Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 26, 2019.

C12H18SNO2[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) 00:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C12H18SNO2 was created by mistake: formula of Aleph (psychedelic) is …H19… not …H18…. There is no molecule in enWiki with formula C12H18SNO2. In addition it should be C12H18NO2S. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If there is no Wikipedia article for any chemical compound that matches this molecular formula, the redirect should be deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:54, 2 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.

Animated Spider-Man[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 Spider-Man in other media. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Animated versions of Spider-Man are not exclusive to films featuring Spider-Man. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 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.

Straplessness[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) 00:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't think we can salvage this outlandish Neelix redirect. Dresses are probably the most common strapped item with strapless variants, but almost anything with a strap could probably be designed strapless (strapless bras showed up in a quick Google search). It's really difficult to imagine a user searching for this. If they did, would they be searching for the target article? Maybe. That's the best I can say. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 2 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.

Difference equation[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) 23:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are difference equations in continuous time or finite difference equations. So recurrence relation and difference equation are not interchangeable --Sharouser (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article has significant content about difference equations and how they related to recurrence relations, so anyone reading this who did not know they are not interchangable will learn this and so won't be confused, whitle those that knew that already also wont be confused. The hatnote to differential equation is also more useful than search results (for those that get to see them) would be. This is without prejudice to writing a separate article about difference equations if you or anyone else so wishes. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:09, 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.

OmniTech Support[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 3#OmniTech Support

Clippers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 5#Clippers

Bd. Behring Anal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 9#Bd. Behring Anal

Football League[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. Withdrawing nomination per comments. Thanks for the clarification. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 17:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague of a search term, could refer to many different leagues. I would recommend deletion, unless someone thinks disambiguation is feasible. signed, Rosguill talk 17:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Football League redirects to English Football League. These are obviously appropriate to me as long as that's the case. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. GiantSnowman 07:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it could refer to many football leagues, but "Football League" typically means the English football league specifically. Not as vague as it seems. SportingFlyer T·C 08:30, 27 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.

≘[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft redirect to wikt:≘. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This symbol does not appear in the target article. Even if it has been used by some authors (citation needed), this symbol does not have any standard meaning. There is therefore no other article for redirecting it. D.Lazard (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or retarget to Correspondence (mathematics). The character (U+2258) does have a standard definition: "CORRESPONDS TO". Binary relation is one of the entries on that disambiguation page but I am cannot say whether it is the most prominent use or not (it's way above my ability level with maths). I'll ping the relevant WikiProject for their input, but individual unicode characters are very useful search terms so should almost always point to an article about either the character or its meaning (if the meaning is ambiguous it should point to a dab page). Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The name of a unicode character is not a source for a definition or the common usage of a symbol. Again, there is no article that provides a meaning for this symbol, and there is no standard meaning for this symbol. This means that every text that uses this symbol must provide a definition, which makes non useful the search for it in Wikipedia. D.Lazard (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget elsewhere: I agree that "≘" is often used for "corresponds to". However, the latter does not have a formal mathematical meaning. It has a meaning in everyday-language which strongly depends on the context of an utterance (such as "30 min ≘ 50 km" when speaking about a train travelling at 100 km/h). It could be retargeted to the general DAB page "Correspondence" (I didn't find a more specific page to retarget there), or to the DAB page "Similarity", or to "Analogy", or to "Proportionality". None of these suggestions is really satisfactory. Imo, the best solution would be to start a page "corresponds to", and to retarget "≘" there. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Retargeting or disambiguating might be acceptable if actual uses are find. Keeping is inappropriate. It isn't used much in mathematics, even if that is the intent. (including Binary relation, Correspondence (mathematics), etc.) is not the most common use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Soft redirect to Wiktionary is acceptable, but I really don't see the need. There is no trace of anything appropriate in the history. "Mathematics: Corresponds to" does not correspond (pun intended) to Correspondence (mathematics) or Correspondence#Mathematics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:≘. This seems pretty cut and try for a soft redirect to Wiktionary. @Arthur Rubin, Jochen Burghardt, Thryduulf, and D.Lazard: Pinging previous participants. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection to redirect to wikt:≘. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good solution. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems best to redirect to wiktionary for the time being, but ultimately we would want to have the symbol described somewhere on wikipedia. Mathematical Operators (an article about the Unicode block) seems like the best place, but at the moment it only lists the symbol inside a table, without providing any information about it. (Incidentally, the table in that article lists a lot of symbols, many of which are redirects with rather generic targets. Anyone want to investigate?) – Uanfala (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep target at Binary relation. Seems to be legit. Compare Wikt:≘ and [1].— the Man in Question (in question) 04:38, 9 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.

Stormi Webster[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. Deryck C. 09:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious violation of WP:NONAME. Launchballer 20:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and mention as a {{R from relative}}. Stormi's name has been widely disseminated so there are no privacy concerns at play here. -- Tavix (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. It also got an average of 10 views per day, so certainly useful. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:08, 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.

