Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 15, 2019.

Taybor Snapping[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taybor Pepper is a snapper. They are not, however, known as "Taybor Snapping". I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:30, 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.

Dark Father[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 and refine. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not equivalent, I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not equivalent, but it comes up often enough in the media. I would suggest redirecting to Darth Vader#Name. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine as there are articles about the origins of the name, such as this Rolling Stone interview with George Lucas [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:42, 17 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.

BATX[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 Big Four tech companies#Other tech companies. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Targets a disambiguation page which does not mention the topic Wug·a·po·des​ 22:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The disambiguation page did briefly include a mention, but it was removed in this edit. There's an article on the subject in the French Wikipedia. - Eureka Lott 00:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @EurekaLott: Thanks! I've added it back to the disambiguation page with a pointer to Internet in China since it's not likely this acronym will be notable, but still worth explaining as it is a good search term. If the DAB entry stays, then this redirect should probably be kept. I'll give it a couple days to see if anyone reverts. Wug·a·po·des​ 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: You shouldn't do that. There's no mention of BAT or BATX at Internet in China and so the disambiguation page entry fails MOS:DABMENTION: a user going to the article will learn nothing about "BATX". You could, if you had a source, put information about BAT/BATX in the article, but unless you do you should revert your edit to the disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's kinda common sense? Neither BAT nor BATX are at Internet in China but frWikipedia has an article and googling "BATX china" shows that this is an abbreviation that is used, so it's likely this is an (ambiguous) search term that readers will use and may need disambiguated. Readers aren't looking for information about the term BATX; they're looking for information about internet in China, and I'm not going to add a one line definition of an acronym to an article just to satisfy some arbitrary MOS style when the DAB page manages to do it just fine and without redundancy. You may add the information if you like. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: This is not the place to challenge MOS:DABACRO. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Shhhnotsoloud: See WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR, or simply read the top of the page you linked which says "occasional exceptions may apply". We're discussing how this redirect and dab page can best serve our readers, and I've given a very clear line of reasoning as to how ignoring the dab MOS in this instance is better for readers. Choosing a new part of the MOS doesn't explain how this helps or hurts our readers, it's just advocating we mindlessly follow rules. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Thanks @Tavix:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:05, 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.

Spanish Troubles[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. Will also delete The Spanish Troubles ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to be a commonly used nickname for the topic, and isn't mentioned at the target. A search of academic literature suggests that this term is either generically used for problems in or with Spain, or more narrowly as a contemporary term for the Spanish Civil War. An internet search mostly returns results about people having trouble with Spanish (results for this also appear in the academic literature). I would suggest deletion due to the lack of a clear correct target. signed, Rosguill talk 22:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've heard terms such as these used, especially when referencing The Troubles and the similarities between the 2 conflicts. The Spanish Troubles is also a redirect to the Basque conflict, having existed since it was created by another editor in December. It's listed on Troubles (disambiguation) - a page which I have never edited. Jim Michael (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through several pages of Google Scholar results for "Spanish Troubles" and have yet to see a single case referring to the Basque conflict. By far the most significant single subject that is referred to by this term in academic literature is the Spanish Civil War, although there's a fair amount of mentions for pre-20th century conflicts in or with Spain. I would note that most of these uses seem to be from rather old texts, so I would lean toward this being a case of WP:XY rather than a cause for disambiguation. signed, Rosguill talk 23:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. The word troubles does not appear anywhere on the target article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled at how little it appears online. If you delete the 2 redirects I created, also delete The Spanish Troubles - which someone else created months earlier. Jim Michael (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be appropriate, and suggest the closer do so in the spirit of WP:NOTBURO. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's easy to see how this term would be used, but as noted, it wouldn't necessarily refer to the Basque conflict. And if it's just an occasional, informal name, it's not a very good candidate for disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 25 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.

