Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 20, 2020.

Toll booth[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 Tollbooth. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This term does not seem super ambiguous. We can disambiguate but a toll booth is almost certainly this. Aasim (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to tollbooth per nom. That article even a hatnote that leads to Tollbooth (disambiguation) in case a reader is still confused. Pichpich (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Tollbooth per nominator and Pichpich. "Tollbooth" is clearly the primary topic for this term. See WP:MALPLACED to see why redirecting to an existing disambiguation page is unacceptable. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MALPLACED has no relevance here - that's only for cases where "Foo" redirects to "Foo (disambiguation)", or in this case if tollbooth redirected to tollbooth (disambiguation) or toll booth redirected to toll booth (disambiguation) - i.e. when the redirect and the title of the disambiguation page before the "(disambiguation)" are identical. It does not apply when there is a difference because any difference can have significant impact on the meaning, even though it doesn't in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 02:39, 21 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.

Scottish English Wikipedia[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. There is unanimous agreement that the current target is explicitly inaccurate - Scottish English and the Scots language are not synonymous. Beyond that, there are broadly equal numbers of participants advocating retargeting it to Scottish Wikipedia or deleting it - but none of the proponents of retargeting have made any real arguments as to why that disambiguation is useful for this term, as "Scottish English" is not currently on that page, and is not really ambiguous in the way that "Scottish" as a language is. Taking particular note of BDD's point regarding how circuitous any mention of Scottish English would have to be on that disambiguation page, and the other contributions that emphasise how it's also misleading, I think the best informed consensus here seems to be to delete. ~ mazca talk 13:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scots language and Scottish English aren't the same thing, see the respective articles. I suggest retargeting this redirect to English Wikipedia. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 17:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you just change the redirect to point to English Wikipedia? I don't see why deletion is necessary. Edge3 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Edge3: retargetting is what Soumya-8974 is proposing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just wondering why we're discussing this here at RfD if the proposal is to retarget. In any case, I agree with you and recommend that we delete, for the same reason that we don't have redirects for other variations of the English language (e.g. "American English Wikipedia"). Edge3 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RfD is redirects for discussion, not deletion. Nominations for retargetting are common. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. Thanks for the additional context. I don't comment in discussions that often so I was unaware. Edge3 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. The only way a retarget to the disambiguation makes any sense is if we could add a link to the English Wikipedia, but I think that would have to be very tortured ("English Wikipedia, the Wikipedia of the most widely spoken language in Scotland"). --BDD (talk) 17:10, 30 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.

Knighthood Village, Indiana[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) 17:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knighthood Village, Indiana established this is a non-notable subdivision. Township articles do not seem to be a good place to dump mentions for every non-notable locality in the township. Hog Farm Bacon 06:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Shelby County, Indiana#Unincorporated communities where it is mentioned (and unlink it there). Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As "towns" was changed to "communities" there was no reason to remove it from the article, and I can only find three (Marion, Knighthood Village and Candleglo Village) in the township. Peter James (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable subdivisions neighborhoods should not be listed in the county article. Reywas92Talk 19:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Township articles are not good targets for NN towns, as they aren't going to say anything significant about them. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment none of the rationales for deletion apply to the the suggested alternative target and no other arguments against retargetting in general or against the suggested target have been made. Thryduulf (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This page was deleted per this AfD discussion back in May 2019, then recreated as a redirect. The consensus then was for there to be no page with this title, not to blank and redirect it. But retargeting per Thryduulf also seems like an appropriate solution at this stage. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Upon further reflection, I really don't think it would be worthwhile to redirect to the county page where it is merely listed as an unincorporated community, as this provides no meaningful information. A red link would be appropriate there, and we should let the 2019 AfD stand until someone believes there is sufficient sourcing to establish notability for a stub. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:40, 27 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.

Bulidings[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 19:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because we don't have the redirect "Buliding" and that those are the only mentions of "buliding" in enwiki, I don't know how plausible those redirects are. Similar discussions like Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 1#Ablums and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#Kase (disambigation) show consensus against those kind of redirects. Therefore, delete unless justification can be provided. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it took me several attempts to parse this nomination - the nominator is (I think) proposing that these redirects be deleted because they contain a typo - "Buliding". Thryduulf (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but that's not the only reason. In addition, again, I do not know how plausible those typos are. Also, there are clear consensus against keeping those kind of redirects. For example, "Sicks (ablum)" was deleted at the Ablums discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a clear consensus against keeping implausible redirects, but just because "ablum" was determined to be implausible has no bearing on whether "Buliding" is or is not implausible (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Additionally you should generally avoid nominating redirects for deletion for being implausible unless you clearly believe they actually are implausible. Thryduulf (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, I don't think WP:OTHERSTUFF is a community consensus or a code of conduct, because it is an essay. If you think it is, then verify it through WP:PUMP. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 07:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • As Tavix explained to you last time you brought this up, you have completely misunderstood the nature of essays. OTHERSTUFF specifically has been shown to have consensus as an argument to avoid at RfD through over a decade of common usage at RfD. If you wish to challenge the consensus regarding it the burden is on you. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Those redirects are also useless, (in which I forgot to say) as evidenced by the number of pageviews. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These typos are unlikely and are not worthy of having redirects. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:17, 26 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.

