Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 7
May 9 >

May 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 8, 2019.

Μov - Ρoz[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) 01:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An extremely implausible mix of Latin and Greek letters. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are very few cases where mixed scripts make good redirects. This one, with Greek capitals and Latin lowercase is not one of the exceptions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:28, 9 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.

Holland-on-Sea & Eastcliff Matters[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) 01:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. While Holland-on-Sea may very well be a minor party, it doesn't seem appropriate to redirect to that article. signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 8 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.

Adrian Atkins[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) 01:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor character that is not mentioned at the redirect target and is not covered in any other article. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:40, 8 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.

Daniel Hertz[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 Daniel Hertz to Daniel Hertz S.A. and delete Dan from Long Island. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects previously pointed to a section that was removed for being undue, redirect titles are no longer mentioned in the target. signed, Rosguill talk 20:24, 8 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.

Admiral Tianem[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) 01:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor character that is not mentioned at the redirect target and is not covered in any other article. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:25, 8 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.

Resurrection-of Jesus[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) 01:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling/search-term. signed, Rosguill talk 17:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but this is quite odd. The target is a very actively edited article, but from 1-8 April there was almost no activity at all. Then this was created on 9 April, and then on 12 April the very busy activity resumed. That suggests a history split or cut-and-paste move to me, but there is nothing in the logs. There is a page Post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus with a similar fractured history and that was similarly moved in roughly the same timeframe that might help explain things. This is all just purposeless speculation, of course: this redirect is a clear misspelling with no history and no activity, it should be deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a common search term. JohnThorne (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible typo. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:29, 9 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.

Love Is Dead (Chvrches song)[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 deleted per G7 by Fastily. -- Tavix (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No song of that name on the album, couldn't find alternative target. Confusing redirect Richhoncho (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for G7, but what exactly is confusing about it? It’s a nonexistent song, yes, but it’s a valid search term as albums usually have title tracks. The fact that you found this seems more confusing to me. Hayman30 (talk) 15:58, 8 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.

Guru Prem Nath Akhara[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) 01:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name associated with wrestler but not notable in own right. Not a likely search term and not mentioned in article it redirects to noq (talk) 14:25, 8 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.

Vikram Kumar (coach)[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) 01:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name associated with wrestler but not notable in own right. Not a likely search term and not mentioned in article it redirects to noq (talk) 14:24, 8 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.

Guru Baijnath[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) 01:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name associated with wrestler but not notable in own right. Not a likely search term and not mentioned in article it redirects to. noq (talk) 14:23, 8 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.

Fuck Brexit[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) 01:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, also POV concern, see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 7#Brexit + expletives B dash (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It was an event that took place in the immediate aftermath of the vote, and I think was mentioned in the article at the time. See this and this which both mention the rally. I probably thought it was worth a redirect at the time, but have long since forgotten doing it. Delete anyway. This is Paul (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only because it is not mentioned. There is no POV concern with these redirects (see WP:RNEUTRAL), it might be different if the target was a biography (again not necessarily in every case, c.f. Amanda Fucking Palmer), but given that it was the name of an event related to a controversial political topic the redirect was entirely appropriate when it was mentioned in the article, but now there is no coverage in the article it's misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 8 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.

Nee Alavar[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) 01:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A minor Star Wars character that's not covered at the target. It has two trivial mentions in other articles but there's not enough substance to justify a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:33, 8 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.

Star Wars minor character redirects[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) 01:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Star Wars characters that aren't mentioned in any article. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:10, 8 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.

