Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 25, 2020.

Stephano(Shakespeare)[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 05:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNNATURAL misspelling resulting from a page move in 2020; the page existed under this name for 11 days. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:19, 25 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.

LA Knight Riders[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. The consensus here is that, while there have been rumours, there is no reliably sourced information to add a mention of this at the target, making the redirect unhelpful at this time. If that sourced information appears, then the redirect (or indeed an article) is likely to be justified. ~ mazca talk 18:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC) ~ mazca talk 18:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of LA Knight Riders at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some news articles have mentioned that this will be the name of one of the new teams: [1]. See also Draft:Los Angeles Knight Riders. GreekApple123 (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now per WP:CRYSTAL, pending an official announcement. Redirects should not be created based off of rumors or speculation. I looked on the official website for Major League Cricket, and there is no Knight Riders team listed. -- Tavix (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The exception to that is that a redirect can sometimes be useful if there is encyclopaedic coverage of notable rumours or speculation. There is no such coverage in this case though so the redirect should be deleted per the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:OR[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! 00:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Or}} and {{OR}} should probably redirect to the {{original research}} template for general tagging or maybe that should be moved. No strong opinion on what should happen but the abbreviated titles should probably point to the same place as the full name. Note that the inline template was moved in 2016 from "OR", see Template talk:Original research inline#Requested move 3 August 2016 and in 2012 from "Or". Note that the lower case has 1006 transclusions while the upper case has 301 maybe they could be replaced if they are for the inline template before retargeting. Please edit the redirects to add the template since they are protected. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Template:ORL. –Cupper52Discuss! 18:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is for the convenience of editors, similar to how {{cn}} targets the inline template, not {{more citations needed}}. - Eureka Lott 00:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But the generic template has a longer name while "Citation needed" is the inline one, that isn't the case here. However there was a consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 23#Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF to have it pointing to a different place than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I'm not sure those concerns apply here since that concern about links was about discussion pages which can't usually be changed while in this case the transclusions could be edited to bypass the redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The number of transclusions indicates that any change will be extremely disruptive as people will continue to add them expecting them to work the same way that they have worked for years. The proposed change will not bring any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just came across this discussion when I searched for Template:Or hoping to find a template with the logical "or" function. Wherever this ends up pointing, maybe add a hatnote? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:14, 25 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 19:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - too many transclusions to change anything without causing a lot of collateral damage. Some things that just aren't optimal get forced into something through practice. Hog Farm Bacon 21:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Existing transclusions shouldn't be an issue as they can always be replaced by a bot. However, the existing setup is absolutely the right one. {{Original research}} is a banner, so it's typically used once for an article (so no need to save typing time for editors), and it will typically sit on a line of its own right at the top (so no need to safe space) – a shortcut isn't really needed. {{Original research inline}}, on the other hand, is used within article text (and therefore needs a shortcut with a very small footprint so that it doesn't clutter the text), and it may often be added several times in each article (so there's more of a case for the existence of a typing aid). Of course, a different, equally small, shortcut can be chosen (that's the {{orl}} suggestion above), but then we'd need to contend with the fact that {{or}} is an established shortcut and disruption for readers who are used to it would be an issue. – Uanfala (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Uanfala's detailed analysis, and in particular with the point about inconveniencing editors who use it. Narky Blert (talk) 13:53, 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.

Halo 3 Zune[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Dominicmgm (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like Dominicmgm said, it's no longer mentioned in target article. Additionally, the topic in question is less relevant than it was 10 years ago. As creator of that redirect, I now vote for deletion. --Eptin (talk) 21:18, 25 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.

Independent 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 retarget to Kashmir. signed, Rosguill talk 05:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many people of India will think of Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) when searching for this term, not the literal translation of Azad Kashmir. Retarget to Kashmir, as the article cover both the princely state and the Pakistan-occupied territory. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom, because yes, implying that "Independent Kashmir" necessarily refers to the Pakistan-administered portion is very contentious, and it's more logical to have it redirect to the article on the greater region. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:48, 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.

Azad Mirpur[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 3#Azad Mirpur

Natalie Quinlan[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only person of this name with any sort of prominence on the internet appears to be the communications manager at the University of Waterloo. It seems very unlikely that a Canadian university administrator would be involved in the transition team of a US president. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 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.

