Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 7, 2020.

Scandal (fragrance)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 15#Scandal (fragrance)

CutiePie[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 15#CutiePie

Planck wavenumber[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 07:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirects. "Wavenumber" and "specific volume" are not mentioned at Planck units, and "orders of magnitude" are not mentioned at Specific volume or Wavenumber. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all These are more examples of Planck units that scientists don't actually use, that aren't written about in the literature and that nobody would be searching for definitions of. "Specific volume" is just the reciprocal of density, and "wavenumber" is just an inverse length, so if anything, those should redirect to Density#Densities and Orders of magnitude (length), but they don't seem like plausible search terms, so I don't think we really need those redirects either. XOR'easter (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first thought was that there must be a page someplace like orders of magnitude which was then linking to pages with specific definitions of orders of magnitude. Since there isn't, I don't see any need for such links. Gah4 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – I concur with XOR'easter and Gah4. —Quondum 02:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A lot of pages used to/do have an "Orders of magnitude" secion which in some cases were spun out to a separate page and later deleted through inability to meet GNG. I thought at first this might have been what happened here, but that is not the case, the redirects are very recently created. SpinningSpark 08:49, 8 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.

Viram Deo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 15#Viram Deo

Registered Charity No. 278687[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 speedy keep , my bad signed, Rosguill talk 23:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Searching for this term online led me to the UK Charity Commission, but when I searched for 27867 I got no results. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:29, 7 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.

Original Planck derived units[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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, no results on Google Scholar, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all – not useful, not used, not existing named quantities (they do not even have the potential of surviving if inserted in the target article) (different rationale for Planck magnetic charge – see below). —Quondum 21:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    adding Planck magnetic charge, another redirect in the same vein. signed, Rosguill talk 21:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Planck magnetic charge is a bit less clear-cut, since a Google scholar search shows three papers that use the term. However, those papers appear to invent the term, and I would say that it fails to be a recognized concept (I would be unsurprised if the definitions in different papers disagree). We are not in a position to say anything about Planck magnetic charge in WP, and thus do not have a potential target. Hence, delete. (I might note that even Planck electric charge is not on the same firm footing as the original set: it was not one of the units that Planck suggested, and I'm not sure of its status now though it evidently has seen use.) —Quondum 22:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all We don't need redirects for things that aren't actually scientific terms. A bare handful of occurrences don't make a case that we should mention a term in an article, and without a target, we don't need redirects. XOR'easter (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per everything above this. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:42, 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.

Newton 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 retarget to SI derived unit#Examples of derived quantities and units. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newtons per metre are also used for the measurement of a variety of other concepts in materials science. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – A unit name should never redirect to an article about a quantity that it can be used for. It should be a redirect to SI derived unit (which might be confusing if a corresponding entry is not created in the table there) or deleted. —Quondum 21:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Retarget to SI derived unit – Whoops, I see that it is listed there; I must have missed it when scanning, so my parenthesized comment can be ignored. —Quondum 02:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect with anchor to SI derived unit; the table there is best to redirect readers to whichever instance they're searching for. I first thought of Hooke's law and the spring constant, FWIW, and there certainly are other uses readers would imagine that render a more specific redirect unhelpful. ComplexRational (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget per above. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 01:30, 10 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.

Main page[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 07:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this move discussion, someone suggested that this should redirect to Home page. I would like to seek consensus about whether this should happen. Interstellarity (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose; there seems to be external links at play. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 21:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very plausible alt-caps for Main Page especially from other projects. — xaosflux Talk 21:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expect nearly everyone wants our Main Page rather than generic main pages even if lower cased. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • See this discussion as well. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 22:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at current target. I see no compelling reason to move, and this page is very highly searched and probably linked, at least somewhere on the rest of the web. Retargeting would likely be disruptive. Hog Farm (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a completely plausible variant of the "Main Page". Nearly 500,000 page views for this redirect seems to indicate such as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everyday {{R from other capitalisation}}. Narky Blert (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This shouldn't even be up for discussion. At a rough guess 99% of the traffic to this are people either entering all-lowercase "main page" as a quick link to our main page, or people linking main page in text. If we changed the target here we'd not only break 3500 internal links but thousands upon thousands of external and interwiki links. I strongly suspect that even if there ever were consensus for this change, the WMF would veto it on account of the disruption it would cause. ‑ Iridescent 15:04, 8 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.

