Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 11, 2019.

Thạch Phúc[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 keep arguments are stronger here by a mile. Per WP:NGEO, these places very well could have standalone articles, so there's no problem with redirects to a larger subdivision that lists them. Policies of other Wikipedias, and whether or not they have articles on a subject, are largely irrelevant. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These redirects all have the same issue (not all to be exact, since about half of these are the diacriticless version of the other half). That is they all used to be former Vietnamese villages or commune in 1980s and doesn't exist anymore. Vietnamese wikipedia don't even have one single articles on these since they are rated low importance and not qualified enough to become articles. However, someone created articles about them here (seriously I don't know why that person did that) and the result was, they have been converted to redirects and all points to "Cái Nước District". However, I think this is not a very good solution, since former village names pointing to a current district, those are considered incorrect target redirects. Therefore, I think the best solution is to delete all of them, as they were not even qualified enough to be created in Wikipedia in the first place. Cn5900 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just found two more Cn5900 (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: there's no reason to delete these redirects. The fact that the villages don't exist anymore makes no difference. If anyone does come across a reference to any of them and wants to find out, the redirect will take them to the appropriate province article. Where's the harm in that? I would add that whoever (rightly) converted these tiny articles to redirects should have first added the information to the province article, not just thrown it away. That would be a useful task - deleting all traces is not. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colonies Chris:, since you are not from Vietnam. So there's this issue you need to understand. These kinds of villages are considered rural communes, and back in the 1980s, communes are splits and merged over with all adjacents almost all the time (I seriously don't know why), and these villages above, in fact these are divided from larger villages (but this division only lasted for 8 years, from 1979 to 1987). But after 1987, they were merged back to whatever villages they used to be a part of (the larger villages Cái Nước District's present-day villages). These villages ceased to exist 32 years ago, whoever wrote the articles about them must have gotten the incorrect source. As I mentioned, even Vietnamese Wikipedia (those villages native language Wikipedia page) don't have any of such redirects (if there were any, it would have been deleted), so why should we have them here? And no one is going to come up with their references, since as stated above, they existed for a very short time. If people wants to search for any villages, they have to look up for the district first (villages are very small divisions in Vietnam), and when two Vietnamese people talk to each other and one ask the other where his/her hometown is, they will mostly ask the province (as in some cases, but very rare, the district within that province), no one will ask for the village you came from, that is not to say those villages only existed for 8 years but ceased to exist 32 years ago (32 is four times larger than 8). Therefore no one will look up for such villages. Leaving these redirects here would be a complete messed up, since about 20 former-villages redirecting to the district's page. The former articles of these redirects should have been carefully verified before they are published. They were created 10 years ago, which is back when en.wikipedia rules aren't as strict as they are right now.
I am currently creating more articles about current villages in Vietnam, and at first I used the source that the author used 10 years ago to create those villages articles, but were not accepted. I have to provide a more detailed source ("Administrative subdivisions". General Statistics Office of Vietnam.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) and I was even required to add notes such as To find information at reference, go to row 77, then row 748, and it is listed on row 26560). These villages former articles weren't as carefully reviewed the moment they were created, so that's why they came to exist. If those are created in 2019, they wouldn't have come to exist and ended up becoming redirects like this. Cn5900 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the 8 years they existed, were they never mentioned in any source? Did nothing happen in these villages that would never have been mentioned? Would someone who left 33 years ago not consider searching for them? Guettarda (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying they were not mentioned. If you want to search for where they were mentioned, I can list a whole article on them in Vietnamese wikipedia for you. And yes, things did happen, but.... mostly any articles written about them are just like "this village is separted from that village, bla bla bla.... such things". In Vietnamese Wikipedia, we do not allow such redirect to exist. I have already tried to minimized the number of redirect to delete when I listed it here Cn5900 (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda if anyone wants to look for a Vietnamese location, the first place they should go to is Vietnamese wikipedia, and NOT HERE. Hoever, even in Vietnamese Wikipedia don't have them, so why should they exist here? If they want to look for them, they will just look for Cái Nước District. They can easily contact the government to get information. We are in 2019 now, information is not that difficult to search for. These redirect are just being useless. You can see that it is not linked