Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 19, 2019.

The one with the whales[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) Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a search engine, plus this is a extremely vague redirect- it could refer to plenty of things. It also should be noted that the only thing that comes up when I search for this exact phrase on Google is a completely unrelated book, and a post on the Star Trek subreddit discussing the existence... of this redirect. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dunno, a Google search for me brings up 14 pages of results, while Google News has four pages. Almost all of them seem to be for the Star Trek film. PC78 (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is not US/UK, at least as far as I can tell in the UK, it's whether you search for the exact phrase ("The one with the Whales") which gets me nearly all Star Trek related results, or just all of the words (The one with the Whales) that brings up almost no Star Trek references. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep. All of the first 40 hits on google for me are either about Star Trek IV, references to it (e.g. "Whales can now be tracked from space. This is not a repeat from Star Trek IV: The One with the Wales" [1]) or allusions to it, e.g. [2]. Other than one result talking about this redirect - and that discussion itself is a reason to keep, because it shows there are external links to this redirect that would be unnecessarily broken. There is nothing else competing with the target for use of the phrase, let alone anything that comes close to competing for primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not Jeopardy. Redirects shouldn't be ad-hoc definitions or descriptions, even if they're common. That is the function and purpose of a search engine, not an encyclopedia. This Reddit thread even seems to exist for the very reason that it seems absurd that Wikipedia has such a redirect. However, there are instances where the phrase "The One With the Whales" is used not simply descriptively, but as a phrase of significance unto itself: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and I'm sure many more. Just because a phrase is in use, or even commented on, that does not, in my assessment, merit a redirect; but as these sources are so consistent in their phrasing, and as there is clearly not simply a familiarity with the phrase suggested in these sources, but in fact a warm-hearted sense of attachment to the phrase expressed, that implies (to me) that the phrase is more than just an easy and common nonce way to refer to the film—and therefore that it's a redirect probably worth keeping. (Not that sentiment merits a redirect, but that widespread sentimentality doesn't tend to exist for things that aren't really things.) — the Man in Question (in question) 08:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thank you to the above editors for the up-to-date research. The justification for this redirect, as stated on its talk page, was recorded at Talk:Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home#"The one with the whales". – Fayenatic London 13:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the redirect does have a point. The target is one of the better films of the franchise, but its title is not memorable; people remember much more the fact that whales were central to the plot, so the nominated phrase is actually useful in conversation. – Fayenatic London
  • Keep. Seems to be a set phrase with one specific referent, and I think the fact people are joking warmly about the redirect probably speaks in favour of its utility (as The Man in Question points out). A little silly but basically harmless. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 14:55, 21 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.

1000th millennium and others[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 7#1000th millennium and others

Em engine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 7#Em engine

Fourth Empire[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Reich" can be translated as empire, but the Nazis are hardly the only group to have multiple numbered empires (hypothetical or otherwise). This is too vague for a redirect, given that "Fourth Empire" doesn't appear to be used in sources discussing a Fourth Reich signed, Rosguill talk 22:23, 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) 18:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Thryduulf. Geolodus (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig as above. Off the top of my head I thought of Daniel too, and George Rawlinson's famous (in its time) book series about the "great oriental monarchies" or "empires", where the fourth is Babylonia. Fifth Empire seems to have an overwhelmingly common specific meaning in historiography, but that doesn't look to be the case for Fourth Empire. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 15:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment I have no objection to a disambiguation if someone wants to draft one. signed, Rosguill talk 15:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I started a draft after some research. As it turns out there are much fewer fourth empires than you might expect—I think the only two plausible real-world targets are the kingdoms of Daniel—which represent the overwhelming majority of references to a "fourth empire", in both historiographic and religious literature—and the Fourth British Empire. At the moment Historiography of the British Empire only mentions the concept of a Fourth British Empire once in a quote, but there seems to be a fairly wide range of usage in recent literature (e.g. [10], [11]). There do seem to be a few sources using "Fourth Empire" for the "Fourth Reich" so that could potentially be kept as an item. Rome could be listed as the traditional meaning of the Danielic usage. Other plausible options (like "Fourth Persian Empire") seem to be very rare and ambiguous. Haven't added the fictional ones Thryduulf pointed out yet. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 22:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just added the fictional uses Thryduulf mentioned. Geolodus (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I also added Rome and Fourth Reich per my comment above (for a [weak] RS example of the latter [12]). —Nizolan (talk · c.) 13:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - Keep as a disambiguation page rather than as a single redirect, —PaleoNeonate – 00:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why has no one closed this discussion yet? It has been almost two weeks now since the relisting. Geolodus (talk) 10:43, 4 August 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.

