Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 21, 2019.

List of Oldest Breweries of Canada[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) 11:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the provinces have dates for some of the breweries, but it's not chiefly organized by date. A reader may get a general sense of some breweries that are older than most, but overall, this is misleading. BDD (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - if a reader is looking for the oldest breweries in Canada, this is where they will find that information. The current list setup is not ideal for this, but it gets the job done. Stats suggest 121 readers have looked for that information this month alone, so it's clearly useful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The list is not sorted or has an option to be sorted by oldest breweries. In addition, there is also the issue/possibility that the "oldest breweries" that a reader is attempting to find is not at the target article. Best to just have the reader search the article title (rather than this redirect) so they have the expectation that they will find a list of breweries, but not necessarily the "oldest" ones. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original subject of the article was the "oldest breweries". It was subsequently moved ({{r from page move}} needs to be added) to the more general page name and then the scope expanded. The list should be turned into a sortable table (something simple like Name/Location/Date<if present>/Reference or other) so it would be easier to find the oldest ones (and to encourage editors to add the missing information), but the information is still present in the article and therefore the redirect should be kept. - PaulT+/C 21:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...The target article currently does not contain a sortable table, and yes, this resurrect is an {{R from move}}, but that doesn't by default make the redirect helpful. In the target article's current state, readers searching for some concept of "oldest" that the current target just does not have at the present time. Steel1943 (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, now it does. I significantly trimmed the article so that it only has breweries older than 1950 and/or any brewery that has its own article. The entries are currently in two separate tables, but can easily be combined once additional dates and references are added. - PaulT+/C 17:18, 23 May 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.

Liu Li Mei Ren Sha[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 procedural closure. Its now been restored as an article. (non-admin closure). Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Term not present in target article - no indication of usefulness of this redirect. PamD 17:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article. No idea why the IP redirected it to a random page. Lolastarlight (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw now that the redirect has been (re-)converted to an article. PamD 14:00, 22 May 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.

Variable-buoyancy propulsion[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 withdrawn. -- Tavix (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Term not mentioned in target article; no indication whether it's a commonly used term, and whether the target is right. PamD 17:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Variable-buoyancy propulsion should probably have its own article, but for the moment I can't see a better target. Until recently, it was a concept only applied to underwater gliders, but now it's been applied to aircraft as well, with the launch of this prototype. Google returns quite a few hits now. I could give it a shot at creating a stub. Do I have to wait for this discussion to close? --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have to wait, just put your content below this comment: <!-- Don't add anything after this line unless you're drafting a disambiguation page or article to replace the redirect. --> and above the last closing braces: }}. The only caveat is, since the discussion is ongoing, there is a chance the redirect may still be deleted. However, that is very unlikely to happen if the article is even barely comprehensive (and not a candidate for speedy deletion). If there is still some problem with the content a more likely outcome would be a new discussion at AfD or some other place like that. You should go for it! - PaulT+/C 11:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, I turned it into a stub before reading this. Thanks, I've just readded the Redirect for discussion template. Hope that's OK. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination - now that the forlorn targetless redirect has been lovingly converted into a respectable sourced stub. Thanks, @Deeday-UK: nice work. PamD 13:59, 22 May 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.

Ridley scott[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) 11:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect - there could be one like this for every article with a "given-name plus surname" title, but we don't. PamD 17:52, 21 May 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.

Bekasi (city)[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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure). Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect, whose existence might suggest to readers or editors that it's standard. PamD 17:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those is similar, as Corfe Castle is a castle and Cork is a dab page. PamD 05:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
London (city) → London, Paris (city) → Paris, Sydney (city) → Sydney, Baku (city) → Baku, Miami (city) → Miami, Liège (city) → Liège, ... there is no shortage of other examples that prove these redirects are common and standard. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a standard redirect from unnecessary disambiguation and tag as such. This type of redirect is harmless. Geolodus (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Redirects like this (and indeed like almost everything else) are not routinely created speculatively, but they are perfectly standard once they exist due to being useful for a variety of reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw: I seem to be in a small minority here, not worth battling over. Keep the thing, as per Thryduulf's more convincing examples. PamD 14:04, 22 May 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.

