Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 10, 2019.

==Title==[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just...why? I don't really see this being too useful. InvalidOS (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redirects are for synonyms, common spelling alternatives, important sections that have not yet become articles, old titles. Not for Wikitext syntax. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. If we had a separate Wikipedia article on wikitext, we could consider redirecting it there, but we don't, and even if we did this is an unlikely title for a redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unhelpful cross-namespace redirect. Zerach (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not useful. General Ization Talk 04:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That was just a silly redir to create. 2601:643:867F:5370:CDB0:4476:46F5:1603 (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this redirect because there are users who aren't familiar with what this means. 99721829Max (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see this being useful to anyone. PC78 (talk) 23:48, 13 October 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.

Cambodia at the Southeast Asian Games[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 restore. I won't draftify it myself per BDD's concerns, but will leave it as a normal editorial decision. -- Tavix (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this redirect should be deleted. The target article is a completely different competition. ThiagoSimoes (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore the 09:23, 14 June 2015‎ PRehse version of the article and draftify. This was an inappropriate instance of deletion-through-redirection by an indefinitely blocked editor. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak restore and draft per Black Falcon, though I'm a bit concerned with the idea of putting something in draft space without any indication anyone will work on it. Then again, I don't think it needs so much work before it could be back in mainspace. There seems to be only one other such article for "[Country] at the Southeast Asian Games", so if not for that, I would probably vote delete. I could still live with WP:REDLINK deletion as is. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 10 October 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.

Military career of Napoleon the Great[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. This is leaning close to "delete" for the accented version and close to a full "keep" for the unaccented. -- Tavix (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon the Great does not appear to be a common alternative name for Napoleon in English. We don't have a redirect from it to Napoleon, so I don't see why we should have this redirect either. signed, Rosguill talk 20:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems like a reasonable target. Guettarda (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The target is reasonable, but is the accented redirect plausible? -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:20, 12 October 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-vent length[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 22#Snout-vent length

Heimr[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 22#Heimr

Castejón–Bilbao railway[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 22#Castejón–Bilbao railway

List of Paper Mario series characters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 20#List of Paper Mario series characters

Yonkers Daily Voice[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 22#Yonkers Daily Voice

🕵️[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 22#🕵️

Surgeon Simulation CPR[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) 00:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The game is called "Surgeon Simulator", it is rarely misspelt as "Surgeon Simulation". Lordtobi (✉) 19:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No significant links and no useful page history. Surgeon Simulator CPR already exists, and the presence of this redirect just increases the likelihood of the incorrect name being used in article text. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:26, 12 October 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.

UNC Jazz Press[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) 00:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Zerach (talk) 19:46, 10 October 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.

North Point Senior Secondary Boarding School[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. A WP:TROUT to Sam Sailor for using WP:BLAR to create invalid redirects. Usually the result for these kind of cases is a restoration of the articles, but it's clear from this discussion that these articles would end up being deleted anyway, so there's no need for extra bureaucracy here. -- Tavix (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned there. Peter James (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable and redirected to an article without mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (not mentioned in the target article). WP:PROD would have been more appropriate than WP:BLAR in this case. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Black Falcon: Per WP:PROD, Proposed deletion cannot be used with redirects, user pages (except user books), drafts, templates, categories, or pages in any other namespace. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 23:50, 19 October 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.

Disney's Game On[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) 20:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:13, 10 October 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.

Sonic2006[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) 20:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect/ambiguous. I would R3, but this was not a "recent" creation. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its hard to say here really. The game does commonly go by the nickname “Sonic 2006”, though I’m not particularly sure how common it would be to spell it without the space in between... Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sergecross73: It has had all time 37 page views. I don't think that it is that helpful of a redirect. I could be wrong though. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Not quite pressing the spacebar all the way down is a common mistake, speaking from experience, and names along the line of "Sonic 2006" are commonly used to refer to this game. Not really hurting anything to keep around. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am tempted to say keep as well, since it is common to abbreviate "Sonic the Hedgehog" to simply "Sonic" and refer to the horrendous video game as "Sonic the Hedgehog 2006" (or "Sonic 2006"). Missing the spacebar is definitely possible. GaɱingFørFuɲ365 09:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: as WP:CSD#R3: The editor that created this has some bizarre obsession with creating nonsensical redirects. Let's not waste any more time on this. Toddst1 (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure all the redirects the editor in question made should be deleted on that basis. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Toddst1, as a recently created redirect from an unlikely search string. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 10 October 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.