Schools Climate Action Ireland[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 no consensus. From a purely numbers standpoint, this may be leaning towards deletion, but the keep side has stronger arguments and did a better job of refuting arguments, especially WP:COSTLY. -- Tavix (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The schools strike for climate has occurred in many countries, redirect to those countries who had joined in are WP:COSTLY B dash (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Some of the deletion reasons in the cited WP:COSTLY essay are in contradiction to the valid deletion criteria listed under WP:R#DELETE in our guideline on redirects, which reflects the established community consensus. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These redirects were created because I found those terms being used in the media. Users entering these names in the search box or using them in external articles should be redirected to the related Wikipedia article in the easiest possible way. That's one of the very purposes for why we have and create redirects per WP:REDIR. Once they are actually used not only in the search box but also in Wikipedia (some of them actually were in citations, but have been unlinked at present), they also improve reverse lookup. We do this also for company subsidiaries, publishing houses, journals, annual events, version numbers etc.
I would just as well have created similar redirects for other country subsidiaries of these organizations if I would have run into them in the media, but so far I didn't.
Your WP:COSTLY essay does not list any valid reason for deletion applying to these redirects. The valid reasons for deletion are listed in our WP:R#DELETE guideline. None of the ten deletion criteria applies, but most of the keep criteria per WP:R#KEEP apply (2, 3, 5, 6 and potentially 4). Therefore: Keep. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:COSTLY applies here. There are more than 100 countries participating in this campaign. It is impossible to list all the countries joined in as a redirect. --124.217.189.225 (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a problem, because we don't need to list them all for as long as they aren't mentioned frequently in the media. For reasons I don't know the Irish and German subsidiaries are explicitly mentioned quite often, that's why we have these redirects. They are not costly or conflictive with other uses, anyway.
In general, WP:COSTLY is not really relevant here, as it is only an essay reflecting the opinion of some individuals, not a guideline or policy reflecting established community consensus. (And in this case the essay is in parts even in contradiction to what is stated in the relevant guideline.) Deletion discussions must be guideline-based (see, for example, WP:DELAFD). So, if you think we should not have these redirects, please find a guideline or policy supporting your view. Otherwise WP:R#KEEP applies. Mind that the threshold for keeping redirects is pretty low for as long as they are not conflictive with other uses.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Fridays for Future Deutschland is odd, a German name would be w:de:Schulstreik für das Klima ending up on w:de:Fridays for future. On enwiki Fridays for Future Germany etc. is not (yet) needed, a search for "Fridays for Future anywhere" already yields Fridays for Future.
Fridays for future + Fridays For Future could make sense. –84.46.53.117 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having a redirect from "Schulstreik für das Klima" would not be okay in the English WP, because this is not used as a name for the movement in Germany, but rather as a description. People are unlikely to enter a German description into the search engine of the English WP. However, "Fridays for Future Deutschland" is different, because it is used as a proper name in the media. That's why it is much more likely that people will enter it into the search engine or use it in external articles linking to WP.
Entering that term into the search engine (without the redirect), our search engine will find no matches, but will (likely) offer the shorter and more generic form in the list of possible alternatives. However, people will still have to read the output of the search engine, select the right alternative and click on it. While this is not the end of the world, it takes time and is much more inconvenient than have the redirect immediately forwarding them to the only article relevant for this particular term (thereby not having to rely on the output of the search engine). Redirects are also about this kind of convenience (see WP:REDIR). So, for as long as a redirect is not conflictive with other names, it is desirable for an article to provide a properly defined and comprehensive "interface" to the outer world (other WP articles, external resources, and the search engine) by having all relevant keywords referring to one particular article (or at least the primary topic) defined as redirects. That's exactly why these redirects exist; they are in line with WP:REDIR, and they are not conflictive with other stuff and therefore there's no valid reason (per our guideline WP:R#DELETE) to delete them. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to B dash for Fff and FFF in addition to FfF. I'm still unconvinced wrt "FfF Deutschland" etc. as long as they are no {{R to section}} or {{R to anchor}}, but I certainy agree with the "redirects are cheap" policy, the COSTLY essay makes technically no sense. –84.46.52.129 (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreed that the "Fridays for Future (place name)" is unnecessary. We already had alternative names as the redirect. --219.79.127.122 (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about all redirects following a "Fridays for Future (place name)" scheme, but some specific ones - only those I have found actually used in the sources (there might be more, and if so, we should create redirects for them, but certainly not for all possible countries).
Please see our guideline WP:REDIR for reasons why we have redirects (and also for valid reasons to delete them). I do not find these redirects unnecessary (otherwise I would not have created them).
The point is not to just have some "alternative names as redirects", as you wrote, but to ideally have all terms, which are used by people, covered. It is about defining a proper "interface" of possible incoming terms into an article.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: discussion is still ongoing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 07:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are all common search terms and are useful. If there were a 100+ redirects perhaps there might be a potential reason to delete them, but Matthiaspaul has made good points as to why they have limited the number to a manageable amount and therefore should be kept. - PaulT+/C 21:29, 15 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.

Albert Manning[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) 01:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional character that is not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:35, 8 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.