Thai peoples[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 7#Thai peoples

Resident evil movies, games, and books[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 7#Resident evil movies, games, and books

Fancy food[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 7#Fancy food

Østen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 7#Østen

Hannibal (2006)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 7#Hannibal (2006)

Raccoon Forest[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) 00:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The word "forest" is not mentioned in the article, and this could probably be easily confused for "raccoons that live in forests". ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure that there's any legitimate cause for such confusion. This page has existed since 2005, it was originally an article which was merged to Raccoon City which was in turn redirected to Resident Evil. I don't think it's necessarily useful, but I also don't think it's particuarly harmful either. PC78 (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pedantically, "Raccoon Forest" sounds more like a forest with raccoons than a raccoon that lives in a forest. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if there's no coverage then the redirect should not exist, doesn't matter how unambiguous it is. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not specified in franchise article or any particular video game. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:15, 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.

Draft:List of Mercy NY people[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 speedy delete per WP:G8. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a list article that was deleted at AFD. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:23, 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.

YouTube (YT)[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) 18:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary disambiguation with virtually no usage. signed, Rosguill talk 14:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are redirects like United Kingdom (UK) still existent? It's not really fair if redirects due to unneccesary disambiguation made a long time ago like United Kingdom (UK) should be kept but those by me recently should be deleted. Barracuda41 (talk) 16:45, 21 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.

Simonov Monastery of the Dormition of the Theotokos[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 speedy keep. Nomination was in error, didn't realize that "Успенский" meant "dormition" and machine translations of the word failed. Withdrawing. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 14:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the Dormition of the Theotokos in the target article, couldn't find it in the ruWiki article either (although I could have missed it, not sure what the exact translation is). signed, Rosguill talk 13:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be an issue, for example article on ruWiki clearly states the Dormition dedication (Успенский собор; собор Успения Пресвятой Богородицы). Sorabino (talk) 13:18, 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.

Λ2[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) 00:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Lambda 2" is far too vague of a redirect to point here. Unclear why this was accepted as a redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (or maybe disambiguate). Looks problematic to me, partly because it could refer to several other articles, but also because a Google search for "Λ2" doesn't seem to bring up anything relevant to the game. PC78 (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A very unlikely search term. As far as I know, not used that way for HL2. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:56, 20 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.

Interstate 113[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) 00:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof of an actual, official proposal for an I-113. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment [13] notes that this was the originally proposed number for the road that was built as I680. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not exist. Proposed routes are not the same as actual routes and should be treated as footnotes, not actualities. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete kurumi.com is a self-published source and is not suitable as a reference for Wikipedia articles. This shouldn't even be included as a footnote (i.e. a trivial reference) in the target article without a better source. -happy5214 22:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—unneeded and essentially unsourced. Imzadi 1979 → 13:19, 20 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.

Interstate 109[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) 00:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof of an actual, official proposal for an I-109. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 07:20, 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.

