Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 13, 2019.

Chairmanic[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) 03:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear how this redirect relates to its target. Most results on third party engines for the redirect return results for company names and horses. Steel1943 (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, a Google search doesn't seem to bring up anything relevant. Also not mentioned in the target article. PC78 (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think it came from this. David Cameron was quoted as saying he believes the role of a European president should be more "chairmanic" than presidential. This is Paul (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; one passing reference by a politician is not enough to support a redirect for a neologism. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've never heard of this, and I don't think it's actually a thing. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I parsed this as "chair+manic" and was might confused, but if This is Paul's supposition is correct the etymology is actually "chairman+-ic". Regardless, the only significant uses I can find that are not quotations of David Cameron or comments about his speech are an Irish race horse that doesn't seem to have won any races (and so would seem unlikely to be notable) and comments about the vice-chairman of the non-notable Dartmoor Gliding Club. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 15 June 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.

Rotating chair[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 27#Rotating chair

Aladdin (upcoming 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) 03:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No longer "upcoming". Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. Not linked from mainspace, no significant page history, no longer valid search terms. PC78 (talk) 23:28, 13 June 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 Kid (upcoming 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) 03:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No longer "upcoming". Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Remove the redirect, keep the wiki page as The Kid (2019 film). Cardei012597 (Cardei012597) 22:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Not linked from mainspace, no significant page history, no longer a valid search term. PC78 (talk) 23:26, 13 June 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.

Delta dust[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) 00:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, unclear connection DannyS712 (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Delta dust is a marketing name of Deltamethrin in the United States. It is simply a redirect for those searching for the product name (instead of the chemical). StevePrutz (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Steveprutz: - do you have proof? starship.paint (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Packaging label: https://cdn.domyown.com/images/thumbnails/582a/582a.jpg.thumb_1024x1024.jpg StevePrutz (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 13 June 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.

Remote location[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. MBisanz talk 20:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, I don't really see the connection, and an internet search of the term mostly returns results about locations that are remote. signed, Rosguill talk 21:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per King of Hearts and Paul above. There are many meanings of the phrase that rely on the remoteness of one thing from another, rather than some generic sense of remoteness. For example, a secure remote location (no article yet), is only remote from where an attack is likely to happen, but might be right next to a populated place unlikely to be targeted. bd2412 T 20:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect may cause confusion and prevents Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. Let's try one more round.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no suitable target exists. There are so many possible meanings that it really doesn't belong here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disamb. That's why we disambiguate these types of pages. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fits the Wiktionary criterion of "non-idiomatic phrase"—i.e., there's no special meaning, and this could refer to any "location" that is "remote". Disambiguation feels like a fool's errand, like packing a title like Warm locale full of pages on climate, weather, the tropics, warm regions, etc. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, given the mixed responses on this RfD I had a good think about creating a disambiguation page to solve the problem, but this phrase simply doesn't have a strong enough individual meaning to find many useful pages to link it to - any disambig page would be a vague combination of useless phrases that sometimes involve "remote locations". A user searching for this would be better served by the search results, flawed as they can be. ~ mazca talk 22:45, 29 June 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.

Trade center[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 28#Trade center

Mahala (Kalesija)[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) 13:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry. The place is mentioned in bs:Kalesija, but there is no article in Bosnian WP. The redirect is called in Kalesija, but its target is thoroughly useless. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with deleting to encourage article creation. Deryck C. 13:23, 25 June 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.

Intergenerational transmission[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. There's appetite for deletion and a lot of unsurety among participants as to what the best target is. -- Tavix (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned anywhere in the target. It's also not mentioned at First language, where this page previously redirected. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created the redirect to First language because I noticed the term was used (and red-linked) in articles about language acquisition. For example, in the article Canadian Gaelic: "The sudden stop of Gaelic intergenerational transmission, caused by shame and prejudice, was the immediate cause of the drastic decline in Gaelic fluency in the 20th century." See the article's "What links here", where four of the articles refer to first language transmission. Perhaps a better redirect would be Language acquisition. Goustien (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the term is broader than just language or violence/child abuse - it is about learned behavior in general. Neither target is really a good one for this term though. It needs its own article (unless there is a similar one out there that I'm not aware of). See this entry at encyclopedia.com or this search. - PaulT+/C 20:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tempted to retarget it to Socialization, the article covering the broadest common denominator. – Uanfala (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned with this suggestion since there's no mention of generations, and socialization can occur within generations too. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with this point. – Uanfala (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential keep with retarget to unspecified article. Is it reasonable to use this term for when a pregnant woman transmits something to her unborn child? I'm thinking crack babies, infants with HIV, etc. But I've read crack baby and haven't noticed any links to articles discussing the transmission of disease from mother to child. If such an article exists, this would be a good redirect there. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)a[reply]
    • That article would be Vertically transmitted infection. But is that ever called "intergenerational transmission"? Looking on google for the intergenerational transmission of disease, I come upon results like these [1] [2] [3], where the phrase still has a mostly social dimension: it's about the transmission of behaviours, practices and risks rather than germs. – Uanfala (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This really feels like one of those ones that's just going to show up at RfD later if we opt for an imperfect retarget. Let's clear the way for an article to be written at the title if appropriate. --BDD (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with BDD here. Deryck C. 13:49, 26 June 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.

