Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 23, 2020.

White working class[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 01:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect from a non-specific term to a U.S.-specific article. The phrase "white working class" and the corresponding sociological category is frequently used in the UK and, I imagine, elsewhere. I haven't been able to identify any better targets, and note that an article on this topic was deleted in 2010, so I think this should be deleted. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Narky Blert (talk) 15:58, 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.

Pedal-cart[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 Cart with no prejudice against disambiguation. I'm not sure what a disambiguation would look like, so I'm not going to be the one to do it. Instead, I'm retargeting to the broadest option presented, which has the added benefit of matching pedal cart. If it is to be disambiguated, it should probably be done at the other title, keeping in mind that "pedal cart" should be an attested term for those types of carts. -- Tavix (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of pedals at the target, which states that these were primarily horse-drawn. signed, Rosguill talk 17:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've found the surrey connection - International Surrey Company, who make quadracycles. Narky Blert (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cycle rickshaw. The current target is clearly inappropriate, it's both overspecific and apparently incorrect, and I felt that is the most reasonable interpretation of the meaning. I wouldn't disagree with Narky Blert's suggestion of Quadracycle either - though a pedal cart does not need to have four wheels. ~ mazca talk 18:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cart. A "pedal car" is not a "pedal cart". A Surrey isn't a pedal cart either. Pedal cart redirects to Cart where the subject is mentioned. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify to all suggested retarget locations -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Three different targets and a DAB suggested, so relisting to gain further consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH21talk 22:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - Multiple entities exist that can plausibly be labeled as a 'pedal cart'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can only see 2 article that might qualify: Cart, and (at a stretch) Cycle rickshaw. If there's going to be a disambiguation page it should be a conversion of Pedal cart. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 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.

Template:0-7110-0554-0[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 01:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect that is just an ISBN; template names transcluded in articles should give some hint what they are about. Transclusions of this redirect should be replaced by the target template name. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - I'm not too sure about this one. Still, I agree with the general principle that redirects ought to give some clear-cut sense of what the target will be. Nobody (as far as I know) memorizes the ISBN numbers of books that they like. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Sometimes when I have need of one of these templates, I get the name of the template wrong. So then I have to go to Category:Rail transport book citation templates and find it. But finding the template via an ISBN redirect is easy – I just look at the back cover of the book I'm using as a reference, and usually there is the ISBN. That's why I named the template that way (before someone moved it). – Iain Bell (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Similar nominations have been bundled together in this relist. Unless specified otherwise, the votes above this relisting comment refer only to Template:0-7110-0554-0.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging CoffeeWithMarkets and Iain Bell in case they desire to modify their votes per the relisting comment above. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The first two are used, so I'd say they're useful. Redirects are cheap, and unless this is proven to be ambiguous, I don't think there's a major reason to remove the transclusions and delete. Hog Farm (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Iain Bell as useful and not harmful. — J947 [cont] 20:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – my comments on one apply equally to all three; I just didn't get round to !voting on the other two, so Keep all. – Iain Bell (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon some more thought, I've changed my mind and consider that these may be useful. I suppose that I'm now neutral here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Unambiguous and useful, so deletion will cause harm without bringing any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 28 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.

UFC Ultimate Fight Night[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 2005 in UFC. The discussion is more of a no consensus, but retargeting seems preferable to closing as such. signed, Rosguill talk 01:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either retarget to 2005 in UFC to match redirects of other less notable MMA cards and add relevant information there (for example, UFC on FX 3 redirects to the relevant section of the event in 2012 in UFC), or delete it due to minor mentions in current and proposed targets. (The redirect was protected due to repeated recreations as a separate page, as a result I am unable to add an RFD tag.) FMecha (to talk|to see log) 13:57, 8 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 22:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm inclined to simply get rid of this because it appears to be an essentially non-notable event and thus shouldn't be mentioned on the potential target article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, the 2005 article already mentions it in the events list (under the name "UFC Fight Night"). Peter James (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 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.