List of Wikipedia essays[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) 20:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect; unlikely search target (1 view in 90 days)) –xenotalk 13:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect would be first choice, keep as is would be second choice, and generally oppose deletion. The title follows our naming conventions on lists and if someone is looking for a list of Wikipedia essays, a new user or researcher unfamiliar with WikiNamespaces, this is actually useful and not astonishing. It's one of the few times it seems to make sense to take people to relevant content in the project namespace. I prefer a soft redirect to make those looking for encyclopedic content aware that they're crossing namespaces to a page where editorial standards are slightly different. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no harm in keeping....was made when I was searching for a list of easays..... found nothing...so I made the directory and made a redirect just in case someone else was looking for the same thing WP:R#KEEP.--Moxy 🍁 15:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily delete per nom. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion why? --Moxy 🍁 03:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • R2 excludes ones to the project space. Geolodus (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but it's clear as stated many times is case like ths Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 112#RFC: On the controversy of the pseudo-namespace shortcuts.--Moxy 🍁 03:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't pseudo-namespaced though, it's a cross-namespace redirect. –xenotalk 12:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per nom's rationale and WP:RFD. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cross namespace redirects such as Deletion policy and Articles for deletion (which, unlike "list of essays", is to a page where decisions are made about content) were deleted. Peter James (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peter James. Except for pseudo-namespace redirects that are useful for editors, mainspace should generally be reserved for readers, not editors. This is clearly an editor-focused redirect, and an editor could be expected to simply preface the search with "Wikipedia:". -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:50, 12 October 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.

Previously deleted non-standard foreign names for Wikipedia[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 most, no consensus on the four Latin ones. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 8#Foreign language redirects to Wikipedia, these redirects include 1) titles that are non-standard or otherwise incorrect for the target language (e.g. Vicipedium, 維基大典, WİKİPEDİA), not used in any language (e.g. Guiquipedia), or ambiguous between multiple possible Wikipedias (Википедиja). I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 12:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects listed above pointing to "Latin Wikipedia" are useless. Delete them. I think you're right about the others too. Andrew Dalby 19:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... but no need for long discussion. I respect P Aculeius's opinion below. Keep the Latin ones, then. Andrew Dalby 11:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G4 I'm going to guess these were recreated without prior discussion and therefore no justification for contravening established consensus has been provided. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Zeke, mainly G4 but maybe R3 as well could apply too. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 02:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Although these redirects are useless, some are useful too. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Latin ones. I can't speak as to the others, but I'm pretty sure people who can't remember how to spell the name of Latin Wikipedia benefit from the redirects coming up when they try to look it up. Remember, if they want to read about Vicipaedia (I've consulted it occasionally, but even I wasn't certain about the spelling until I checked it just now), it's pointless going to the sidebar and looking for Latin, since if there's a link, it'll only take them to the Latin version of the page they're on. I also note that Latin wasn't listed among the supported languages on the main page when I was there a moment ago! Redirects are here to help people find what they're looking for when they know their destination, but aren't sure how to get there. Is there some disadvantage to having them, or are they taking up too much space on Wikipedia? I'm willing to be convinced that some of them are useless, but right now they seem to serve a purpose. P Aculeius (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Википедиja, which is mentioned in the target article Serbian Wikipedia. Speedy delete the rest all per WP:G4, including the Latin ones which are made-up names. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Falcon, It's also mentioned at Macedonian Wikipedia and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 03:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing that out. The Serbian Wikipedia is the largest, but this seems like it is a case of WP:XY. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Википедија exists as a dab page and is not a redirect as this nomination states. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching this, it looks like we have Википедија as a dab page and Википедиja as a redirect. Based on the results of plugging them into this site, it looks like the DAB version uses a Cyrillic keyboard for all letters, while the redirect version inexplicably switches to a Latin keyboard for the j and the a. signed, Rosguill talk 15:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete in compliance with WP:G4. The speedy deletion criterion says it all. flowing dreams (talk page) 10:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Let's forget that I ever mentioned G4; I hate invoking laws that cannot justify themselves. Let's pretend this is the first time they are being discussed. I find it unlikely that, for example, a person who speaks Persian comes to English Wikipedia, face with the knowledge that this website is in English, and still search "ویکیپدیا". Even if they do, the search engine will guide them to the proper venue. I just tested it: The right pane reveals the correct result. In the case of Latin, however, isn't it dead? I believe no one speaks this language anymore. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These redirects aren't aimed at "native speakers of Latin looking for Wikipedia in Latin". They're aimed at English speakers looking for the English-language article about Vicipaedia, but who may not know how to spell it correctly, since it's not an everyday word in English—and who may not realize that the article title is "Latin Wikipedia", not "Vicipaedia". So the question is, why do we not want redirects at likely attempts to spell it? Are we trying to make it harder for readers to find the articles they're looking for? Or is Wikipedia desperate to save the 260 bytes taken up by these four redirects? P Aculeius (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Aculeius. 😊 My participation in this RfD is only out of the community spirit. If I was desperate to save 260 bytes, I'd have resorted to desparate measures, like filing a lawsuit! (Believe me desparate measures are not pretty.) Things would have been very ugly if we didn't participate in any xFD simply because I was not desparate.
An English speaker looking for the English article about the Latin Wikipedia most probably searches "Latin Wikipedia". The kind of English speaker you have in mind is the kind that has attended a form of higher education that has brainwashed them to use Latin anywhere they can, to the detriment of the possibility of a happy life. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: G4 clearly does not apply here, since the redirects were not previously deleted as a result of the linked discussion. The outcome of that discussion was to retarget links that previously led to the main page of Wikipedia to go to the articles about the corresponding foreign-language versions of Wikipedia. At the time they were nominated, they all pointed to the main page instead. In the case of the Latin redirects, they now point to the article about Vicipaedia, which is exactly what they should have been doing according to outcome of that discussion. The reason redirects exist is to help people find articles for which they don't know the correct titles, and that includes plausible misspellings. All of these seem like plausible spelling mistakes for Vicipaedia—and they're also useful because the article they point to is not titled "Vicipaedia", but "Latin Wikipedia". Readers who remember the name vaguely are likely to search under these variations, so why are we deleting them? If they were not plausible spelling mistakes, I could see deleting them, but they account for only two variations: wrong gender, and ae→e. It seems to me that there should be a better reason than "well, somebody deleted them before, based on a discussion three years ago that called for a completely different result". P Aculeius (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I think that your argument about the usefulness of the Latin redirects may be valid, the redirects nominated here were all deleted, as can be confirmed by looking at logs and reading through Tavix's argument which determined which redirects were to be deleted and which were to be redirected. That having been said, I also agree with the wider thrust of your argument against G4; G4 exists so that articles that are exact duplicates of previously deleted-by-discussion articles articles can be deleted without further disruption. This works because an article can be rewritten differently than the previous version in order to allow for consensus to change. The same cannot be said of a redirect, which will always be exactly the same as a previous version, so strictly enforcing G4 against redirects would never allow consensus to change. signed, Rosguill talk 15:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But my point was, the previous discussion concluded that the redirects should be retargeted at articles about foreign-language Wikipedias, if they existed—not that they should be deleted. So there was no agreement to delete them in the first place, and for that reason alone G4 is inapplicable. Even if there had been no article, "Latin Wikipedia" in 2016—and there certainly should have been, since Vicipaedia itself has been around a long time—there is now, so the same rationale behind the 2016 discussion would lead to a "keep" result here. Again, G4 isn't relevant, since the previous discussion did not conclude that redirects for foreign-language encyclopedias should be deleted as a matter of policy—which would be the only reason to apply G4 here. And again, the question is: what is the benefit to Wikipedia of deleting redirects for existing, English-language articles based on plausible misspellings? There needs to be a better argument for deletion than "we deleted them before following on a discussion that was actually closed as 'keep and retarget'." P Aculeius (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they had been deleted on a shaky basis, the proper channel to discuss this might have been WP:DRV, not merely recreating deleted content. I personally feel G4 would apply for redirects, even if they have no choice but to be fundamentally similar to the material that was deleted in the first place, because simply recreating them actually bypasses valuable discussion avenues that determine if they're worth having, not to mention if the deletions themselves were in error. "Recreate without saying a word" isn't a valid approach to restoring deleted content, even if said content should not have been deleted in the first place. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These redirects do not qualify for WP:G4 speedy deletion since they all have targets different from the target they had during the previous discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, both useful for the reader, and internally for WP:CITEWATCH (see current entry 24). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:04, 13 October 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.