Sleeping Buffalo Hot Springs[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) 14:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, not a useful redirect. PamD 17:46, 21 May 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.

Freaks[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 1#Freaks

Gullwing Truck Company[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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHunterJ (talk • contribs) 12:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, which is a disambiguation page. Possibly a case of WP:R#DELETE #10. signed, Rosguill talk 17:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Cases like this should be grounds for speedy deletion. bd2412 T 18:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The dab briefly listed the company but I removed it because the company is not mentioned in skateboard truck. Thre are mentions in Geoff Rowley but I don't think they justify a redirect to there. Certes (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not mentioned in skateboard trucks, none of the founders have their own pages. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 21 May 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.

Pi-shuang[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 Arsenic trioxide#Medical applications. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The template on the redirect claims that this is a redirect from the Chinese language word for the target; it's not clear to me that this is accurate, as the Chinese Wikipedia article does not appear to use this phrase (in pinyin or otherwise). Even if it is an accurate translation, I'm not sure why we would redirect from a Chinese title for this per WP:RFOREIGN signed, Rosguill talk 17:30, 21 May 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.

Tangenziale Kennedy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 1#Tangenziale Kennedy

Go on home British soldiers[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. Per below/REDLINK.

Full disclosure: I'm more of a Foggy Dew and Come out Ye Black and Tans fan ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Song gets a mention in List of Irish ballads, The Troubles in popular culture and Irish rebel song (first 2 being red links with different punct/caps). Best left as red links till someone writes the article or a section on it. PamD 17:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The real reason it should be returned to a red link is that it's a song written by Tommy Skelly, whoever that is, and Wolfe Tones' recording is only the most popular. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 17:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect both to Irish rebel song Also okay with deletion in case someone wants to create it. But it is not mentioned at Wolfe Tones at all. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:25, 21 May 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.

Dr. Udit Raj[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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't in general provide redirects from every academic's doctoral title: unnecessary and a bad precedent. PamD 16:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: this redirect has now een involved in a series of strange moves in an attempt to rename the article. PamD 18:15, 22 May 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.

Wikipedia:XC[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 29#Wikipedia:XC

Technical Guruji (YouTube channel)[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) 14:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unnecessary and Useless redirect. Gaurav Chaudhary is real name of Technical Guruji, Technical Guruji article is creation protected. "Technical Guruji" will be very useful instead of "Technical Guruji (YouTube channel)". CptViraj (Talk) 09:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect leads to information about the Technical Guruji YouTube channel. I would support the creation of a redirect from Technical Guruji to the same target for the same reasons (such a redirect can be protected if needed). Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a standard {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Technical Guruji should be created as redirect and its protection lifted (it appears to be a remnant of an earlier time when it was a repeatedly recreated article). As long as the target article continues to exist: its last AfD resulted in "no consensus", so it's conceivable this could change. – Uanfala (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked Anachronist if protection can be lifted from Technical Guruji to allow for the creation of a redirect. Neutral on this nomination, the parenthetical qualifier seems a bit redundant but there's nothing wrong with it per se. PC78 (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Technical Guruji" seems to be both the name/pseudonym of a person and the name of the YouTube channel they run. If someone is looking for information specifically about the channel rather than the person then this is a logical search term. We don't currently have separate articles, but that may change in future so retaining the presently unnecessary disambiguation allows for links/bookmarks etc to continue working after a split. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 22 May 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.

Typhoon 0209[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. MBisanz talk 02:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be searched and used B dash (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is ambiguous between the 9th typhoon of 2002, the 2nd typhoon of 2009, and any typhoons that did something notable on 2 September or 9 February. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative delete per above. Not mentioned at the target or at Typhoon Fengshen (2002) (as such), though it's listed as "Typhoon 200209" at this website, so perhaps Typhoon 200209 would be valid? PC78 (talk) 15:25, 21 May 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_May_21&oldid=1219324626"