Covidiot[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 soft redirect to wikt:covidiot, which has the momentum. -- Tavix (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, making the redirect less than useful. Originally this page was created as a G11'able article, but it has since been converted to a redirect. This term has seen some use in reputable news sources, so a sourced mention could probably be added to the current target, but I think this is trivial enough that it probably shouldn't, in which case the redirect should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 20:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:R#K3 and WP:R#K5.--Launchballer 21:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer, care to elaborate? "Covidiot" isn't mentioned at the target, so it's not clear how the redirect would be useful to a reader. signed, Rosguill talk 21:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With your argument, redirects like COVIDemic should also be deleted. --Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from the covidiot 06:16, 19 April 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there were mentions of people recklessly endangering the lives of others by refusing to follow safety guidelines I would change my decision to a weak keep. Otherwise it's a loaded term (and possibly falls under WP:NEO) that doesn't contribute to much. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I learned the hard way during Hulk Hogan's non-existent 2020 presidential run, these things need to be in the target article, as opposed to merely letting their absence do the talking. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obscure neologism that isn't at the target and, given the lack of reliable source usage, shouldn't be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with the rationale for deletion, but I wonder, would Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic perhaps be a better target? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not by the same rationale, no. Equally as bad as everywhere. First article to openly discuss it wins, unless the next article discusses it in greater detail. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As true as I personally believe that to be, it's a charged word and not fit for Wikipedia by just association. If more reliable sources pick it up I'll reconsider my stance. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Presumably a neologism. Not mentioned anywhere; therefore no target with any useful information, which is what matters. Narky Blert (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above. Robertpedley (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For reasons the reasons mentioned before. Zoozaz1 (talk)
  • Delete borderline WP:G10 content. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a look for some content related to people who engage in antisocial behaviour related to the virus, and shaming thereof, but couldn't find anything.
  • Keep totally plausible and can be mentioned in the article. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Praxidicae (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Praxidicae. --Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from the covidiot 05:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:covidiot where the term is defined. buidhe 18:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft retarget to wikt:covidiot per Buidhe as the best we can do for the readers – which is the key part of RfD. — J947 [cont] 20:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per noms rationale. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary, per Praxidicae, Buidhe, and J947. This is pretty notable as far as neologisms go (see GNews results) - not notable enough for a WP article, and probably undue as a section in an existing article - but notable enough that readers will search for it. The Wiktionary entry provides what readers are looking for. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the relevant entry on Wiktionary 53zodiac (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary per others. Even the Tesla CEO Elon Musk is known as a covidiot.[7] --Soumyabrata talk contribs subpages 12:30, 30 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.

Scandal (fragrance)[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 prejudice against recreation or restoration should content be added to the target. -- Tavix (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "Scandal" at target page Utopes (talk / cont) 23:08, 7 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]
  • Comment - This product certainly exists and has garnered some notice. Should it be added to the target page? I'm not sure, but I'm inclined to think so. (It apparently isn't very good despite the huge price point, alas, but such is fashion). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist per the unanswered inquiry above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 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.

Stronger Neo‐Minophagen C[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#Stronger Neo‐Minophagen C

Colonization of the Sun[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 01:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted. The Sun cannot be colonized. No serious plans have ever been made to colonize the Sun. Spacemo80 (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This is completely ridiculous. No need to keep this joke around. Hog Farm (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While the sun obviously isn't going to be colonized in the real, scientific sense, does the fact that some religious traditions believe that the sun is, has been, or will be colonized in the spiritual sense and inhabited by souls (such as in Mormon cosmology) matter here? What about outright fiction that involves characters living on or in the sun, such as All-Star Superman? My instinct is for this to just be deleted as nonsense, but "colonization of the sun" as a concept technically includes both fiction and.... (trying to be charitable) fiction-ish mythology. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent for Neutron star colonization and 12 others at a 2007 RfD. It leads me to question Yellow dwarf colonization, the only redirect not deleted in the RfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a bit hot. Narky Blert (talk) 10:53, 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.

Disambiguation (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 WP:SNOW. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some more redirects that were left over to make space for page moves, this time to disambiguation pages. Not sure why we should keep these lying around... Regards, SONIC678 16:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Housekeeping. This is not the way to move stuff around during a multipage move, especially if you leave a mess behind. Narky Blert (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, and because I don't see any edit history in these redirects worth retaining due to them seeming to never be full-blown articles/dabs. (In other words, I don't see a need to "Move without leaving a redirect" these redirects since there seems to be nothing to retain in them per WP:A/WP:CWW.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, these redirects are obviously fairly useless but I don't see the point in nominating them for deletion? — J947 [cont] 20:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similar concept as redirects with "upcoming/untitled" in their titles: It doesn't explain or describe their target. For example, a human being is a human being, not a redirect. Otherwise, we are all redirect beings, I guess. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - These are all useless and shouldn't be kept. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also adding two (disambiguation) (redirects) to the discussion. Working on it... Regards, SONIC678 23:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ...done. Regards, SONIC678 23:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These were all (except the last two that were just added) created by Anthony Appleyard a few years ago during what I believe were WP:HISTMERGEs. I'm not sure what the mechanics of histmerges entail, but I'm assuming they were created for a reason at the time. Whether they can now be safely deleted or not, I'm not sure. Station1 (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete last two as creator. The last two were special redirects I made for page traffic tracking purposes during RMs. They have served their purpose and can go away. Dohn joe (talk) 21:50, 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.