Stroke of genius[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. --BDD (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While the terms appear to be semantically similar, "flash of genius" refers to a specific legal term, and I don't see any evidence that "stroke of genius" is used interchangeably with it. signed, Rosguill talk 23:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This might indicate that are similar [[1]] or this [[2]], neither are using it in the (US) legal sense. This also does not seem to be being used in any legal sense [[3]]. I suspect I could find more.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear that as an idiom, "stroke of genius" and "flash of genius" are used interchangeably. However, the article Flash of genius refers explicitly to the term's use in copyright law (and I suspect that an article on the non-legal contexts of either term would essentially be a DICDEF). signed, Rosguill talk 17:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nit: patent law, not copyright law. I don't mean to be pedantic here, but the reference to copyright might leave some other participants scratching their heads, since patent and copyright are very different things. TJRC (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the article looks only at US usage, it need globeifying.Slatersteven (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. It's about a concept formerly in US patent law. As far as I know, no other jurisdiction ever looked to "flash of genius". There's nowhere else on the globe to globalize it to.
Really, the article Flash of genius is about the U.S. Supreme Court case Cuno Engineering v. Automatic Devices, which has no article, but is referred to in a handful of other articles. Flash of genius arguably should be rewritten as an article Cuno Engineering v. Automatic Devices and moved. TJRC (talk) 21:21, 7 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) 02:24, 8 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.

Gay Frogs conspiracy[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. There's consensus against having these redirects without supporting text in the potential target articles. --BDD (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the meme about Jones ranting about gay frogs, but I'm not sure that justifies a redirect, especially when the article does not mention it at all. signed, Rosguill talk 23:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as readers may have heard of the gay frogs meme without remembering Alex Jones' name. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 09:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not include either of the words "gay" or "frog" meaning a reader who doens't know anything about the meme (e.g. me) will not find anything useful in the article. As far as I can tell there are exactly three mentions of "gay frogs" on Wikipedia unrelated to this redirect, CAFE (media company)#Todd Dracula Cuts the News has a passing mention: "Todd Dracula got his start repurposing existing videos on Vine, creating viral vines such as the Drake "I'm from Toronto" vine and the Alex Jones "Gay Frogs" vine." which doesn't provide anywhere close to enough information to anchor a redirect. KZMK#History has even less information, simply listing "Gay Frogs Alex Jones Remix" as part of an uncited list of most-played songs on the station. Finally there is the (presently) 44th entry (of 46) at Wikipedia:Editing Under the Influence which while giving the most information is very clearly not a suitable target, not least as it isn't stable - when I edited the page in 2009 there were over 450 entries. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No mention of frogs (of any kind) in the Jones article, so this redirect serves no purpose.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep This should only be kept if the redirect target mentions the matter. It can and I think that it probably should. There are sufficient RS references for it. In just the first page of the Google News search for "gay frogs" I found this non-trivial coverage:
--DanielRigal (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes contributor articles aren't reliable, but this one, which mentions the gay frogs conspiracy is:https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/alex-jones-5-most-disturbing-ridiculous-conspiracy-theories.html X-Editor (talk) 18:57, 1 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) 02:24, 8 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.

