Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 12, 2019.

File:Chakravarthy (2016 film).jpg[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) 02:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a 2016 film Kailash29792 (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the same rationale I posted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 15#File:Kulavadhu-film-poster.jpg ... minus the WP:TROUT-ing: "...The redirect is not causing any harm, considering that name requirements for redirects in the “File:” namespace do not necessary have to be useful search terms, especially if the redirect is a {{R from move}}. In addition, the redirect does not shadow the title of a page on Wikimedia Commons, meaning that it’s not causing any technical issues that need to be resolved by deleting the redirect per {{Db-redircom}}." Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943. There is a very high bar for deletion of {{R from move}} redirects in the file namespace. If the file name is not shaddowing Commons and is not a BLP violation or similar then it is almost certainly not going to pass that bar. This is not an exception. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 16 July 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.

Category:Natacha Atlas[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) 02:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded WP:OCEPON. All relevant articles are in Category:Works by Natacha Atlas --woodensuperman 10:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Useful semi-soft redirect then. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems an entirely useful redirect to me. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 16 July 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.

Americo[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 convert to set index. Deryck C. 12:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target, “classical compound,” probably is more apropos to “Americo-” (with a hyphen) than “Americo” by itself. In my case, I was looking for the insurance company, Americo Financial Life and Annuity Insurance Company which, it turns out, has no Wikipedia article (as it might not be notable enough for one). Bwrs (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this isn't a binational compound but part of one. Part of a very large number of possible compounds, actually. This WP:DICDEF is not useful. It might be useful as a redirect to an article about the insurance company if we had one, but we do not. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from requester: I could just change it to a disambiguation page. Bwrs (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What would you disambiguate? It's not really ambiguous, it's a partial title match. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of people with the first name Américo, and I also was hoping that somebody would write an article on the insurance company. (A cursory search did not establish notability, however.) Bwrs (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wow! Good idea to do that search. Since we have an article Américo, it would probably be best for this to be a {{R without diacritics}} redirect to that title. But separately, an "Americo" anthroponymy page would be quite useful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per BDD rather than redirect to just one person with that name. Bwrs (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:47, 12 July 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.

Calocurb[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) 21:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calocurb was created as a promotional page and then converted into the redirect. I think it should have been deleted instead. "Calocurb" is not mentioned at the target page and it is not a notable enough product to ever be mentioned there. Deli nk (talk) 20:46, 12 July 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:SU[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. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Though this redirect has represented the target since September 2006, the task representing this redirect seemed to end about a year later. Given that this is a two-letter shortcut, it would probably be best converted to a disambiguation page ({{Wikipedia disambiguation}}) using the potential targets in the hatnote at the top of Wikipedia:Sheynhertz-Unbayg cleanup as a baseline. The incoming links can be disambiguated if this redirect is converted to a disambiguation page. (I normally don't advocate for retargeting long-standing redirects in the "Wikipedia:" namespace, but since this is a two-letter shortcut that represented a super short-lived project, this may be one of my few exceptions.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While it's not the greatest use of this two-character shortcut, disambiguation would not achieve anything that the current hatnotes don't, but would require changing hundreds of links in long closed archives causing disruption for no benefit. None of the links I spot checked were for anything other than the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's not only used as Thryduulf wrote, but also in many edit summaries. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:09, 17 July 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.

Hypersphere (The History of the Galaxy)[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) 21:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional elements not mentioned at the target or discussed in detail anywhere on Wikipedia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:46, 12 July 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.

OmniTech Support[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, originally created with the justification OmniTech support is remote desktop software. I think this is a promotional redirect and that it should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heh, I created the redirect, it's kind of the opposite of promotion, I saw reports in the wild it was used to maliciously take over users computers, but the previous article was taken down. I posted on the talk page for the redirect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OmniTech_Support , but basically before I created my recent redirect, the old redirect was taken down in 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_15#OmniTech_Support because it used to go straight to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_support_scam , and the discussion highlighted how that can be considered libel (makes sense). But better than a deletion would have been a neutral redirect to its proper category, remote desktop software. Mathiastck (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I understand the creator's rationale, but this is unhelpful and misleading when the software isn't included in that list. Readers already familiar with OmniTech will learn nothing, and those who aren't will probably be confused. Perhaps they'll be able to infer "OmniTech Support is a type of remote desktop software", but that's not much to go on. --BDD (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:25, 12 July 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 crypt (charity)[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) 16:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Die Gruft and Zweite Gruft were created under these titles, but there is no indication that the charity or anyone else is using this name; it's a literal translation by the author and inappropriate for a proper name. (Merging the articles, BTW) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in use... and if you want to keep these redirects around, they are alreay pointing at the correct article(s), so there's no need to retarget. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What does that have to do with crypts? --BDD (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was intended for the section on "Founder's seat" below. I think I see how that happened. I went to the page section by number that had been relevant when I started formulating my response (which started as a lengthier soliloquey, and got reduced to four words), and by the time I was ready to make the edit, two more discussions had been added above, including this one. bd2412 T 03:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Unless the translation is disputed, I don't see any problem with trying to provide English-language access on the English Wikipedia. I remember a recent similar RfD, something about diving maybe, but I can't find it now. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:23, 12 July 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.