Interstate 106 (California)[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) 00:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof of any actual, official proposal for an I-106. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The redirect Interstate 106 should be deleted, as well. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [15] notes that this number was proposed for what became Interstates 105 and 110. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no I-106. There's no I-6. I'm wondering if I-106 was a typo somewhere along the line when somebody meant to write I-105. pbp 12:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Purplebackpack89: if you read the source I linked you'll find that this is not a typo, it is the number proposed by California but rejected by the DOT. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the source is to be believed (and its footnotes are dead links, FWIW), this route only existed on paper for a few months. Also, the source suggests that this isn't the current 110 that was originally proposed as 106, but the original I-110 (now a spur of I-10 between I-5/I-10 and US-101) and the original I-105 (now an extension of US-101) pbp 13:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not arguing this is a good redirect (of the Interstate redirects listed today this is certainly the weakest), I just object to redirects being deleted for reasons that are incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not exist. Proposed routes are not the same as actual routes and should be treated as footnotes, not actualities. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WashuOtaku: It does exist - just not with this number. It the proposed number for a route that got built with a different one, not a proposed route. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Thryduulf: Basically confirming the fact it does not exist. I-106 is a footnote for I-105/I-110 and should not be mistaken as something that was at any point in time real. We cannot setup a redirect for every proposed route that was thought up and never made it past the drawing board. --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both per my argument on Interstate 113 above. -happy5214 22:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both—unneeded and essentially unsourced. Imzadi 1979 → 13:20, 20 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.

Interstate 102[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) 00:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof of an actual, official proposal for I-102. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment [16] notes that this was the originally proposed number for what is now I-102. I'm also seeing google results relating to Virginia, but nothing that immediately makes sense. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not exist. Proposed routes are not the same as actual routes and should be treated as footnotes, not actualities. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my argument on Interstate 113 above. -happy5214 22:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—unneeded and essentially unsourced. Imzadi 1979 → 13:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The redirect Interstate 102 (California) should also be deleted. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 15:25, 21 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.

MrAristotle[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 speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW keep, it seems clear that the redirect will again be kept. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Implausible search term. This redirect has an interesting history (see the old nom), but as it does not actually have history itself and is not the original article referenced, it seem totally unnecessary and unuseful. Wikipedia can only be so self-referential. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the previous discussion as nothing has changed since then. The fact that this has been a blue link since the days of CamelCase means that there are almost certainly links from external sites that would be unnecessarily broken - it is our duty as responsible net citizens to avoid creating link rot, and this is the perfect example of such. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as anyone who's read the page history and the old nomination knows exactly why this must be kept. Nyttend (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Larry Sanger has publicly referred to this ancient Wikipedia formulation, the original CamelCase version for the article Aristotle on Wikipedia, which should be plenty of reason for keeping. It is a tip of the hat to our heritage as Wikipedians. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 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.

Aristutalis[edit]

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

Gebäudekomplex Gallileo[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 Gallileo (skyscraper). --BDD (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have no reference in article, and is a mispelling of Galileo. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am seeing plenty of google hits for this exact spelling, but all of them are in German so WP:FORRED would apply even if this were the correct target (which seems unlikely as "Gebäudekomplex" translates as "building complex" so it's almost certainly something named after the person). Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to its original target, Gallileo (skyscraper) (which has been since moved). —Kusma (t·c) 18:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget per Kusma. I can't see why a human would have retargeted it to Galileo Galilei (the retargeting was done by a bot after a pagemove), because the current target indeed doesn't make any sense. Good work, Kusma, tracking down the history; otherwise I'd be supporting deletion. Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should fix the underlying problem, which is that the primary topic for Gallileo should be the skyscraper, not the misspelling of the scientist. Those who misspell should have to click the hatnote instead of making it hard for the people who actually want to navigate to the page about the building... —Kusma (t·c) 08:05, 22 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.

Africian raga[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. czar 20:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful misspelling, no reference in article. The article Africian Raga was deleted in 2015. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a misspelling of "African raga", but that phrase does not appear anywhere in article space so whether it is a plausible misspelling or not we don't need to consider as there is no suitable target for it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 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.

