Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 13, 2020.

Amerca's 10 most wanted[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with a typo that additionally doesn't point to the right article. We shouldn't have redirects for typos in common words inside bigger phrases: this redirect obstructs the search results when readers make any search in which America is similarly misspelt (this was discussed in this closely related RfD and the general principle further debated in this RfD of last year.) – Uanfala (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2020 (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.

Sooraj Pancholi (redirects)[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) 20:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's two more redirects left over from page moves to move the base titles away from incoming links, and which got much fewer pageviews than the base titles in 2019. Also, I recently retargeted Sooraj Pancholi (actor) (which also redirected to the first one's target, as did the base title before he got his page) to his page since Pancholi now has his own Wikipedia article, and the second (whose target section also has Matt Parker (Holby City)) might cause confusion with the Australian mathematician and comedian of the same name as the Holby City character. Regards, SONIC678 18:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Matt Parker redirect. There is the appropriately named redirect for the character at Matt Parker (Holby City), so this one isn't required anymore. Soaper1234 - talk 20:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as confusing. I might click on such a redirect in the searchbox out of simple curiosity (and be disappointed). Narky Blert (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inappropriate disambiguator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - I agree. These are inappropriate and shouldn't be kept. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2020 (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.

Undeeps[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) 20:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure fictional location not mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Has always been a redirect, so no WP:ATT issues with deletion. Not a helpful redirect. Hog Farm (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Obscure bit of trivia even in the broader context of Tolkien's work. I agree. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2020 (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 law schools in Somaliland[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) 20:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target isn't a list of law schools, but rather a list of constituent colleges for a single university, with exactly one entry on the list being a law school. I was unable to find a better target, and thus would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The above arguments make sense. I agree. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage possible article creation. The current target is just wrong. Narky Blert (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2020 (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.

Tierra Media[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 db-user. (non-admin closure) 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth has no particular affiliation with Latin, even though Tolkien was quite the philologist, there's no real connection between the fictional place and Latin. Delete per WP:RFFL. Hog Farm (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Looking the term up on Google gets me hits in Spanish. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFFL. Tierra is Spanish not Latin; the Latin noun is terra. Narky Blert (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I created this redirect many years ago while drunk and before WP:RFFL. It's indeed Español to English. 👋 Erudecorp ? * 06:54, 15 April 2020 (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.

Wall of the Sun[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 21#Wall of the Sun

Newton-square second per metre[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) 19:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, yet another example of a unit of measurement pointing at a case where it is (might be?) used. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – I am having difficulty verifying what units apply to hardness. In any event, hardness seems to be a complex topic, with many different types of hardness (potentially with different units, possibly without SI-type units, who knows?). Since such a redirect would be no more than a vague hint at a potential use (even if it is correct in this, which I can't verify), I think the wisest is delete. —Quondum 14:03, 14 April 2020 (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.

Modèle:Lien web[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see #Predefinição:Citar web. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for all of the reasons given in the linked discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No need to attempt to recreate the Template: namespace in non-English languages on this project. Hog Farm (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and per WP:XNR. Narky Blert (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other discussion. — J947 [cont] 05:56, 14 April 2020 (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.

Predefinição:Citar web[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another translation of the template namespace into non-English languages. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_7#Plantilla:Citar_web, if I recall correctly, the Template: namespace should be universal, so this is technically in the articlespace. Hog Farm (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for all of the reasons given in the linked discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. With a universal prefix in place, we shouldn't be copying Portuguese WP. ComplexRational (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and per WP:XNR. Narky Blert (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other discussion. — J947 [cont] 05:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no "Predefinição" namespace on the English Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 16:37, 18 April 2020 (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:Stammbaum[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 Template:Tree chart. signed, Rosguill talk 18:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest re-targeting to Template:Tree chart. Template:Family tree is deprecated and being merged with Template:Tree chart and will likely eventually be deleted. Those who use Template:Stammbaum to import diagrams from the German wikipedia should already be checking and if necessary modifying the diagrams as the syntax of de:Template:Stammbaum is not exactly the same as Template:Tree chart so switching to a redirect to Template:Tree chart should not impose an extra burden on those who use Stammbaum and will make the use of Stammbaum future proof. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks. I'm okay with that. Bermicourt (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I am concerned, these are part and parcel of their parent templates and any discussion/decision on the parent should be viewed as binding on the sub unless the sub is explicitly raised in the discussion as needing to be treated differently. Agricolae (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2020 (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.

