Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 17, 2019.

Portal:Democratic Party[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) 08:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A misleading redirect forcing the reader into a single instance - the national version of the US based party. The more useful page is Democratic Party - a dab page with numerous entries. Part of the mass creation of portal spam titles. Delete it or redirect to the mainspace DAB page. Legacypac (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – it leads to the only portal currently on a democratic party. If and when there are more, the redirect can be replaced with a disambiguation page. It is not a good idea to redirect portal titles to non-portal pages, because it is misleading.    — The Transhumanist   23:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and in fact, move Democratic Party (United States) to this title. Somewhere along the way someone got the idea that the titles of portals need to match exactly the titles of their main topics, including whatever disambiguators they include. This is not based on anything (no policy, guideline, or even reason or thought). Disambiguation exists to resolve a conflict between two or more identical page titles, and we have no other portals that should be at "Portal:Democratic Party". As we are moving toward significantly more restrictive portal creation guidelines, it's extremely unlikely that there will ever be a portal for any other Democratic Party but this one, so disambiguating the title will never be necessary. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article a move of that nature was rejected exatily one year ago today so if anyone is considering making such a request they should study the failed request to take into account why that request failed in order to creste a proposal that takes these issues into account.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 03:11, 18 March 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.

Allergology[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 26#Allergology

Polyisobutylene[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 by default because it is the only extant opinion. -- Tavix (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination, as this has a RfD tag but apparently never got discussed. There is a related discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_6#Polyisobutene (which looking at the dates an nominators was likely to include this redirect too). I presume the possible outcomes include retargeting, deleting, and creating a new article. See also: User_talk:Thryduulf#Polyisobutylene_(2) Nabla (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirect, as targeted. I've added 3 rcats to the redirect: {{R to anchor}}, {{R with possibilities}}, and {{R with history}}. The appropriateness of these categorizations support keeping the redirect. If an article is fleshed out of its possibilities, it should be decided and written through normal editing and talk page discussion without necessitating an RfD or any form of page deletion.--John Cline (talk) 03:15, 18 March 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.

Tater salad[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 25#Tater salad

Effectively[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 Effectiveness. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem like the best target for a highly general common adverb. I would retarget to Effectiveness, or, as a second choice, disambiguate. bd2412 T 17:18, 17 March 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.

Copernicium(IV) fluoride[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 Copernicium#Chemical. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 10:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why this hypothetical copernicium compound redirects to a compound of its homolog mercury, where there is only a very brief mention. Wouldn't the article about the element (specifically Copernicium#Chemical) be a more relevant target? ComplexRational (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We don't need links at random compounds of transuranium elements unless they have been synthesized or attested in academic literature. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Copernicium#Chemical per nom; there's a just-as-valid mention there in the same context, and it should be less surprising not to end up at a different element. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It can have a theoretical A + B compounds for many many combination that did not existed, or did not have academic paper to cover. Matthew hk (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Amory, we have content there that will serve readers looking for this without the confusion brought about by the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 18 March 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.

Naxi Yao language[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) B dash (talk) 10:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

错误重定向。 Ngguls (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Google translate renders Ngguls's nomination statement as "Error redirection.". Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "𦰡(nuo)"is a rare characters in Chinese. So many people write it as "那"(na), but it's wrong. Ngguls (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Glottolog mention this as an alternative name, so readers are likely to encounter it in the literature and redirects are there to help readers. If the name is incorrect, then the redirect should be tagged with {{R from incorrect name}} rather than deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (FYI, the nominator's statement means "incorrect redirect") From a quick search, it appears to be a romanization of "那溪瑶", which turns up quite a few sources, however this source lists it as an alternative name for Kam–Sui languages (zh:侗水語支), so I'm not sure if it refers to a broad group or a single language. If anything, I'm fine with deletion unless I'm convinced that I know what it refers to. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unclear if this is correct. Wikipedia Redirects are clues to Google on what is correct so Let's remove something that could well be incorrect. Legacypac (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uanfala. Nuoxi is in the Kam-Sui family, which may be where the overlap is coming from. Also note the singular "language" refers to a single language, not a family. -- Tavix (talk) 22:36, 24 March 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.

