Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 19, 2019.

A&B (Disambiguation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 27#A&B (Disambiguation)

2nd Avenue (Disambiguation)[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

misformatted DAB page Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - page was at this title for about seven months in 2004, but this title is not getting any use, suggesting it's not useful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:49, 21 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.

212th Division(disambiguation)[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:CSD#G6 - obviously created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

misformatted DAB page Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - clearly created in error, page was at this title for three minutes in 2014. Zero hits. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:47, 21 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.

Romantic relationships in Peanuts[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 27#Romantic relationships in Peanuts

Мексика[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No sense in using Russian to redirect to an article for a non-Russian country. Goveganplease (talk) 14:42, 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.

We-Keep-eIdea[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this spelling would be quite a stretch for anyone to search for. Goveganplease (talk) 14:38, 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.

👩‍🦯[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This combination of emojis is literally never going to be typed and doesn't even render on most systems. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't actually a "combination of emojis", but is a single character that should be properly displayed when correctly rendered. As this emoji was only recently added this year, it'll take a few months or so for support to be introduced across different platforms, at which time this redirect, like many others of the same purpose, will be of meaningful use. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 10:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep emojis with a clear meaning should normally redirect to either an article about that meaning, to a disambiguation page/set index if it's ambiguous or to an article about the emoji itself. In this case it does have a clear and unambiguous meaning, we don't have an article about the emoji and we do have an article about that meaning so this is correct. People do use Wikipedia to look up what emojis represent if they are unfamiliar with them (e.g. me). Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely unintelligible selection of two random emojis, and thus completely unlikely. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a single emoji composed of three UTF characters, if you see multiple ones then your browser is not rendering them correctly - the error is at your end not with the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ravenpuff (assuming it is accurate). This sounds like a technical issue. - PaulT+/C 19:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is accurate, the emoji is defined as "woman with probing cane". Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a new emoji, so it doesn't render on most systems (AFAIK no system supports it yet), but more support will probably come, so that's not a reason to delete. SemiHypercube 12:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REMOJI. For readers who don't have devices capable of rendering the very latest Unicode, which presumably is most of them (my brand new Win10 box my office bought a month ago does not render it), we cannot determine how most readers will see it, and as such it's WP:RFD#D2 confusing. It's also WP:ASTONISHing: for me, clicking on a picture of a woman's face beside an empty box and being directed to an article about an assistive device makes no sense at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every system will render it as a woman with a probing cane. That's how emojis work these days. Per WP:REMOJI "redirects are often kept if the character has a clear and definite meaning matching an existing topic on Wikipedia, including those to disambiguation pages." This emoji has a clear an definite meaning matching an existing topic on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Every system will render it as a woman with a probing cane" - I would agree with you were that the case, but it is demonstrably not. On my Win10 system (Chrome) I see a woman's face beside an empty box. On my Android (also Chrome) the box has an X through it. I also have a Win7 system here (IE11) which shows a different woman's head and torso, no face, beside an empty box. On a VirtualBox running Bunsenlabs linux (Firefox) it shows another different woman's face beside a larger box containing the Unicode address of the missing glyph. I realize that's a poor sample size, but based on this brief study, the statement "every system will render it..." is 100% incorrect. Unless this is intended to be meta-humour ("this is what a white cane looks like to a blind person") it does not render how you say it does. I get that reverse compatibility with newer emoji often involves using combinations of two older emoji like this, i.e. most systems have no character for "woman with probing cane" so a reasonable approximation is "glyph for woman" + "glyph for probing cane", except the problem here is that the second glyph also doesn't exist in most older systems. According to Emojipedia there aren't any that support it. This isn't like emoji like, say, 🇨🇦, where if your system doesn't support the newer Canadian flag glyph you'll just get 🇨 and 🇦 (two separate glyphs for C and A) which is close enough. With this one, you get "woman" plus an error, and we can't expect most readers to go looking on other sites for a database containing a description of the Unicode character which is supposed to render in that error space to determine what it is they're supposed to be looking at. And adding new Unicode characters to older systems depends on there being someone to develop and implement them, and for the vast majority of systems older than about two years it's just never going to happen.
      For the tiny population of users who might actually see this glyph patched into their current systems, and I suppose as newer devices with native support for Unicode 12 come online, it may become useful for those users. For everyone else it will always be somewhere between confusing and nonsense. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I said "will" meaning in the future tense, not "does" in the present tense. If you're looking on Wikipedia for this emoji specifically then it's almost certain that you've seen it in one of four places - outside of a list of emojis (rendered as a woman with a probing cane, or rendered as you describe it) and in the majority of those cases this link combined with the surrounding context will enable you to understand the meaning in that context - i.e. it will be useful. If you seeing it in a structured list or table of emojis then it will either be labelled (in which case you wont likely be looking up on Wikipedia) or it wont be in which case you will be given more information by this redirect if you choose to look it up on Wikipedia (wehther you see an emoji or an error) - you might then search on something like "probing cane emoji" (Which gives useful results for me on google at least). The only other possibility that is at all likely is seeing it in a string of random emojis and/or other characters - if you look it up from that context it's probably 50/50 whether it helps or not (but the same is true of any other character in that set) and in no case does anybody lose. Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Considering that it's not exactly possible to type this character into the search box, I don't think there exists any practical risk of confusion to the vast majority of users. As stated above, this redirect may not be very useful now, but it will certainly be so in the future, when emoji keyboards are updated to enable this character to be used – at which point, if this redirect ends up getting deleted, it will have to be re-created anyway. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 10:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ivanvector's issue shows why this is a helpful redirect—someone can copy and paste the emoji that's not rendering correctly for them and figure out what it means. -- Tavix (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. feminist (talk) 15:46, 26 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.