Redirects to Achachi Qala[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) 00:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of these redirects are mentioned at the target, which is a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and further because none of the articles listed at the disambiguation page mention a river, so these redirects are of no help at all to readers. WP:R#D10 also applies since, if the river exists, it would be better to have a red link to encourage article creation. None of the redirects have significant incoming links or useful page history. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:16, 13 October 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 Tea Room[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) 20:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies thinks that "underneath this redirect is a piece of spam; the article doesn't even mention the thing, and it seems to serve only as a semi-promotional redirect in Michele Romanow." DMacks (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • With my thanks to DMacks for doing it right. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned and ambiguous, and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We might consider Teahouse, where Tea room redirects, though there isn't anything explicitly mentioned there that would be referred to by this proper name. This might be plausible for some of the entries at List of teahouses. --BDD (talk) 14:08, 14 October 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.

Template:New Zealand Intellignce Community[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. Consensus to delete this now the template is at the properly capitalized title -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template was created by a user who misspelled "Intelligence". User:Schwede66 moved it to the correct spelling, leaving this redirect. It will never be a valid redirect because of the misspelling. It was called only from Officials Committee for Domestic and External Security Co-ordination, where I have corrected the spelling to Schwede66's version, so this redirect is now useless. Akld guy (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I just don't see how this is a useful redirect. Zerach (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Get a page mover to move the misspelled title to Template:New Zealand Intelligence Community without leaving a redirect. Misspelling gotten rid off, beneficial redirect created. -- /Alex/21 04:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with that is that New Zealand Intelligence Community with capital I and C is not an entity. It should never have been capitalized and nobody should be linking to such a thing, so there is no need to retain as a redirect. Delete it please. Akld guy (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirects aren't expensive, and alternate capitalization isn't a bad thing. This is just my personal view on it; the consensus of this discussion may result in otherwise. -- /Alex/21 04:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alternate capitalization for no good reason is a bad thing because users see it and are tempted to deploy it. If only one user deploys it, others copy. Soon, you've got a swag of them. There is no such organization or thing as The New Zealand Intelligence Community. Nobody should be using that form. Akld guy (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • And that is your opinion. I've said my part. We'll see where this goes. -- /Alex/21 06:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no such organization as "New Zealand Intelligence Community". I am of the opinion that redirects should be used sparingly. Wrong capitalizations, typos, and the like should be handled by Wikipedia's search engine. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alternative capitalisation is a good thing for article redirects, not for templates. Guettarda (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a misspelled template-space redirect. I moved the template to Template:New Zealand Intelligence Community based on NZIC's website. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:32, 12 October 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.

General Bank of Canada and DirectCash Bank[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 22#General Bank of Canada and DirectCash Bank

Meridia Health Services[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 19#Meridia Health Services

PlayStation 5 (version 2)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per G6. -- Tavix (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect name left over from the reversion of a draft move into the mainspace. — Searingjet (talk) 12:16, 10 October 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.

Detention Centers in India[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) 23:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, as there is only one detention center (Assam). In future, if more centers are opened this could redirect to List of detention centers in India or similar. Zerach (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt: There are more than one. Cites availabe in the article arleady such as in Goa. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cite 4 to be precise -"Goa opened a detention centre for foreigners in May this year" DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I have no objection to redirecting to a future (sourced) list or general article, just not to one specific element, it's too WP:SURPRISEing. Assam has been described as the "first" one recently, in some sources. Zerach (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, i understand. I don't mind if it goes for now. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons above, and miscapitalisation, and variant spelling of centers vice centres. There may be potential for a future article as the nom suggests, or Detention centres in India. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:47, 13 October 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.

Dong A[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 22#Dong A

Yên Lạc, Bắc Kạn[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 22#Yên Lạc, Bắc Kạn

Draft:Untitled Mr. Men & Little Miss 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect from draft space to article space. There is no substantive edit history behind the redirect beyond the redirect's creation and a bot fixing a double redirect. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well it's a redirect from a page move, though I'm not sure why the draft was moved to mainspace only to be redirected. PC78 (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a {{R from move}} for a draft that was promoted, then renamed, then redirected, all in short order, but the draft itself is much older. Keep in case anyone wants to try to find it (they'll have to find Special:Permalink/897188835 in the redirected draft's history, which this redirect will roughly point to). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jalen Folf (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector. Page moves and deletions can make a complete mess when you're trying to trace histories. Guettarda (talk) 16:34, 12 October 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.

Herr Wolf[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 Wolf (name). (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think that Hitler had been called "Wolf". --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment according to our article Wolf's Lair, we have a reference stating Wolf was a self adopted nickname for Hitler. Polyamorph (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wolf (name) This is about as vague as Mr. Wolf. If it is a common nickname for Hitler, it should be mentioned in that article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jalen Folf (talk) 03:51, 10 October 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.

Gerber station[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) 23:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target Zerach (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the diagram at Coast Starlight, although there's no more information there. Peter James (talk) 18:38, 10 October 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.

Congregational Church[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. Consensus is that capitalization difference is not enough to redirect from the primary topic -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:AlbanGeller changed the target from Congregational church to Congregational church (disambiguation), which resulted in a large number of articles (~50) pointing to the DAB when they probably meant the denomination. I'm personally neutral about which is the more appropriate target, so I'm bringing it up for discussion here. I undid AlbanGeller's edit in the meantime, on the assumption that the incoming links intended the denomination. Cnilep (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it was. Regardless of capitalization, there's a clear main topic here, congregational churches. Zerach (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@זָרַח: When you say "Keep as it was" do you mean "Retarget to Congregational church (disambiguation)"? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean target Congregational church, as it was originally (username changed). Fiamh (talk, contribs) 11:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Congregational church. This is a straightforward alt capitalisation. Guettarda (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Congregational church. THe question is "is a user more likely to be looking for an article about Congregational churches in general, or for a Congregational Church in particular. I don't know, but viewing it as a simple alt capitalisation is acceptable and would only add one click to the user's journey. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:32, 13 October 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.

Marysville station[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 18#Marysville station

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_10&oldid=1142901209"