Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 26, 2019.

Sugar Metal[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) 16:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently a phrase that a particular band (the target, possibly not notable themselves, but the article exists for now) coined to describe their own music. The target doesn't mention the term in the article body or define it. Google results for "sugar metal" and "sugar metal" + "music" show almost exclusively unrelated uses. It's difficult to imagine a circumstance in which this redirect is helpful to a reader and easy to envision situations in which it would be confusing (e.g. if a reader was curious about any of the other uses that Google turns up, or was interested in knowing precisely what sugar metal sounds like). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Redirecting a genre to the only notable practitioners of that genre can be good if both are notable and the term is explained (c.f. Rockgrass → Hayseed Dixie) but that is not the case here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if someone other than the band had discussed the term in a way that might be included in their article in an encyclopedic way, then this would be a good redirect to that section, but absent that it's just a meaningless redirect that does not help a reader. ~ mazca talk 18:08, 29 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.

Awesome interviewee[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 speedied. DrKay (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic redirect. --Joshualouie711talk 21:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unlikely search term, seems completely unrelated to its current target. CycloneYoris talk! 21:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is related, but WP:RECENTISM essentially. The Duke of York had an interview on British national television (Prince Andrew, Duke of York § Newsnight interview and repercussions) which was seen to backfire, so "awesome" here means "terrible". Redirects don't have to be neutral, but there are many other candidates for this title, in several senses of "awesome". 94.21.78.76 (talk) 05:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But even so, I do agree it's ambiguous and unencyclopedic as the nom correctly points out. Should be speedy deleted per its recent creation. CycloneYoris talk! 16:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a joke edit by a sock puppet. The creator deliberately made 10 random edits to a sandbox in order to autoconfirm their account -- that's a typical tactic of disruptive sock-puppets. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as being a nonsensical redirect. Creator should also be blocked for A) being a sock and B) Trying to make useless edits in order to be autoconfirmed. –Davey2010Talk 14:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G11 promotional. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really doubt this is promotional, and certainly not by anyone who is a representative or fan of the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as highly ambiguous per 94.21.78.7 (my first thought was Ain't Nobody Got Time For That). This is not an established nickname, either the DoY or for anyone else and so there is no target that would not result in confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 27 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.

Latin convention[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 Contemporary Latin. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overly specific redirect: other classics associations such as CAMWS, the ACL, and the British Classical Association hold annual conventions or conferences. Cheers, gnu57 19:54, 26 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.

Al Einstein[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) 19:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened name but not usually known as Al Einstein. Also, while this has no affect on the redirect, it's creator was blocked as a sockpuppet in 2008. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 17:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I checked Einstein (surname) for others who might logically have this nickname. There's Alfred Einstein, and arguably Albert Brooks, but no indication either of them went/go by Al. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how to feel about a logical, jocular sort of nickname for a famous figure like this. Billy Shakespeare is red, despite being used in a hit song and despite the fact that we do have Billy Shakes. I think I'm leaning delete, because without further context, I'd wonder why someone would call Albert Einstein "Al", and think they might be talking about someone else. See also the recent discussion for Michelangelo's Dave, though that one was specifically a Simpsons reference. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. With BDD, I see nothing inherently wrong with redirecting a jocular nickname, but the joke relies on its audience both knowing the figure's common name and knowing that the jocular name is not in widespread use. Readers are likely to be looking for the joke's origin, so it's a bit WP:RFD#D2 confusing. 94.21.78.76 (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete shortened nickname that is never referred to in any context in major media sources, like assuming Larry Einstein is an alias based on Einstein's middle name. I'd get rid of Billy Shakes too; searches point to a non-notable entertainer stage name, unless there was context in article like with Moby AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    AngusWOOF, do you mean Moby? I don't think of him as a singer (vs. musician, DJ), but our article says he is. --BDD (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    BDD, yeah, sorry about the redlink ;) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AngusWOOF. This appears to be a nickname invited on-wiki rather than one used in reliable sources, and an ambiguous one given Alfred Einstein and Albert Brooks (born Einstein). -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:07, 29 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.