Alta Vista Homeowners Association, Sonoma County, California[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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Alta Vista Homeowners Association was an article by a new editor. I suggested converting it to a redirect because it didn't meet WP:GEOLAND and other editors, including the creator, agreed. But now that it's being pointed out, there's nothing about this HOA that would merit a mention in the Santa Rosa, California article so I probably should have just nominated for AFD at the time. Schazjmd (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there a neighborhood called "Alta Vista" in Santa Rosa? -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 13:04, 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.

WikiProject Inca Empire[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 07:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created CNR to a newly formed, essentially inactive Wikiproject. This does not come up to the standards required for a CNR. Hog Farm (talk) 20:48, 7 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.

Plantilla: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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a redirect on the English Wikipedia with the namespace prefix in Spanish? Delete per WP:RFFL. Hog Farm (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the Spanish Wikipedia, the prefix Template redirects to prefix Plantilla, but on the English wikipedia, it doesn't redirect and the search also doesn't display the correct result. Same with Modèle:Lien web. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the creator's rationale; this is somewhat likely to be useful for multilingual editors, but not readers. (The target actually uses Portuguese and Catalan-language parameters, but that doesn't matter because "plantilla" and "citar" mean the same thinga in Catalan as they do in Spanish.) Glades12 (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We should not try to recreate the template namespace in foreign languages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No concern with the related {{Citar web}}. If someone came from another project and was using the other spelling of this template on a page, they wouldn't be typing in the namespace identifier. — xaosflux Talk 21:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, CrazyBoy826 there isn't a redirect from Template: pages on eswiki or any other project per-se, "Template" is the canonical name for namespace:10 so can always be used, just as "Project:" is the name for namespace:4. — xaosflux Talk 21:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because on the English wikipedia it's in the reader-facing article (rather than template) namespace. And as explained by xaosflux, the redirect isn't really needed. – Uanfala (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; has 0 views, more harm than it's worth. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 02:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:FORRED, if nothing else. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:10, 8 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.

I of M[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 speedy thanks. (non-admin closure) 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody provide a source that this abbreviation is used? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:14, 7 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.

Cuna de lobos (upcoming TV series)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 15#Cuna de lobos (upcoming TV series)

First person quiz[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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been an article that existed for 11 minutes in 2014 before being redirected. "First person quiz" isn't mentioned on Tom Scott's article. If someone came across this redirect randomly, I think it wouldn't be clear why it redirects to Tom Scott's article at all. – numbermaniac 14:55, 7 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.

Sonic 1 beta[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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of the purpose of this redirect. I don't see the word "beta" mentioned anywhere on the target article. With a total of 91 page views in nearly 5 years, compared to 1.08 million for the target article in the same time period, this redirect doesn't really seem to be useful to anyone. – numbermaniac 14:28, 7 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.

Crate an article[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 Speedy Delete. Per criteria G6. Michael Greiner 00:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because not useful and creation seems accidental. Either that or redirect to Help:Your first article ~ Tridwoxi (talk) (contribs) 12:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not helpful at current target. This also isn't going to meet the standards for a CNR, either. Hog Farm (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notice the misspelling. --Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 16:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G6. The author of the target mistakenly created it at this title, and moved it shortly afterwards. Glades12 (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as implausible and not what people would be looking for in any case since any article could be accidentally created at this title. If it hadn't have existed since 2017 it would be a clear R3 but maybe IAR or G6 could be used. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:36, 7 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.

褚姓[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 Chu (Chinese surname)#褚 Chǔ. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page with no clear match. 褚 is a form of Chu (Chinese surname) (but not of Zhu (surname)) and 姓 of Zhu (surname) (but not of Chu (surname)). Few Chinese surnames have more than a single character. Delete as confusing. Narky Blert (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Chu (Chinese surname)#褚 Chǔ. 姓 (the second character in the redirect) means "surname"; the whole redirect means "the surname Chǔ". There doesn't appear to be any ambiguity here as the character 褚 isn't used as a surname in Korea, and can't be used to write any other surname at Chu (disambiguation). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per IP, noting also that the "姓" in "褚姓" is more necessary in Chinese than "the surname" in "the surname Chu" is in English. Compare 赵姓 → Zhao (surname). —Nizolan (talk · c.) 15:10, 10 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_7&oldid=1072177364"