Infected Mushroom band members[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 27#Infected Mushroom band members

W/[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 28#W/

Food (Kirby)[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) 00:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense whatsoever? No need for this redirect! Goveganplease (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This would make sense if there was a section or other significant content dealing with food in the context of this character, but there isn't. The word "food" appears three times in the article, each time in passing, so someone searching for this will not be helped. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While food does play a roll in the plot of some of the games I doubt anyone looking up Kirby would type this.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 22:32, 20 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.

Dialog[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 Dialogue (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Dialogue (disambiguation). Let's analyze the different varieties of English: In the UK, some speakers do not use the "dialog" spelling at all, preferring "dialogue" for all senses, but when they do use "dialog" it invariably refers to the computer terminology. In the US, "dialogue" is the predominant spelling for the literary term for most people (you can compare the Google results for "new york times" "dialog" vs. "new york times" "dialogue" or any major paper) even though some minor publications prefer otherwise, but "dialog" is the pretty much the only acceptable spelling for the computer term. Therefore, I'd argue that taken as a whole, the computer sense of "dialog" is at least as prominent, if not more so, than the literary sense; in any case, the literary sense should not be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of this spelling. The top 30 Google results when I search "dialog" are as follows: 13 for proper nouns (e.g. business names), 11 for dialog box, 4 for dictionary definitions (which cover all senses), and only 2 for literary dialogue; for "dialogue" I get 20 instances of the literary term, 8 dicdefs, and 2 proper nouns. A similar case is Prologue (literary term) vs. Prolog (computer programming language); even though the literary term is much much more important overall, when we concern ourselves with just the spelling without "-ue" at the end then other uses dominate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with King of Hearts. This makes sense to me and I agree that the primary topic for dialog should be the disambiguation page at the least. (That probably belongs in another xfdiscussion though.) - PaulT+/C 21:21, 21 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.

Z105 with Joey Mack[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 27#Z105 with Joey Mack

Shit on Deborah's Desk[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 27#Shit on Deborah's Desk

Office Space (Milton/SNL shorts)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 27#Office Space (Milton/SNL shorts)

Wiki\[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 27#Wiki\

Wiki/[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) 15:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely search term for one to enter in when they wish to be taken to the main page. Goveganplease (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Goveganplease: see the "stats" link beside the redirect up at the top of this section. You may need Java enabled for the pageviews tool to work, I'm not sure. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Very likely accident. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is most likely that someone is looking for the main index to Wikipedia by navigating from an article (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ ). As the main portal to Wikipedia, the main page is almost certainly what they are looking for. Some people are possibly looking for the article about Wikipedia, which is prominently linked at the very top of the page, so easy to find. In other cases it will be an accident, but the main page is not a bad place to start from to find what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems like an easy mistake to make if someone is not used to how URLs work. Both https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki/ lead to this page and the main page seems like a reasonable place to start. One other alternative is to redirect to Wiki and add a link to the main page in a hatnote at wiki. - PaulT+/C 21:07, 21 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.

Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.[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) 15:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is such an inconvenient wording, I imagine nobody would search for him using this style of name. Are there other pages using this wording as well? Goveganplease (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it's not very convenient to type, sure, but that's his full name with his common name, in the usual long format for providing that information. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this redirect is somewhat useful - though not as useful as Joseph Robinette Biden Jr..--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep inconvenient (but not impossible) to type, but not to copy and paste or to follow a link to. As above this is a correct and conventional way to render his name. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_19&oldid=1072177168"