Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 22, 2020.

The Salt Flats[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 Salt flat. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of several WP:Broken redirects, but I was surprised by the hatnote at the current target since it's not mentioned anywhere. The most recent I could find amid several mergers was a single line that that is not notable at all (even in the universe of the target). I believe a retarget is appropriate, but to where? Salt flat is a disambiguation page, and Salt pan (geology) is probably the most relevant general term. However, using the artile "The" suggests a specific salt falt in particular, so I would go to Bonneville Salt Flats if I were to boldly retarget myself. I say that believing it to be the most famous/widely known salt flat, but I don't know if that is biased by me living in the states, so I'm opening the discussion. -- 2pou (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget - Even taking into account an international perspective, I think that we should go to 'Bonneville Salt Flats'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above; not mentioned in the current target. Also, delete (1) the misleading entry which uses this redirect on the DAB page salt flat (2) the {{redirect}} hatnote in V for Vendetta. Even if the Bonneville Salt Flats are most often referred to by their full name, for me (from a European perspective) the triple distinction of the definite article, the plural form, and the initial capitals makes OP's proposal a good call. Narky Blert (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Retarget to Salt flat (disambiguation); the disambiguation page is the best landing spot. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 20:33, 24 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.

20th century/Maternal death rates[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. signed, Rosguill talk 01:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't cover the 20th century specifically. Old R from subpage without links. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Don't delete ancient subpages if their targets are working. Period. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:40, 23 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.

CutiePie[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 Cutie Pie. signed, Rosguill talk 01:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest retargeting to Cutie Pie. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. Marzia Kjellberg is CutiePieMarzia, not CutiePie. Narky Blert (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. I've amended the hatnote there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlikely that someone would type that without a space when looking for the song. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:34, 13 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 07:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Neither is an exact match, so readers could be plausibly looking for either topic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disambiguation is achieved with a hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see why the song should be preferred though. It is far more common to misspell a CamelCase entity as two words than the other way around, so to me it's the same stretch to get from "CutiePie" to "Cutie Pie" as "CutiePieMarzia", especially given that she has gone by simply "CutiePie" on certain media before. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 22 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.

❶[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#❶

COTA Other[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. No consensus prior to the relist, and no further comments after the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term for the section, suggesting deletion. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so as you can see from the other redirects to this article, I implemented a complex network of links and templates based on what SEPTA in Philadelphia has, allowing readers to click on a bus line on an article's infobox like with Topiary Park, linking them right to the relevant route information. I am still working on this, but right now this isn't being utilized for the 'other services' - the zoo bus, shuttle routes, and potentially other special services. I am about to add it for the Columbus Zoo, you will be able to see how this works. ɱ (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think that this is worth keeping. Let's just let people search. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't. I have a good system that parallels other agencies. It's not realistic to keep 99% of it but not this 1%. Makes no sense. ɱ (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not true. It utilizes this. ɱ (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - important note: Nobody here seems to be familiar enough with this larger concept to warrant a valid vote. As mentioned earlier, this is a redirect that is part of {{COTA link}}, a tool that allows you to link services in the infobox easily and directly to the correct line. This is now being used, so far, with "other" at Columbus Zoo and Aquarium and Rickenbacker International Airport. Please do not sever a portion of this system simply with misunderstandings. ɱ (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because it is part of a system, a redirect should not be meaningless to users, which this is, so my vote of delete still stands.Fleet Lists (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ɱ, could you clarify? Are there analogous redirects in use that inspired this one? Is there a way for you to accomplish the same thing without "polluting" mainspace? Keep in mind that any reader typing "COTA" into the search box could see this. --BDD (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So {{SEPTA bus link}} inspired this whole system. These "Other" services are circulating, they don't have endpoints or route maps, so it's hard to list them individually in List of COTA bus routes like the rest. SEPTA I suppose accomplishes this with a separate section on their LUCY and Boulevard Direct services. It handles LUCY in the SEPTA link template, but it seems their editors just link Boulevard Direct for that service. Would editors here prefer moving COTA Other -> COTA shuttle services or individually create COTA Zoo Bus, SmartRide New Albany, and GREAT shuttle all redirecting to the "Other services" box? Either of these I suppose would be more clear. ɱ (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you do this in template space, though, like {{SEPTA bus link}}? --BDD (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe so, but either way a redirect is needed. ɱ (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, even though I'm not sure the template system should be designed in a way that needs this, it seems like a perfectly valid reason for a redirect in that context that does not appear to be doing any harm. Redirects really are cheap, and even if "COTA Other" is an unlikely term for a searching reader, it's not like someone who DOES use it is going to be uncomfortably surprised with where it goes. ~ mazca talk 19:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ɱ, this is evidently used (however weird the usage is) and harmless to keep. — J947 [cont] 20:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:15, 22 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.