Calaq[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) 16:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what the purpose of this redirect is. "Calaq" is not mentioned in the target, nor does it appear to be a likely misspelling. Searching online didn't return any meaningful results; based on Google Scholar results it appears to be a word in Azeri, without any clear relationship to the target. signed, Rosguill talk 21:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Couldn't this have been the result of an error in an attempt to create the somewhat more plausible misspelling Calq? – Uanfala (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe? The redirect's history, which starts off as a redirect to the nonexistent target Calaque is odd but doesn't really clarify much for me. signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, I mistook the word "calque" as "calaque". --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. I see a CALAQ that could go to Catalina Lighting, but that doesn't have an article yet. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 26 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.

Santa Clara principles[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. The delete votes were valid when made, but the underlying concern has been addressed. Thanks to Connor Behan. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While the Santa Clara principles appear to be in line with the EFF's goals, I don't see any indication that the two subjects are directly related to each other based on self-published [1] and independent coverage [2], as well as the lack of a mention in the target article. That having been said, it seems to me like the Santa Clara principles are probably notable, so if someone wanted to start working on writing this article, that could head off the need for deletion of the redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 19:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the redirect doesn't help a person searching for "Santa Clara principles" in any way and is also confusing. It may even suggest that the subjects are somehow associated, while that's not the case.—K4rolB (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I think it was this article that convinced me to associate the Santa Clara principles with the EFF. It says "we joined several organizations and academics in creating the Santa Clara Principles". Going by the official site, the other organizations involved are also quite notable. So I agree that a redirect to the EFF still causes confusion. Connor Behan (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it might help if the EFF article or one of the Facebook articles had a section that deals with this, otherwise, it might just be thought of as a minor event. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I have now created this section. The Santa Clara Principles are part of the EFF's recent decision to push for content moderation reform. The Open Technology Institute has taken many of the same steps, but it's better to put this section in an article that's not a candidate for being merged. Connor Behan (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of recently created section that explains it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as retargeted to the section now that it's explained. It now seems to be a helpful redirect; if the principles can be spun out into an independent article in future then that'll be a great option to solve the issue with them being associated with multiple organisations, but Connor Behan's addition to that section is a great solution for now. ~ mazca talk 18:11, 29 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.

RAJKUSHMA : Avillage of JANGAL MAHAL[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) 16:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely implausible title, with the unusual capitalisation, spacing, misspellings, and punctuation. Reyk YO! 15:11, 26 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.

Flatgrass[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) 14:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article. A quick Google search suggests this is just a building element in the game, which would not seem to merit a redirect or a mention. (N.b., I suspected there might be an actual plant with this name, but that doesn't seem to be the case.) --BDD (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • For reference: gm_flatgrass and gm_construct are the maps included with GMod by default. They are large open maps. They would load and work in a few other Source engine games as well. gm_construct is likely a reference to the Construct scene in The Matrix. gm_flatgrass accurately describes itself. Both maps have an old and new version following an update a few years back. I have no recommendation on the nomination. ζompuλacker (tlk) 18:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Searches point to some local tournament in Neenah, Wisconsin or the name of some local business. Also Flat Grass near Portland, Jamaica. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned in target so a searcher will find nothing about them, and potentially ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Flatgrass, maybe keep Gm flatgrass. As CompuHacker says above, this redirect is a reference to a map in garry's mod, an incredibly famous one at that- so famous that it might be notable as a standalone article. Flatgrass itself is too ambiguous however, and should be deleted💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 13:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Lordtobi (✉) 08:08, 28 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.

Christenson Zoo[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, effectively withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target article. PamD 19:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add mention to article as there aren't other Christenson Zoos to disambiguate that it would require a dabmention. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: N.b., the zoo is listed at List of zoos in the United States#Massachusetts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (by nominator) I have now added sourced info about the zoo to the article. PamD 15:12, 26 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.

ITablet[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) 16:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was MfD'd twice before being redirected to iPad. But I haven't heard of this term before, and it doesn't sound like a commonplace term for Apple's device. It'd be like if we had iComputer redirect to iMac. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 12:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question There's a fair bit of edit history on this redirect, so WP:ATT could apply, no? If not, I'd favour delete per nom. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:55, 3 December 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.

Conrad Knopf[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) 16:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not mentioned in target. Onel5969 TT me 12:22, 26 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.

