'm closing this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 7 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.

Spezial:Beobachtungsliste[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 14#Spezial:Beobachtungsliste

List of all three letter acronyms[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These cross-namespace redirects are unlikely search terms; note that the more likely List of two-letter combinations has been deleted, and List of three-letter acronyms does not exist.. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. We don't appear to have a list or category of two-letter disambiguation pages (AA, BB, etc) which is the only thing I can think of that this might be a good search term for. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 21:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Although List of acronyms exist, we don't have sublists for only 2 and 3 letters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Disregarding the cross-namespace issue, WP:NOTDONE applies since the claim of the targets containing "all" acronyms/combinations as referenced in the redirects is invalid and will never be valid. Steel1943 (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the two-letter target Wikipedia:-space pages are complete for the 26 letters in the English alphabet: 26^2 x 2 (for capitalization) links. Three-letter, not so much. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@UnitedStatesian: Right; technically, that two-letter combination page is not "complete" since that target only contains two-letter combinations of the standard 26 letters in English of the Latin alphabet, considering that there are a lot more letters than just Latin letters. Steel1943 (talk) 15:09, 9 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.

Penes[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 Penis. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plural form of "penis", it has redirected to that page for years until it was changed to that target. Keep this target or retarget back to what it targeted before? Colgatepony234 (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget back to Penis and add a hatnote as the organ is the primary topic, particularly as the retired athlete is properly Mihaela Peneş. There is also an ancient Greek word meaning "active poor" that gets a mention at Begging#Greece that might be worth hatnoting too. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget back to Penis and add a hatnote per Thryduulf --Lenticel (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment whichever it redirects to, should have hatnote also to Pennes and Pens AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Huh, just tried to link to penis via this redirect, I'll do that instead. In passing, I think that a disambiguation avoids the surprise effect, and need for hatnotes, and hopefully lists an anatomy article that is going to avoid seeing an oversized image using the upright parameter. cygnis insignis 16:07, 8 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.

ICC Club World T20[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ICC T20 World cup is a competition between national teams. There is no competition between "club" teams. Just as how FIFA World Cup and FIFA Club World Cup are two completely separate competitions, the redirect is not needed as the title doesn't immediately suggest someone is referring the the inter-national competition.The word "club" is significant. Daiyusha (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:48, 6 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.

Charassognathidae[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The family is no longer considered monotypic (see here). As a result, redirecting to a lower taxon is no longer warranted. Keeping the redirect "until someone can write an article" would do more harm than good, as it is likely to confuse readers into thinking the taxon is still monophyletic. The redirect should therefore be deleted in accordance with WP:RFD#DELETE criterion #2, "The redirect might cause confusion". See also the precedent of "Lagostrophinae".--Leptictidium (mt) 11:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just create a stub? It will take less time than waiting for action here. It could also just be redirected to a higher level taxon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Redirecting to a higher taxon can work in such situations, but it's not mentioned in any as far as I could find (I didn't look higher than order level). --BDD (talk) 17:23, 15 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:Votes for sanction[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 15#Wikipedia:Votes for sanction

Mogok, Thailand[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target is nowhere near Thailand. I couldn't identify a similarly named place in Thailand, but whether or not such a place existed, it should not redirect here. Suggest deleting. Paul_012 (talk) 07:10, 6 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_6&oldid=1138582604"