Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 2, 2020.

I'll give you a nickel if you tickle my pickle[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 WP:CSD#G7 Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually mentioned at the target, seems like an unlikely search term. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:41, 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.

Georgia Floyd[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an unlikely search term, noting the similarity with George Floyd. I think that deletion is probably most appropriate unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Seems to have been created as a pun on George Floyd. Dominicmgm (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a valid redirect and there is no famous people with that name anyway. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. This redirect can cause confusion. Chisanava (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An unusual format for a redirect to a location that could be confused with the name of a person. 192.76.8.93 (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I doubt this redirect was created with good intentions, and it is confusing. ―NK1406 talk•contribs 02:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This doesn't seem helpful. Hog Farm Bacon 20:58, 4 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.

How Not to Be Wrong (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 How Not to Be Wrong. -- Tavix (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has no links according to WhatLinksHere. In addition, there are no other uses of How Not to Be Wrong other than as a book, meaning this is an unneeded clarification.

For future reference, is there a speedy deletion criterion this falls under? Parrotapocalypse (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to How Not to Be Wrong (the article about the book) and tag as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and {{R from move}} - this is completely harmless. Whatlinkshere shows only links from current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia, it cannot show any links from external websites, from old revisions of articles (that might be reverted to at any point), etc. Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation are useful because they allow people to create links that will remain valid if there is ever a need for disambiguation in the future and or if they are uncertain whether the title is ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to How Not to Be Wrong as an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} per Thryduulf. It just doesn't make sense to have a page about a book yet also have the variant with the disambiguator redirect to the article about its author. Regards, SONIC678 02:29, 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.

OH MY GOD![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 Oh My God. WP:SNOW closure. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Furthermore, this redirect could technically target any person who said the term "oh my god" in the past. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 16:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Oh My God, a disambiguation page that covers most articles related to the phrase. 192.76.8.93 (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per the ip, this is way too ambiguous to target a single person. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Oh My God per IP. For context, that phrase is that's character's catchphrase but that doesn't mean its bound to them. --Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per IP. Makes much more sense.Less Unless (talk) 09:18, 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.

Dropping[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 Drop. -- Tavix (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping more likely means "Free fall" or to throw seomthing down. I feel like "Feces" is not the primary topic. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - droppings also redirects to feces (which does seems appropriate and is mentioned at the target). But can you ever have a singular "dropping"? Chris857 (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Seventyfiveyears: I think there is a significant difference between the act of "dropping" something and "throwing" something down which implies heavy forcefulness. It's best to simply redirect to drop as an R from related word.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect can cause confusion as described above, and it would probably be better to let search results lead readers either to droppings or a disambiguation page like drop. The 3 articles that link to the redirect do mean feces, but these links have the format [[dropping]]s and should be replaced with [[droppings]]. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to drop - may have different meanings depending on the field.Less Unless (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to drop. Several of the entries there could conceivably be referred to as dropping. Hog Farm Bacon 21:00, 4 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.

Fondazione Niccolò Cusano[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It lacks notability and looks like spam. Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 05:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. Since they’re all mentioned at target article, specifically on the history section. Not sure if the publishing disambiguator is valid on the last one, but even so that wouldn't be a reason for deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 06:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. FWIW, IMO the third redirect is a duplicate of the second. Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 06:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. All of these make sense to me. Fondazione Niccolò Cusano is a foundation for medical research that is part of the university and Edizioni Edicusano is the university's publishing company. Since these redirects are unambiguous and are referenced in the target article they should be kept. ―NK1406 talk•contribs 02:59, 4 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.

Maharajah of Kashmir[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 10#Maharajah of Kashmir

Gay frogs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 10#Gay frogs

Erik Tabery[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 10#Erik Tabery

Kashmir kingdom[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 History of Kashmir. (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Jammu and Kashmir (princely state). Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to History of Kashmir, as a cursory read through the article suggests that several historical states could be described by this term. signed, Rosguill talk 17:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Rosguill. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 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.

Pakistan administered Jammu and Kashmir[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 17:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Azad Kashmir. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d, why not make it a disambig page with two entries Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan?VR talk 17:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's more to do with the fact that we currently have all the Indian/Pakistani Kashmir-related redirects going to the target specified above. If there was a wider discussion on what to do with all such Indian Kashmir and Pakistani Kashmir redirects (like converting them into disambig pages), then that would be appropriate. Until then, I would favour maintaining the status quo for the sake of uniformity and consistency. Mar4d (talk) 17:17, 8 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.