Sovereign Court of Lorraine and Barrois[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. The rough consensus is that this title refers to a specific court, of which there is insufficient information on any Wikipedia article to justify a redirect. Deryck C. 21:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. This was original pointed at Parlement of Nancy but fixed by the double-redirect bot. If an article is written about that subject it may become useful, but as it stands it is not currently helpful to readers. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Lorraine and Barrois as {{R with possibilities}}. A Google search for Tribunaux de Lorraine et du Barrois gave several hits. Narky Blert (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine by me. signed, Rosguill talk 20:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sovereign court; I think that gives more information. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 21:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    J947, someone redirected Sovereign court to Parlement. Should we consider this a "keep" vote from you, or does it change your position? --BDD (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak retarget to Lorraine and Barrois per Narky, but I'm fine with a delete. — J947 [cont] 20:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Not enough content exists to support a redirect at this time. -- Tavix (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The search page is terrible; I get the principle of deleting this but I do wonder if it would truly be helpful. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 02:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense that the search results are terrible—there's not enough content on this subject on Wikipedia to begin with. There's nothing out there for the search engine to pick up on, and likewise there shouldn't be a redirect to a dead end. -- Tavix (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix and BDD, there's very sparse information on this in multiple places, but in neither case is there enough to make a redirect feel useful. Honestly I think a redlink is the best current outcome. ~ mazca talk 17:05, 3 May 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.

Purple stuff[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 01:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article list of cocktails lists purple stuff as a cocktail consisting of Stolichnaya blueberry, grape juice, Sprite. However, the actual link purple stuff redirects to SunnyD, which is a beverage that is neither purple, berry-flavoured nor alcoholic. The target is clearly wrong. The redirect should be retargeted (although I don't know where) or deleted. JIP | Talk 22:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the connection is in a group of commercials from the early 90s in which kids looking through a fridge for something to drink looked at several drinks (one of which being called purple stuff) before deciding to drink SunnyD. I'm not sure if that is a strong enough connection to warrent a redirect and the term is not mentioned at the target article.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right. That's where the connection is. I had an inkling in the back of my mind about this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the "purple stuff" depicted in the commercial has nothing to do with the cocktail. However, I don't think the cocktail even exists. JIP | Talk 07:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I doubt that there would be alcoholic beverage in a 90s SunnyD commercial.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while it’s true there is a connection between SunndyD and the term purple stuff it wad a minor part of a commercial that isn’t mentioned at the target and I doubt ever will be. Retargeting to the cocktail list is a possibility but considering at least one person here has expressed doubts that of the validity of such a cocktail I think deletion is the best option.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 20:13, 29 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.

World Health Organization (WHO)[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 WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 05:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful; by the time you'd see the disambiguator the correct page would have shown up. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – reasonable enough, and WP:Redirects are cheap. One of them has incoming links. They get non-trivial pageviews. One of them has been here for 14 years and the other for 15 years, so deleting them carries a risk of breaking links from other sites. Also one of these redirects came from a merger, so keeping it may be necessary for attribution as well. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Granger. I can see people searching this term, and it would help them get to the article like the redirects been doing for years. Regards, SONIC678 22:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Search suggestions don't show up if you type in the HTML bar, or if you create a link to this target. Nyttend backup (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The disambigator terms are redundant, but otherwise these don't seem to be doing any harm. They aren't doing anything problematic such as misleading readers or the like that we often see in these discussions. I'm inclined to think that deletion is the wrong call here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above as helpful and unambiguously referring to this redirect's current target; nothing is to be gained by deleting this redirect – especially with K4 and RHARMFUL advising against it. — J947 [cont] 21:32, 26 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.

Online Encylopaedia of Mathematics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target is not known under that name (the correctly spelled version doesn't exist either). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Back in 2006, when this redirect was created, the publisher's description began "The Online Encyclopaedia of Mathematics is the most up-to-date..." Nyttend backup (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As stated above, this (spelled the same way) appears to have been used as an official title. The redirect seems helpful enough and ought to be kept. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend. — J947 [cont] 21:32, 26 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.