from any other articles Cn5900 (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"... if anyone wants to look for a Vietnamese location, the first place they should go to is Vietnamese wikipedia, and NOT HERE": This is not the way Wikipedia works. People will generally look everything up first in the Wikipedia(s) they are capable of reading. Someone who speaks a given language is not necessarily the first person to choose to write about a given topic mostly closely associated with that language; there's no reason why this Wikipedia can't or shouldn't carry articles or appropriate redirects on Vietnamese topics that Vietnamese Wikipedia doesn't happen to have articles on. They're independent projects. Largoplazo (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colonies Chris. Guettarda (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, these are created by mistake, since the author didn't look up for the sources carefully, and newly created articles aren't carefully reviewed 10 years ago as they are now. If these are created now, they will be deleted immediately. I'm just sending them back to where they should be. So please just take them as a daily clean up. Cn5900 (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Former name/former subdivision is a perfectly valid redirect. Ideally, this history should be discussed in the target articles. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 21:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of you, just feel free to check the redirects history. The moment they were created, they all said that those villages are currently existing, which clearly shows that they were created by accident. It was because the author weren't aware of the fact that they ceased to exist, as he didn't check whatever source he used at that time. If he was aware of that, these redirects wouldn't be here by now for this discussion. Turning them into redirects is just a temporary solution, and it does not solve the original issue that these page are created by accident. If these are former district (which is larger than small villages and their history have much more to discuss), I would definitely say we keep them. But these are small villages, each of which has very little (almost none) history to discuss. And for the last time, I should emphasize that even Vietnamese wikipedia (its native language, and is definitely where people should look for any information they want to find first before they look for somewhere else) have no such redirect, so why should en.wikipedia (a foreign language wikipedia) have them here? Cn5900 (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"And for the last time, I should emphasize that even Vietnamese wikipedia (its native language, and is definitely where people should look for any information they want to find first before they look for somewhere else)": As I wrote above, this is not the way Wikipedia works. People generally look everything up first in the Wikipedia(s) they are capable of reading. How many non-Vietnamese people in the world do you think can read Vietnamese? Do you think Polish speakers look up Louis Pasteur on French Wikipedia and Angkor Wat on Cambodian Wikipedia? These are independent projects with different contributor communities and different readerships. The existence of an article, or lack thereof, on one Wikipedia is irrelevant to its validity on another. Largoplazo (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo:, yes you gave me examples on people who are Polish trying to look, but at least Louis Pasteur and Angkor Wat has a large enough amount of history to be discussed in every Wikipedia, and that amount of history makes it easy to look. But looking for a tiny former village, if someone would do that, they will definitely be aware that it is going to a very challenging process, since very few sources will mention them. Therefore they will not begin the search here Cn5900 (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they only speak English and only use English Wikipedia, then people begin to look and only look here. Period. Largoplazo (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Largoplazo, tell me how you are so sure that they will only look here. This is 2019, data is huge and sources to look for these are not that rare anymore. Many Vietnamese website today has an English translation, where English speaking people can absolutely search for. This Vietnamese Project as you mentioned above, is being abandoned and has been abandoned for almost 10 years (you can verify that by checking most of its article creation time). Only villages for provinces beginning with A, B, C has been created. Other has been left abandoned until now. How can someone rely on these to find information? Moreover, if there's someone who rely on Wikipedia and can only count on looking here, then I'd say that person needs to catch up with the modern world. The sad truth is, no doubt, no one rates Wikipedia as the most reliable source (some people even rate it the least reliable), simply because anyone can jump in to add false information at any time. begin to look and only look is a crazy thing to do 2600:1700:CCD0:5790:357B:FC79:DA07:48C8 (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the original stub articles were wrong to state that the villages currently existed, but that's irrelevant; the villages had indeed existed in that province, at least for a period. That makes the redirects valid and potentially useful. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colonies Chris:, I should say again that if they are former districts or former provinces, which is larger and comprise many villages, then that is worth keeping. These tiny villages have almost no history to be discussed. Cn5900 (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colonies Chris: also what about the other provinces which the author hasn't accidentally created stubs about former villages yet and resulting in them being turned to redirects like these. Clearly they won't have any, but this one has too many, I just want to be fair here Cn5900 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not reaching any agreement, simply because these redirects are neutral, they are either useful or useless. Let's just wait for the judge then Cn5900 (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if these are former villages, and no villages with these names exist today, then it is safe to keep the redirects. However, if villages currently exist with these names then it would be inappropriate to redirect to this district, they should instead redirect to the more appropriate current district and/or include the {{R with possibilities}} template. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cn5900:: A related suggestion - your history lesson, above, of how these villages came into being for a just a few years, is interesting and useful. It should be included within a suitable article - perhaps Subdivisions of Vietnam. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • N.b., Phu Thanh, Ca Mau and Phú Thành, Ca Mau have been speedily deleted by Discospinster, under criteria G6 and G7. --BDD (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Discospinster: Could you explain your deletions? From reading this discussion and the editing history, that doesn't look clear to me. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The deletion reason was that it was created in error, and I had no reason to think otherwise, and nobody contacted me to say it was not an error. ... discospinster talk 16:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will also note that a few others have been deleted by Fish and karate as "obviously created in error", which I still don't understand from reading this discussion, so I would like to pose the same question to Fish and karate: can you explain how you know they were created in error? -- Tavix (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Tavix: Hi, they were tagged for speedy deletion as "created in error", and when I looked at the redirects this appeared to be the case, not knowing the back story. While given all the diacritics they are unlikely to be used much if at all, redirects are cheap and I have no objection to the ones I deleted being recreated if that's the consensus. Fish+Karate 08:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, both of you. I will go ahead and restore them so this discussion can continue without prejudice. -- Tavix (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Colonies Chris:. I'm from Vietnam, so I know this issue very well. These villages were just divided from larger villages "on paper", the division didn't really take place in real life (so many people wouldn't even know their villages had been divided into new villages). Moreover, the story of dividing and merging take place almost all the time in Vietnam. Back in 1980s, Vietnam was still very poor, yet the government still care about dividing villages (more villages means there are more chairmen/chairwomen and vice chairmen/vice chairwomen are required, which literally means there more people the government has to pay). The country was still poor, while more money are spent on those nonsense stuffs; therefore the divisions was objected by the residences. So if someone left 33 years ago, like Largoplazo said, that person wouldn't remember a thing about those "newly set off" village. If you want, I can adjust those villages to point exactly at each of their corresponding present-day village. But I would say that's really unnecessary, what Cn5900 really means is that in Vietnamese Wikipedia, former villages are considered not notable, that is not to say these villages ceased to exist 32 years ago (if they were just currently dissolved, then I would say we keep these), and they were not even real. You don't think we want to keep such redirects for 50, 100 years and forever here, do you? I will just take this as a daily clean-up, removing unnecessary contents is a good thing to do. 2600:1700:CCD0:5790:D130:8105:7CDC:F269 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these former villages are considered not notable, but most important, their correct names cannot be verified (see my comments below for more details).
  • Comments: Also, @Colonies Chris:. I'm checking the government acts in 1979 (the division of the villages) and 1987 (the dissolution of those villages) to determine which present-day village they belong to, but the villages' names in two acts don't even match. Acts back in the 1980s messed up the village names all the time (the acts were signed in Hanoi, while those villages are in Ca Mau Province), and there's no way to verify it (unless you travel all the way to that district to ask for the district's chairman on those information). That's why I told you this is a complete mess, also as 2600:1700:CCD0:5790:D130:8105:7CDC:F269 said, since the division didn't actually take place, the government didn't really care about having those former village names correctly in the second act in 1987. This is another reason why vi.wikipedia consider not having redirects for former articles before 2000, as there's no way to verify the correct village's names. It's okay to have those for villages after 2000, since it can be easier to verify the history of them. 153.18.172.42 (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should have specific rules for these types of redirects. My suggestions would be:
    • For former villages existing before 2000, we don't have redirects for them, but will discuss their history in the district's page.
    • For former villages that ceased to exist after 2000, we will consider two cases:
      • Case 1: If there are two or more existing villages with same name in other districts, we will mention this former village's history in the disambiguation page as well as in the district's page.
      • Case 2: If there is only one existing village with the same name, we will mention its history in the district's page.
