Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 29, 2019.

Payback (loyalty card)[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 Payback India. Any merging or un-merging can happen after the AfD resolves, if it doesn't just fall into a WP:G8 hole. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target article doesn't explain (or even contain any reference to) Payback. Jonathan Haas (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Agree with nom, but this was a promotional article [1] that was converted to a redirect to the parent company, so this might warrant an AfD discussion. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Normally I'm one of the strongest voices against deleting former article content at RfD, but this content was tagged for G11 speedy deletion (exclusively promotional) and it certainly did meet that standard. Indeed it was less neutral than the version deleted in 2017 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Payback (loyalty card) (it was not eligible for G4 speedy deletion (repost) as the redirected version was substantially different from the deleted version). Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note the Rchat "with history" and Þjarkur's comment above. Before we delete this redirect, would we need to do a proper history merge here, Thryduulf? --Doug Mehus T·C 01:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dmehus: There is no indication that any content from this article was merged to American Express so a history merge would be incorrect. While the redirect does have a lot of history, it doesn't have anything that we need to preserve. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Thryduulf: Okay fair enough. Just wanted to check. Consider my bolded "delete" in my comment above my !vote. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Payback India The 2019 version was split off from Payback India, so if this should redirect there unless the India article is under discussion for deletion. Note PAYBACK also redirects to American Express AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support the merge proposed by AngusWOOF. Doug Mehus T·C 21:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:28, 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.

Tiscali International Network[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 10#Tiscali International Network

Template:Info[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. I'm afraid I don't think we'll get any better than this. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Template:Information is a template separate from Template:Notice, it is confusing that this redirect targets where it currently targets. With that being said, considering that this redirect has almost 7000 transclusions, I'd say due to the confusion, let's weak replace all transclusions of Template:Info with Template:Notice, then retarget Template:Info to Template:Information. (The counterpoint is that the better option may be to move Template:Information to a new name and oppose this request ... which I sort of support as well.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep with 7000 transclusions it's almost certain that new ones will continue to be made and changing the target under people using it will not improve the encyclopaedia. I have no opinion at the moment about moving Template:Information. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary keep per Thryduulf above. If Steel1943 wants to update the transclusions to the main Notice template, then I'm all for deleting this redirect as it would no longer be used. But for now, given the transclusions, I say keep it for now without prejudice to renomination in future. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...So, this "keep" is based on the fact that there are transclusions, even though my nomination statement is a proposition to replace the transclusions with consensus and to retarget the redirect? In this particular case, due to the sheer amount of transclusions of this redirect and since replacing the transclusions has not been discussed anywhere else prior (as far as I can tell), replacing the transclusions without consensus to do so would be akin to putting the cart before the horse. Steel1943 (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: my point is that the number of transclusions and that this has been a redirect to the current target for over a decade means that new transclusions of this redirect will continue to be made expecting it to point to the current target. The disruption this will cause far outweighs the benefits of the different target. I don't object to your proposed changes to the transclusions per se but would discourage it as pointless edits and I would not support deletion or retargetting after it had been orphaned, per the likely new transclusions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steel1943, I understand your frustration given the request you made in the nomination, though editors are free to reject the premise and request no action until the transclusions are dealt with. At the same time, no one is explicitly saying you must not replace the transclusions. I'm not sure where that leaves us. We could close as no consensus and you could work on the transclusions. Then... a new RfD? Unilateral action? I don't know. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BDD: As stated above, the response comment I made above was not in response to Thryduulf's' comment (if that clarifies anything). But yeah, if this was closed to "no consensus" possibly without restriction on replacing the transclusions (I really don't care either way), I'd have no quarrel. Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 9 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.

Lake The Lake[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 List of tautological place names#Lakes and other bodies of water. Whether or not to point to the section is a toss-up. I think it's a good bet that anyone using such a search term is looking for a lake, but won't raise a fuss if anyone removes the section redirect. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not an actual name for Lake Tahoe. While the name Tahoe is derived from an indigenous language's word for "the lake", this is pretty common for bodies of water (of the top of my head I can think of Lake Lagunita and River Avon as similar examples), and I would thus suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, this is nonsense because no lakes are referred to in this fashion. By the way, other examples can be found at List of tautological place names#Lakes and other bodies of water. -- Tavix (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of tautological place names. Someone using this search term will either be looking for information about tautological places names (without knowing the right term for the phenomenon) which they will find there, or a specific tautologically-named lake, which they will find listed there. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Agree with Thryduulf's reasoning about reader intent. Would recommend retargeting to List of tautological place names#Lakes and other bodies of water. — hike395 (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm torn regarding the section. It's more helpful for someone looking for a specific lake but less helpful for someone looking for information about the concept. It's easier for the former to find the content specific to lakes from the TOC than for the latter to know to scroll to the top of the page so I weakly prefer not to target the section but I don't want to stand in the way of a consensus if others disagree. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: I just edited Lake lake and Desert Desert yesterday to target specific sections. If the consensus here is no section anchoring, happy to revert. My model is that readers are impatient, and if they don't immediately find relevant information, then may hit the back button or give up entirely. That's why I generally prefer section redirects (if they make sense). — hike395 (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with that, but here we have two groups of readers one looking for specific information and one looking for general information. My thinking is that it's easier to find the specific from the general than the general from the specific (in this case at least). Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment retargeting sounds like a good idea. signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 30 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.