1911 Encyclopedia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist #WearAMask😷 04:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be not the only encyclopedia from 1911. Delete per WP:XY. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the primary topic. What other Encyclopedias are you seeing? All references in the given link seem to be related to Britannica. Note that this is an important edition in a Wikipedia context. Per the article: This edition of the encyclopaedia, containing 40,000 entries, is now in the public domain, and many of its articles have been used as a basis for articles in Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a bit more research, the relevant category is Category:1911 non-fiction books. There's a couple other minor encyclopedias listed, but it confirms my suspicion that Britannica is definitely the primary topic. Do you think someone might be looking for a different encyclopedia by using this term? If so, we could always employ a hatnote. Note that the redirects are very old, from 2002 and 2003 respectively, and the first has a fair amount of usage from links. -- Tavix (talk) 03:26, 23 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.

Military of Wake Island[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. I'm not refining them though. The article discusses military throughout the article, especially starting two sections before the Military buildup section. -- Tavix (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably target to a more specific section. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak refine both to Wake_Island#Military_buildup – that is where the the most military-pertaining area of the article starts – or second choice just keep them unrefined. No matter what, it is important to keep the history. — J947 [cont] 21:10, 15 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 21:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as extremely old and harmless redirects. signed, Rosguill talk 01:07, 1 May 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.

Emperor-Elect[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 Make all target -elect#History. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget something. Obviously these three ought to go to the same place (the fourth option, Emperor Elect, doesn't exist), but where? They've historically all gone to the HRE article, but today Rosguill retargeted two of them. I don't want to give weight to "they've all gone there in the past" if -elect#History is a better place, but I don't want to give weight to the majority because it's new. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:25, 22 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.

Medicine in Japan[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 Health in Japan. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People typing "Medicine in Japan" in the search bar probably aren't looking for an article about a Japanese offshoot of traditional Chinese medicine. Would suggest a re-target to Health in Japan. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 20:46, 22 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.

British-Irish Agreement[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 29#British-Irish Agreement

Mglw'nafh[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 20:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the usages of this "word" on the Wikipedia appear in a chant. The chant is in four articles, all related to Cthulhu. The full string of "words" redirect to The Call of Cthulhu, but I'm not convinced that one made-up word from the middle of a fictional chant is a plausible search term. Hog Farm (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As stated above, this isn't a plausible search term. It's simply not worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The redirect exists because I searched for its meaning on wikipedia, didn't find it, searched Google, found it, and created the appropriate redirect. So I can verify it was used once. Is there perhaps a tool that tracks how often a redirect is used? Mathiastck (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's the pageviews analysis. This redirect had 10 pageviews in 2019, which is pretty low. From what I've seen 10 is near the low end of usage, due to page crawlers and bots, redirects are rarely at 0 for a year. If this is decided to be kept, it might be worth retargeting to The Call of Cthulhu, as the full chant redirects to there. Hog Farm (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searching up the full chant leads to another article per Hog Farm. Besides, any follower of Cthulhu who cannot memorise the entire chant is not worthy of being driven insane by the Great One. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:47, 23 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.

Claw and the Vipers[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 20:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article, unclear what exactly this is suppose to signify. Hog Farm (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can't find this relating to... anything. It looks like something somebody just made up on the fly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search turned up Claw Viper and Claw Viper Temple as features in Diablo (series), but no exact match. Narky Blert (talk) 08:52, 23 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.

