Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 21, 2019.

Incorrect American city/state pairs[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) 05:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the Reno, Arizona redirect which was nominated for deletion, there has never been a Reno, California, although Reno is close to the CA border. Las Vegas and Los Angeles redirects are even less plausible. With essentially no usage, I think these redirects are a solution searching for a problem. signed, Rosguill talk 20:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The only one of these that is even remotely plausible is Las Vegas, Arizona, given this part of Nevada was briefly part of the Arizona Territory (note it was also part of New Mexico territory at one time). But even then, that is stretching logic. Las Vegas was little more than a meadow used for a rest area for travelers at the time. The city did not come into being until long after it was transferred to Nevada. Dave (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arizona Territory justification would make sense if we had more time travelers from the 19th century using Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 21:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, Las Vegas wasn't founded until 1905 so Las Vegas was never a part of Arizona Territory (except as an anachronism). -- Tavix (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since I made my comment Reno, Utah was added to this list. The same logic applies, while the Reno area was once part of the Utah Territory, Reno was not founded as a city until after it was transferred to Nevada. So that also would only exist as an anacronism. Dave (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all. Besides the fact that they are all obviously incorrect, the previous discussion is a good example of why these redirects can be so misleading. States often have the same or similar names for places and these could easily mean something else. -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as blatantly misleading. All are factually incorrect by any reasonable standard. oknazevad (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Either (for example) Reno, CA does exist, in which case it should have its own article, or it doesn't, in which case it's just misleading (and anyone typing it into the search bar will get "Reno, Nevada" as a result). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. If these places don't exist, keeping these titles as redirects is incorrect and misleading. ComplexRational (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused. Where did all these Redirects come from? Were they all put here by the same person and, if so, why and when? And why isn't that person being considered as a vandal, if indeed it was one person who make all these. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BeenAroundAWhile: the page history is your friend (and conveniently linekd for you with the nomination). These were created by Masumrezarock100. The creation summary indicates that it was created per a request at WP:AFC and so are clearly not vandalism. Looking at the what links here, the reqests are all at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories/2019-05 and appear to have been requested by user:2600:1700:8B60:CA00:882D:590E:ABAC:5BB7 who made a couple of hundred edits on 24 May this year, mostly related to US roads and none (from a random sampling) look like vandalism. Becuase of the way IPv6 addresses are used by ISPs it is almost guaranteed that the same user has made many more contributions from other IP addresses on other days, but it will require someone who understands IP ranges more than I do to say more than that. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BeenAroundAWhile: fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: The IP editor posted more than a hundred redirect requests on WP:AFC/Redirects. I reviewed almost fifty of those thoroughly myself(I always thoroughly look at each of the requests when reviewing redirects). But they kept coming and I kinda created them blindly. I was under the impression that the editor behind the IP address's intentions were good. But it turned out to be like this. I apologize for my carelessness. It won't happen again. Also Delete all of those redirect listed here.Masum Reza📞 21:46, 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.

Northeast Scotland[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 North East Scotland. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage people to clickthrough to the target and look at the map of Scotland showcasing the lowland/highland divide. While Northwest Scotland is essentially all Highland, regions of Scotland that could very plausibly be considered "northeast" are on the lowland side of the divide. signed, Rosguill talk 20:34, 21 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.

Rider 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While there's a clear semantic connection, it's not mentioned in the target, and searching online and on Google Scholar returned no evidence of use. signed, Rosguill talk 18:00, 21 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.

Jove(tribe)[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) 05:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot tell why this was created. It's incorrectly punctuated, and there's no mention on Jaega of Jove being an alternative name. But the redirect has been here since 2007, so wouldn't qualify as R3 now. — Smjg (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Jove" is an alternative spelling of the Spanish pronunciation of "Jobe" [ˈxoβe], the name of a village mentioned by various Spanish sources and by Jonathan Dickinson (he spelled it "Hoe-bay"). It is the source of the name for Hobe Sound, Florida. The village was on the Jupiter Inlet, which name may also be connected with "Jove". Jobe apparently was an important village of the Jaega, but is also mentioned in places as a tribe. I've intended to work on the Jaega article to clarify these things, but haven't gotten around to it. I had found some scholarly articles on the Jaegas/Jobes, but seem to have misplaced them. I'll think about how to clarify the redirects involved here. - Donald Albury 16:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the Jaega article and added mention of Jobe/Jove to the lead (and in the main body). There is an existing redirect named "Jove (tribe)" (with a space), so "Jove(tribe)" should be deleted. - Donald Albury 01:45, 23 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.

Smell receptors[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 Olfactory receptor. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused here. Shouldn't this target Olfactory receptor? Steel1943 (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Olfactory receptor is a closer match, so unless others object in a timely fashion, you should change it. Aeffenberger (talk) 01:19, 23 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.

Smell (sense), Olfactory sense, and other friends[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. MBisanz talk 20:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear on whether these should continue to target their current target or be retargeted to Olfactory system. Steel1943 (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is an important difference between olfaction and the olfactory system, and the pages you've listed here all seem to belong closer to olfaction (the phenomenon) than the page for the organ system. Aeffenberger (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change. I agree with Aeffenberger. To me, the logical target for these redirects is the current one - olfaction. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:36, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_21&oldid=904227836"