GM S platform[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 01:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GM does not make Toyota Tsla1337 (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This designation was used for the Chevrolet Nova and Geo Prizm models built at the NUMMI plant alongside Corallas. Unless someone identifies a better target, the current one is as good as any. - Eureka Lott 19:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per Eureka Lott, can't think of anywhere else this should link.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Nova and Prizm were produced by a Toyota and GM joint venture, based on a Toyota design and badged as GM products. It's most natural redirect is to Toyota Corolla.  Stepho  talk  23:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This redirect seems appropriate given the production links stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thank you for explaining why it exists i choose to keep it Tsla1337 (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless explained somewhere. This is a good example of the confusion that arises when someone gets redirected somewhere that does not mention the term. -- Tavix (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • My concern has been resolved. -- Tavix (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect to List of GM platforms would be better, as it's mentioned there. Peter James (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The various GM branded versions are also listed at Toyota Corolla#Alternative versions. Perhaps we should tweak the redirect to go directly to that section instead of the top of the article. I have just made the various GM branded versions bold and have also added bold 'GM S Platform', to make it more obvious for those following the redirect.  Stepho  talk  10:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I was a bit overzealous making all the GM products bold. Feel free to pull some of them back.  Stepho  talk  10:31, 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.

Kyonko[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 01:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fanmade character that is not mentioned in Wikipedia. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:20, 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.

Rigi's arresting operation[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 01:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical phrasing that has no chance of being naturally typed. Brycehughes (talk) 14:10, 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.

Democracy in the Pr of C[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 to delete due to a WP:TRAINWRECK. Redirects referring to the Republic of China or Taiwan will be retargeted to Elections in Taiwan, the rest kept as-is. This is without prejudice against speedy renomination in smaller, like-minded groups. -- Tavix (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's 128 of these pointless redirects created within 61 minutes! DELETE. Cabayi (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nuke all from orbit - Most of these are totally useless. A few are possibly okay, but creating 128 redirects in an hour is disruptive WP:FAITACCOMPLI editing. Blow it up and start again. The OK ones can be recreated by another editor if necessary. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill them all with fire. No prejudice against recreation of a few of the more sensible ones, but having redirects relating either to the PRC or to the ROC to the identical target is ridiculous. WP:TRAINWRECK does not apply to this nomination. Narky Blert (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" redirects are misleading and should be retargeted or deleted - there's an article Elections in Taiwan. Capitalisation errors (such as Democracy in peoples Republic of china) should also be deleted as unnecessary. Peter James (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honey, get the shotgun. Redirecting Taiwan related searches to a page about China feels disruptive rather than simply ignorant, maybe we have a larger issue with this editor. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most of them per SpicyMilkBoy (and possibly keep those that are OK), and if any "Taiwan" or "Republic of China" ones are recreated redirect them to Elections in Taiwan, where Democracy in Taiwan redirects. Regards, SONIC678 16:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most without prejudice to renominating the most ridiculous ones, some of these are ridiculous but a lot are plausible search terms, like Democracy in People's Republic of China. Apart from the Voting ones, what is to be gained by deleting these redirects? Retarget the Taiwanese ones (and ROC) to Elections in Taiwan; I'd advocate a few other retargets too. For now, most of these redirects are useless to make but more harmful to delete. TRAINWRECK applies in full force here. — J947 [cont] 22:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support this comment. Mopswade (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A more comprehensive comment from the creator: despite the large quantity of redirect pages, all of these are technically legitimate redirects, and can be referenced from the redirects to China, with a few capitalization changes. Although I concede that most the redirect pages will not be visited frequently, to varying degrees, they can still be useful for browsing, especially for users who directly type their intended search term into the address bar, for which varying capitalizations can make their life easier. As far as we know, we can't comment on the utility of many of the redirects, however I was under the impression that redirects should not be candidates for deletion just because they are unused, or "pointless" in other words (WP:RFD#DELETE). Content regarding Taiwan is decently covered in this article, but I am happy to do the retargeting to Elections in Taiwan or any other page deemed more suitable. Tis my pleasure to do other "cleaning up", as our dear nominator calls it. Mopswade (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Taiwan is not decently covered at Democracy in China, the section "Taiwan, 1945–present” is completely unsourced. I see that editors have tried to remove it as an unsourced section and you have reverted them. Per WP:BURDEN please don’t do that again without making sure every single line you restore gets sourced. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment is incorrect to a degree, do raise this up on the talk page of the article.
    Redirects do create additional work, as a vandal could redirect the article and a bot updates the redirects, or with a topic such as this, a user could restructure coverage of topics, and then the redirects point to the wrong article. Sometimes they are not noticed and stay pointing to the wrong place for years. Some may be useful (all or no first letters of words capitalised) but others (first letter of "of" capitalised, but not first letter of "China") are unlikely to be. Peter James (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate out - As stated above, these vary dramatically in terms of plausibility and general helpfulness. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trainwreck, close and relist separately, we should never be attempting to delete this many redirects in one discussion, it's a nightmare to close for admins and practically begging for mistakes. signed, Rosguill talk 01:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural dumpster fire -- close as keep for now. There should be no prejudice to future discussion in smaller groups, and this discussion's closure should not be taken as a comment on the merits of the redirects (most of which should probably be deleted). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:29, 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.