ᴀ[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 ᴀ (IPA). Despite a paucity of bolded votes, the discussion resulted in a clear argument for the deletion of the redirect with the (IPA) disambiguator, as this system is not referred to as IPA. signed, Rosguill talk 20:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They should point at the same target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ᴀ (IPA) should be deleted because ⟨ᴀ⟩ isn't an IPA symbol, and it never was. It is only used by Sinologists who habitually mix IPA symbols with many non-IPA symbols such as ⟨ᴇ⟩; ⟨ɿ⟩, ⟨ʅ⟩, ⟨ʮ⟩, ⟨ʯ⟩; ⟨ȵ⟩, ⟨ȡ⟩, ⟨ȶ⟩, ⟨ȴ⟩; ⟨꜈⟩, ⟨꜉⟩, ⟨꜊⟩, ⟨꜋⟩, ⟨꜌⟩; ⟨꜀⟩, ⟨꜁⟩, ⟨꜂⟩, ⟨꜃⟩, ⟨꜄⟩, ⟨꜅⟩, ⟨꜆⟩, ⟨꜇⟩; etc. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it is/was actually used in IPA formulations by Sinologists, then the redirect should remain in some form (say ᴀ (non-IPA) or ᴀ (bad IPA) or something. It just needs to point to the proper target. If it is used as a substitute for ᴀ, then they should point to the same place, if it is used differently, then the use target should be used. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ᴀ (non-IPA) can't be redirected to Open central unrounded vowel because ⟨ᴀ⟩ may also be used (and, as far as the international Unicode standard is concerned, it may correctly be used) as the encoding of a representational variant of lower-case ⟨a⟩ e.g. "ᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ" for "apple". And ᴀ (bad IPA) is simply undefined: Transcriptions are either IPA transcriptions (as laid out in the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association), or not. Tertium non datur. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here we get into practise vs prescription. If Sinologists used this glyph for this purpose, then it is reasonable for the redirect to exist. WP:OFFICIALNAME seems to fit somewhat here. The official glyph is official, but the one in use is what is in use, so would be a suitable search term for the miswritten glyph. "bad IPA" is just a suggestion, you could use ᴀ (Sinology IPA) or something (as mentioned before, "or something") -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OFFICIALNAME doesn't apply because this transcription style isn't even unofficially referred to as IPA, or 国际音标／國際音標. Sinologists know very well that this isn't IPA and refer to it as Sinological transcription, 汉语言学音标／漢語言學音標, or by very similar, slightly extended, names. — Pullum & Ladusaw (1996:14): Phonetic Symbol Guide describe other, non-Sinological, uses of ⟨ᴀ⟩ as a phonetic symbol that does not represent a central [ä] but sounds such as [ʌ], [ḁ] (sic!), etc. (See also the illustration in article Luciano Canepari for yet another phonetic value of ⟨ᴀ⟩ that is not mentioned by Pullum & Ladusaw.) Such ambiguity not only makes the symbol unsuited for an international alphabet; it also prevents us from redirecting to any specific sound. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 00:01, 25 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.

X̲[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 Saanich dialect#Writing system. signed, Rosguill talk 20:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Saanich dialect#Writing system, where, unlike on the current target, the letter is mentioned. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:20, 22 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.

Afro-feminism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist #WearAMask😷 04:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But by no means always: see Afro-jazz, four meanings relating to Africa and none to the diaspora. Narky Blert (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like that's an exception that proves the rule, given that jazz originated in the African diaspora in the US. Adding an "afro-" qualifier would be redundant if it just referred to the diaspora, so there's a clear pragmatic pressure toward referring to the continent. signed, Rosguill talk 20:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep +hatnote per Rosguill. -2pou (talk) 21:32, 29 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.

Generation coronababy[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 20:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pandemics rarely last a generation. See the RfDs of Coronnials, Coronnial, Coronapocalypse, COVIDemic, Condemic, Covidiot, etc. Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 10:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete there is some speculative coverage of the concept in tabloids like Daily Mail and Daily Mirror, as well as a few mentions in other sources. It seems a bit early to have this redirect, but I don't see it as harmful or completely far-fetched. --MarioGom (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We can restore this if it becomes common usage sometime in the future, but as things stand now deletion totally seems to be the right call. 71.170.209.55 (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until this phrase becomes more than a WP:MADEUP WP:NEO. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 23 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.

Coronnials[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 20:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the RfDs of Coronapocalypse, COVIDemic, Condemic, Covidiot, etc. Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 09:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I merged the two nominations as they were the same topic apart from the grammatical number. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coronnials, delete or retarget Coronnial. I would see this as weak delete with the same rationale as for #Generation coronababy. However, I'm proposing deletion because of scarce usage as of today, and that this is a plausible misspelling of Coronial, which should be redirected to Coroner. --MarioGom (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - These aren't appropriate. We don't have the kind of usage that justifies keeping these neologisms. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:10, 25 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.

Panic of 2020[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 20:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The coronavirus pandemic is not the only panic of 2020. There are several other major panics in 2020, like 2020 stock market crash. Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 09:34, 22 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.

Regius Professor of Life Sciences[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 20:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect title has a very broad scope and applies to other people. Mopswade (talk) 08:44, 22 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.

Over To You[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 Over to You. signed, Rosguill talk 20:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or else Retarget to newly created Dab page Over to You to avoid capitalisation/search clash. See pertinent discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_14#Over_to_You
Muzilon (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was wondering why a new "upper case" redirect had been created while the "lower case" redirect was already under discussion. If consensus is to retarget, then perhaps {{R from other caps}} rather than {{R from miscapitalisation}}? Muzilon (talk) 12:54, 22 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.

