Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 17, 2019.

USSR 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. With a relist not generating any new participation and nobody holding a particularly strong opinion, I think it's time to take an executive decision. I see the consensus here is that the Russian equivalent of this abbreviation seems to consistently (but not officially) refer to the redirect target, but the English abbreviation doesn't have a consistent target and a few competing topics were presented. So I'm closing this as a rough consensus to delete. Deryck C. 17:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get the connection, but this plan was never referred to as USSR 2 signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:06, 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.

What wp is not[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 7#What wp is not

President Snowflake[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 Snowflake (slang)#Politicized insult, delete, and delete respectively. -- Tavix (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary, not redirect material. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 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.

Fuck a duck[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:fuck a duck. -- Tavix (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Not mentioned in target article. Now meaningless. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per [2], [3], [4], and [5]. There are plenty of books with this phrase and it is used in current lingo. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for providing sources. Based on your sources, it seems to me it would preferably be retargeted to a nonexistent article about List of expletives in the English language or similar. As it currently stands, no one searching "fuck a duck" would be hoping to simply be redirect to the "fuck" page, especially since there is no mention of the phrase in the target article. Therefore I still favor a delete, as a form of deletion to encourage article creation. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Man in Question: I see where you are getting from, but deletion does not seem to encourage creation. Deletion shows users that the page has been created and been removed. This phrase is common within our crazy modern society and wikipedia adjusts to lingo changes. We will see how this turns out, I do see your point. AmericanAir88(talk) 21:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you are right about encouraging article creation, but this is based on Reason for deleting #10. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary wikt:fuck a duck where interested readers can find lexical information about the term. There isn't at present any encyclopaedic information about it on Wikipedia, but if that changes the soft redirect can be revisited. Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSLANG. The sources that AmericanAir88 identified above enforces that this will likely never go beyond a dictionary definition.—Bagumba (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the stats show that many people look for it on Wikipedia, so we should provide them with a link to the dictionary entry on Wiktionary via a soft redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 25 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.

Air pollution in Iran[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 Health in Iran#Air pollution. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No related content on target page (was removed in November 2015) Dawnseeker2000 05:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 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.

Il Talismino[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. This is problematic, because the redirect was never tagged. As of this writing, it still points to The Talisman (ballet), though the nomination suggests it points to the disambiguation page Il talismano. This made it difficult for me to assess the non-delete votes, though by no fault of those voters. For now, I'll have it pointing to the disambiguation page, which I've improved a bit. Let the dust settle, and reapproach if necessary. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deletion, unlikely misspelling In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — the Man in Question (in question) 17:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Procedually, the nomination is problematic. This used to redirect to The Talisman (ballet), until nominator In ictu oculi had blanked it at 09:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC), before this nomination (09:17). Smjg reverted it back at 15:00, 9 July (UTC).[6] As far as I can see, it's never been targeted to Il talismano as stated in the nomination. As far as the real target of The Talisman, it looks it might be translated from Italian.[7] As the composer was Italian Riccardo Drigo, it seems that WP:R#DELETE No. 8 does not apply: In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. It talismano was at "The Talisman (ballet)" until it was removed by In ictu oculi at 09:21, 9 July (UTC), after this nomination. At worst , redirect to Il talismano for disambiguation. A one-letter misspelling is not implausible.—Bagumba (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
10:19, 7 December 2006‎ Mrlopez2681 Redirected page to The Talisman (ballet). Can you please link to the policy that supports a one-off Wikipedia editor misspelling of an Italian word being preserved for "keep". This was clearly created in error, a repeat of that one-letter misspelling is totally implausible. We have here a simple i/a error on a single bad link from 2006 in a single article. A Google Book check confirms that this an unlikely error - evidenced by the fact it has not been repeated - I am not aware of any policy or guideline that we are obliged to preserve unlikely spelling errors. It was made in 2006, it went unspotted, but why do we now in 2019 need a redirect from a one off misspelling of a rare Italian word to anywhere? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a misspelling is not found in books is proof that a human won't misspell it in a search window? Good night.—Bagumba (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In fact the autocomplete function of top right search box is more likely to cause a mispelling. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've left notification with the redirect's creator, Mrlopez2681, regarding this RfD (though they edit irregularly).—Bagumba (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 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.

