Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 2, 2019.

Casinoeuro[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) 16:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the targeted page. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to this old revision and several after it (see the page's edit history), Casinoeuro is a part of the Betsson group of companies. I'm not sure if that makes it a valid redirect though. --Geolodus (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: casinoeruo.com is listed as a brand in the infobox. Is this enough to keep? Could someone add more information to the target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it is mentioned in the infobox in the target article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:55, 4 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.

Wiki-hounding[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 Criticism of Wikipedia#Level of debate, edit wars and harassment. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. funplussmart (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a more appropriate way for people to find out about wiki-hounding then please put it in place. This appeared a rational way for those who either were accused or were being hounded to easily find out about the abuse.Fleets (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One can always simply add the "Wikipedia:" prefix to get to the page. funplussmart (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Adding the "Wikipedia:" prefix is simple only if you know about namespaces - one of the main reasons (indeed probably the most important reason) to keep CNRs from mainspace to project space is when the target is something that very new or inexperienced users who haven't yet learned about namespaces will be looking for. As there is clearly no mainspace target that could be being sought by this search term, the key question is whether the target page is something that such users will be looking for and I think on balance it possibly is something that new users may be accused of or have heard about, so it is useful. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Per Thryduulf but it could possibly redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia#Level of debate, edit wars and harassment. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:55, 2 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.

Draft:PLACES OF INTEREST IN KASHMIR[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) 01:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded, unuseful redirect. Gotitbro (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: there's a draft in the history of the page that's not worth preserving, this is precisely what WP:G13 is meant to address. – Uanfala (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: But G13 states that "Redirects are exempt from G13 deletion." Gotitbro (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but my point was that at the time the draft should have been left to get deleted by G13 rather than turned into a redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uanfala (although I'm unsure if RfD or MfD would be the correct venue for this). funplussmart (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Funplussmart: It's a redirect. All redirects, regardless of namespace, are discussed at redirects for discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Yes but it wasn't always a redirect. There used to be a draft "article" on the page (such pages should go to MfD), but it is not really an article at all. In the end it doesn't matter, neither the draft nor the redirect is useful at all. funplussmart (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of the circumstances that do get taken into account at RfD. There's nothing wrong in deleting history with useless content in it here; if that content is useful then it can be preserved by moving to a different title; or – if the question of notability is involved – the old article would usually get restored and procedurally sent to AfD. – Uanfala (talk) 05:15, 3 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.

Budapest (film series)[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) 01:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A nn film series. Target page does not mention subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:34, 2 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.

Eilean Bàn[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 move Eilean Bàn, Lochalsh to Eilean Bàn. If there is scope for a dab in the future let me or WP:UNDELETE know and it can be restored. -- Tavix (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As with the other 2 below the base name redirects to the disambiguated title. There was a DAB listing 2 others and there is coverage[1][2] and note of the other 2 that don't have articles there (Argyll and Bute) [3] (Highland) of some of the others[4] (click on the "Choose location" tab). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:16, 2 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.

Chevington[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 disambiguate. -- Tavix (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As with Briggate below the base name redirects to the disambiguated name. I would have made a request at RMT but since there is also Chevington cheese, Chevington railway station, East Chevington and West Chevington it might be better as a DAB. Either the Suffolk village should be at the base name or the base name should be a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:06, 2 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.

Briggate[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 Move Briggate, Leeds to Briggate. -- Tavix (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The base name currently redirects to the disambiguated title which it can't per WP:UKPLACE (even though streets are more likely to have their settlement as part of the common name than settlements that are disambiguated by county) and WP:PRECISION. Either Briggate, Leeds should be moved to the base name or the base name should be restored as a DAB. This came from Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02/Category:Briggate, Leeds where I have converted Commons:Category:Briggate into a DAB but those streets (and the Norfolk hamlet) don't have articles here or seem to be notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:01, 2 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.

