Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 1, 2020.

Edison County[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a reference to a lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign that references Edison County, Michigan (which does not exist) but this article discusses fictitious entries in the context of copyright traps and practical jokes, not making up garbage in a lawsuit. I considered CSDing this but given the sensitive matter of politics decided an RfD would be better. The target page does include a section called "legal action" but that details people being sued after their plagiarism was caught by their use of fictitious entries, not people using made up places in their lawsuit. Smartyllama (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • List of fictional counties#United States exists, but it isn't listed there and shouldn't be (the list is for "locations within books, movies, television shows or songs, created for character placement and story background."). Veracity of statements by Donald Trump also exists but doesn't mention this, I'm not certain if it should. The only article space mention is in the sentence "Frolick has served as the pseudonymous author of several book-length parodies, including The Philistine Prophecy, Dumpisms, and The Ditches of Edison County, a national bestseller which was translated into Japanese and Italian." at Billy Frolick which is clearly not suitable as a target. So delete unless a mention is added somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The relevant lawsuit appears to be Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election#King v. Whitmer. See the mention of "Edison County" on page 7 of the affidavit at courtlistener.com. (None of the secondary sources bother to give the actual case style, they all just call it "Sidney Powell's latest lawsuit".) 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Redirect to Edison (disambiguation). This will serve the purpose of bringing users searching for this term to a list of places named "Edison". KConWiki (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This place doesn't exist. The sole spot it's mentioned here is at Sidney Powell#Independent election lawsuits, and I don't think that's enough to justify pointing this there. - Eureka Lott 04:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A single passing mention by a politico of middling importance does not warrant the creation of a page redirect. In a week, it will be out of the news cycle and in two weeks it will be entirely forgotten to history. Ergo Sum 18:39, 3 December 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.

Ohare[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, move O'Hare to O'Hare (disambiguation), and retarget O'Hare to O'Hare International Airport. --BDD (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either "Ohare" should redirect to the dab page at O'Hare, or "O'Hare" should redirect to the airport and the dab page should be moved to O'Hare (disambiguation). Conifer (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Cars in Asphalt 8: Airborne[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No such list of cars exists in the article. Useless WP:GAMEGUIDE redirect. Dominicmgm (talk) 19:33, 1 December 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.

Villa record[edit]

 Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#Villa record

Englishes[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. With the usage of the uncountable noun clarified, it is unlikely this discussion could lead anywhere else. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could also refer to English people a la Americans, Australians, Canadians etc. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 09:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Could also refer to... makes no sense. English as a noun never refers to a single person by itself ("an English person is", "the English are", etc., but never *"an English is") and does not inflect when plural—except in the academic usage of "Englishes" meaning various varieties of the English language: [1]. Last I checked there weren't multiple "English peoples". Nardog (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nardog. Even if there were multiple English peoples the current target would be the primary topic. Not everything that is theoretically ambiguous actually is, and even in those cases where it actually is one topic is often primary. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Soumya-8974, this is a perfect example of a frivolous RfD nomination that continues to demonstrate why you are topic-banned from redirects. Even if your nomination statement is true (it's not), so what? You have not recommended any action. I had hoped you would have learned that lesson given the confusion of what you wanted in the RfD for Thina, but I guess not. -- Tavix (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and trout nominator, this definitely seems to be the most logical target. Just because a term is potentially ambiguous if you think about it hard enough doesn't mean it can't have a current target. Not even sure what the requested action is here. Hog Farm Bacon 00:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, "Englishes" could also refer to "English people", but it has nothing to do with Americans, Australians, or Canadians. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 11:28, 2 December 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.

St. Gregory College Preparatory School[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) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the article nor the school's website https://www.gregoryschool.org/about mention "St. Gregory College Preparatory School" and I don't believe this is a former or alternative name of the school. There are several other similar entries at disambiguation page St. Gregory's College which may make a better target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:39, 1 December 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.