2019 Venezuelan power grid sabotage[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 25#2019 Venezuelan power grid sabotage

2019 Venezuelan power grid attack[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 25#2019 Venezuelan power grid attack

Brussels bombing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 26#Brussels bombing

Draughtsman[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 25#Draughtsman

List of role-playing video games: 2018 to 2019[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 resolved. List of unreleased role-playing video games had a few games that were released in 2018, which I moved to this title. -- Tavix (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The year 2018 has already passed and we're in 2019 right now. Having an article that simply redirects to a "main page" simply makes zero sense. NotCory (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this matches articles for other pairs of years, e.g. List of role-playing video games: 2016 to 2017 which all do as the title suggests so I'm very surprised by the lack of a list for this pair of years, but there isn't one in history I can find (although it has moved around a bit to some bizarre titles). I'll ping the video games project. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep - seems like a sensible redirect to me, if there are currently a list for other years. I'm a little surprised also the articles doesn't already exist (which would make this arguement moot.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 12:28, 17 March 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.

Human-readable interpretation[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 Human-readable medium. I'll note there is no consensus to delete any of the variants due to opinions they are common forms and valid for searching. -- Tavix (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was very surprised to end up at Barcode from this term as I was expecting an article or section about the plain language summaries of legal licence texts (e.g. Creative Commons licences). The history makes it clear why the terms redirect here - it was originally a stub reading, in its entirety, "The Human Readable Interpretation is the information contained into a linear barcode, which is shown in readable characters under or over this." which was merged rather than deleted. However this information is not in the current version of the barcode article at all, let alone using the phrase "human-readable". I can't help but feel that this should either be a disambiguation page or retargetted somewhere but I haven't currently found any great candidates for either so I'm bringing it here for discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add to article this should just be a brief paragraph that explains what HRI is. You can support it with documents like [1] [2] [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Human-readable medium OR Delete All(if keeping, at least delete two, we do not need every spelling variant of everything). Why delete? Because human readable *interpretation* would generally mean anything that can be easily interpreted by humans (as opposed to machines and.. hmmm... lawyers? :-) ). Redirectig to barcodes seems to be too specific, as the nomination says. I don't know of any good target in that broader sense... It is somehow about code or encoding?... But those are a little too technical, I suppose. Maybe we need a new article, more... human readable? Deletion might encourage that. - Nabla (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On further reading the article, retargetting is the best option, this is close enough to the general article I was asking for. So retarget "Human-readable interpretation" delete the other two, as we do not need every spelling variant of everything - Nabla (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget 1, delete 2 & 3 per Nabla; I can't find any better targets from the list at Interpretation.  — Scott • talk 15:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These are all equally valid and equally useful search terms, if there is a good target, so they should either all be deleted or all be retargeted. I oppose split decisions here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Human-readable medium. In particular Human Readable Interpretation should not be deleted, as it is the most common form in which this phrase appears on Google. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 19 March 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.

Duggardesh[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 25#Duggardesh

Chinese Journal of Natural Medicine[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) 22:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad target: Simon Gibbons is just a member of the editorial board, along with several other people. Gibbons isn't any more special than any other members here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:24, 17 March 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.

F-86D/F Sabre[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) 22:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misnomer/non- existent variants. The F-86D is a separate model from the F-86F, and is covered in a separate article, North American F-86D Sabre, rather than the main F-86 article, North American F-86 Sabre, which covers the F-86F model. BilCat (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC) For the record, I was not able notify the redirect's creator, as User:Ktr101 is globally banned, and his talk page is fully protected. - BilCat (talk) 07:37, 17 March 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.

Mayor Pete[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 WP:G7. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from massively ambiguous title to one name: Pete Buttigieg. Wikipedia has articles on a 7 mayors named "Pete" (including Pete Buttigieg), and to 138 other mayors who first names begin with "Peter", any or all of whom may be known by the common abbreviation "Pete". (Full list on the talk page: WT:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 17#Mayor_Pete).

We could in theory convert this to a disambiguation page, but is really a good use of editorial time to create and maintain several thousand "JobTitle Firstname" disambiguation pages? It would require huge ongoing effort to keep them up to-date, and I think that readers would be better served by searching. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, you could delete it under WP:G7. I could not find any examples of the redirect ("Mayor Pete") in the search bar, but I was never really wedded to the idea of this redirect in the first place. If you say there are seven mayors named peter/pete, then that's good enough for me. :) (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, @MJL, it's 145 mayors named Peter/Pete. Which shouldn't really be a surprise: Peter is a common name in the USA, and the USA has a lot of Mayors.
But sure, I'll G7 it. Thanks for enabling the speedy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, it's nothing (also thanks for the ping). If there are any similar concerns in the future, I am always willing to comply. I'm trying to be the best mainspace editor I can be right now! :D (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖
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_March_17&oldid=1072177164"