Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 14, 2019.

Holidays[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should this redirect to Holiday or Christmas and holiday season? Interstellarity (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Holiday. The holidays can keep redirecting to Christmas and holiday season, but without the 'the', it's too vague to assume they meant the holiday season, rather than generic holidays. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holiday: in the UK, "Holidays" suggests school summer holidays, or family holidays (ie US "vacation"), and the use of the phrase "Happy Holidays" is to many people an unwelcome Americanism ("Seasons Greetings" is the religion-avoiding alternative to "Merry Christmas"). PamD 23:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holiday - if a user is thinking of the Christmas and holiday season, it's available through Holiday, but there are other "holidays" that a user might also be interested in. PKT(alk) 15:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holiday: without the initial "the", it could plausibly refer to any set of holidays, of any region and any time of year. Making an {{R from plural}} will alleviate any ambiguity. ComplexRational (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holiday as plural. Hatnotes from there are sufficient. Holidays (disambiguation) can be created to redirect to the dab. The Holidays seem to be a band. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indifferent to either; slightly prefer plural. I don't see why we need a dab page per AngusWOOF though. I think a hatnote would be sufficient. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:37, 21 November 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.

Yaoluoge Hesa[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 keep. Justification provided, withdrawing nomination. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 21:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. Searching for the redirect term on Google Scholar returned zero results. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. While that book doesn't appear to make any mention of "Yaoluoge" being equivalent to Qaghan, I see that we have some content in Wikipedia articles that does make that comparison. I'll withdraw this discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:36, 14 November 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.

Andrew bessette[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) 14:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that the target article's subject has ever been known by this name, unconventional capitalization aside. I would suggest deletion unless evidence can be provided that this was a name used for this subject. signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps as a {{R from misspelling}}, otherwise delete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThat doesn't mean someone looking for his article won't use the wrong name. He's Andreas Bessette in Latin, and someone seeing that name on the calendar or in the books might look under Andrew. It's common for saints' names to be translated; John Vianney is better known in English as John, even though his name was Jean, since he was French. The reason for the lower-case b is that many people type search terms in lower case for words normally capitalised, and if the redirect is at Bessette, the lower-case search goes to the search page. PaulGS (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search for "st andrew bessette" turns up numerous churches and schools named for him, using Andrew, not André, and church bulletins listing the saints for the week. Seems common enough that people would search for him under that name. PaulGS (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This would be like assuming Andrew the Giant is a viable alternative spelling. Bessette's life was from 1845-1937 so there aren't any concerns about it having to be Latinized or alternative spelling as with the Andrew the Apostle. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:54, 21 November 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.

Primitive Korean peninsula language[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 28#Primitive Korean peninsula language

Applied Cryptography[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 28#Applied Cryptography

Practical Cryptography[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 Books on cryptography#Significant books. Everyone seems to agree, so WP:IAR despite having participated. (non-admin closure) Wug·a·po·des​ 06:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only two backlinks are from Bruce Schneier and Cryptography newsgroups, both of which are references to books by Schneier, whereas this redirect targets a section about the general concept. LFaraone 13:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 14 November 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.

Metro systems in the United States[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 26#Metro systems in the United States

List of heavy rail systems[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) 06:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy rail and metro not synonyms - heavy rail generally includes 'normal' railways as well. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:31, 14 November 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.

OnLine Journal of Biological Sciences[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) 20:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect. OnLine Journal of Biological Sciences (ISSN 1608-4217) is not Journal of Biological Sciences (ISSN 1812-5719). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: this redirect may cause confusion, and deleting encourages article creation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Shhhnotsoloud, especially if the first one suggested by Shhhnotsoloud is a predatory journal and the latter is not. Otherwise, keep as a plausible misspelling/capitalization redirect. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, both are predatory. The first being published by Science Publications, and the second by Asian Network for Scientific Information/Scialert.net. But they still aren't the same journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb, thanks. They are plausible miscapitalizations, but unlike other editors, I'm fine with ignoring whatever rules. I don't see them as particularly likely typos. I'll keep my vote as delete for you. Doug Mehus T·C 02:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are plausible miscapitalizations of a journal that isn't the Journal of Biological Sciences. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb, come again? What am I missing here? The current target is The Journal of Biological Sciences.Doug Mehus T·C 02:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the current target. Which isn't The Online Journal of Biological Sciences. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb, True, but I can see what someone would do, they'd think because it's a digital journal, they need to precede it with "online." However, per WP:CRYSTAL or WP:PANDORA or whatever, we could add redirects for "Internet Journal of Biological Sciences" and even "Interweb Journal of Biological Sciences". Concur with the nom. Doug Mehus T·C 03:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation should OnLine Journal of Biological Sciences be notable. OnLine is the stylization [1] Here are the RG Journal Impact numbers. [2] The publisher is Science Publications, which does not have a Wikipedia entry unless that's another subsidiary? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:46, 21 November 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.

Portal:The Prisoner[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 26#Portal:The Prisoner

Allegations of state terrorism against the United States[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) 20:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "against" kind of throws this redirect into ambiguity compared to other redirects that target United States and state terrorism. The target is about supposed acts that the United States has carried out, but the redirect sounds like its target should be about acts where the United States is the target rather than the actor. Steel1943 (talk) 06:25, 14 November 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.

Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism[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 Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target section is not in the target article, and the only mention of the word "Japan" is in an entry in the references section. Maybe retarget it to its former target, Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Steel1943 (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget as suggested, that seems the best option. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 16 November 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.