Spektrum der Wissenschaft[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RDEL#D10: Clearly notable topic Paradoctor (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep People might create a desperate article on international editions, but until that happens, this is no reason to delete a redirect to an article that contains information about the topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RDEL#D10:"the target article contains virtually no information on the subject" (my emphasis). To wit: "a German edition, Spektrum der Wissenschaft [de], in Germany in 1978" Paradoctor (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that is sufficient information to keep a redirect. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think you're misinterpreting WP:RDEL#D10 - I'm not convinced this is what is intended by "virtually no information on the subject". Spektrum der Wissenschaft is (in effect) a German-language version of Scientific American and hence most of the parent article applies to it(!!) even if it (currently) has little to say specifically about that version. (I suspect the rule was intended for uselessly broad redirects, e.g. if Spektrum der Wissenschaft had redirected to magazine; the two are nowhere near synonymous and the latter would not be useful to those searching for the former).
If we applied your interpretation of that rule consistently, this would mean getting rid of *every* redirect that covered a minor variation (badge-engineered version, whatever) of something else that had little said *specifically* about it.
For example- Texet TX 8000 redirects VTech Laser 200. It's the UK distributor's name for the same computer, with little specific to say about it and certainly doesn't warrant a separate article... yet it would also be counter-productive and downright nonsensical to get rid of the redirect, since it would be a loss for anyone looking for the computer under the Texet name.
In fact, for this reason, the more I think about this, the more unlikely your interpretion becomes, simply because it's so illogically counter-productive.
Whether or not Spektrum der Wissenschaft warrants an article of its own is beside the point. It doesn't have one currently, and until then, the redirect is better than nothing.
Ubcule (talk) 20:43, 2 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.

Pour la Science[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RDEL#D10: Clearly notable topic Paradoctor (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep People might create a desperate article on international editions, but until that happens, this is no reason to delete a redirect to an article that contains information about the topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RDEL#D10:"the target article contains virtually no information on the subject" (my emphasis). To wit: "a French edition, Pour la Science [fr], in France in 1977" Paradoctor (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that is sufficient information to keep a redirect. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For the same reasons I gave in full in my comment on the Spektrum der Wissenschaft redirect. I think you're misinterpreting the meaning and underlying intent of RDEL#D10. "Pour La Science" is- in effect- a French-language version/variation of Scientific American and therefore the entire article is broadly about it. And as @Headbomb: notes, the fact that it doesn't have its own specific article at present (and IMHO might not warrant one anyway) doesn't mean that the present situation isn't better than nothing. Ubcule (talk) 21:03, 2 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.

Mixed peel[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 10#Mixed peel

Small coal[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 Charcoal. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this should be retargetted: but I'm not sure exactly where to. One thing that I am certain of, is that small coal is not briquettes. It is one of several sizes of coal that are separated out by passing the freshly-mined coal over the screens. It may be used in the manufacture of briquettes, but it is also a commodity in its own right. Briquettes may also be made from coal dust. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but we just don't have a target for it. It would have to be somewhere as broad as "history of coal mining", because the encyclopedic aspects of small coal are pretty varied. It's involved in everything from boiler design to economic perks for colliery employees to the development of the GPCS in the Hunslet Austerity and even the manufacture of briquettes. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coal dust is very rarely used for anything. The term is almost always applied in a purely negative context, for one of its various hazards. Where coal is powdered deliberately then it's usually termed pulverised fuel instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a disambiguation page is needed - for the historic meaning of charcoal, and the contemporary one of smaller sizes of coal, which could link to the general article. Warofdreams talk 12:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see no mention of small coal at the charcoal article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, it's a historical name for charcoal (and the first entry in the Wiktionary article); it might merit a mention in that article, and is quite likely to be the article of interest if people search for the term. Warofdreams talk 14:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's see if there are more inputs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to charcoal, which seems to be the only specific, relevant article. That article links to Coal if someone is looking for small pieces of coal generally, but Wikipedia doesn't really have that to offer. -- Tavix (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Charcoal per Tavix. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 12 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.