Alternative spellings of Daman[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 Daman. signed, Rosguill talk 05:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Daman as alternative spellings. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom; while this generally refers to the Daman in Western India as a result of Portuguese history there, there are multiple potential pages that refer even to that general geographic area. Damaõ seems to be a misspelling, but an easy one to make because it just has the ~ over the wrong letter. ~ mazca talk 22:54, 2 January 2021 (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.

Brucie Kibbutz[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, but is mentioned briefly at a few other articles. Delete in order to allow for uninhibited search results. signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 25 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.

🍜[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. There continues to be no consensus about what to do here. Editors are advised to think carefully about how much more time they want to waste on discussions about redirects from noodle bowl emoji before reopening. signed, Rosguill talk 05:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This is my third discussion on this. It has been 4 months since the last discussion. I really think there should be a redirect to the section in Ramen. The Wiktionary redirect is resulting in the false statement on the redirect page. Every Wiktionary redirect has the statement "Wikipedia does not currently have an article on <name>, but our sister project Wiktionary does:". But, that statement is false for the Ramen emoji. We should try to redirect pages within Wikipedia, unless Wikipedia lacks adequate information. For example the 🎌 emoji redirects to Wiktionary because it shows crossed Japanese flags which is not described in any Wikipedia article. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is nothing has changed since the last two discussions concluded that Ramen was not an appropriate target (because that is significantly narrower than the meaning of the emoji ("steaming bowl of food"). The nomination statement is incorrect, Wikipedia does not contain any information about a ramen emoji because there is no ramen emoji, and Wikipedia does not have an article about the generic "steaming bowl of food". Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contra Tavix below, I do not nee the section of the Ramen article to be appropriate as that section is of extremely marginal relevance to the article and so not guaranteed to stay, sending editors to any part of that article will also be misleading - indeed it's currently borderline misleading for readers of the article who haven't arrived via the emoji. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig: the ramen emoji is, strictly speaking, called "STEAMING BOWL", not ramen. See the actual Unicode website since there seemed to be some doubt about this in the last discussion. IMO it would therefore not be correct to redirect to Ramen. In principle an emoji artist could draw soup or something instead of the ramen. I would put a disambig page like the following. User:GKFXtalk 20:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
U+1F35C 🍜 STEAMING BOWL is an emoji commonly referring to ramen.
  • Keep. The emoji is a "steaming bowl", not ramen. With no article on a steaming bowl, the emoji is pointing at the most informative place for those wanting to know what it means. -- Tavix (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will not agree with the Wiktionary redurect as I mentioned in the last discussion, The 🥘 emoji is a "shallow pan of food", not Paella. However, 🥘 redirects to the section in Paella. So, there is no difference between the "🍜" and the "🥘" emojis. Neel.arunabh (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we have a section in ramen for this? Yes, a retarget to Ramen#Emoji would be fine, so long as it distinguishes the difference there. -- Tavix (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, looks like Tavix's final suggestions are the most helpful. Remember, my deletion review of iPhone 9 at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 3#iPhone_9. There, also it was Tavix who suggested the iPhone naming article. Neel.arunabh (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep – Nothing has changed since the first discussion. This is yet another example of being failed to get to the WP:POINT. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 09:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ramen#Emoji per Tavix. 108.35.3.18 (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I sympathize with the nominator's opinion, but nothing has changed since the last discussion. Given that was only four months ago, the prior consensus is still poignant and valid. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ramen#Emoji for 2 reasons: 1) It prevents the need for a cross project redirect when we have content covering the emoji locally and 2) The section at Ramen#Emoji includes information on the date it was proposed, the date it was added and it's unicode code, opposed to the Wiktionary entry which has 6 words describing it as a bowl of ramen or noodles. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ramen#Emoji. While it's a "steaming bowl" rather than "bowl of ramen" in a technical sense, the small section there does give that information. The wiktionary link, while fine, offers no real further information compared to that sentence (and, if anything, confirms that its primary use is in the sense of "ramen"), and it is preferable to avoid a cross-project redirect when we do have broadly equivalent local content. ~ mazca talk 18:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ramen almost always satisfies me, but this redirect really doesn't satisfy the criteria at Template:Wiktionary redirect, nor does it meet the "clear and definite meaning matching an existing topic on Wikipedia" of WP:REMOJI. --BDD (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose deleting redriects from unicode charaters. I really need a redirect for every unicode character. Neel.arunabh (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2021 (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.