Duolingo tree[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 29#Duolingo tree

Treading On Thin Ice[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 On Thin Ice. There's broad agreement that the current target is unhelpful, but no consensus as to exactly where the best target is. The best compromise seems to split the difference per Rosguill's suggestion and target the disambiguation page that mentions all of the possibilities. ~ mazca talk 14:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target page, nor what one would expect this to lead to as it's much more commonly known as an English phrase than associated with some Chinese drama from 2011. I propose simply deleting the redirect since there isn't an appropriate target (nor a Wiktionary entry for a soft redirect). Opencooper (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki soft redir to wikt:on thin ice, which already has a section for derivatives, including skate on thin ice, which is where tread on thin ice and walk on thin ice and so on will eventually show up. Even without a specific one for tread[ing] on thin ice, the page already makes it entirely clear what this phrase means. I agree with nom that most people looking for this will be interested in the idiom and do not have Scarlet Heart in mind.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All the comments choose to retarget. However, one of them decides wikt:on thin ice, the second one decides Treddin' on Thin Ice, and the third one decides On Thin Ice.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:12, 20 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.

Stakeholders' Revolt[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 delete. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, Google Scholar search returns results for this term to refer to a few different contexts. Deletion seems appropriate unless a sourced, due mention can be added. signed, Rosguill talk 22:09, 20 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.

Araz Junction, California[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 28#Araz Junction, California

Lake harriet (hennepin county, minnesota)[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) CycloneYoris talk! 23:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect with incorrect capitalization Leschnei (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is not a likely search term. Edge3 (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not incorrect. It doesn't seem to be ambiguous. Google has conditioned a lot of users to search without capitalizing, so the lowercase isn't really an issue. Reasonably logical and harmless, so I don't see any real gain in deletion. Hog Farm Bacon 06:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary. I have tried several variations of this, with varying capitalization, and each time it resolves to the article without a redirect. Kablammo (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hog Farm. It's a harmless {{r from miscapitalisation}}. (Note: I just updated the rcat.) - Eureka Lott 00:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hog Farm and Eureka Lott. Being "unnecessary" is not a reason in and of itself to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:05, 20 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.

Strage degli Innocenti[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 27#Strage degli Innocenti

Revolving drum[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 27#Revolving drum

Türk Sanat Müzi[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 19:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name is apparently malformed and duplicate, the original one is in here. Ahmetlii (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#Türk Sanat Müzgi. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this appears to be a misspelling (the final word should be "Müziği"), and it doesn't strike me as an especially plausible one (omission of the last two letters). Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a misspelling as Thryduulf states but it is not entirely implausible, if this was in Turkish Wikipedia. See, in Turkish the letter ğ represents the elongation of the previous vowel (actually,it comes from the sound g in old turkic,that is why the letter choice is ğ), so for example dağ (mountain) is /da:/ So it is likely for some uneducated people to spell Türk Sanat Müziği (pronounced roughly as /tyrk sanat myzi:i/ or /tyrk sanat myziɰi/ ) as "Türk Sanat Müzi" (Pronounced /tyrc sanat myzi(:)/. However, since this is the English Wikipedia where Turks who are uneducated would rarely be here I think there would be no problem removing this redirect. KaptaşHero (talk) 18:27, 28 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.

Mario Castillo (TACA Flight 390)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an article without any mention of the person. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This person was a survivor of this incident who apparently spoke to the media in the immediate aftermath. They were mentioned by name until this edit by Tigerdude9 in October this year. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The consensus is that unless a person has a WP article, they don't get mentioned in crash articles unless they are a member of the cockpit crew....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:45, 20 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.

İngilizce insuyu mağarası[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name is apparently malformed, it only says "English insuyu cave" Ahmetlii (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete someone searching for information in English about a given topic is unlikely to do so using the Turkish word for the English language. And if they do, it's the sort of thing that they would almost certainly use an external search engine for. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 20 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.

Hope canal[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 Hope Canal. I'm closing this discussion since "Hope canal" is more of a plausible term of "Hope Canal". (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a lower-case dupe to a different article. The redirect was probably made before the actual Hope Canal article but never caught because the lower-case 'c' means it's a unique page. Estheim (talk) 15:44, 20 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.

Caucasian Albanian architecture[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 27#Caucasian Albanian architecture

History of the Kashmir conflict[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to timeline of the Kashmir conflict. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - No, timelines cannot be regarded as "history". I think the supposed search phrase "history of the Kashmir conflict" is quite redundant, but it doesn't hurt to be around. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kautilya3: Thank you. But I won't withdraw the nomination because I need more opinions from other editors. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 13:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the history of the conflict is what the article is about in its entirety. Timelines are only a way of arranging information that can be useful as an appendix to the actual history. – Uanfala (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retarget because Kashmir conflict doesn't have a "History" section, and Timeline of the Kashmir conflict appears to be the primary sub-article. Edge3 (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Uanfala. Someone searching for the history of the conflict will be best served by the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Timeline of the Kashmir conflict per Edge3 as the timeline page mentions the histories of the Kashmir conflict. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose History is more than the list of events. History means understanding the who, what, where, why, how, and of course when of the past. This is described best by the main article for the conflict, which is the current target. ―NK1406 talk•contribs 16:53, 20 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.

Nekki[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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a WP:XY case, as Vector (video game) exists by the same team, so redirecting it to just Shadow Fight doesn't make much sense. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created this redirect because Shadow Fight appeared to be the studio's flagship game. If there's a consensus that this redirect is inappropriate, the article should be restored and sent to AfD, as I only converted it from an article to a redirect a day or two ago. signed, Rosguill talk 20:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate there are several characters named Nekki, List of Macross characters (Nekki Basara), Famitsu (Necky the Fox -- aka -- Nekki (ネッキー)), List of Samurai Pizza Cats characters (Nekki, ネッキ) -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate I support the current disambiguation setting on Nekki, and thanks to the IP user for a great alternative to deletion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:49, 30 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_20&oldid=997433068"