    • For these two cases, if there used to be articles about them we will consider redirecting them to the corresponding disambiguation page (for case 1) or to the corresponding article about the existing village that it is a part of (and not to the district, since it will be a complete messed up). However, if there hasn't been any articles about them, we will consider not creating one, unless that former geographical name is too notable (like Mỹ Đình, a former commune/village in Hanoi). Just for anyone wondering, I got this from the Vietnamese project, since that is the way they deal with former villages. But anyway, the redirects are about villages existing in 1980s, before 2000, and none of them are notable, so I'd say we delete them, and their history (including the name of the village they currently belong to) will be added in Cái Nước District. 153.18.172.42 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal seems to broadly make sense to me. To summarise my understanding (please correct me if this is wrong), a significant number of new villages were legally created in 1979, but many of them never really came into existence on the ground and were abolished in 1987. But some of them really did come into existence, and were abolished after 2000 (merged back into their former villages?); and are there some which were created in 1979 and still exist?
I suggest that a section should be added to Subdivisions of Vietnam summarising the explanations that several knowledgeable editors above have provided, with a link/reference to the documents mentioned, and that the corresponding redirects (the 1979–87 'paper' villages) should be pointed to that section. I can't see any reason (unless there's a clash of names) to remove redirects at all. Notability is about whether something merits an article in its own right, but much looser criteria apply to redirects. For 1979 villages that were abolished later, after 2000, I agree, they should be covered in the article for the current village, and they should redirect there. I don't see any need to create new redirects for 'paper' villages not already covered, but I would see no reason to object to anyone creating them either. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colonies Chris:, answering your questions. New villages "merged back into their former villages?", Yes, and another merging is taking places from now to 2021 in many provinces from north to south, "and are there some which were created in 1979 and still exist?" Also, yes. So I would say unless the villages above has the same name with any existing villages (like Hiệp Hưng which Inwind adjust to talk about a current village in Hau Giang Province]]) or can be reused for a diambiguation page (like Tân Hiệp and Tân Phong which Cn5900 converted to disambiguation pages), we will delete them. The problem with those 'paper villages' is that no one can verify their correct names, as 153.18.172.42 mentioned above. How does that help to redirect them to Subdivisions of Vietnam at all, while we have to give examples on them in Subdivisions of Vietnam (examples need correct names for verification). The documents you mentioned above to reference in Subdivisions of Vietnam, I don't know whether that helps (the acts, as mentioned is the most reliable source, but even that one is not accurate). Take Thạch Phúc as an example, it is one of the paper villages (but neither the act in 1979 or 1987 mention its name, meanwhile an act in 1984 does mention, that'll obviously blow things up). So there's no way to trace those 'paper villages', so I'd say that doesn't help 2600:1700:CCD0:5790:7D14:2C27:E99E:E0CF (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Initially, I would have been for keeping all the redirects, understanding Cn5900's points about the confusion of the renaming which occurred. However, I think that Colonies Chris' suggestion just above this comment is the best solution, adding info to Subdivisions of Vietname, and targeting all these redirects there.Onel5969 TT me 11:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: @Colonies Chris:, I don't understand why you still say there's no reason to remove these. Haven't I given you too many?
    • First, this is the topic the very few people will care about, since they are just tiny villages, which didn't even actually came to existence. If you really want to know more about VNese villages, I promise you there are so much more to talk about for villages after 2000.
    • Second, this is just a clean-up. Removing these does not affect anything at all, it's not like a massive information will be remove from Wikipedia
    • Third, but most important, they cannot be clearly verified, since even the most reliable source (the government acts) is not very accurate back in those years. Removing contents that cannot be clearly verified, that make every sense according to Wikipedia's policy.