TECO/Example[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 TECO (text editor)#Example code -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strange and unused old R from subpage. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2020 (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.

Telecommunications in Spratly Islands[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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created this myself, but now wondering: Is this correct English? (and is there a better place to ask this?) Telecommunications in Philippines doesn't exist at least. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Can't see anything wrong with it (although I might have said the Spratly Islands). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that was exactly my point. But, I guess, if you see nothing wrong, I'll withdraw this. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I wouldn't recommend making this one if it existed didn't exist, but it's close enough to correct it shouldn't cause any problems. Hog Farm (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; should have a the but it's a fairly plausible misspelling. — J947 [cont] 02:54, 14 April 2020 (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 XD (Netherlands)(redirects)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects were left over from moves to get certain titles (Disney XD (Netherlands) and Zama (film) respectively) away from the incoming links during page moves. While I can see someone forgetting to put a space in between parentheses (the correct version will show up in the search bar in most cases), these redirects don't seem necessary anymore since the moves have been completed. Regards, SONIC678 14:32, 13 April 2020 (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.

Communications in Serbia and Montenegro[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 Telecommunications in Serbia and Montenegro. If you'll permit me a benevolent supervote, this new page seemed like the more logical place to disambiguate, given that both "Communications in" titles redirect to their respective "Telecommunications in" articles. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest disambiguating like Transport in Serbia and Montenegro and redirecting the R from subpage there. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, at this point way the same amount of time has passed since the dissolution of that state than it was in existence, so it makes the most sense to either disambiguate or to redirect to a pertinent historical article if there is one. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - I agree. That change makes sense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2020 (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.

Moo Moo Farm[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need a redirect for one specific track from this game, especially since this page never contained any article content. – numbermaniac 09:42, 13 April 2020 (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.

Eastmarch[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name is not present at target, and not used anywhere else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not mentioned in a Middle-earth context anywhwere, all other uses are brief references mostly in the plot summaries of other fictional works. Not significant to be mentioned in the Shire article. Hog Farm (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2020 (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.

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 20#

Sobell Rail Yards 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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An RfD was attempted on March 2, but the nomination itself was not created. It is a fictional location not mentioned at the target and was previously an article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree. There doesn't seem to be a valid reason to keep this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For the record, the statement above saying that "the nomination itself was not created" is just not true. (the nomination on the RfD subpage was posted, but then I forgot to remove the {{Rfd}} tag from the redirect after I withdrew the nomination.) Bit either way, since this nomination is now here, the reason why I nominated this for deletion previously (before I withdrew it) was because it is not mentioned at its target article (as the new nominator states.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2020 (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.

Rich by Youth[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These three pages were tagged for a bulk nomination of Chromatica redirects, but not included in the actual nomination. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:33, 13 April 2020 (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.

