Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 4, 2019.

¬[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 14#¬

Top kek[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:Top kek. Deryck C. 10:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Top kek is an obscure cake brand sometimes credited as being the etymology for kek as a meme word. The target has kek as an entry, but it doesn't mention top kek, so that's confusing. -- MrHumanPersonGuy (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Redirect per MJL, top kek. starship.paint (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary per others. This is a plausible search term, but hardly notable enough for a mention in Wikipedia, hence why I consider Wiktionary redirecting to be the best option. Geolodus (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need redirects of any sort for unencyclopeadic slang. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have many other redirects from unencyclopedic search terms though: because they are plausible. I don't see how this case is different; "top kek" is quite frequently used online. Geolodus (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"ROFL" and "LMAO" have mentions in an article: "top kek" doesn't. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:21, 11 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.

Radio Shanghai[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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, an internet search would suggest that other stations use this name too signed, Rosguill talk 01:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that website makes me think that a redirect to Shanghai Media Group would be more appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 21:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Rosguill, what are you asking for? "Please delete this"? "Please let me turn this into a WP:DAB page"? "Please edit the target article"? Something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As of when I wrote that, I was open to either deletion or disambiguation, and ultimately felt like I lack the domain knowledge to know which is appropriate without a discussion. Based on the prompt from WQL above, I'm now thinking redirect may be more appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 21:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like there are similarly problematic redirects to List of Chinese-language radio stations for "Radio [City]". Terms like this suggest a specific station of that name. If Shanghai Media Group operations a station or program called "Radio Shanghai", redirecting there would be fine, though it should also be mentioned there, or we'll just confuse or mislead readers. Consider who is likely to search for this term and what they'll be looking for. --BDD (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment (since I can't ping within the template): Deryck Chan, would you be able to help? -- Tavix (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep unless we can find a competing target (in that case, disambiguate or point to more prominent target). I think "Radio [placename]" ought to be blue-links as long as there are any radio stations in that place. Deryck C. 20:18, 4 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.

ХхьӀв[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 14#ХхьӀв

Urdu languages[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) 21:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing as "Urdu languages". The redirect was created by a user as part of a series of edits (of a CIR type) to the category structure, where it was clear they took that to be a synonym for Hindi languages (the reasoning probably coming from the fact that Hindi and Urdu are in a way the same language). A bit more plausibly, the phrase can be took to refer to the varieties described at Urdu#Dialects, but these aren't languages and I don't think anyone would dream of calling them such. Overall, this is a redirect from a non-existent term that could be mistaken, with equal implausibility, for either of two things. WP:XY. – Uanfala (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Quite aside from any technicalities about the nature of Urdu, the redirect is worthless, because there is already a redirect from Urdu language to Urdu. Having typed in "Urdu language" and gotten a live link, why would anyone go on to add an "s"? Particularly since both redirects go to the same place? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Could be marked as {{R from typo}} if kept. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The boundaries between dialect and language are fungible, so I wouldn't so quickly dismiss that idea. The hatnote at the target article, "This article is about Modern Standard Urdu", certainly suggests other things, probably languages, called Urdu. Still, the redirect feels redundant, and I'm not really sure how we could best serve a reader searching this term. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It fails the autocorrect test: If someone typed this title, we can't confidently autocorrect them to either "Urdu language" or "Hindi languages". So it's best to take them to the search engine. Deryck C. 20:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per u:MelanieN (looks useless given there exists "Urdu language") - Nabla (talk) 18:22, 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.

Collusion delusion[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. kingboyk (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral and minor Trump quote. wumbolo ^^^ 13:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It's not currently mentioned in the target article. Retro (talk | contribs) 16:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is not synonymous with the article. - Scarpy (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not mentioned at the target article, and not part of it. Just a Twitter phrase, like "witch hunt" or "angry Democrats". -- MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not mentioned in the article and not obvious why it should be. starship.paint (talk) 07:56, 5 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.

Input size[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 delete. Deryck C. 10:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion. "Input size" is a general concept in computing and mathematics and not unique to computational complexity. Since it's so broad, I don't think there's a good single target for it. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree, it can mean multiple things. wumbolo ^^^ 13:05, 4 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.

Computational intractablity[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 delete. Deryck C. 10:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion. "intractablity" is not a common misspelling of "intractability". Search will still show "intractability" as a result if intractablity is searched for. If kept, this should retarget to the intractability section like other similar redirects (some of which I've retargeted). Retro (talk | contribs) 11:30, 4 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]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 13#Delta dust

LLGs[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 LLG. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo, but intended to be short for "Local-level governments" - Retarget to Local government - local-level government isn't unique to Papua New Guinea DannyS712 (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support retarget to 'LLG' This could refer to many things. We shouldn't retarget it to a strange location, just because its old target was even stranger. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retargeting to LLG, as per above editor.Onel5969 TT me 17:36, 11 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.

Local Level Government[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 Local government. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Local government - local-level government isn't unique to Papua New Guinea DannyS712 (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support retarget This is clearly not only applicable to Papua New Guinea. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC) (moved: 11:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support retarget as per above editors. Clearly other options than current target apply.Onel5969 TT me 17:36, 11 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.

Rajon Das[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 revert to older version of page before it was converted to a redirect.. —Bagumba (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google search reveals no evidence of a connection between Rajon Rondo and 'Rajon Das'. Lepricavark (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore this version. Turns out that it's a completely different subject, and the redirect was probably WP:BLANKANDREDIRECTed improperly. Also, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajon Das, the blank-and-redirect was probably performed against existing consensus. Steel1943 (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article per Steel1943 and wider consensus reached at deletion discussion. The changing of this page to a redirect was done without any discussion or even explanation; I don't think we should endorse such an action. Besides, someone searching for Rajon Das is unlikely to be looking for the unrelated Rajon Rondo. Geolodus (talk) 20:46, 5 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_4&oldid=902445714"