Pro-American[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 Converted to a DAB page. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Yankophile discussion below made me realize we don't have an American version of the articles in Category:Admiration of foreign cultures. American nationalism certainly qualifies as Pro-American sentiment in a sense, though so does American patriotism. There's some discussion of positive sentiment at Americanization, but mostly, this feels like a WP:REDLINK situation. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now per nom Disambiguatesigned, Rosguill talk 21:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)22:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overly vague. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment given the (recently closed) discussion about Pro-China above, do we want to consider turning this into a disambiguation as well? The situation is a bit different given a lack of quite as many articles on this topic. signed, Rosguill talk 20:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate "Pro-American" (a la #Pro-China above) and Retarget "Pro-American sentiment" to "Pro-American". It will be a short disambiguation page to start with for sure (basically American patriotism, Americanization, and American nationalism), but that isn't a problem and it will help to identify gaps (like Yankophile/#Yankophile). If there are other "Pro-X" redirects perhaps they should probably all be disamibugated similarly. - PaulT+/C 21:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC) (I went ahead and took a stab at this.) - PaulT+/C 21:25, 7 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) 02:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Onel5969 has removed the "stab" I described above. I'm not sure that was appropriate (and furthermore has broken the link to this discussion since it has been relisted), but I'm not familiar enough with the way things work here to say for sure. I'll just note that I was following a similar lead taken at #Pro-China (now below), where an editor added the potential DAB page below the redirect while the discussion was ongoing. - PaulT+/C 13:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored your draft, Psantora, thank you for taking a stab at disambiguating. Onel5969, it is common practice at RfD to draft a disambiguation under the redirect when one is under consideration. It helps other editors see what it would look like. -- Tavix (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tavix - was unaware of that, since during other discussions (mfd, afd, etc.) it's considered bad form to make unilateral changes like that while a discussion is open. And my apologies, Psantora, for the same reason. I hadn't read the actual discussion, merely clicked on the link to see that there was an open discussion, so I hadn't read your "stab" comment. Also, my edit didn't break the link to the discussion, the link prior to my edit and after my edit led to the same place, the original discussion, which then has a link to the relisted discussion. Onel5969 TT me 16:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies Onel5969. You are 100% correct on not breaking the link. I was confused on why B dash added 2=Pro-American to the template and assumed that edit somehow also changed the link to point here. I went ahead and made the change myself so the link now points here. However, in the process of making the change I found (what I think is) an edge-case bug in the {{RfD}} template where the "Category:Redirects for discussion from Mmm YYYY" hidden category is incorrectly changed when making this change. Anyway, if there are further questions/comments on this point it is probably best to continue them there so as to not push this discussion even further off-topic. Also, thanks to Tavix for restoring the draft disambiguation page. - PaulT+/C 16:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Fixed - PaulT+/C 18:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm satisfied in principle with the disambiguation page. I don't like the "Americophile" entry, and the Wiktionary entry says nothing about Americanization. Add a Wiktionary link to the page, sure, but Americophile should redirect to this disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 21:55, 16 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.

Coastal 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 Desert#Classification. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target section no longer exists, having been removed in December 2018, and the term is no longer mentioned at the target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ping Ssbbplayer, who removed the section a few months ago. It appears from sources like this one that "coastal desert" is a valid climate region classification, even if it doesn't fit neatly into one of the Koppen groups, and at least Namib still uses it to describe a region. So it seems there ought to be a better target? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the main issue related to the "mild desert climate" was that there was no well defined criteria to define of what constitutes the climate to be classified as a "mild desert climate". As well, the so called "BWn"/"BSn" climates were erroneously being used to describe the so called mild desert climates even though the n, in the Koppen system denotes a climate characterized by frequent fog (the scientific articles that used this were mostly related to describing a climate with frequent fog so that appears to be the correct way) and not a criteria based on temperature that the "mild desert climate" claims to explain. The issue had been raised multiple times by other users on the talk pages and seeing that there were no reliable sources on it (I tried to search scientific articles using that term along with the terms BWn, BSn, and Koppen), I believed the best decision was to remove it or otherwise, everyone would be believing in something that did not existed in the first place (it was basically WP:OR). Also, if you look at the section describing this "mild desert climate" before it was removed, it was uncited for almost 8-9 years. There are also no sources to claim that coastal deserts are classified as mild desert climates owing to the main issue of what constitutes a mild desert climate. Support deleting the redirect to a mild desert climate. What I recommend is instead change the redirect to Fog desert instead. That seems more like a valid classification for coastal deserts. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Desert#Classification, or a more specific anchor we could establish in that section. There's a paragraph about coastal deserts there. I don't know how likely the topic is to get its own article, but I think this will satisfy readers in the meantime. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Desert#Classification where it is discussed. -- Tavix (talk) 17:59, 16 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.

Mundane astrology[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 History of astrology#Ancient world. --BDD (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD from 2012 closed as merge to Astrology and History of astrology, but the content was later removed from the latter as off-topic, and I can find no evidence that it was ever merged to the former. Neither article currently mentions the subject, nor are they suitable merge targets due to their scope. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to history of astrology. The content was never even attempted to be added to astrology, but the topic does come up on occassion at talk:astrology and the term does appear in history of astrology. I'm not sure where Neither article currently mentions the subject comes from because it is clearly present. - PaulT+/C 02:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to History of astrology#Ancient world where it is discussed. -- Tavix (talk) 17:57, 16 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_8&oldid=1136447949"