Magazines app[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 and BDD make convincing arguments, although I'm slightly more inclined towards BDD's take. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous, there's a few other magazine apps that this could refer to, such as issuu or Outlook Magazines. I would suggest either deletion, or conversion to a disambiguation page signed, Rosguill talk 15:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate unless we already have one? Per nom we've got a couple good targets and it seems like a helpful search term. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK, we really ought to have an article on Magazine apps. I found Online magazine and Computer magazine, but neither of them are close enough. -- Tavix (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. This is unsuitable for disambiguation unless we were to list apps called "Magazines" (even then, it would belong at Magazine (disambiguation). Maybe we could have an article at a title like Magazine apps that discusses the general idea. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 24 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.

QWERT[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) 21:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could equally refer to QWERTZ, delete per WP:XY signed, Rosguill talk 23:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well then asdfghjkl is also the home row on QWERTZ but QWERTY is a thousand times more known so it redirects to QWERTY. Similar to how this redirects to QWERTY because of that. Also if it can mean more than just that, please make it a dab page (QWERT may refer to QWERTY or QWERTZ) instead of directly deleting it. Barracuda41 (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Qwert has been a redirect to QWERTY since 2006. - Eureka Lott 01:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, can you read what he just said? The redirect Qwert has existed since 2006 and QWERT is more meaningful, you know, because it's actually the same capitalisation as the correct one for the keyboard. Barracuda41 (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that these keyboard redirects (that is to say, any combination of keyboard letters other than the actual standard names QWERTY, AZERTY, etc) are actually worth the effort of creating them, but Qwert has seen a fair amount of use so I guess it's fine to keep it. That having been said, a hatnote should be added to QWERTY pointing to QWERTZ, as that's the suggested way to disambiguate between exactly two possible targets where one is clearly primary (full explanation at WP:ONEOTHER). signed, Rosguill talk 04:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's been added, so can we please close as keep? Barracuda41 (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. There are multiple potential targets, so shouldn't it be disambiguated? That seems to be the most plausible option. InvalidOS (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We would need to show that "QWERT" is used for both QWERTY and QWERTZ. Disambiguation pages aren't created for error that may refer to multiple things. -- Tavix (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Qwert has received a fair amount of discussion so far, so I'm going to officially add it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a distinguish hatnote to QWERTZ at QWERTY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm still skeptical that either QWERTY or QWERTZ are ever referred to as "QWERT". -- Tavix (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A redirect must be able to justify itself and this one cannot. I cannot honestly expect myself to mispronounce any acronym and expect to be lead to its target. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:05, 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.

Foursquare[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 Four square (disambiguation). In the future, it may be easier to gauge a potential primary topic when the term has pointed to a disambiguation page for a while. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foursquare should redirect to Four square (disambiguation), since there is no primary topic among Foursquare City Guide, Foursquare (company), and Four square. — Newslinger talk 21:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This makes sense. Please note I have a COI for Foursquare: I've worked with them in the past, although I'm not doing so currently. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Newslinger's suggestion signed, Rosguill talk 04:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Following comments above. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Four square due to the existence of a primary topic. "Foursquare" is merely an alternative spelling for it. -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The primary topic, and common use, of "Foursquare" (without a space) is the app described at Foursquare City Guide. Actually it might be better if Foursquare City Guide were moved to Foursquare. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    After Foursquare Labs split certain features from Foursquare City Guide into a separate app (Swarm), the company repositioned itself as a business-to-business location data provider. When you go to foursquare.com, the company home page presents Foursquare first and foremost as a data provider. In the bottom-right corner of the page, a small message says, "City Guide has a new home!", which is a subdirectory of foursquare.com. From this, there is no primary topic with respect to usage between Foursquare (company) and Foursquare City Guide. Also, four square (which is occasionally spelled without a space, e.g. in the Daily Herald, The Guardian, and the News & Record) is much older than both the app and the company, and is the primary topic with respect to long-term significance. — Newslinger talk 09:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Newslinger, I'm confused. You've just said the game is the primary topic, but in your nomination statement, you argued there was no primary topic. Am I misunderstanding, or have you changed your mind? --BDD (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ​I didn't phrase my statement as clearly as I should have – sorry about that. The two factors that determine the primary topic of an article title are usage and long-term significance. For the Foursquare article title, I'm arguing that:
    Overall, I don't see a primary topic among Foursquare City Guide, Foursquare (company), and Four square. I think the most suitable redirect target for Foursquare is Four square (disambiguation). — Newslinger talk 19:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It makes sense, in the light of what Newslinger explained to Shhhnotsoloud. Unlike my esteemed colleague, BDD, I am not confused at all. When a single word trips me, I try walk backward until all I can see is a paragraph. (That's figurative speech of course.) flowing dreams (talk page) 07:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have used the Foursquare app and also play four square regularly. "Foursquare" (without space) only refers to the location check-in app and its daughter products. The fact that Foursquare has split up and we now have two articles for their products does not mean we should send readers to a disambiguation page with unrelated items. Deryck C. 11:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I concur with BDD and would like to know Newslinger's opinion. Keep votes have raised valid points, so i'm relisting to nail down consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 16:58, 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.