Adhurs Raghu[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This title is a combination of the actor's name and their breakout film, Adhurs. This would already be a stretch for a redirect, but Karumanchi isn't even the only person named Raghu that was in the movie. signed, Rosguill talk 19:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Raghu Babu didn't rise to fame from this movie, but Raghu Karumanchi did. For this reason, he is popularly known as Adhurs Raghu, which is his stage name. Since there isn't a source, a redirect isn't needed.--DragoMynaa (Talk) 19:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DragoMynaa, can you provide a source for this? It isn't mentioned at all in Raghu Karumanchi signed, Rosguill talk 18:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the source:https://www.123telugu.com/interviews/interview-raghu-karumanchu-my-role-in-adhurs-gave-a-much-needed-break-in-my-career.html --DragoMynaa (Talk) 19:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That establishes that he had an important role in Adhurs, which we already knew. It doesn't establish that "Adhurs Raghu" is a commonly used nickname. signed, Rosguill talk 18:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DragoMynaa, speaking as a potential closer, your comment sounds like an argument for keeping the redirect, but you labeled it "Delete". Could you clarify? --BDD (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The creator has posted that they will no longer be editing. With all available evidence, this looks like a spurious redirect. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's see if we can break this consensus stalemate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:21, 12 July 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.

Isabela Tovaglieri[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) 02:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong and useless redirect, she is called "Isabella". The name "Isabela" in the Italian language doesn't exist. Wololoo (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP items two and four. The redirect is the result of a very recent page move and a plausible misspelling. I added the appropriate rcats. - Eureka Lott 17:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EurekaLott. Even if it wasn't an {{R from move}} it's a very plausible misspelling. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 16 July 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.

Exophthalmus vittatus[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) 21:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created in a page move, which was a correct move since the article is about the genus and not the species. However the redirect should be deleted per reason 10 of WP:RFD#DELETE. As can be seen on the genus article Exophthalmus, the article contains no specific information about this species. All other species have red links, to have their own article in the future. Reason 7 of WP:RFD#KEEP does not apply. Being a redirect and a blue link in the list of species makes it less likely that an article is created, not more likely. Taketa (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per the reasoning of User:Taketa. Looking for a precedent, I checked the entries in Category:Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus. This list does not include any blue links for species names that are merely redirects to the corresponding genus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paging User:Plantdrew. In theory, redirecting a species to its genus is defensible as an {{R from subtopic}}, but in practice, it's normal to have primarily red species lists in genus articles. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Better to have a red link. The only cases where it is normal practice to have a species redirect to a genus is when: a) there is only one species in the genus; b) the genus is known only from fossils; c) rarely, when a genus has a small number of species (2-3) which are discussed in detail in a single article (gastric-brooding frog is the only example of this that comes to mind).
When there are species redirecting to genera (aside from the above cases), I tag them with {{R from species to genus}} (which is a redirect to {{R from subtopic}}), and the most appropriate of {{R taxon with possibilities}} / {{R animal with possibilities}} / {{R plant with possibilities}}. I'd be perfectly happy to see all such species to genus redirects deleted. Plantdrew (talk) 16:49, 12 July 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.

List of accolades received by The Master[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 already deleted by Anthony Appleyard per WP:G6. PC78 (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and no suitable alternate target. There are many artistic works titled "The Master" so having this point to any one of them means that readers looking for other items will have a harder time finding their article. It can't be retargeted to The Master because that redirects to the disambiguation page at Master. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-name - I meant to create that to re-direct to the accolades specifically for the 2012 film's Wikipedia page, so if need be, please move the page to List of accolades received by The Master (2012 film) and remove the List of accolades received by The Master re-direct. There are several accolades pages that don't specify the year of the film, like the ones for Room and Up, so I didn't think it would be that much of an issue, my bad. Daerl (talk) 12:19, 12 July 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.

Hurricane Bud(2006)[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) 21:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title has no space between name of the storm and the year. Properly titled page already exists, which is Hurricane Bud (2006) A1Cafel (talk) 02:31, 12 July 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.

Erick 2007[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 25#Erick 2007

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_12&oldid=907806972"