Conrad Button[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) 14:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While Jim Button is mentioned in the target, Conrad Button is not. Onel5969 TT me 12:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • ’’’Comment’’’ Conrad Button is listed as the author of a number of ButtonWare interactive fiction games. One of them, ‘’’Nebula’’’, references a Nahtan Fponk and Divad Nottub, according to David Welbourn’s review at Plover.net. It seems there is some connection between Conrad and Jim. 2600:1003:B127:7622:2D8C:D722:F9FD:8E6 (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unclear what this is referring to. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 4 December 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]

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. It sounds like the larger issue is settled, or at least settled enough to not justify changing this particular redirect. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is ambiguous, and could point to either List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership or List of United States light rail systems by ridership, as metro is commonly used to refer to both. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many years ago, there was a huge Wikipedia edit war over whether heavy rail transit systems should be generically called "metros" or "subways." "Rapid transit" was the compromise position arrived at (which I think is terrible, as light rail and even bus systems sometimes get the name, but that was the consensus). You'll see that "metro" is one of the synonyms used in the lede of the Rapid transit article. I don't have super strong feelings about this redirect, but I'm just providing this info for context: in general, Wikipedia treats "metro" and "rapid transit" as denoting a heavy rail transit system by default.
Honestly I'm not entirely sure why a redirect of that fairly specific phrase is necessary in the first place. I assume it's sort of meant to parallel the Light rail in the United States article, for which there's no metro/rapid transit/heavy rail equivalent? But honestly in my opinion I think we could just ditch the redirect and hope any resulting redlinks coax someone into writing an actual article. --Jfruh (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it takes people to the most likely thing they will be looking for, and there is a hatnote to the other alternative. I've got no objection to someone writing an article here, but until they do the redirect is better than nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf; I can imagine an article could be written here but I'm not sure enough about that to argue for a redlink. This redirect, particularly with the hatnote at the target, is very likely to take a reader to an article that will give them the information they're looking for. ~ mazca talk 12:10, 3 December 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]

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. Setting aside the ongoing disagreements regarding portals, the general consensus here is that the SF portal is not a specific enough target to likely satisfy a reader interested in this particular piece of fiction. (see also the Harry Potter portal RfD for whom the arguments overlap.) It is also correctly pointed out that the MfD that led to this portal's deletion in the first place found consensus for deletion, not redirection. While consensus can change it does not appear to have in this case. ~ mazca talk 12:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unhelpful redirect. I am sure it was created in good faith after WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:The Prisoner, but the target Portal:Speculative fiction contains almost nothing about TV show The Prisoner. A search of Portal:Speculative fiction +sub-pages shows several false positives, and only one archived mention of The Prisoner:

Readers following the link and expecting to find significant coverage of The Prisoner will be disappointed. It is better that readers interested in The Prisoner go to the C-class head article The Prisoner. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reality about which Nihonjoe dissembles is that in response to this nomination, Nihonjoe has just added to the portal's rotation some articles in an effort to justify the existence of a redirect which was not justified when they created it.
Having done that, it would be helpful if Nihonjoe were list what those 3 articles are ... and why they think 3 items relating to the single TV series The Prisoner is justifiable according to WP:WEIGHT.
I see that after Nihonjoe's latest edits, Portal:Speculative fiction/Selected articles + Portal:Speculative fiction/Selected biography + Portal:Speculative fiction/Selected works contain between them a total of 229 articles. That means that The Prisoner amounts to 1.3% of the portal, which means that a visitor to the portal has a trivial chance of seeing that content. So my call for deletion still stands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nihonjoe. People using this term are obviously looking for a portal, and the target is the one which covers The Prisoner. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf, after some edits by Nihonjoe to create a post-facto justification for the existence of the redirect, The Prisoner still accounts for only 1.3% of the portal. So a reader could purge the page a few dozen times, and still have a less than 50-50 probability of encountering anything about The Prisoner.
Trace elements are not coverage. Saying that this portal "is the one which covers The Prisoner" is a bit like saying that the article Winston Churchill covers Oxfordshire. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • BHG, you act as if improving the portal to address a raised concern is a bad thing. You complained about something, I addressed the concern, and now you're complaining about me addressing your concern. There's just no pleasing you, is there? You aren't going to rest until every portal is destroyed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and as I stated elsewhere on a related redirect's discussion page, there may be technical reasons to delete this redirect that incorporates the pseudo-namespace "Portal:" prefix. I'm staying away from the "Portal" namespace deletion discussions with a 10' pole (minimum length), but since this is just a redirect, it's within both my sphere of competency and personal comfort level. Yes, redirects are cheap, but I don't think this is a plausible redirect. Plus, what would happen if someone wanted to create a Harry Potter portal (as Portal:The Prisoner would undoubtedly want to be retargeted to a page of that new portal)? Sure, that example is a little like predicting the future, but no more than assuming the visitor who typed "Portal:The Prisoner" wanted specific featured content on the Portal:Speculative fiction portal. Arguably, this is a more realistic scenario. We'd end up in a conflict situation, no?--Doug Mehus T·C 15:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a "pseudo-namespace" (as you keep calling it). It's a completely valid namespace. No "pseudo" about it. Namespaces either exist or they don't. There are no sort-of namespaces. It's in every complete list of namespaces on the site. As for retargeting to a specific page of the portal, that's not how portals work. As far as I know (and I don't claim to know everything about portals, though I'd say I know quite a lot more than most people), there is no way to do what you suggest short of creating a subpage of the portal that contains only articles related to The Prisoner, and that's not how portals are (or should be) designed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nihonjoe, okay, so I made a mistake. I thought there were pseudo-namespaces, but I guess that's just referring to namespace shortcuts.--Doug Mehus T·C 20:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COSTLY (we really want redirects from every speculative fiction work?) and the result of the MfD, which was delete, not redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a fallacious argument. No one is suggesting "redirects from every speculative fiction work". This was a speculative fiction portal, and it was redirected to the speculative fiction portal. Since we generally avoid cross-namespace redirects, the suggestion someone else had of redirecting to the article won't work. If people are looking for a speculative fiction portal in the first place (which this one was), then pointing them to the closest thing is a good thing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nihonjoe, I disagree that UnitedStatesian's argument is "fallacious" as you claim. Nevertheless, by your own admission, we generally avoid cross-namespace redirects, this adds to my argument above that we should delete this on the basis that, should a The Prisoner portal be needed, we should not be occupying that term. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say delete and salt protect Portal:The Prisoner, without prejudice to it being re-created as a portal but with prejudice to it be re-created as a redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 20:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you you salt it? It hasn't been repeatedly recreated. It meets none of the requirements for salting. That's simply absurd. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: What in the world are you talking about? Everything you just said is absurd. Let's break it down: 1. UnitedStatesian's argument is fallacious because it involves the hypothetical creation of other redirects from all works of speculative fiction, which no one is suggesting. 2. This is not a cross-namespace redirect, it's a redirect from portal space to portal space which is the same namespace. 3. The MfD established that there should not be a portal on this subject. 4. WP:SALT is only for titles that we do not want anything occupying that title AND it has been repeatedly recreated. This doesn't fit either of those since by your own admission you want a portal on the subject—salting would prevent that. 5. You only get one bolded "vote". Since you already "voted" above, you shouldn't also be bolding in your reply because that could potentially confuse the closer. -- Tavix (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tavix On the bolding, my understanding is that we don't vote, so multiple bolded !votes by the same editor/administrator shouldn't matter if the closer is reading and substanting the arguments, no? Nevertheless, I don't think I !voted more than once, though I did bold other possibilities for emphasis in a subsequent comment. Those aren't my !vote. I'm not saying it's a cross-namespace redirect, so you're right, it wouldn't qualify for CSD. However, I'm not sure we should be creating redirects in the portal space for potential portals, just to serve as plausible search terms. I look at the portal space somewhat differently than other namespaces with respect to redirects. Whereas patrons type in plausible article names in the web browser's address bar hoping they'll hand on the right page, I don't see that being as plausible in the portal space because they'd have to precede it with Portal: and because the portal space generally gets such low pageviews anyway. I've withdrawn my suggestion re: salting. Doug Mehus T·C 15:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, technically you're right, but multiple bolded votes is bad practice. No reason to make things more difficult for a closer. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just don't see how this is going to satisfy a reader looking for a portal on The Prisoner, and can easily see how it would WP:SURPRISE and disappoint them. Why not Portal:Television, or Portal:United Kingdom? We should use subtopic redirects in portalspace sparingly, and with high consideration given to an actual user's experience. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. We no longer have a portal covering The Prisoner, and this redirect gives readers the (false) impression that we do. It is, in my mind, the equivalent of redirecting Portal:Spanish Civil War (or any other war) to Portal:History because the latter happens to contain one or a few mentions of the former. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will not be commenting here further. BHG has sucked all the joy out of working on enwiki. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:02, 27 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.