Indian-controlled Jammu and Kashmir 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 keep. signed, Rosguill talk 17:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Jammu and Kashmir (disambiguation). Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Merged similar nominations with identical rationale. @Soumya-8974: Please learn how to bundle nominations, this allows ease of editing and it prevents other editors from submitting redundant !votes; considering this is not the first time that I've fixed this for you. CycloneYoris talk! 09:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I use Twinkle to nominate pages to XfD, and it has no way to nominate multiple pages at once. If the bundling process is manual-only, then tell me the bundling process in my talk page. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 13:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm not sure I understand this nomination. If you are proposing the target to be changed to Jammu and Kashmir (disambiguation), that wouldn't be correct because Indian-administered Kashmir consists of two territories: Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) and Ladakh. For the same reason, the target is Kashmir#Current status and political divisions which explains the divisions. Suffice to say, the same has been done for all the Pakistani-Kashmir redirects. Mar4d (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mar4d: Although I agree with your comments regarding Indian-administered Kashmir, Indian-administered Kashmir is no longer the same thing as Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir may mean either Jammu and Kashmir (state) or Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), and NOT the entire Kashmir territory administered by India (which include Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh). --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 14:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We still need to be careful and not venture into WP:RECENTISM, while dealing with the subject. Ladakh was a part of the Jammu and Kashmir state, and historically part of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. It wasn't until 2019 that it was created as a union territory. For that reason, the current target appears entirely appropriate. Mar4d (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine to the section where necessary. Per the comments above, these are not unambiguous with other current political divisions that do not include "Jammu" and/or "Kashmir" in their name so the current target is most appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 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.

Jammu and Kashmir / Indian occupied Kashmir[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY. Nowadays Indian-occupied Kashmir ≠ Jammu and Kashmir. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the target literally covers what the difference between the two regions is, so this is not a WP:XY situation - that would be if it targetted or the other. Soumya-8974 please start doing some basic thinking before nominating redirects if you don't want to be banned from RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again, what is inaccurate about the redirect target being Kashmir#Current status and political divisions? Mar4d (talk) 13:28, 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.

Porto Rico[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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED, no connection with Portuguese. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 06:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep per WP:CSK #3. As stated in the lede, from 1898 to 1932 also called Porto Rico in English (bolded in original). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 07:03, 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.

Ring action[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#Ring action

Portal:Brazil/box-footer[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) 17:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Andrybak with the reason "it is an unused redirect to Template:Box-footer" FASTILY 03:33, 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! 05:09, 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.

Symmetry 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect appears to be from a song by a non-notable trance producer named Matthias Hoffman. Also, the redirect appears to be to the UK singles chart, which appears to have nothing to do with the actual song. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 00:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the track reached no. 31 on the UK Singles Chart in 1999, so I guess that was the thinking behind the redirect, although it's completely useless as a redirect as that article makes no mention of this song at all and is therefore not helpful to any reader. The only possible target I can see is that Hoffmann also charted in the UK and in the Netherlands under the alias Cygnus X (music group), so that article could be rewritten as Hoffmann's article to include all his chart hits worldwide. Richard3120 (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a better target can immediately be found. User:03md has created hundreds of redirects in a week's plus time with dozens being redirected to UK Singles Chart (such as Chingy (It's Whatever)) and all of those ones should be deleted as unhelpful for readers. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:08, 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.

Quench (magazine)[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 Cardiff University#Media. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the current target page, Gair Rhydd: In 2003, Gair Rhydd launched Quench, a fortnightly student lifestyle magazine. In 2013, Quench transitioned to a monthly format, and is now editorially independent of Gair Rhydd. Since the magazine has been editorially independent for seven years, I don't think it makes sense to redirect it to its old affiliate. Cardiff University#Media might be a better target. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:35, 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.

InnerSloth[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. In the future, Innersloth might possibly need an article and that it wouldn't make sense to redirect companies to video games. (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The company may need an article in the future. It's not plausible to redirect the company to the game. Firestar464 (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The redirect was the result of an established consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InnerSloth. A future article would need to address concerns raised there before it's published. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment JalenFolf Apparently, some wished to overturn the AFD here. There was no consensus. I believe the redirect should be deleted, and the article should be recreated when the company achieves true notability. Firestar464 (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{r to related topic}}. I wasn't involved with the AfD, but I know it was messy, and at this point the result is settled consensus. People searching for InnerSloth are almost surely looking for information on Among Us and we have no other plausible target, so a redirect makes sense. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sdkb, until InnerSloth becomes notable enough to get its own page. — The Only Zac (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the other keep people. I was involved in the AfD, was one of the main proponents of it being redirected, and nothing has changed since then IMO. The only things that would be accomplished by deleting it now is that the edit history would be gone and someone will likely just prematurely recreate it. Neither of which would be good. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InnerSloth. I remember this AFD quite well, even wishing they did have an article, however realised the company simply lacked notability as it's overshadowed by Among Us. I think with the success of Among Us they will likely become more notable in the future, but as of now keep the redirect. If had to suggest anything, tag the redirect with {{R with possibilities}} and {{R printworthy}}. CaptainGalaxy 22:24, 4 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.

Closing Act[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#Closing Act

Luv Is Rage songs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#Luv Is Rage songs

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_2&oldid=993476745"