Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 23, 2019.

Lit' Darlin'[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 11#Lit' Darlin'

Vetlehamar[edit]

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

Italy 2026[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 7#Italy 2026

Rindern[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 retarget to Emmerich am Rhein. Consensus has been reached between the nominator and the creator of the redirect. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 22:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target or in the much longer corresponding deWiki and nlWiki articles. signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill - I'm now not sure why I redirected it in that way. I would support deletion or changing the redirect to a more suitable target. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
StudiesWorld how about targeting it at Emmerich am Rhein, which mentions Elten and is its municipality. signed, Rosguill talk 21:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: That sounds good to me. Thanks, StudiesWorld (talk) 22:25, 23 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.

A Filipino Pilgrimage to Medjugorje[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) 02:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target or in its references. It was originally created with the justification Redirect for the 1988 documentary produced by Troika Video and aired on ABS-CBN in March 1988, but I can't find any trace of this documentary online (or anything else by this title, other than an actual location called Medjugorje which people make pilgrimages to). signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete might be an obscure or early work. Google books and Google searches lead back to wikipedia. --Lenticel (talk) 01:11, 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.

Pigû[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) 02:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target, nor in any of its sources, no pageviews, and no meaningful results from an internet search. signed, Rosguill talk 21:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I can't find any evidence at all that this is a legitimate alternative name. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 12:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. My research also brings up exactly nothing relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 24 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.

Moskvo[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) 02:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge there's no significant connection between Moscow and Esperanto, meaning that this should be deleted per WP:FORRED signed, Rosguill talk 21:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: What if the Esperantists entered to the English Wikipedia instead of Esperanto Wikipedia by mistake? Be kind! —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 04:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. @Soumya-8974: I encourage you to read WP:FORRED as it explains why we don't keep redirects from foreign language titles in most circumstances. While Moskvo might be unambiguous, someone searching for it will be expecting to find an article in Esperanto but they wont find that. In other cases it would be ambiguous, an Esperanto speaker would expect Esto to take them to the equivalent of Being (rather than a dab page for places in Florida and Kentucky), but a Finnish speaker would be expecting the equivalent of cognitive inhibition or block (Internet), an Ido speaker would want East and a Spanish speaker determiner. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What about Varsovio? —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 06:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I approved that one because Warsaw is the birthplace of Esperanto and thus has some special significance for the language. signed, Rosguill talk 16:28, 26 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.

Emerald Sea[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 11#Emerald Sea

Uomo Qualunque Front[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 7#Uomo Qualunque Front

Codename: Kids Next Door (franchise)[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 with no consensus for The Powerpuff Girls. If someone is able to create a franchise article, that would resolve the problem. -- Tavix (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to the same title without the added qualifier, hence superfluous. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... I am aware they are franchises. The point is whether there is any use in having a redirect named "XXX (Y)" if the article exists at "XXX". E.g., we wouldn't want or need Chicken (bird). As far as I know, articles with names that include unnecessary qualifiers are routinely moved to the unqualified version, and I have never seen a redirect for a superfluous qualifier established de novo. So are these just dealt with by adding the above template? (actual question - I don't come in here much) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh... nice demonstration; I see Chicken (bird) actually exists. Still strikes me as pointless to create these, but apparently not an issue. Feel free to close then. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:28, 23 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.

Tropical Storm Chantal (2013 Storm)[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) 00:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created by mistake and was subsequently merged into its current target, should be deleted per WP:G6. The inclusion of the word "storm" in the disambiguator seems to be an error as well. Properly titled redirect Tropical Storm Chantal (2013) already exists. CycloneYoris talk! 06:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per {{R from merge}}. It's not the most likely search term, but it's not incorrect so isn't causing any harm where it is. Thryduulf (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but no need to tag as {{R from merge}} as no content appears to have been merged into the target. This redirect doesn't appear to be problematic. PC78 (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You both seem to be missing the point, there is already one redirect: Tropical Storm Chantal (2013) which is used for this storm, to have yet another redirect for such a weak and unremarkable storm is unnecessary and could be potentially confusing for some readers; plus adding the word "Storm" to the disambiguator e.g. (2013) is completely redundant since the title "Tropical Storm Chantal" clearly indicates that this is, in fact, a storm. CycloneYoris talk! 22:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because one redirect exists doesn't mean that other redirects are unnecessary, even if they're similar (and even if it did, "unnecessary" is not a reason to delete a redirect). I'm not sure why you think this would be confusing? Is there any evidence it has confused anyone in the past ~6 years? Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could become confusing for some readers since most tropical storms (and hurricanes) only have one redirect that points to them, except if they cause a lot of damage and are notable. However, that still doesn't change the fact that the title is redundant and potentially WP:UNHELPFUL. CycloneYoris talk! 02:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's just more theoretical potential confusion for a very small class of readers, not evidence of actual confusion happening to actual readers. If someone uses this redirect it helps them, if someone doesn't use it then they're not going to be aware of it and it can't confuse them, and so there is no scenario in which it is actually unhelpful. Once again "redundancy" is not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 27 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.

Vitamin M[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 Folate. Consensus is that folate is the primary topic. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has redirected to Folate for a while, but someone recently changed it to Money and I don't think it fits for this name. Should we retarget back to Folate, or delete? Colgatepony234 (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • restore redirect to Folate as this (or Folic acid, but that's a redirect to Folate) is the overwhelming primary topic and is mentioned in the article. There are plenty of reliable sources to say that Riboflavin was also suggested to be Vitamin M, this is not mentioned in our article, but it probably merits a hatnote at Folate. Calling money "Vitamin M" (for being essential for life in the modern world) is sourceable but not really to mainstream reliable sources (yet?) afaict, and I can't find any discussion of it on Wikipedia. If there is anywhere that discusses it, then it can be linked in a hatnote. I'll alert WikiProject Medicine to this discussion, particularly for their take on Riboflavin. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Folate as above and as former name, still referred to in a bunch of books and journals. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:16, 23 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.

Βigipedia[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) 02:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the first one, the B is a Greek beta. For the second and third, the first letter is a Cyrillic A. For the last one, the "e"s are Latin, but the rest is Cyrillic.HotdogPi 00:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. I have created an appropriate all-Cyrillic redirect Северна Косовска Митровица in the last case, after cleaning up a mixed-script translation at the article. And the existing redirect also has a Latin ⟨p⟩ and ⟨a⟩ in the first word. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The first and last get no significant uses. At first glance the middle two do, but on further investigation "АHA" is used primarily in Cyrillic language contexts (not useful for en.wp readers) or for "АHA-may"/"Аha-may", a Russian band we don't have an article on (at first glance they don't appear notable). Uses of "АNT-58" seem to be mainly in 19th century books (presumably scannoes), derived from this redirect or (most oddly) derived from a page on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. None of these are useful. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Shouldn't be using mixed Greek / Cyrillic unless it is really is specific to the language, but these aren't. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:17, 23 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_23&oldid=910304757"