Int main[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) 19:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect created by disruptive editor. I never heard of the term. If it really is used somewhere, this one might be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article is full of examples that have lines starting "int main", but it is not the only article to do so (e.g. C syntax also includes some examples beginning this way), so it seems likely that this is a useful search term. I'll alert the Computer science WikiProject as they'll likely be able to identify the most appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Needs a stub article, rather than a misleading redirect. C syntax#Global structure might be a good target if it is not used in languages other than C and C++. MOST of the editor's edits are absurd; this one is less so than most. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The entry point to a C, D or Pike program is defined using code which begins int main, and C# uses similar words. Readers seeing such a snippet may use it as a search term, and the current target describes it well. As C is far more widely used than D or Pike, C syntax#Global structure is also a sensible target. Certes (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to C syntax#Global structure per above. The current target is fine, but the C-family is the main place folks will be looking for in this context, so we might as well be most useful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see int main used as an example several times at the current target and at C syntax, but I don't see it specifically defined, leaving someone like me who is trying to figure out what it means confused. I like the idea of a stub article that Arthur Rubin suggested, because that might offer better clarity than what's currently there, and am fine with this being WP:REDLINKED in the meantime. -- Tavix (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the newly proposed target doesn't explain it well enough, speaking as someone who is fairly comfortable coding in C. signed, Rosguill talk 06:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not an encyclopedia subject and it could lead to redirects for int main (void) and thousands of other similar things. DexDor (talk) 05:35, 19 June 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.

Iterative for loop[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 For loop. This is a rough consensus, but the default keep of a "no consensus" decision would not seem to please anyone. --BDD (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem appropriate or helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to For loop which mentions iteration in the first sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. "Foreach" is a particular type of NON-iterative loop. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the lead of Foreach loop claims that it is sometimes called an iterative for-loop but I've never heard the term and can't find sources for it. A for loop is equally iterative. The term seems tautologous: what would a non-iterative for loop do? Certes (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A foreach loop could be parallel, rather than iterative. In any case, programmers are not allowed to depend on the order of execution, even if there can't be two executions operating simultaneously in different threads. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 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.

Copyvio[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) 00:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion recommended. Based on a random sampling, most if not all of the uses of this redirect actually intended WP:Copyvio. The equivalent all upper-case COPYVIO had the same issue and was recently deleted at RDF. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 2#COPYVIO. TJRC (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is already a hatnote on Copyright infringement directing users to WP:Copyvio so a redirect seems entirely appropriate and will help people find what they need. PC78 (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PC78. The current target clearly explains our jargon for someone who doens't know what it means and links to the Wikipedia page that others will be looking for. Deletion would hinder both groups of people without benefiting anyone. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful enough especially considering that's the term we all use. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; We really want to keep even where it's almost universally used in error, where WP:COPYVIO was intended? TJRC (talk) 20:02, 17 June 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.

Virginia Giuffre[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) 00:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. While I suspect that this is likely Virginia Roberts's current name, if it's not relevant enough to mention in the article it's not necessary to have a redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 05:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:54, 13 June 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.

Reunion Day[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. Deryck C. 12:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was fixing the links on Ron Haddrick. A link that was meant to go to Reunion Day (TV movie) went to Public holidays in Denmark. Shouldn't this be a disambiguation page? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reunion Day, meaning the national day in Denmark, has two links. Reunion Day (TV movie) has four. I would say neither is a clear primary meaning, so probably converting the redirect to a disambig page would be appropriate. And a new redirect Reunion Day (Denmark) should be created, pointing to the same target as the current redirect, and the two Denmark-related articles modified to use that link. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that assessment, but I just wanted consensus first. If no one comments in the next few days, I'll just go ahead and do it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig I've drafted a disambiguation page (while MJL was writing their comment above) and created the Reunion Day (Denmark) redirect (although I've not retargetted anything to it). If anyone knows of an article about public holidays and/or national days in Réunion then that would make a good see also but I wasn't able to find anything on a quick look. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: Bastille/National Day according to that publicholdidays.africa. Maybe that would work? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but our Bastille Day article doesn't mention Réunion at all. I have found the Réunion Island day gecko is sometimes called the "Réunion day gecko" though so I'll add that. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a bit of a trap. Despite having both words in its name, "Réunion Island day gecko" is really "Réunion Island" + "day gecko", and you wouldn't really shorten both of them and come up with just "Réunion day". Worth a see-also, though. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 14 June 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.