Goolge[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An RfD nomination was attempted on March 27, but the nominator forgot to create the nomination. This user has been notified. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:23, 13 April 2020 (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 college men's soccer coaches with 350 wins[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete invalid alternate name and bad search term -- the list does not contain coaches with less than 400 wins. Thus this does not provide the reader with the anticipated results. Anyone looking for coaches with 350-399 wins will be left wanting. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article was known by this name for many years (it was recently moved without discussion or consensus), and many editors have it saved or watched by this name. Moreover, its naming is consistent with about a dozen other college coaching templates (see Template:College athletic coaching wins leaders in the United States) and thus is a valid alternate name and search term. Cbl62 (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The recent move concerned "List of college men's soccer coaches with 400 wins" note that it says 400 and not 350. The recent move is immaterial to the curernt discussion, since it didn't move from that location. The page was called "400" for more time than it existed at "350". This redirect has been misleading people for too long. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect is unhelpful for readers, as the target page doesn't contain information about coaches with 350 wins, it contains information about coaches with 400 wins. These two are different things and it makes no sense to have one redirect to another. Not a very active user (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per @CB162: as this is a redirect from a very recent page move which was undiscussed (@Nnadigoodluck: who made the page move). Page should be moved back and then discussed via WP:RM process. GiantSnowman 18:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not the same thing; a superset not a subset of the target. Narky Blert (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. The two are totally not the same thing, and this redirect is unhelpful. Deletion is absolutely the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per K4. Searching this up isn't the main usecase here – but if someone does, they should definitely be directed the 400 wins page as that is by far what they would want to see. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 21:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 06:22, 13 April 2020 (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.

Lieutenant General George Washington[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) 19:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington may be a better target. Current target was just moved from Lieutenant General George Washington (statue) to Equestrian statue of George Washington (Washington Circle). BegbertBiggs (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If evidence is provided that Washington is called Lieutenant General George Washington in WP:RS; then retarget to George Washington. Narky Blert (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - See [1] (wasn't paywalled for me, so hopefully not for others). It mentions a statue by the name of Lieutenant General George Washington, but I can't tell if the statue in the article and the target statue are the same. The one in the article is near Washington Cathedral and the article noted the horse's "Egyptian-style glass eyes" and something about a finish on the horse part of the statue. Hog Farm (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the statue, since this is the real name of the statue, and it held that name for a long time until just a few hours ago, it should of course be redirected back (and welcomed back with open arms) so people looking up the real name will find it. Thanks. And Hog Farm, good find, wondering as well if it's the same statue. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep the redirect to Equestrian statue of George Washington (Washington Circle) or change to George Washington as a possible search term. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are still several incoming wikilinks as of today that intend the statue. They should be fixed before any possible deletion or retargeting. Station1 (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 06:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To quote the opening statement of Equestrian statue of George Washington (Washington Circle), "Lieutenant General George Washington is an 1860 equestrian statue of George Washington... ." Any one searching on Wikipedia for the statue by name will get to the right page, anyone searching for George Washington will be one click away from the right page. Even if the redirect had not occurred as a result of a page move, I think it would be appropriate to have this redirect. I would suggest that Redirect to the statue is actually the same as Keep, as it already redirects there. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2020 (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.

Doucaine[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 Mary Rose#Musical instruments. Formally this is no consensus, but since nobody voted for Keep outright implementing the retarget suggestion seems preferable to closin gwith no change. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Doucaine" is the French word for a dulcian, but in English, the term usually refers to a different instrument also known as a "still shawm" for which we currently have no article. Passengerpigeon (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFFL and possibly as ambiguous. Link equating "still shawm, "douçaine" and "dulcina". The dulcian has a folded bore and the still shawm a linear one; they are clearly different instruments. Narky Blert (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mary_Rose#Musical_instruments until we have Still shawm, then redirect there with a hatnote. Alternatively create a dab. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 20:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 06:17, 13 April 2020 (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.

Carzy[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) 19:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A carzy is not a synonym for a toilet. Mysticgamer (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Yes it is, albeit nowhere near that spelling (khazi, which some misspell as Carsey or Carsy).--Launchballer 23:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe retarget to Toilet (room) because all of the other redirects go there? Mysticgamer (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Although, "Carzy" could be a plausible typo for "Crazy". Possibly a hatnote's in order?--Launchballer 13:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget per above. A very plausible alternative spelling. Narky Blert (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:khazi or delete not mentioned at toilet (room)#Names, and it sounds like a bad idea to expand that section with a list of every country's slang names for it. Send the reader somewhere they can get actual information about what they typed in, or show the search results. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 06:16, 13 April 2020 (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.