  • Aren't these reasons good enough? 153.18.172.42 (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly redirects for paper villages whose names can't be verified in the various bits of legislation should be removed. But for those whoser (legal) existence is documented, the redirects should remain. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colonies Chris:, if you want to know more about the stories of villages in Vietnam, I promise you there are so much more to tell about villages after 2000, much more than those before that. To be more specific, a large number of villages are being dissolved from now to 2021. For example, In Sa Pa, Lao Cai Province, the communes of Nậm Sài and Nậm Cang have already been consolidated to form a single commune, the name of the new commune is Liên Minh; similarly, Bản Khoang and Tả Giàng Phìn consolidated to form the new commune of Ngũ Chỉ Sơn. Because of this, I'd recommend that if anyone is going to create more stubs on provinces, they should wait until 2021. Because the consolidations are taking places, many of them will be renamed so it will be very difficult to track such large amount of stubs. I'm insisting that we should let go of the ones before 2000 (another reason why this year is chosen is because it is the beginning of this century, also Wikipedia is established in 2001, which is just a year later), since there are very few sources on them, and they are not accurate (I don't know about other countries, but for Vietnam, it's very difficult to find such sources, since the country was very poor in those years, so having these accurately was not the government's priority). And no one is really looking into them, as they are villages in the rural area, they are not that well-known, that is not to say they didn't really exist. If there's a tool to count how many times the page was assesed, that will prove what I just said.

If there is a section on them in Subdivisions of Vietnam, I'd say we mention them very briefly (even if we want to mention more, we can't really do that due to the very limited amount of source). I promise that discussing about villages after 2000 is much worthier, there are so much more to discuss and most important, sources are much easier to find, and they are accurate too. For former subdivisions before 2000, we can focus on discussing former provinces and former districts (which includes many communes/villages) and we can totally discuss about those the former villages of that district/province in that article. That's how we should discuss about villages before 1987. If we discuss them individually, we almost have nothing to talk about. 2600:1700:CCD0:5790:71A0:8560:46E9:32F7 (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's asking for discussions or details or articles about these paper villages - simply to keep the existing redirects for those that can be confirmed. Why object to that? Colonies Chris (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Colonies Chris and Fiamh. -- Tavix (talk) 23:51, 22 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.
  • N.b., two of the three redirects for Phú Thành were actually pointing to Thạnh Phú, Cà Mau rather than the district page. It appears the district includes both a Phú Thành and a Thạnh Phú, and that these were conflated. I wanted to note this here since I retargeted them to the district. Similarly, none of the Bình Mỹ redirects were actually targeting Cái Nước, instead pointing to Bình Mỹ, Củ Chi, and have also been fixed. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JUNIOR DETECTIVE[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) 13:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RCAPS, junior detectives have no affinity for all caps. Besides, the target article does not give any information specific to junior detectives. -- Tavix (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible, with no significant links, page history, or pageviews. This was an imperfect case of deletion by redirection; the article should have been actually deleted. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Black Falcon. Politrukki (talk) 16:55, 20 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.

Major consensus narrative[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 23#Major consensus narrative

Corbyn the Musical: The Motorcycle Diaries[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 nominator's concern has been resolved. -- Tavix (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article, or anywhere on Wikipedia. This was a 2016 play; whether it's notable or not, the redirect isn't helping our readers as things stand. BDD (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a sentence on it to the article, which I guess solves the problem. I suppose it is recognition of a sort. Books on him are listed under Cultural depictions but they have their own articles. Jontel (talk) 19:13, 11 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.

Gross movement[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 23#Gross movement

PowerUp Heroes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 23#PowerUp Heroes

Algoid[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 disambiguate. -- Tavix (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target page. "Algoid" is also the name of a programming language, making this redirect potentially confusing. Not a very active user (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shouldn't be deleted as there is page history. In addition, "Algoid" can also mean "relating to algae." My preference would be a disambiguation page, as there's no obvious PRIMARYTOPIC. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 22:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak disambiguate, considering that there is more than one possible meaning of this term. I have drafted a disambiguation page but am not sure if the current target should be listed on it. Geolodus (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Algoid (programming language) to the base name over the current redirect, and have a hatnote to Algae. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This could work, but the current page would have to be kept at a different name to preserve page history. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 11:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify as drafted below the redirect. I don't see a primary topic here as the programming language appears to be quite obscure. – Uanfala (talk) 14:35, 15 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.

Next Portuguese legislative election[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) 23:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now misleading since the 2019 legislative election is over. I would suggest deletion until 2023 Portuguese legislative election is created. Geolodus (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I was going to start a stub on the 2023 election but couldn't find enough sources to justify it. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 22:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, except I think we should not recreate it ever as these redirects inevitably become outdated every few years. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:05, 20 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_11&oldid=922671865"