Desert Desert[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 List of redundant place names. Seems this is the most suitable one (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of the connection. The Sahara is a famous desert, but "desert desert"? MB 02:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A literal translation of what language? The second "desert" is already in English, so I find this non-sensical. MB 04:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I contest it being implausible, as an Arabic speaker who is not well acquainted with English may search for the literal translation, even with the plural as singular.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 19:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First off, the word "Sahara" doesn't mean 'desert desert' in any language: the Arabic word means only "desert", and it's only if you look at the English phrase "the Sahara desert" and decide to go silly on the etymology that you can arrive at something like "desert desert". This is not a plausible way anyone would search for the desert, and certainly not anyone who knows Arabic (if they were to literally translate the Arabic name then they'd search for "great desert"). The only marginally passable target is List of tautological place names. Cudos to Smartyllama for finding that out, but I don't think it is completely suitable either as the search term doesn't in any way refer to a subtopic of that article. There are three entries for "desert desert" at the moment: one is plain wrong, the other two (Gobi and Sahara) make some sort of sense only in the context of the English phrases; and even then they're pure WP:OR (and no, the fact that they're sourced to a random listicle on mentalfloss doesn't make them any less so). – Uanfala (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of redundant place names as above. Someone looking for literal redundancy would be more interested in other similar entries, not the actual desert and if they wanted the actual desert they could still get to it from that list. Sahara Desert shows up in such a list [5] Yes, it's that Mental Floss one again, but at least people are trying to link Sahara to desert, and the opening paragraph for Sahara confirms translation to desert. Lake lake goes to that same list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD and the fact that there aren't any deserts that are plausibly referred to as "Desert Desert" in English without some creative translation. -- Tavix (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the list of redundant place names per above. Deryck C. 14:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of redundant place names, seems tailor made for this and the Sahara, among other "desert deserts," is listed there. The issues with non-English don't ring true to me, as the list states: [t]his often occurs when a name from one language is imported into another and a standard descriptor is added on from the second language. Nearly all of the items there are a mix of languages, so this makes perfect sense as a redirect. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, true: an argument for deletion here is also an argument against the inclusion of the relevant entries in the list. – Uanfala (talk) 20:11, 2 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) 08:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment (supplementary to my "retarget" recommendation above) it has just occurred to me that it is very plausible for someone to have heard that the Sahara and/or Gobi deserts are literally "Desert desert" and want to learn more about such place names without knowing the generic term for them - in such circumstances "desert desert" is by far the most likely search term they would use to find the content. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of redundant place names as what the term can refer to is listed there. feminist (talk) 15:26, 9 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.

Solaria Energía y Medio Ambiente[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) 01:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The redirect does concern a Spanish solar energy company, but it is not mentioed at the target, and a reader would learn nothing about it there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:37, 2 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.

Parent 1 and Parent 2[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 10#Parent 1 and Parent 2

Wiki Is Google Making Us Stoopid?[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent typo, no incoming links. Father Goose (talk) 05:34, 2 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.

Actinium Series[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 Decay chain#Actinium series. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does actinium series refer more often to the actinides or decay chain of uranium-235? As the capitalization is inconsistent, is there a primary target for both redirects, or do we delete per WP:XY? ComplexRational (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Decay chain#Actinium series and add a hatnote to Actinides. As a non-chemist my immediate reaction was that I would expect this to target actinides, but looking at google the decay chain is very clearly the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did A-level physics and chemistry at school, and kept one of my books...
    Harrison, R.D., ed. (1972). Book of Data: Chemistry; Physical Science; Physics. Harlow: Longman. pp. 30–33. ISBN 0-582-82672-1.
    This has four pages titled "Radioactive decay chains", one chain per page; they are: "Thorium series A = 4n"; "Neptunium series A = 4n+1"; "Uranium series A = 4n+2"; and "Actinium series A = 4n+3". The last of these shows that 235U (which is used as fuel in nuclear power stations) decays in eleven steps (via 227Ac) to 207Pb, which is stable. So, Retarget to Decay chain#Actinium series. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:17, 2 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.

Hallucinogenic effects of banana peels[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 11#Hallucinogenic effects of banana peels

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_2&oldid=887510841"