Fremont Police Station[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) 16:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target doesn't mention Fremont (or its police) in any capacity. From comparing the map on the target page and on Fremont, California, it seems that Fremont is entirely outside of OPD's jurisdiction signed, Rosguill talk 17:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Apple Maps search results, there's no streets named Fremont in Oakland. My guess for why this was created is that Fremont and Oakland are both in Alameda County, so the creator may have assumed that their police departments are connected. Searching online, it doesn't seem that there is any place at all titled "Fremont Police Station" signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then I recommend deleting unless there are articles about the police departments (which there aren't) of multiple places named "Fremont". ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:21, 13 June 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.

Single-letter WikiProject abbreviations[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 per WP:SNOW, without prejudice against individual nomination of any for which there are specific problems. -- Tavix (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many WikiProjects beginning with any particular letter. For example, there are also WikiProjects for Alabama, Articles for creation, and Aviation. Even for J we also have Jamaica and Jordan. (My first guess for N would have been WikiProject Notability, by analogy of WP:N.) Perhaps a disambiguation page may be appropriate, like WP:WPI and WP:WPL. Not every letter is covered because some do not correspond to existing pages (e.g. WP:WPG) or go elsewhere (e.g. WP:WPS). And then there's WP:WPX, which goes to the WikiProject simply named "X". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:WPM. WikiProject Mathematics is quite active, and its frequent current use on talk pages (300+ uses of the WP: abbreviation and another 600+ of the WT: abbreviation) indicates that the abbreviation is often used by editors to save typing. What useful thing would deleting its abbreviation accomplish? No opinion on the others. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Once these abbreviations have been defined and used (e.g. in discussions - either linked or unlinked) then deleting/retargeting/dabifying them may cause confusion and inconvenience. WikiProject Aviation, for example, has WP:AV so doesn't need WP:WPA. It may be possible to argue that a particular redirect should be changed from a small/dead wikiproject to an important wikiproject that can't otherwise find a suitable shortcut, but I'm not seeing that argument here. DexDor (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per both of the above, oppose deletion in any cases (like WP:WPM) where the project is active. For other cases (e.g., WP:WPN), I don't care. --JBL (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: In the absence of a convincing proposal to make better use of the WP:WPx redirect space. Admittedly there are more than 26 projects that might be contenders for WP:WPA through WP:WPZ. In other words, not every wikiproject would be able to enjoy a shortcut in that series. But that isn't a good argument to use none of them. Some wikiprojects use dedicated redirects that are not part of the single-letter series, for example WP:ISLAM. If that project could use a single-letter redirect it might be accessed as WP:WPI. But the word ISLAM has only five letters. The WPA-WPZ series is especially helpful to save typing of long project names. For instance, we could use WP:MATHEMATICS as a redirect to get to the math wikiproject but that is way longer than WP:WPM. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be happy to delete or retarget some of these as they aren't necessarily intuitive and could clearly refer to other things: surely the most obvious target for Wikipedia:WPB would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography? Some may have more merit than others though. PC78 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia:WPO, Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera is a very active and long-running project (founded in 2004), and hundreds of links would be broken. And per DexDor and David Eppstein keep all existing shortcuts for active projects. Voceditenore (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except those, if any, for which there is a specific problems (no specific problem is mentioned). For the case of WPM, it seems that only two projects whose name begin by M have a single word name: Mathematics (abbreviated M) and Map (abbreviated MAP, which is short and clear). The other projects are abbreviated by the acronym of their name. So no confusion arise. Moreover, it seems that abbreviations are used only by experimented users and members of the project (in fact they are often difficult to find for new users; personally, I have edited several years before finding them). So keeping the present abbreviations do not cause any harm. On the other hand, changing them would we highly troublesome — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Lazard (talk • contribs) 17:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all active projects per Voceditenore, whose views I thoroughly endorse.--Smerus (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree - keep for all active projects per Voceditenore - kosboot (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TRAINWRECK. LaundryPizza03, I strongly recommend withdrawing this. Then, proceed with individual nominations where it might still be appropriate. There's no way you're going to get blanket consensus to delete them all here. --BDD (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All per multiple other arguments presented here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:35, 13 June 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.

European Parliament election, 2019 (Untied Kingdom)[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 criterion G7 by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need to keep a redirect for an obvious typo. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:41, 13 June 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_June_13&oldid=1138582722"