Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 25, 2019.

The effect of terror on the mind[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) 18:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's appropriate to redirect from this phrase to a single theory on the psychology of terror (really just fear in this context), especially considering that this theory is given only one sentence in the article Fear. Concerns that come to mind to me are whether this is giving too much prominence to a single theory, and whether there is a possibility for confusion due to the use of the word terror, as readers could potentially be looking for an article on the effects of terrorism or Terror (politics). signed, Rosguill talk 23:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Fear or Terror I agree the psychology of terror or fear is best explained by the Fear article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as well as the ambiguous options for retargeting above. Best just let the search function figure this one out. Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This redirect title is 1) ambiguous, 2) not mentioned anywhere in the target article, and 3) a very unlikely search term. Google search [1] produces only six hits for this phrase, none of which relate to the target article. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 26 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.

Arc Entertainment[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) 18:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this is an independent company and may even meet notability guidelines. I would recommend deletion, or the creation of a stub for the company if enough sources can be found to meet WP:NORG. signed, Rosguill talk 23:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now I think the best chouce of action would be to create a drft for the company and if approved we can delete the redirect to facilitate the move.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sending it through AfC would be an unnecessary amount of bureaucracy, just create a stub. signed, Rosguill talk 05:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's worthless as a redirect since the target article doesn't mention it. In a brief search I was not convinced there is enough coverage for an article; YMMV. In any case, deleting the redirect will leave the title free for an article if someone thinks it deserves one. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 27 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.

Special Hazard[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) 18:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Created alongside several other redirects from similar terms to this target, this one is a bridge too far IMO, as the redirect title doesn't mention floods, and an internet search suggests that this term is more commonly used to refer to fire hazards (even dictionary [2]). I would suggest either deletion, or conversion to a DAB. signed, Rosguill talk 23:15, 25 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.

Uttitha bandhasana[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. --BDD (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These terms do not appear to refer to the same type of yoga position––"Uttitha bandhasana" is not mentioned in the target, and searching online returned results suggesting that Uttitha bandhasana is a different position. I would suggest deleting unless someone is aware of a more appropriate target. signed, Rosguill talk 22:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it isn't even spelled correctly and doesn't have a corresponding article or not even mentioned at the current target. If it were just for the term Utthita, then it could at least redirect to List of asanas which has a glossary of those terms. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I beg to differ on various fronts. Utthita bandhasana (spelt correctly) is indeed a variant of Setu Bandha, but the name is rarely used. Please let's NEVER redirect anything to List of asanas, I spent ages removing absurd redirects from there. If anyone can find a single reasonable source for Utthita bandhasana, then I'll create that as a redirect and add a one-line description at Setu Bandha Sarvangasana#Variations. As it is, I think delete (spelling mistake or no: popular spelling mistakes are well worth redirecting) is the only option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 26 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.

Ospreys[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 7#Ospreys

Orthodoxy in North Korea[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 Orthodoxy in Korea. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to retarget this to the overview article Orthodoxy in Korea to match the retargetting to that title of Orthodoxy in South Korea proposed at #Orthodoxy in South Korea below. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 25 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.

All Apologies/Rape Me[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 In Utero (album)#Singles. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY. The two songs were released as a double a-side, so this is a plausible search term, but neither target is preferable to the other. In Utero (album) is a possibility as this is quite an old redirect (perhaps specifically In Utero (album)#Singles), but I don't really see any harm in deleting this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to In Utero (album)#Singles which implies this was a double a-side release, and links to the two separate articles. When we have a plausible search term and a good target for that search term then deleting it would cause more harm than any other action. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf, or to Nirvana discography#Singles (though the album is probably the better of the two). PC78 (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to In Utero (album)#Singles.QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to All Apologies, as I feel this was in a way the "lead" A-side, if that makes sense, and then let users follow the link to the "Rape Me" article if they want. Some even refer to this single as the "All Apologies" single (but never the "Rape Me" single). Halpert88 (talk) 13:46, 28 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.

List of United Kingdom by-elections[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 Lists of United Kingdom by-elections. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misleading redirect, as it leads to only those by-elections from 2010 onwards. I have been unable to identify a proper target for it, so it should be deleted and incoming links removed. DuncanHill (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than deleting, it could be changed to a list of lists, to include List of United Kingdom by-elections (1801–1806) to List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010–present) along with articles like United Kingdom by-election records, but this would largely duplicate what Template:United Kingdom by-elections does already. Opera hat (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it were so changed I would happily withdraw my nomination, or !vote against it, or whatever the correct procedure would be. DuncanHill (talk) 16:48, 25 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.