The Irishman (2018 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) 20:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not released in 2018. PC78 (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not per the nominator whose deletion rationale is hardly valid. This is misleading due to the incorrect release date. Geolodus (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (redirect creator/I moved from draftspace) czar 12:19, 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.

Camatkarasana (Chamatkarasana)[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) 20:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odd redirect that never made any sense, providing two alternative spellings - nobody would ever enter both at once, I think. I've created straightforward redirects for the individual spellings. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, I hadn't seen that one. I'll nominate it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:06, 16 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.

Urdu Speaking[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 24#Urdu Speaking

Urdu people[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 24#Urdu people

Venerable Master[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 The Venerable#Buddhism. Keep's not convincing lacking references, and the proposed target, although quite a change, appears well-referenced. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Venerable Master" is not mentioned at the target, the previous mention having been deleted here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - resolved by editing the target section so that it now (once again) does mention that some jurisdictions use “Venerable Master”. Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since my request has gone unanswered, I've WP:CHALLENGED and removed this addition. -- Tavix (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yeah, this situation is easily resolved through editing, as Blueboar has said.Pepe Oats (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm unaware of any English-speaking jurisdictions of Freemasonry which use the adjective venerable when referring to the Master of a lodge. The only (very rare) occasions I've heard it used in 25 years of active membership was as a translation of the manner of address used in a jurisdiction which uses another language to conduct business. (Specifically those that use French, where the word vénérable is sometimes treated as a cognate of worshipful in English, depending on context.) This would be better-solved by using sister-project templates or Wikidata entries for articles in those languages' Wikipedias treating on the office of Master to be linked to the target article. Obscure edge cases do exist within the appendant bodies, where the presiding officer of a Lodge of Perfection in the Scottish Rite (composed of Masons of the 4th through 14th, or Ineffable, degrees) uses this manner of address as does (loosely) the presiding officer of a Council in the Allied Masonic Degrees (Sovereign Master, addressed as Venerable), but I don't believe either comes close to justifying the retention of this redirect. — ⚞ 🐈ℛogueScholar ₨Talk🗩 ⚟ My recent mischief 02:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to The Venerable#Buddhism, the usage in Buddhism is definitely the primary topic from a cursory search on Wikipedia and Google. RogueScholar's comment sounds convincing to me, so I'd like to see more evidence this is a term used in masonry. -- Tavix (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the possible retarget.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix. Usage in Buddhism does appear to be primary. PC78 (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 24 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.