Muslims (version 2)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete as housekeeping. I merged the history onto Muslim, which makes the move Anthony Appleyard was trying to make in effect a page swap. -- Tavix (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Appleyard created this redirect when making way for another move. Useless title. Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:56, 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.

Bitch fuck[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. Cabayi (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible search term for gangsta rap, or anything else. Suggest deleting. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP is not Urban Dictionary (which does not in fact include this exact term). Narky Blert (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a plausible search term. If Urban Dictionary doesn't even have an entry for something, that's a pretty good indication someone made it up on the spot. Hog Farm (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They aren't the same thing. Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 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.

Dirty pussy[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. Cabayi (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not encyclopedic and vague, could refer to various things to do with personal hygiene. Suggest deleting. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 08:55, 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.

The Confesssion (1964 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. signed, Rosguill talk 01:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect from an alternative title with an implausible missspelling. In 2019, it accumulated a grand total of 4 views compared with 772 for the correct spelling, The Confession (1964 film). Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agreed. This isn't worth keeping at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. While I can see someone mistakenly typing in an extra S, the correctly spelled version will appear in the search bar in most cases. Regards, SONIC678 15:39, 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.

Poltergust 4000[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 01:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An individual kart from the game that is not mentioned in the target article. Also ambiguous, as it re-appears in Mario Kart Tour. – numbermaniac 06:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not only is this ambiguous, but Wikipedia isn't in the business of collecting video game trivia anyways. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:50, 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.

Covidivorce[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. Cabayi (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the RfDs of Generation coronababy, Coronnials, Coronnial, Coronapocalypse, COVIDemic, Condemic, Covidiot, etc. Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 05:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Who the hell keeps making these? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could be Twitter users. I remember #COVIDIOTS trending on Twitter in Australia a while ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if the other portmanteaus also originated from social media somewhere. – numbermaniac 06:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NEOLOGISM with extreme prejudice. Narky Blert (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not mentioned in the target. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't need a redirect for every neologism. Hog Farm (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not an actual term in regular usage. Just another random thing made up one day. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:13, 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.

Steve Howe (basseball player)[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 01:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2005, this page was moved to the correct spelling (which later ended up at the current title), compared to the correctly spelled counterpart and the target it got very few pageviews in 2019 (especially the target). Regards, SONIC678 05:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Until I saw the target, I was unsure whether he played baseball or basketball. Narky Blert (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see no reason to keep this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:39, 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.

Dirty Cash (ong)[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 01:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this redirect is needed anymore (a leftover of a move to the correctly spelled title six years ago, which was redirected here later), since Ong has a lot of different meanings. Regards, SONIC678 05:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Implausible misspelling; I presume an ong in this case is what an inger ings. Narky Blert (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see no good reason to keep this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:37, 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.

Capitalism (human)[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 01:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does human mean here? TheAwesomeHwyh 03:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This isn't even {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, unless someone can provide evidence that non-human lifeforms engage in this (or indeed any other) political and economic model. Narky Blert (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This seems pointless. I agree. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (human). This doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense, or serve any real purpose. I agree with the two comments above me. Thegreatluigi (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this has been made to make way for the other side of the coin "Capitalism (animals)", which points to the animal industrial complex, the non-human analogue of capitalism. The confusion will be solved if we create a redirect "Capitalism (animals)" and "Capitalism (non-human)" for the article on AIC. Rasnaboy (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We need to create "Capitalism (animals)" as a redirect to the AIC article. While capitalism involves exploitation of humans, AIC involves exploitation of animals. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we can link AIC in capitalism’s see also section. Not a lot of people think in terms of “animal capitalism” or “non-human capitalism” for it to be a particularly necessary redirect. Finding sources that link AIC to capitalism would be more useful for discussion of this idea pn WP, if that’s what is wanted. People who disagree should look into how widely strings related to “human capitalism” (wouldn’t that be trafficking?) vs. strings related to “non-human capitalism” appear on Google Trends, as well as how many Reliable Sources (as Wikipedia defines the issue) speak about this distinction. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 04:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This animal-industrial complex is not "the non-human analogue of capitalism", that would have to be a capitalist animal society, which obviously doesn't exist. Neither does "capitalism" mean "exploitation". The Animal industrial complex can exist just as well in a non-capitalist society.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:25, 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.

A Fish Out of Water (book)[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 A Fish Out of Water (book) and swap title with A Fish out of Water (book). (non-admin closure) feminist #WearAMask😷 04:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retarget to A Fish out of Water (book), as that is what this seems to refer to. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:08, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_23&oldid=954558661"