Ludwig van[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) Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A first name and half a last name do not make a helpful redirect. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep due to the well-known references in A Clockwork Orange (both the novel and the movie). See Q:A Clockwork Orange (film). - Eureka Lott 05:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What would the argument be for that being well-known as opposed to fancruft? Will anyone be searching "Ludwig van" hoping to find Ludwig van Beethoven rather than List of Nadsat terms or similar? — the Man in Question (in question) 06:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Potentially someone could have read/heard the name in A Clockwork Orange without knowing who it actually was and decided to look him up on Wikipedia. M.Clay1 (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EurekaLott and M.Clay. There are lots of references to this that assume you know who is being referred to but not everyone will. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Beethoven is the primary topic for "Ludwig van" pbp 12:33, 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.

Zigi Frojd[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) 00:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be nonsense. If it is from another language, then WP:FORRED. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FORRED - this does get a little bit of use, but only in Albanian or Bosnian/Serbian contexts and even then it seems informal. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for identifying the Albanian/Serbian/Bosnian association. — the Man in Question (in question) 08:22, 20 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.

Ledi Gaga[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 5#Ledi Gaga

Michaël Jackson[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) 00:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michaël is French. WP:FORRED. Unlikely search term. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:46, 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.

Mary Magdalen, Saint[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. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. Mary Magdalen is a redirect in its own right. Not a proper use of {{R from sort name}}. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:45, 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.

Sófocles[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) 00:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish. WP:FORRED. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:20, 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.

Archimedes scientific achievements[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 7#Archimedes scientific achievements

The Great Lenardo[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) 00:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling in what is already a questionable redirect title. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:18, 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.

You Kant Do That On Television[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) 00:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, WP:SURPRISE. A bit of an odd redirect history for this one. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find any obvious connection between the original target, You Can't Do That on Television (a Canadian sketch comedy TV programme) and the philosopher. However, given that the programme (1979-1990) long pre-dates the internet it's entirely possible that they did a sketch about him that is difficult to find. It does seem to be the title of a Professor Hobo comic [17] and loads of one-off puns, but nothing we have content about. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 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.

Steve Mobbs[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 List of recurring The Simpsons characters#Steve Mobbs. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Simpsons parody of Steve Jobs. If there was a page dedicated to Simpsons parodies, it would be an appropriate redirect there; in its absence, it should be deleted. Retarget to List of recurring The Simpsons characters#Steve Mobbs per Tavix. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:17, 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.

The Steve[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) 00:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible search term. Because of its generalness (many Steves, famous and otherwise, are probably called "the Steve"), it has also been the repeated (3×) subject of vandalism. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can find no evidence that he was particularly known as "The Steve", let alone more so any anyone else. Vandalism is never a reason to delete a redirect though - that's what protection is for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not mention the vandalism as a reason for deletion; I mentioned it to demonstrate that "The Steve" has any number of vague associations, as seen in the specific acts of vandalism. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:01, 20 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.

Jose Stalin[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) 00:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish. WP:FORRED. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:15, 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.

Paul mc cartney[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 5#Paul mc cartney

J. S. Back[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who is comfortable enough to know to abbreviate his name 'J. S.' surely also knows how to spell his name. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I don't remember making the redirect eight years ago, but I likely either searched for it or followed a red link. What's the point of deleting these redirects? M.Clay1 (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' this is a perfectly plausible homonym error that will be made by someone who has heard the name but doesn't know or doesn't remember how it is spelled. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pbp 12:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • N.b., I checked for notable people with this name, and we don't see to have any. See Back (disambiguation)#People. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bach is commonly pronounced here in the United States with a hard “c” sound at the end. Therefore it’s very possible for this error to be typed in the search bar. There is virtually zero point in deleting this and I would strongly suggest that The Man in Question withdraw this nomination. —Zingarese talk · contribs 18:36, 20 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.

Coprenician system[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) 00:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Double misspelling (-pre- and -ician) to DAB page. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is not a misspelling that is commonly used. Excluding those that most probably originate on Wikipedia I can see only two uses of "Coprenician system" - an Amazon book review and a blog post (and I'm not certain those are independent of each other). "Coprenician" on its own adds only one more hit - another blog post (although that is independent of the first two). Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 22 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.