152a[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) 14:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While the target is known as hydrofluorocarbon-152a, r152a, and hfc-152a, I don't see any indication that the string 152a on its own refers to this target, and would thus suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason I created the redirect is that the compound is often referred to on packaging as "Hydrofluorocarbon 152a", and so people may search for the string "152a" to find it. This is at least what I did, and it would have been useful to have the redirect.–Jérôme (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to delete the redirect, the top result in the internal search engine would still be 1,1-Difluoroethane, so it would still be easy to find this target. Doing it this way would allow readers to still find other articles mentioning 152a, such as Mikoyan-Gurevich Ye-152A or BTR-152. signed, Rosguill talk 21:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I understand the rationale, but if readers are using the term from packaging, wouldn't they just use Hydrofluorocarbon 152a anyway? (N.b., I just created that redirect.) --BDD (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rosguill's comments on the search; the search function seems to do a good job of showing the several things that have the string 152a or 152A in them. I contemplated a disambiguation page but none of them are specifically called just 152a so it seems like overkill. I think this redirect is just marginally unhelpful simply because it's not quite unambiguous enough, there are other uses. ~ mazca talk 12:08, 3 December 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.

Ngân Sơn (town)[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 all, except no consensus on Phong lạc - incorrect tone markers on Vietnamese are always a source of confusion for en-wiki, and the rough consensus here is that these aren't helpful. ~ mazca talk 10:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, these were obviously created by mistake, maybe because the author didn't check the source carefully.

  • In Vietnam, the only current geographical location named Ngân Sơn is the district of Ngân Sơn. The township of Nà Phặc, though located in this district, has never been named 'Ngân Sơn', and it has never been the capital of Ngân Sơn District either. This redirect will cause misunderstanding.
  • Another redirect that would cause misunderstanding is Hòa Bình, Hòa Binh: first, this case about half diacritic/diacriticless has been previously discussed in another RfD; second, it can either refer to Hòa Bình, Bạc Liêu (Hòa Bình township in Hòa Bình District) or Hòa Bình city (Hòa Bình city in Hòa Bình Province).
  • The rest are typo errors. The fourth one, Phong lạc, is clearly unacceptable, since the first letters of names must be capitalized.
  • Lương Thế Trân is not only the name of that commune, but is also a name of a historical figure (one which the commune was named after). So it's important that this named is spelled correctly

153.18.172.42 (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a very active user (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Phong lạc as {{R from miscapitalisation}}, retarget Hòa Bình, Hòa Binh to the disambiguation page Hòa Bình. No opinions on the others at this time. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on "Phong lạc"; delete "Hòa Bình, Hòa Binh" because of the part-correct part-wrong tone marks on the second Hòa Bình; delete the rest per nom. Deryck C. 12:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete "Phong lạc" as useless (search is case insensitive). Delete "Hòa Bình, Hòa Binh" per Deryck and WP:RDAB (error in the act of disambiguating). Delete the rest per nom, as confusing redirects that, ideally, should have been suppressed at the time of each move. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Black Falcon: note that only some methods of finding Wikipedia articles are case insensitive, so being incorrectly capitalised is not a reason in and of itself to delete a redirect. c.f. Category:Redirects from other capitalisations and Category:Redirects from miscapitalisations. Redirects from moves are almost always a good thing and so suppressing them should not be done without a particularly good reason, and almost never for titles that are long established. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your note, and I agree with your first point (on capitalization)—hence my "weak" opinion based on the redirect's minimal utility (not incorrect capitalization per se). I disagree, however, with your second point (on redirects from moves). In my view, a redirect should be judged on its merits, not due to an accident of birth (so to speak...), and being the product of a move is not a reason in and of itself to keep a redirect. Absent some other reason to keep a {{R from move}}, the minimal "benefit" of such a redirect is outweighed by the additional maintenance burden. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get an old log day closed. As a reminder: if consensus can be assessed prior to 7 days after this relist, per WP:RELIST, this discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:32, 26 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.

Clown college[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 3#Clown college

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_26&oldid=929543393"