Ban-jiha[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) 17:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, my guess based on search results is that this is a transliteration of Korean. Delete per WP:FORRED unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 22:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. This is indeed a transliteration of Korean: 반지하; Hanja: 半地下, and anyway the more correct translation of that term is not basement but semi-basement - which also has no particular connection to Korean . 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:17, 30 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.

Sounds[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) 02:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Sound (disambiguation) (or create a new DAB at "Sounds") per WP:PLURALPT although "Sounds" can mean the audible acoustic, its not a constable noun and Sound (geography) is one. Compare "lots of dogs" and "lots of dog" with "lots of sound" and "lots of sounds" and the example given at PLURALPT of Orange being a DAB but Oranges redirecting to the fruit. There are also other uses of "Sounds" such as Sounds (artist's book), Sounds (Australian TV series), Sounds (Rob Brown album), Sounds (magazine) and Sounds (short story) as well as several other uses at Sound (disambiguation) that are also plural. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, standard {{R from plural}} to the primary topic. I'm unconvinced "sounds" usually has a different meaning than "sound". -- Tavix (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. The primary meaning of "sounds" is the plural of "sound", and many incoming links rely on this. This redirect has been in place for 16 years so is well established. --92.40.6.225 (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix and the anon. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 30 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.

Vitalyevna[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) 17:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While a Ramona Vitalyevna Grabchenko was involved in the incident detailed at the target, other individuals with articles on Wikipedia have had the patronymic Vitalyevna. I would suggest deletion, as disambiguating around patronymics seems unlikely to be of much use. signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Keep the redirect, retarget to the most famous Vitalyevna, or create disambiguation page at "Vitalyevna", but do not delete the history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Several people mentioned on Wikipedia have this patronym, but I don't see it used as a surname nor in the title of any biographies. There doesn't seem to be significant enough use to warrant disambiguation—and one might fail WP:PTM for that matter. Deletion would reveal search results in the unlikely event someone is searching in this fashion. -- Tavix (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - echo Tavix. Atsme Talk 📧 00:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; we don't seem to do WP:APO set indices by patronym in general (though there are exceptions for famous ones like Ilyich). Additionally, this redirect has no history worth preserving; it's always been a redirect. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:06, 8 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.

Eli (upcoming film)[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) 17:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No longer upcoming. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:24, 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.

Snout (moth)[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) 17:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical redirect. The vernacular name is "snout moth", with moth as inalienable part of that name. They're not called "snouts" any more than small whites are called "smalls" or almond ringlets are called "almonds".

Use on Wikipedia is essentially non-existent (a single link from a user subpage that was last edited in 2010) and links from outside Wikipedia seem unlikely as well. Page views (user agent) over 90 days are single-digit. Since July 2015 (as far back as Pageviews Analysis goes), all of 45 hits. (To contrast: its valid counterpart Snout moth received 4,772 hits in the same timespan, and 219 the past 90 days) AddWittyNameHere 02:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pointless redirect as per nom. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per nom, this redirect is not useful with an incorrectly formatted name and such low usage. ComplexRational (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — wonder if the creator of that redirect thought it said mouth, not moth. Atsme Talk 📧 00:13, 30 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.

Bulldogge Brasileiro[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) 17:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this article was nominated for deletion (see nomination) with the intent to merge unsourced content by the sockpuppet of the t-ban evading IQ125 (talk · contribs · logs · block log). There are no sources to support the inclusion as this as a breed (even as a mere mention) at the target page, a Google search shows nothing attributable. Cavalryman (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article form was lucky to avoid deletion altogether. William Harristalk 02:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I echo the reasons given above for deletion. Unsourced, poorly sourced and/or single sourced articles have been a repeated issue giving rise to more issues across this topic area (dogs). The result is instability and unnecessary time sinks for editors and admins alike, as demonstrated here now. Atsme Talk 📧 09:18, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_29&oldid=930202937"