Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 4, 2019.

Vanze[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) 15:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No known connection to this label. A previously sourced mention on the target was removed per WT:ALBUMS#Concerning LabelsBase. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:06, 4 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.

Champagne paragraphs[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) 06:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a confusing case. The creator of this redirect added the subsection that this redirect points to, but then self-reverted its addition. Thus, it's not clear whether they intend for this redirect to continue to serve some sort of purpose (the article as written makes no mention of Champagne in any context). German Wikipedia has an article about Champagne paragraphs, but that article's lone source is a primary source document (the treaty itself) that makes no mention of Champagne either. I wasn't able to find any mentions online or on Google Scholar. Thus, it's plausible that such a subject exists, and that it's related to the target, but we lack conclusive evidence, and meanwhile the article has nothing useful to provide a reader. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope the creator can shed some light here. Outside of Wikipedia, I just found one Google Books usage, though it strikes me as a pretty reasonable moniker for these paragraphs, Champagne being one of the best known of these sorts of products. The redirect is only useful with corresponding content in the article, though. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As things stand, we have a potentially novel (if logical) translation of a German term, referring to a topic not covered in the target article. Hate to say it, but unless content is added or we get more references, I don't see what else we can do. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 12 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.

Eric Gould Bear[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) 15:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gould Bear was originally an article about a user interface designer; he happened to have sued Apple, among other companies, for patent violations. There was a discussion about deleting that page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Gould Bear; the conclusion was to redirect it to History of OS X, presumably because one of the comments in that discussion was to "Merge the bit about the patent infringement claims to History of OS X, delete the rest per WP:BLP1E.

Eric Gould was originally a redirect to Eric Gould Bear; it was turned into another redirect to History of OS X after Eric Gould Bear was, to avoid the double redirect.

However, History of OS X, now macOS version history, does not mention Eric Gould Bear or his suit, so these redirections no longer seem to serve a purpose. Guy Harris (talk) 20:38, 4 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.

Hot cuts[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 13#Hot cuts

Firm Hand[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) 15:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 4 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.

Bhrigu Nath Singh IIT Kgp[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) 15:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirects from name, institution and titles, variously capitalised, all created by WP:SPA whose only significant contribution is the target article. Guy (help!) 20:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom and WP:RFD#D8, as highly unlikely/implausible redirects that are basically unused (less than 10 page views per year). -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:24, 6 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.

Grand Theft Horses[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. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned on target page. Lordtobi (✉) 08:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gta horse is perhaps obvious at this point. Despite the good reason PC78 gives, I think Grand Theft Horses should be deleted as unnecessarily confusing for readers. AngusWOOF brings up the almost identically named novel by Greg Neri and I don't trust readers wanting either will be too careful about the "s". I don't think either should have a hatnote, neither Grand theft horse redirects here, for the video game see RDR nor Grand theft horses redirects here, for the similarly named novel see Greg Neri seems particularly encyclopedic or of due weight. Another option would be to retarget it to Greg Neri per AngusWOOF, but generally I don't think it should stay targeted at Red Dead Redemption. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't really have a strong opinion about this redirect, but I do very strongly object to the idea that hatnotes need to be somehow encyclopaedic or of due weight. The only criteria for a hatnote should be whether it is likely someone searching for the other topic would arrive at the current page. If Grand Theft Horse and Grand Theft Horses both exist and lead to different pages then the potential for a reader to end up at the wrong target and thus confused seems very clear. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:43, 4 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.

Twelfty[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 Long hundred. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdly redirects to the number 120 instead of the article "long hundred". I propose to retarget this to "long hundred". --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 18:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom, the term is mentioned there in its more specific historical context. I'd also suggest adding a mention at 120 (number), though. ComplexRational (talk) 21:11, 4 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.

The Hold Over[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) 15:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to find any mention at the target, nor at any of the albums listed by the artist. Unhelpful to readers. Richhoncho (talk) 17:17, 4 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.

Thomas Tobiasz[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 12#Thomas Tobiasz

Emma Sameth[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) 15:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No known connection to this label. A previous mention was removed as it was found that the source to back a claim was unreliable. See also WT:ALBUMS#Concerning LabelsBase. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:13, 4 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.

Curent account balance[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) 15:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, this has a typo in the title. Second, per WP:XY, this could refer to either day to day personal banking accounts or the current target which involves national economics. Reyk YO! 13:01, 4 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.

Castejón–Bilbao railway[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 article to Tudela–Bilbao railway. --BDD (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that the line is known by this name, or that it even passes through Castejón. Delete unless sources demonstrating this connection can be found. signed, Rosguill talk 15:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This looks like a case of the article simply being created at the wrong name. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the target article? The article links to es:Ferrocarril Castejón-Bilbao, which appears to be a name for the railway in Spanish. However, all sources I can find from both the Spanish and English articles use Tudela instead of Castejón or Casetas. That, combined with the diagram showing the railway ending at Tudela makes me think that name should be used. -- Tavix (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 22:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move article to "Tudela–Bilbao railway" (1st choice) or "Castejón–Bilbao railway" (2nd choice), and keep all redirects with valid destination names. The issue at hand is analogous to a Wikidata:Bonnie and Clyde problem: Like all good passenger railways, the railway was built in stages. Bilbao is a dead-end terminus and also a major destination so it makes sense to be in the name, but you can pick any destination near the other end the railway to be the other representative destination in the railway's name. The candidates are Castejón for the first stop across the Rioja-Navarra border; Tudela for the first major interchange across the Rioja-Navarra border; these two options focus on the history of this railway line's construction. But one can also take Casetas / Zaragoza for the first station and first major interchange where one can branch off to a different railway line, based on modern train service patterns.[1] All of these are valid and unambiguous ways to refer to the railway line so they are all valid redirect titles, but we must pick one article title, so I recommend following the cited sources and use Tudela. Deryck C. 11:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and keep redirects exactly per Deryck Chan. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a WP:INVOLVED relisting to allow the 22 October log page to be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 4 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.

Yên Lạc, Bắc Kạn[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 17#Yên Lạc, Bắc Kạn

Me and You (Marshmello 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 delete by Fastily per criterion G7. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, seems to be an implausible alternative title for another redirect, You & Me (Marshmello song). Richhoncho (talk) 12:42, 4 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.

Acid storm[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 11#Acid storm

Redirects with "langauge"[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 11#Redirects with "langauge"

The Blip[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 11#The Blip

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_4&oldid=926646328"