Template:Vte[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 Migrate all existing uses of {{Vte}} to {{Navbar}}; Move {{V}} to {{VTE}}; Retarget {{Vte}} to {{VTE}} = {{V}} Deryck C. 09:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to {{v}} This makes more sense since that is what the template ends up looking like. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see any reason to change this and I would not be comfortable supporting any change unless there has been discussion somewhere at {{v}} and/or {{navbar}} that explains the need for this change. This is a redirect from 2013 and both potential targets are protected due to their heavy use. Presumably both exist because they have different uses; if the nominator wants to merge {{v}} and {{navbar}} this is not the proper venue for that discussion. - PaulT+/C 16:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Psantora: Huh? {{v}} is listed as a "Shortcut" template for {{navbar}} in the documentation. It wouldn't be that major of a fix to retarget it. Also, for good reason this redirect was not protected. It's barely been used. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... It seems I may have been a little hyperbolic here. The point I was worried about is that this redirect was made a while ago, it points to a highly-used template, and it is currently in use (though minimally - it looks like only 6 pages/articles use it - Template:Timeline of Holland House, London, Template:Crimean Council changes after 2010 election, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Character Table 1, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Character Table 2, Template:NCAA Season 94 seniors basketball playoffs, and Template:NCAA Season 94 juniors basketball playoffs - other uses look to be transclusions from these pages). My concern is, since it has always pointed to {{navbar}}, that some editors might be surprised by the new target. However, given how similar these two targets are, there probably wouldn't be significant confusion between them (especially since it is highly likely editors using this template would be previewing any changes to make sure they render as expected). Regarding my (probably off-topic) point on merging: I see there has been some previous discussion (2014) on merging {{v}}/{{navbar}} (even some suggestions that {{v}} was created to replace {{navbar}}) and there is also a mention of merging with {{view}} (another listed shortcut) at Template talk:navbarsuperceded by 2017 discussion where they were effectively merged. Anyway, after looking through the specific use cases for these templates, I don't have as much of a concern and have withdrawn my "Keep" !vote above. I would still prefer that more involvement from the people more intimately familiar with these family of templates weigh-in before any changes are made, but I now see that there is a much lower risk for making this change than I had originally feared. - PaulT+/C 19:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)To illustrate the difference(s) between the two proposed targets, see below:
    • Current target - {{navbar}}, {{navbar}}, produces:
      This box:
    • Proposed target - {{v}}, {{v}}, produces:
    • Actual template - {{vte}}, {{vte}}, produces:
      This box:
     - PaulT+/C 20:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with repointing but would prefer existing uses edited to use navbar directly before doing that. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:23, 18 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) 14:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not move {{v}} over the redirect {{vte}}? One-letter names should be reserved for templates that are either frequently used or are common in running article text. I don't see why a niche metatemplate – intended, as fas as I can see, to be used only on other templates, one at a time – should be claiming this short title. – Uanfala (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move {{v}} to {{VTE}} so the name of the template is less cryptic. Keep {{v}} as a shortcut, especially since it's well used at over 458 transclusions. -- Tavix (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In addition to exploring the possibility of moving Template:V to Template:Vte, at the present time, Template:Vte has transclusions that should be resolved prior to changes happening.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment that move is fine with me. I just would prefer seeing this closed soon though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that we should possibly consider moving to {{VTE}} (which is currently a redlink) and notify Template Talk:V of this discussion. This might be due for another relist actually.. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea, {{VTE}} is better than {{Vte}}. I've amended my !vote likewise. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion is trending towards: Migrate all existing uses of {{Vte}} to {{Navbar}}; Move {{V}} to {{VTE}}; Retarget {{Vte}} to {{VTE}} = {{V}}. But editors monitoring Template:V don't seem to have been notified yet, so I'm relisting this once more and posting there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:47, 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.

C19H15ClFNO2[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) 00:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

was created by mistake see the move log. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if it's incorrect. There don't appear to be any suitable retargets. A mere 28 page views in four years shows that it gets very little use anyway. PC78 (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - PC78's page view stat findings show this is not likely a plausible error. It's also presently a double redirect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:33, 28 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.

Alternating Gender Incongruity[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) 00:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a) big issue, b) small: a) Removed as subtopic in both previous target articles per MEDRS, b) wrong case so if/when we do cover the topic it should be lowercase Widefox; talk 10:19, 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.

Tour security[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 9#Tour security

List earthquakes in Morocco[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 R3. Article was created yesterday at this title obviously in error and has been moved. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unuseful Dawnseeker2000 06:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Pointless - if this redirect is deleted, a search on those words will bring up the "List of earthquakes in Morocco" anyway. Mikenorton (talk) 13:51, 27 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.

She dog[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) 20:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at their current target, and if they targeted their previous target and we went back in time about a year, they would have probably been eligible for WP:X1. Steel1943 (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of such. Sounds like a euphemism for bitch when applied to a human, though bitch is an industry standard word for a breedable female dog. You're right, no mention at the target/destination. I vote to delete them. Nomopbs (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, serve no purpose. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete all - disruptive and incorrect creations (pointing to a disambiguation page when a Wiktionary redirect would have been more appropriate), with no information at the current target, and less than 2 pageviews for each (mostly zero). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:21, 27 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_26&oldid=905559390"