Long Thai name of Bangkok[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. I believe only the initial redirect was tagged. If any others are, you can let me know or remove them yourself. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect that was generated by a bot more than ten years ago which has never been linked to. The only probable use would be in the search box, but even the spelling is not the most well-known; that would be "Krung thep mahanakhon amon rattanakosin mahinthara ayuthaya mahadilok phop noppharat ratchathani burirom udomratchaniwet mahasathan amon piman awatan sathit sakkathattiya witsanukam prasit". See the Wiktionary talk page on: Talk:Unsupported_titles/Thai_name_of_Bangkok. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's consensus at this point to delete the single redirect nominated. I'm relisting because I'm not clear on whether the editors who mentioned any of the variants wanted them deleted as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all It's the historical, ceremonial name as described at Bangkok#Name. Granted, there's multiple variants because there are many forms of Thai romanization. And people cut and paste these days, moreso than typing manually. It justs looks silly if a modernized encyclopedia couldn't recognize such a name, esp. if it's a conscious decision regarding a non-Western country.Redirects are cheap!—Bagumba (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re: bots For the record, the redirect from the specific name mentioned in the Bangkok article (different than the nominated one) was not by a bot, but a retired editor with over 1,000 edits: Vanished_user_9oijnsdfknefijh3tjasfi34 (talk · contribs · logs · block log).—Bagumba (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It does not serve any purpose to have this as an article name. No one will ever type it. Any search for a part of it will find the right target. −Woodstone (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above and how we have frequently treated long redirects in the past here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Extremely long redirects are defeating the point of a redirect, which is to be something that would plausibly be typed in the search box.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - arguments about being a valid search term are invalid. As I understand it these redirects are correct, excepting that some may be {{R without diacritics}} which is still a valid and useful category of redirect, and if someone does type it, they'll be taken to the subject they're looking for. There is no reason at all to remove valid encyclopedic information just because some in the west find it unsightly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No precedent There is no guideline cited by the "deletes". Precedents for long place name redirects from Western countries include Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg in the United States that redirects to Lake Chaubunagungamaug and Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch in Wales to Llanfairpwllgwyngyll.—Bagumba (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Ivanvector and Bagumba. Lack of links from current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia (the only thing whatlinkshere shows) is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. Being typed into the search box is not the only reason for a redirect to exist. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all mainly per Ivanvector and Bagumba. It's not implausible that someone might find the full name and google it. And if you google it, the first link is actually one to the redirect. So it might be useful for people not using the search box but a search engine and that is all WP:R#KEEP requires. Regards SoWhy 19:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Someone mentioned Krungthepmahanakhon Amonrattanakosin Mahintharayutthaya Mahadilokphop Noppharatratchathaniburirom Udomratchaniwetmahasathan Amonphimanawatansathit Sakkathattiyawitsanukamprasit before, and I just want to point out that it's mentioned in the article (letter-for-letter). I'd be a strong keep on that one. For the rest, I just want to point out they aren't mentioned in the article (but maybe could be?) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The others are variant Romanizations. They are plausible search terms, but not worth repeating in prose (esp. at that length).—Bagumba (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we have an article on a subject that has an official name, that official name always needs to be a working page. Maybe it's the article's name, or maybe it's the name of another article that's the primary use, or maybe it's a disambiguation page, or maybe it's a redirect to the article that goes by some other form of the name. But the important thing is that we should never convert such a page into a redlink unless we're deleting the article itself or unless there's been a mistake and the claimed full name isn't. See WP:NOTPAPER; this is a great example of a useful redirect (long full name) that wouldn't be worth printing as a "redirect" in a printed book. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 19 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.

SMT3[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 4#SMT3

Blue walls[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 1#Blue walls

FIPA (software)[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) 15:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading disambiguator, the target is an organization associated with software, but it is not itself software. signed, Rosguill talk 16:25, 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.

Gulel (film)[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) 09:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article now (and neither at the time of creation of the redirect). Apparently, Gulel was an early working title of Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara (at least that's what an earlier version of the article suggests), but a google search (admittedly a very perfunctory one) didn't come up with any reliable sources making the connection. – Uanfala (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I also couldn't find anything to support that connection. There are some sources from around 2003-2009 about an on/off Aparna Sen film project named Gulel, but with no mention in the target article I don't think this is a useful redirect. PC78 (talk) 19:56, 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.

Bobby Jaffers[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) 09:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional character that isn't mentioned in any Wikipedia article. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:35, 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.

Lay Phone[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) 09:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a plausible redirect or alternate form, and I think this form of the name is rather silly and thereby unencyclopedic. As such, and given the lack of substantial edit history, I believe this redirect should be deleted.– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:06, 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.

Energy card[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 31#Energy card

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_17&oldid=909816822"