Europe's last dictatorship[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 / no consensus. This is an admittedly unusual close. Arguments to delete and to retarget were valid and policy based, and in many such situations, no consensus would mean retargeting, since there's no support for keeping as is. While the previous XfD is older, the facts of the matter really haven't changed in the meantime, and so I consider its decision the appropriate status quo absent consensus for a change. Should someone wish to restore it in the future, I suggest an RfC or talk page discussion to get positive consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

There is no chronological information in the article, so the reader will not find anything about Europe's "last" dictatorship. Also the article lists four of them. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • IIRC, this originally pointed to Belarus but was deleted after an RfD discussion. I consider the current target to be reasonable as Europe has relatively few countries that are considered dictatorships. feminist (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Dictatorship#Communism and Fascism in 20th-century dictatorships, where most of the examples are 20th century dictatorships in Europe. The current target, as well as List of totalitarian regimes, do not have a clear focus on Europe; they give long lists of dictatorships in other parts of the world. However, I'm not sure if it's possible to name a "last" dictatorship, as several continued simultaneously decades after World War II, so one could also make an argument based on WP:XY. ComplexRational (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget back to Belarus, where the label is discussed (in the lede!). From a cursory search both on and off Wikipedia, the label seems common for Belarus and I was unable to find competing usage. -- Tavix (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Belarus per Tavix' explanation. I am able to confirm that this is the common usage of the phrase and it seems helpful and relevant to Belarus political system. Zerach (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:39, 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.

Svevlad[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) 15:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target has no mythological list.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Slightly confused because even when there was such a section in that article "Svevlad" doesn't appear to have been mentioned. Apparently an unconfirmed or legendary ruler, he is mentioned in a few artcles but there doesn't seem to be a suitable target. "Svevlad" is also the name of a modern research group, but again no suitable target. Note also that Svevlad Petrović was deleted in 2011. PC78 (talk) 11:53, 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.

Happiness (1934 film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 24#Happiness (1934 film)

Riff-Raff (1990 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) 15:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The film was not released in 1990. PC78 (talk) 09:54, 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.

Lefki Komi[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. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not clear that this is actually an alternative spelling of the name. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 02:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lefki Komi is the spelling that is used in File:Periplous of the Erythraean Sea.svg, which is linked to in a number of articles. If that spelling isn't used elsewhere, then the map should be changed to reflect that. --PiMaster3 talk 23:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If no one else with more knowledge of the subject expresses an opinion, I'm ok with this discussion being closed as no consensus/keep. It's possible that that image has an error in it, but I am not enough of an expert on this topic to feel confident making that call myself. signed, Rosguill talk 17:28, 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.

Tomato preserves[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 Tomato jam. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. I'm fairly certain that these terms do not refer to the same thing, and would thus suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 02:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this suggestion. signed, Rosguill talk 02:52, 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.

List of It characters[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) 15:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No such list exists at the target at this time. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 02:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The creator inserted a "Characters" section at the target article but the only content was this this redirect, which was just bizarre. It has since been removed. At present it serves no purpose. PC78 (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Revisit if someone wants to create a standalone list integrating the casts from the book, mini-series, and film adaptations as with List of Evil Dead characters. This would apply to the Stephen King media as primary topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC) updated 19:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note there is a Draft:List of It characters in progress as well as multiple drafts for the individual characters, and that it could help offload the excessive verbiage in It (2017 film) as well as attract the individual character redirects. Canceling delete vote above AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But the redirect would need to be deleted anyway for that draft to be moved into mainspace, and it also doesn't justify the current mainspace redirect. If anything that seems like a stronger argument for deletion. PC78 (talk) 15:00, 18 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 Undisputed Kingdom[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) 15:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects appear to be the result of a page move gone wrong. It's not clear that either of them is pointing to a useful target, nor is it clear that any better targets exist. I would suggest deletion unless justifications can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 02:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - two articles are not related in any way.MPJ-DK (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Why are there two redirects? This isn't meant to be a portmanteau. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A user who has since been banned for these sort of edits moved the page to that before it was moved back, resulting in the redirects being created. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:16, 16 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.

Beluj (disambiguation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 23#Beluj (disambiguation)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_15&oldid=923100242"