When Kirk Met Spock[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? appears to be a joke in this news article, but that seems to be the only use of the phrase. Plus, this is only the time Kirk met Spock in the Kelvin timeline, not the prime one. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I love that the news article with this phrase is from Kirksville. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. So far as I am aware, the only other Star Trek media that depicts the initial meeting of Kirk and Spock is the 1986 novel, Enterprise: The First Adventure (for which we have no article). As it stands, therefore, the film set in the Kelvin timeline is the only Star Trek-related article that actually does depict this meeting. Furthermore, it is basically the conceit of the film to show that, it not having been shown in film before. It therefore does not seem at all unlikely as a faux title. BD2412 T 19:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wording it this way (in contrast to something like 'When Spock met Kirk', with different capitalization) seems to give the impression that it's the exact title to some specific comic book, short film piece, fan-made story, or whatever else.
    • I additionally want to say that it appears as if the film series timeline isn't particularly getting followed in different pieces of new media. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - After giving this some more thought, I guess the fact that the redirect isn't necessarily that helpful (again, this is only in terms of that one timeline) means that deletion appears to be the right call to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 06:16, 13 April 2020 (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.

Slip (deadmau5 song) ¿Redirect?[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This...looks like a weird format, which had to do with its target's move to its current title about half a year ago. ¿Maybe it's time to delete it? Regards, ¿SONIC678? 03:52, 13 April 2020 (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.

Lego Clutch Powers: Bad Hair Day[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of Lego films and TV series#Short films. signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article. I suggest to retarget to List of Lego films and TV series unless it is properly explained in the target article. OcelotCreeper (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2020 (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.

Lego: The Adventures of Clutch Powers 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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article. The 2 closest things this could refer to are redirects to articles that do not say they are alternatively referred to as Lego: The Adventures of Clutch Powers 2 either. Delete unless a justification can be proven. OcelotCreeper (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It appears that the full sequel has also only surfaced as an idea, with production perhaps being stuck in development hell due to the focus on other LEGO-related media. The two follow-up releases to the initial movie were, as stated above, not titled as full sequels as such. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2020 (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.

Wiener Krach[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be an commonly used alternate name, not even in Germany. Suggesting deletion. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It might be worth seeing if any German speakers on Wikipedia can give context to this, but otherwise... deletion appears to be the right call. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. German WP doesn't seem to have the phrase Wiener Krach (=Vienna Crash") at all. I found an 1874 German citation which uses it as a short alternative to Wiener Börsenkrach (=Vienna Stock Exchange Crash"), and a 2018 English citation which introduces it without explanation. German WP does, however, have the redirect de:Wiener Börsenkrach, which targets the initial phase of the Panic of 1873. English WP has the redirect Gründerkrach, which is the German name for the Panic and which satisfies WP:RFFL. "Wiener Krach" is an unlikely search term in German, and an extremely unlikely search term in English. Narky Blert (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to Google Translate, "Wiener Krach" means "Vienna Crash". OcelotCreeper (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's gratifying to see that Google Translate agrees with me. Narky Blert (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Panic of 1873 started in Vienna, and the article in th German Wikipedia starts with the introduction Wiener Börsenkrach von 1873. Wiener Krach is sometimes used as an abbreviated form of Wiener Börsenkrach. --Khatschaturjan (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I always have concerns with an {{R without mention}} and would be wary of adding an obscure synonym into the article to support it, but given Khatschaturjan's evidence, this seems acceptable. It probably makes sense to refine the target to Panic of 1873#Germany and Austria-Hungary. (N.b., no false friends here—"Krach" is "crash", so abbreviating Börsenkrach ("stock crash") as Krach seems fine.) --BDD (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Khatschaturjan. I was also able to find this Spanish-language book which claims that "Wiener Krach" is a name for the 1873 panic. signed, Rosguill talk 20:55, 21 April 2020 (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/2020_April_13&oldid=1145945227"