Mobile Jewish: Exterminated to Chamber[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 speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) Bsherr (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

remanant of disruptive move Hb1290 (talk) 05:52, 22 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.

Mobile Jewish: Bang Bang[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 deleted with target. (non-admin closure) 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

remanant of disruptive move Hb1290 (talk) 05:52, 22 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.

Wikipedia:WIntroduction (historical)[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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) Interstellarity (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no reason to keep this redirect long term. -- -- -- 05:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please make sure it does not contain any substantive edit history. This redirect comes from moves to debug a move from Wikipedia:Introduction to Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) in the wake of a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Introduction#RfC. Please also see Phabricator: T250551 for details. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a discussion here is frankly not at all helpful. The move is a major mess, which got escalated first to admins, then to stewards, then to sysops, and now to system administrators. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Introduction_page_move. This is a technical matter implementing a resolved RfC, not an editorial matter; what's needed is for someone (with very powerful permissions) to come in and just clean everything up. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for not being helpful. I'm willing to withdraw my nomination if you feel that should be done (although I'm not sure exactly how to do that. Should I strike out this whole section? Please feel free to do so yourself if that's what you want). Sincerely, -- -- -- 10:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@-- -- --: hello! Hope you're well. Since only the nominator can withdraw nominations, what you'd do is write * '''Withdraw''' and someone will come along to close it as Withdrawn by nominator. Thanks! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:40, 22 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.

NCIS: OSP[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this was the name of the show while it was in development ten years ago, and judging by the pageviews is not commonly searched for anymore. TheTVExpert (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment adding NCIS: Undercover and NCIS Undercover. TheTVExpert (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "not commonly searched for" is a terrible reason to delete a redirect from a previous or proto-name. It's easy to imagine why someone might search for this, and the target is apparently the right target (per nom). --JBL (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps I should clarify, NCIS: OSP and NCIS: Undercover were names that the creators considered naming the show, but NCIS: Legend was its name during production, as stated in the production section of the show's page. TheTVExpert (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This can maybe go under a History heading or something of this nature, but by no means it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galendalia (talk • contribs) 08:49, 27 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.

Arathorn, son of Arador[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 Ranger (Middle-earth)#Rangers of the North. signed, Rosguill talk 20:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. The original target of this redirect was also redirected as not notable. Hog Farm (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Ranger (Middle-earth)#Rangers of the North. Also, Arathorn should be added to the nomination as well. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: - Arathorn added. If this discussion ends in retarget to there, Arathorn II can be moved there too. I don't want to add Arathorn II to the mix, because it's an R from merge and as such is a different situation. Arathorn I is a completely different figure that does not appear to be mentioned, but as he's R from merge too, Arathorn I will just have to stay around in redirect purgatory. Hog Farm (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are other redirects that previously redirected to the former target, though those characters seem much less notable. There is also Araglas, who does not seem to be mentioned at the target article.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 22 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.

Churu[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) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 04:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to make way for disambiguation page. Relevant discussion can be found at Talk:Churu (disambiguation) Paradoctor (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted, per Uanfala. Paradoctor (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • As it says at the top, RfD is not for redirects that get in the way of moves. The correct process for that is WP:RM. – Uanfala (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the top, you'll see no such thing. I get your point, though. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not on this log page, but at the top of WP:RFD. – Uanfala (talk) 01:42, 22 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.

Thi:'adIsi[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 20:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ASCII mangling of the IPA for “theodicy”. Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 6#ɑ̃sjɛ̃ ʁeʒim. Gorobay (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't see any good reason to keep this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't help that this isn't even correct — it should be /θiː'ɒdɪsi/, as specified in the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no reason to keep this, especially when it is incorrect as stated above. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 18:24, 26 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.

Europe: Norway, Sweden, Finland[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 20:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious unnecessary redirect. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes the WWF used its own titles for global ecoregions. And "Scandinavian montane birch forest and grasslands" was named "Europe: Norway, Sweden, Finland". Its a mess, and all the WWF ecoregion-entries I have seen on their website is about 20 years old. They are only rudimentary explained in most cases too. I don't think the term "Europe: Norway, Sweden, Finland" is notable enough for its own page. The redirect it fine, but I don't see why there should be a page for it in the first place. RhinoMind (talk) 05:05, 22 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_22&oldid=1072177333"