Austin Martin[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 Austin Martin (baseball) over the redirect. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Yankees10 in the WP:CSD tag I just declined: "Unnecessary re-direct. There is zero mention of this name on the re-direct target.". It's not a valid reason to WP:CSD, but I do agree that it's a good reason for deletion, so I'm bringing it here. In addition, this redirect may be a WP:BLP issue. Steel1943 (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder if it could be repurposed to a typo of Aston Martin. Either way, it's a useless redirect its current form, so delete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looks as though Yankees10 recently created Austin Martin (baseball). If the nominated redirect is deleted, unless a disambiguation page or another "Austin Martin" article is created, Austin Martin (baseball) should be move to Austin Martin per WP:PRECISE. Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:If I remember right, I made the redirect because someone tried to create an article on this person when the article on him already existed (the redirect). I wouldn't be offended if it got removed. LionMans Account (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to allow the baseballer to occupy this title. Given that Austin#Business lists three different automobile manufacturers, including the prominent and contemporary tin Martin" to refer to Austin Motor Company seems restricted to a single low-quality Polish website, so there is no WP:XY here). However that confusion is best dealt with via a Austin Motor Company I would say that Austin Martin was a plausible misremembering of Aston Martin - and google supports that this does happen (in contrast the use of "Aushatnote at the base title when the baseballer is moved there. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Aston Martin as a plausible misspelling. (Note to RfD Closer: Recommend adding an applicable Rcat if this is the result.) If a notable "Austin Martin" ever surfaces, a page can be created over this redirect. But, I see it as a plausible misspelling for Aston Martin; or,
Disambiguate to Austin Motor Company and Aston Martin per Thryduulf above.

(Friendly ping to Thryduulf, LionMans Account, Headbomb, Yankees10, and Steel1943, as the nom, in light of this new comment and direction.) --Doug Mehus T·C 16:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think primary disambiguation is correct here, but if it is then Austin Martin (baseball) needs to be listed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't see what the Austin Motor Company has to do with anything here. My comment/vote above remain. Repurpose as a typo of Austin Martin, or delete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, nevermind, there's now Austin Martin (baseball), which should clearly overtake this redirect per WP:PRIMARY. With a hatnote pointing to Aston Martin. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Headbomb: I explain the Austin Motor Company connection in my comment above (briefly, conflating Austin (which is how the Austin Motor Company is referred to when disambiguation isn't required) and Aston Martin into Austin Martin is theoretically plausible, but in practice the term is not used when Austin is meant but is sometimes when Aston Martin is.) Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no hard and fast rule about errors as potential primary topics, but IMO, it's best to assume readers' search terms are not mistakes unless it's a very common one. While the baseball player isn't especially prominent, he's apparently notable enough for his own article. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    BDD So then closing as move (best left to an admin or non-involved page mover editor), with no hatnote to the misspelling, seems like the best approach?--Doug Mehus T·C 17:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    May as well leave this open for the full listing period. I won't opine on what we should do now in case I end up closing. I'll note that if we did want a hatnote for Astin Martin, {{distinguish}} would be the most appropriate one. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 18 November 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.

Billy Hallowell[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) 20:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was originally an article, and converted to a redirect as a result of an AfD in 2015. While Hallowell was mentioned at the target at the time, since then the Personalities section has been edited to remove mention of individuals who do not meet notability guidelines. Hallowell was specifically removed in 2017 by this IP edit [3]. This redirect has recently been blanked twice, which may have been attempts to delete the redirect. As the article no longer mentions Hallowell, I see no reason to keep this redirect and would suggest deleting it. signed, Rosguill talk 05:13, 14 November 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.

Franciszek Ksawery d' Abancourt de Franqueville[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) 20:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect goes only to the person he was apparently named after. No other connection between those two people who lived three centuries apart. ミラP 03:56, 14 November 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.

Sancia[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 resolved. Thanks to PamD for drafting the name article. Whether Sancha should be created, and its relationship to Sancia, can be dealt with via the normal editorial process. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not the only person named "Sancia". See Sancia of Majorca. It seems to be a modified version of "Sancha" a name that used to be more common in the Iberian Peninsula. There should be an article on the name "Sancha" and "Sancia" should redirect to it. It should not redirect to an individual person, unless said person is mononymous without qualification.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original creator of the redirect, and I don't object to changing it to take into account multiple Sanchas/Sancias with a disambiguation page. I made the redirect many, many years ago because at that time there was no other plausible target I could think of. I do object to this RFD itself, because in this case, it's an unnecessary bureaucratic procedure. You're not asking for the redirect to be deleted, just changed to take into account multiple Sanchas/Sancias, and no one ever stated any objection to the redirect getting changed that way, so in such a case of no-deletion-necessary and no-objections-on-record, you could have just gone ahead and made the change without the need for this unnecessary RFD. —Lowellian (reply) 15:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The original creator of Sancia of Majorca in 2007 should have added a redirect from Sancia as this was then the only use of the name in the encyclopedia. When the name "Sancia" was added to the Sancha of Aragon article in 2011 that redirect should have been made into a dab page (instead, the redirect was created at that time). I have now drafted a dab page on the redirect page, including also an opera with an eponymous heroine Sancia di Castiglia. I suggest that we need this dab page instead of the redirect. It's perfectly reasonable to create a redirect from a surname or given name to the unique holder of that name ... and then later to overwrite it by a dab page when another nameholder materialises. Agreed, no need for this to have come to RfD: just update the redirect into a dab page (which is effectively a multiple-choice redirect). PamD 23:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to given name page per above. Thanks to PamD for creating the draft. - Eureka Lott 16:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objections Haven't looked into it, but the nom, PamD, and EurekaLott seem to have things looked after. Consider this a Support for the prevailing consensus at close. --Doug Mehus T·C 03:48, 21 November 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_November_14&oldid=928333257"