Algodon, 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 speedy revert to article. Withdrawing to revert to article and then PROD it. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm Bacon 21:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to have content about this supposed place anywhere. User who created this has created literally hundreds of non-notable place stubs, this appears to have been one of them as well. Hog Farm Bacon 07:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • restore article without prejudice to AfD per WP:BLAR. A claim that a former place does not meet WP:N requires evaluation of the sources. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hog Farm, there's no way RfD can result in the deletion of what was until a few days ago an established article. I think it's best if you restore the article and then send it to either PROD or AfD. – Uanfala (talk) 17:09, 25 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.

I'll Be Your 1-Up Girl[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. This term is mentioned in the song. (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. What's this? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The new theme song – officially called Jump Up, Super Star – features two linked halves, dubbed Let’s Do the Odyssey and I’ll Be Your 1-Up Girl.[2]

    The subject of the linked section. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Don't see how this is "confusing". I don't think it needs to be called out as a sub-element in the article but certainly anyone searching for this phrase sees the content they expect to see and would prefer to see this content over no search results. czar 15:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • certainly anyone searching for this phrase sees the content they expect to see unless the reason they're searching is because they don't know what it means in the first place, which is precisely why it should be mentioned at the target. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a mention is added. Currently without a mention (anywhere on Wikipedia I can find) this is just confusing to anyone who doesn't already know what Czar quotes above. I have no opinion on whether a mention should be added to the article. Thryduulf (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason why we couldn’t just literally add the exact sentence Czar just wrote to help you understand. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite my best efforts, I don't see the relevance. Not a likely search term or included in the article. Jontesta (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you not read the above? It’s part of the songs chorus. There’s nothing there to be straining your mental efforts about... Sergecross73 msg me 23:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking my !vote and missed this until now. I'll stay neutral and just say it's up to the authors of the article whether it's relevant enough to add, in which case a redirect makes sense. I did review the source and the story checks out. Jontesta (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Czar. This probably the most recognisable line of the song besides the name itself in my opinion, it should remain. CaptainGalaxy 00:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Czar, although I agree with previous speakers that the line should be mentioned in the article.--AlexandraIDV 11:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Czar, and add Czar’s sentence to the article mentioned above for context. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 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.

Wikipedia:SPARTA[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 multiple participants seem to have got the reference, nobody seems to be arguing to keep this redirect - despite making some level of sense, it's a somewhat tenuous reference that does not appear to see significant use, and may have better possibilities. ~ mazca talk 22:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect which should be deleted. 122.60.185.29 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I've fixed the links in the nomination (for some reason they were mostly targetted at Wikipedia:Sparta, which has never existed). Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it should not be used in the way it is currently, since even though "THIS IS SPARTA!" to refer to "This is an encyclopedia" is meme-able, the movie 300 has long since past. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the wikiproject for Sparta is WP:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, so, if we wanted to repurpose this as a shortcut, it could point there. It'd need to be delinked first. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 03:08, 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! 01:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, preferably to reserve it for future use (maybe a Sparta taskforce?). I get the reference, but it takes a couple steps, which is probably part of why it never took off as a shortcut. -- Tavix (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Combed through the creator's edit history around the time this was created; it might stem from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moni Aizik. Survival of the fittest. [That is wrong, as the current target was not the original target. Originally pointed at Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week.] Been around for ~15 years and is harmless. [If the current target had been the oringal target and it remained intact the whole time, I would be at a week keep. But alas.] — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:49, 29 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.

Emergency use authorization[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. This is an {{R from other capitalisation}}. (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target is about a US-specific drug approval category. The title now has numerous links to it (particularly in relation to COVID-19 vaccines, but probably/potentially other things as well) that are not referring to this, but either talking about approval in a country other than the US or talking about the general, non-country-specific concept (the name of which would not be capitalised). As such, we need something here to describe the concept from a worldwide perspective. — Smjg (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - N.b. that deleting this redirect will still result in readers searching for this term landing at the current target, as the search bar will automatically match to the capitalized form. In order to provide a global landing page, a stub would need to be drafted. signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given that this redirect arose from a page move. Nothing prevents a user from replacing the redirect with a stub describing the general topic. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:34, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_25&oldid=1037992313"