Saul/Paul of Tarsus[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) 00:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not the stuff of redirects, not a useful search term. No Paul Hewson/Bono or Jacob/Israel. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:14, 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.

Joan off arc[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) 00:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. Let's not set a precedent allowing all "ofs" to be "offs". What a nightmare that would be. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per all, strong PANDORAing here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but explicitly without any creation of precedent - even if one discussion could do that (which it can't), each redirect needs to be evaluated on its own merits. That this is not a good redirect does not imply that other instances of "off" used for "of" are good or bad. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 20 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.

Mis'ess Thatcher[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) 00:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unlikely typo. Delete. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a typo, it's a non-standard spelling of "Mrs Thatcher" - the Mrs article notes "It is rare for Mrs to be written in a non-abbreviated form, and the unabbreviated word lacks a standard spelling. [...] A variant in the works of Thomas Hardy and others is "Mis'ess", reflecting its etymology.". However, I can find no evidence that this spelling is commonly used these days and no evidence that it has ever been used to refer to the former British prime minister. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete might also be derogatory/non-neutral (c.f. "missy" et al.) if I'm not mistaken. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:02, 20 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.

Pope Francus[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) 00:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. Probably a mock-Latin joke on Pope Frank. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:09, 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.

Catherine great[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 2#Catherine great

Äpfel[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 speedy keep per WP:SK point 3 "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the [page] in question." Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German word for "apples". WP:FORRED. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep — did you even look at the page? The actual target is Apfel, and how is this not a plausible redirect for that page? Nyttend (talk) 11:14, 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.

His Steveness[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 2#His Steveness

Che Güevara[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 5#Che Güevara

John f k[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 2#John f k

King who had six wives[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 2#King who had six wives

Overcoat pistol[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 Queen Anne pistol. --BDD (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, an internet search would suggest that "overcoat pistol" can (also?) refer to styles of pistol that predated the Derringer. I'm open to this being redirected somewhere more appropriate, but I'm not currently aware of any obvious targets and thus would suggest deletion unless someone can provide a better target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added note: I just came across Duelling pistol, which includes the following text Traveling pistols, also known as overcoat pistols, were intended for use by travelers to protect themselves from highwaymen and footpads; unlike dueling pistols, they were commonly rifled.. So, it would appear that this article has information about the subject (note that Derringer also fails to mention traveling pistols), but it's primarily about another topic. I'm thinking that the most appropriate solution is likely to expand Overcoat or Travelling pistol into an article of its own, but I lack the sources and domain knowledge to do that myself. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The boxlock overcoat pistol or muff pistol was the 18th century precursor to the deringer. It was a large calibre flintlock pistol with a short barrel designed for concealment. Retarget to Queen Anne pistol. 53zodiac (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to this retarget proposal. signed, Rosguill talk 19:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirect wasn't tagged for most of the discussion period.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirect was prematurely changed and untagged by 53zodiac.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just retarget to Queen Anne pistol, and stop wasting my time. 53zodiac (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't this discussion been closed yet? Nobody else has commented after almost two weeks, and there are no objections to my proposed retarget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 53zodiac (talk • contribs) 19:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Queen Anne pistol is certainly an option. But, as often, I think there may be a can of worms here. Rosguill mentioned the coverage at Duelling pistol, which links to Holster pistol—that redirects to Pistoleer#British horse pistol. How much do "Overcoat pistol" and "Holster pistol" refer to specific pistols versus pistols simply kept in those places? I'll notify WikiProject Firearms for feedback. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holster pistols are much larger and heavier than overcoat pistols because they were designed for military use. They fire standard musket size bullets, have an external hammer, are muzzle loaders, and are usually full stocked for maximum durability. Overcoat pistols are small for easy concealment, are usually loaded at the breech, typically have a box lock, and are made entirely from metal except for the handgrips. The picture below shows the difference. The holster pistol is at the top, the overcoat pistol is in the middle, and the muff pistol or vest pocket pistol is at the bottom. 53zodiac (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Horse pistol, overcoat pistol and muff pistol
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_July_19&oldid=909820627"