Redirects using "Flim"[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. These clearly exist somewhere near the borderline of plausible misspellings we keep redirects to. Participants are somewhat split, with no real specific arguments either way, but a clear majority feels these should be deleted. ~ mazca talk 13:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirects. Anyone searching for "flim" wouldn't likely be looking for any film/movie. Only the first three redirects only have less than 300 pageviews. I'm unsure about the fourth redirect. Notice that "Flim" does not redirect to "Film". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The use of "flim" in just these four just seems inconsistent and unnecessary. Redirects shouldn't be used to correct every grammatical mistake a user might make when typing in. Some are important, others, like these, seem improbable. OfficerCow (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as these are all redirects from misspellings. All that's needed is the addition of the following template into the redirects: {{R from misspelling}}. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dleete lal pre pervoius dsicusisons. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 09:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as this does not meet any of the criteria for deletion. I have seen "film" be misspelled in this way multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opalzukor (talk • contribs) 11:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The deletion criterion is WP:G6: Deleting pages unambiguously created in error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is an extensive precedent for deleting this type of redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:38, 2 December 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.

Redirects from inmate numbers[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. With about twice as many editors favoring deletion over keeping, and given that prior discussions about similar redirects have produced stronger consensuses for deletion, I see a rough consensus for deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those redirects are inmate numbers, and I feel like that nobody would expect to find those people searching under those names. Notice that "3102000153" was already deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 31#3102000153. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as an unambiguous identifier. BlackholeWA (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. "NN7687" is theoretically ambiguous, but the only alternatives I'm finding are various product numbers and a Ordnance Survey National Grid reference to a 1km square, so there are no alternative encyclopaedic uses even if Cosby wasn't the overwhelming primary topic. The others are all clearly unambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per previously established consensus that redirecting from inmate numbers (especially multiple variations, as here) would be WP:COSTLY. In addition once the person is released they put WP:UNDUE weight on the person's time of incarceration. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all WP:UNDUE,also innmate numbers are no useful searchterms. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial information that I doubt anybody will seriously use as a search term.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except I'm neutral on NN7687. The rest are unambiguous (if you can find another inmate with the same number who is nearly as notable as these two, then fine, delete!). I don't see how WP:UNDUE applies as that is about content, not about redirects (how is having a redirect giving undue weight to their time of incarceration? If someone is searching using these, then surely that is what that person is looking for). A7V2 (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: any of these can become disambiguation pages if later required. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per UnitedStatesian (pinging in hopes you can link us to previous discussion). These seem very trivial, and a bit ghastly. If we don't redirect ISBNs to books, I wouldn't want these either. --BDD (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking of this one. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The key differences between this RfD and the one you link is that number was highly ambiguous, not mentioned at the target and lacked all context. Here the numbers are either unambiguous or unambiguously the overwhelming primary topic and come with context. The circumstances are so different that even if RfD did work on precedent the earlier discussion wouldn't have anything useful for this one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think part of the reason we don't redirect ISBNs to books is that it would (potentially) interfere with the ISBN magic word or make that harder to find or something (my memory is very hazy). None of this is relevant to inmate numbers. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to be a very split opinion here. Maybe even something worth enshrining a specific policy on when it shakes out? Seems like the sort of thing that could come up repeatedly. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a need for specific policy. If the numbers are useful search terms they should be kept, if they aren't they should be deleted just like every other redirect. "Useful search term" being determined on a case-by-case basis in the normal way by presence and prevalence in sources, (lack of) ambiguity, etc. There is nothing special about them that differs from any other redirect to a biography. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous RfD. Opal|zukor(discuss) 11:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • These have never been discussed at RfD previously, and as noted the circumstances surrounding the redirects that were previously discussed were very different, so you need to explain why these unambiguous redirects should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the previous RfD USian linked to (especially the BLP concerns that were brought up via G10), per BDD (especially the point about these being trivial), per Asmodea Oaktree (these are not likely search terms), and per 75Y (no expectation). -- Tavix (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the objections neatly summarised by Tavix, these terms are not mentioned in the subject articles and their redirecting to them constitutes WP:OR. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unhelpful, and possibly unlikely. Chisanava (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While we may not redirect ISBNs, people are not books. There is probably no instance when I would type an ISBN into the search bar, although a few rare people do type these inmate numbers in apparently, judging by the stats. Perhaps these are unlikely search terms, but they are unambiguous. As far as BLP considerations go, I don't think they are much of a concern. These people have been convicted and are serving time in prison, which is notable and confirmed by many reliable sources. When they leave prison, their incarcerations will still be notable. ―NK1406 talk•contribs 03:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think these particular ones are BLP concerns, as there's no dispute over the fact that these individuals are convicted and in prison. However, they're just not helpful at all. I just cannot envision a circumstance where these redirects will actually direct someone who doesn't already know who they refer to. They're unambiguous, but so are many other trivial terms which we don't have redirects for it - I don't view "unambiguous" as being a worthwhile reason to keep a redirect like this unless there's some identifiable argument as to why it's actually going to help anyone. ~ mazca talk 14:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mazca immediately above. I also view these terms as unhelpful and confusing for readers, given that they're not mentioned anywhere in enwiki. CycloneYoris talk! 06:14, 10 December 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.