Orthodoxy in South Korea[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 Orthodoxy in Korea. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an Russian Orthodox Church in South Korea. See Orthodoxy in Korea. 223.62.169.15 (talk) 15:13, 25 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.

Popty ping[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. --BDD (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

slang, WP:NEO . Wiktionary also deleted. Widefox; talk 14:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It isn't even real slang (if it actually was we could consider keeping it; we have no rule against using slang as a redirect). This is an invented neologism. According to sources [3] [4] it's more of a joke than an actual, used word for microwave oven. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Revisit if it's given long-lasting notability, but an appearance on BBC is just a fad for now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:35, 26 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.

Hipster Art[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) 21:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This started out as a shortm unsourced article, which was turned into a redirect shortly after creation. The target, however, makes no mention of "hipster art" (and neither did the version at the time of the redirecting). No likely target in sight, and the term is too vague and also possibly ambiguous (which meaning of Hipster is involved?). – Uanfala (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not defined or even mentioned at the target article, so this is a completely unhelpful and uninformative redirect. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hipster disambiguation as any of those topics there could be a starting point for hipster art. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:38, 27 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.

SnarXiv[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 5#SnarXiv

Neild's Disease[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. --BDD (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence that this is a term used for or associated with the target, whether in the article or on internet and Google Scholar searches. I would recommend deletion unless someone can provide a reasonable alternative. signed, Rosguill talk 22:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a real term. Although the disease was defined by a Dr. Neild, I can find no evidence that the term "Neild's disease" exists outside of Wikipedia. [5] -- MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is a researcher called Neild who coined Neild GH that would go to IgG4, but other news searches point to some girl named Emily Neild, who had Mitochondrial disease [6] . But not mentioned in any detail at the target.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weird about the girl, but I think what she had - mitochondrial disease - is something else. Guy H. Neild (cited in journals as Neild GH) was the lead author on the article that first defined the disease; they called it Hyper-IgG4 disease.[7] Sometimes people tend to name a disease after the person who first reported it (Hodgkin's disease, Kaposi's sarcoma), but I can't find anybody but us calling it Neild's disease. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 26 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. Salvador[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 2#Dr. Salvador

2019 United States Border closure[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) 19:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid search term, because this “2019 border closure” doesn’t exist. Never happened. This was originally a short article which was AfD’ed as “delete”. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 United States Border closure After it was deleted, the original author recreated it as a redirect to National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States. (He had suggested that redirect at the AfD, but nobody seconded it). The reason the article was deleted is that there was no such thing. A border closure was something Trump mentioned as a possibility, but he quickly dropped the idea and never took any steps to implement it. This is not even fake news; it’s no news at all. A search for the term finds no sources, only Wikipedia and mirrors. It isn’t even mentioned at our target article. It is a completely invalid redirect. MelanieN (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Also, an unlikely and in fact unused search term. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep as valid search term per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: not even fake news.  — Scott • talk 11:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't understand how this would be a valid search term. There's no reason to think people are searching for this if its not a real thing. Its the same logic that makes me think a mention in the target article will be unlikely to stick in the article long-term, creating further issues with the redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 30 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.

Redirects with ()[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 via deletePages() ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leftovers from a bizarre method of renaming articles (e.g. if the intent was the move A -> B, but B was not overwriteable, then the editor would move instead to B () and leave it for somebody with the tools to spot and correct to B). The articles have been at these titles for the duration of minutes to days (the largest time spent was two weeks by the last redirect in the list). There are no incoming links from articles and the redirects have no conceivable use. I haven't tagged any of them with {{rfd1}}. – Uanfala (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. bd2412 T 02:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as housekeeping. There is no value in keeping any of these. PC78 (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I tagged all of these redirects with {{Rfd}} in the off-chance these are used as actual search terms. Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious errors IMO. -sche (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them. Uanfala explains the reason for them correctly. It's a method I've seen used by another user and imitated once or so, since we don't have admin rights and asking for a histmerge or overwrite every time can be tedious. I've abandoned this method now, though. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only use would be to give the bots time to fix dbl rd's, and there's been time for that. — kwami (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible search terms. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:38, 26 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_25&oldid=900805454"