Master (2020 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 keep. Early closure since 2020 being the original release date is mentioned at the target. (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a 2020 release, and no incoming links. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It was scheduled for release in 2020, so sources from before the film was pushed back would refer to it as such. -- Tavix (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Earlier scheduled for 2020 release, now expected to be a 2021 release. WarriorCK9499 (talk) 15:30, 2 December 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.

Weenusk[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 disambiguate. All participants agree that this is the way forward and the proposed draft is a good basis. ~ mazca talk 12:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect had just one incomping link, prior to today - and it was a mistake. Someone was fooled into thinking behind Weenusk we had an article on the Weenusk First Nation. Woops.

The Hudson's Bay Company's fleet included two vessels name Weenusk. They too have almost nothing to do with groundhogs.

In my opinion Weenusk should either be a redlink, or a disambiguation page. Geo Swan (talk) 05:19, 1 December 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.

Ranked choice voting[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 8#Ranked choice voting

Nicki Yamaguchi[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. While it appears this is a possible self-created nickname, the usage of it is so sparse that participants feel this is closer to a deletion-worthy redirect from an obscure lyric. If referenced content referring to it is added, likely to The Way Life Goes (song)#Remix, then it would be reasonable to recreate this. ~ mazca talk 13:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall Minaj ever being known by this name. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:46, 1 December 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.

Her Royal Hotness[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 8#Her Royal Hotness

Heat Maxwell[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. This is considered an unhelpful redirect due to the lack of a mention at the target. ~ mazca talk 13:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target; no other plausible target can be found. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redirecting non-notable musicians to record label articles without a mention is not necessary or helpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:14, 1 December 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.

Bioside[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 Glycoside. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

deletion. Bioside is not a synonym of Disaccharide in any form, but biose is. The redirect was created by a vandal account, and I could not find any reference online that links the word bioside with the word disaccharide. Coz7 (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opalzukor, Co7 isn't exactly an experienced Wikipedian judging from the lack of a talk page. Besides, the rationale didn't point to any obvious CSD. Which criterion are you referring to? -- Tavix (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Seems I had misunderstood WP:G5. Many apologies to you and the nominator. Opal|zukor(discuss) 12:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm happy to help steer you in the right direction. Thank you for your interest in RfD and let me know if I can be of any assistance. -- Tavix (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Biocide per the above. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I can see, a bioside is a certain kind of derivative of biose, and there's a fair number of uses of the term on Google Scholar. Correct usages always take precedence over misspellings. – Uanfala (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Giving it second thoughts after Mdewman6's comment: if the term isn't defined in the target article, then the redirect could lead to confusion or even mislead readers into believing bioside to be just another name for its topic. I think it's best to delete. – Uanfala (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Retarget per Mdewman6 below: clearly the best thing to do given the recent addition to Glycoside. – Uanfala (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Upon further investigation, the term bioside does refer to compounds that contain a disaccharide group, though certainly not disaccharides themselves. Much confusion arises from the fact that many of these compounds, such as those discussed on the 3 pages to which this redirect currently links, are in fact biocides (e.g., insecticides). I would be fine with keeping the current target disaccharide, but this term should be defined there, ideally pointing to a good reference, since it's not an alternative name but instead a related term. Otherwise this redirect is likely to cause more confusion in the future. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to glycoside. I have edited the page to include and define the term. Biosides are a type of glycoside, so I think this is most appropriate, certainly more appropriate than targeting disaccharide. If kept, I will link from the disaccharide page as well. FYI, it is also defined at Wiktionary. Sorry for the roundabout discussion, but I think we are making progress here. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Mdewman6, and {{redirect}} hatnote both biocide and glycoside to the other page to help any reader who enters the wrong spelling of what they're looking for; the pronunciations are identical. Narky Blert (talk) 08:40, 6 December 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_December_1&oldid=1084348644"