Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 28, 2020.

Interstate 38[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 18:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a confusing redirect. It should be retargeted to Interstate Highway System, or should be deleted. (Their was a previous nomination of nonexistent Interstates that redirect to Interstate Highway System). -322UbnBr2 (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 20:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Interstate 50 redirects to Interstate Highway System, so should this one. –Fredddie™ 20:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 50 is the way it is because it's one that would be expected to exist but doesn't, so it gets a blue link. The same would be true with 60, except an existing movie takes precedence over a non-existent Interstate number. The other numbers that were never real-life proposals, such as Interstate 6, were deleted in a previous RFD. However, 38 is a valid search term; people may wonder where I-38 is since I-238 exists. There is no I-38, but I-238 is a logical target for it. HotdogPi 21:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If kept, I-38 must be mentioned at I-238 to point out that I-238 has no parent two-digit interstate, as would otherwise be expected. Otherwise this redirect makes no sense and is confusing. I agree it's probably unhelpful to target to Interstate Highways System. So either fix the I-238 page or delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ​The article already states that there is no I-38: The number does not follow established rules for numbering Interstates, as there is no Interstate 38. Maybe this could be expanded or presented more clearly, but the pertinent information is there. ComplexRational (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that now, but it should also/instead say that in the lead, rather than just below in the body. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The relevant information is already in the lead. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have now mentioned I-38 in the lead of the I-238 article, so that users searching for I-38 will quickly reach the necessary information. However, in the future I feel like a section at List of Interstate Highways describing the unused interstate numbers might be worthwhile and a better target for redirects of non-existent interstates. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:34, 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.

The Panama Papers (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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 18:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No clear explanation why this should redirect to any longer, was mentioned in one article as a source in a former version of the article, now no longer mentioned in the article BOVINEBOY2008 21:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The Laundromat (film) quite obviously seems to be the intended target, though I don't know why the redirect didn't point there in the first place, or why it was needed (the name doesn't seem to have been a working title for the film). --Paul_012 (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if The Laundromat was known as this, there are other films by this name that are probably notable. [1] Nohomersryan (talk) 22:49, 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.

Bangkok Mass Transit System[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 5#Bangkok Mass Transit System

Ridley Tsui Po-Wah[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 18:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the consensus here that deleted the redirect Ridley Tsui, because again the page is not actually about him and this prevents potential article creation. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. As an avoided double redirect whose primary target has been deleted, this should probably be G8. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:45, 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.

Hyoscine-pentothal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 5#Hyoscine-pentothal

Lithium dibromide[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 5#Lithium dibromide

KB2267602[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 5#KB2267602

Araz Junction, 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 delete. The target of this redirect was deleted over the course of this discussion. As no alternative target has been proposed, WP:G8 applies. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete as these were two distinct places as can be plainly seen on topo maps. Araz is likely to be deleted anyway, but in case not, this redirect should be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this was a former settlement? GNIS lists it as a "locale" and Durham is nothing more than a gazeteer, not sufficient for notability. I'm not finding anything else to support this. –dlthewave ☎ 04:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't had a chance to go over Araz far enough to do a deletion nomination for it when I was checking this, though I see it has now happened. The point is, on the topos, these are shown as two distinct points. Were Araz to be retained, I do not see why Araz Junction should point to it. Mangoe (talk) 06:10, 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) 22:08, 20 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 19:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No one has refuted the original argument that they are different places, in which case the redirect is incorrect and should be deleted regardless of the current AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The redirect target has been deleted, so unless someone wants to suggest another target, this should speedily be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That discussion happened here, and it does not appear that a suitable target exists at this time. This will likely close as speedy delete, but if someone wants to create an actual article or at least give this redirect a suitable target, information in the attached discussion may be useful. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:54, 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.

Wikipedia:HITLER[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. Consensus unanimously points towards Keep and they are correct. The subject has to do with Hitler here, so closing and withdrawing self-made discussion per WP:SNOW. I will create Wikipedia:Hitler shortly. (non-admin closure) 4thfile4thrank (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other one, Wikipedia:Hitler, was deleted, but this one points to a different target. What to do with this redirect? 4thfile4thrank (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions was regarding redirection to Wikipedia:Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals not the current target so the question is whether or not the new target is better than the old one. I could see a case that up this target is more relevant since Hitler is actually mentioned.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If so, then deleting the previous one was the wrong move because our page on Godwin's law had existed for several months by then. Retargeting would have been the better move, so I would suggest recreating it to retarget it to our Godwin's law page if this is closed as keep. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the target is clearly relevant to the shortcut and it does get uses. Additionally, no rationale for deletion has been presented. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 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.

Pool closed due to AIDS[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 4#Pool closed due to AIDS

QP (video game)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 4#QP (video game)

Vitorino Silva[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 17:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there is an appropriate local target for this page. Sending readers to non-English content is not helpful. Additionally, the plain soft redirect template is not used in the mainspace. Precedents: Mohamed Chabani|, Saint Michel Boulevard, Bonne Nuit les Petits, Kumagai Morikazu, Éditions Fides, Daehan, François Mathet, and אוצר הספרים היהודי השיתופי. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:13, 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.

SP:Random[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) 15:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“SP:” doesn’t seem to be a valid pseudo-namespace widely accepted and used by the community right now, unlike “MOS:”, “H:”, “T:”, etc. GMXping! 00:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as WP:R2. Redirects from the main namespace to the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, and/or Portal: namespaces are the only cross-namespace redirects that are allowed. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per R2. The only other page beginning with this pseudo-prefix is SP:BLU, which redirects to South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not eligible for speedy deletion: whatever the exact wording of WP:R2 may be, it's only intended to apply to redirects into the areas of Wikipedia that aren't reader-facing. Special:Random is very much a reader-facing special page (it's linked from the sidebar), and it always lands the reader onto an article. – Uanfala (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Uanfala: I don't think you understand the speedy deletion criteria R2. Here's what R2 is about: This applies to redirects (apart from shortcuts) from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Uanfala: See the RfD of UBX:GAL. This is yet another example of creating pseudo-namespace without consensus.[a] --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 17:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Disclosure: I created the UBX:GAL redirect, and later learned that forming a new pseudo-namespace requires consensus.
I was trying to clarify the point of R2 (Why do you guys think WP:R2 lists some namespaces and not others?). Redirects to special pages aren't explicitly exempt because: a) the rules don't need to explicitly list all exceptions; b) few, if any, people have thought of creating such redirects in the past; c) if they had, R2 would have still been applicable in most cases, as the majority of Special pages are not reader-facing. Besides, you can easily retarget the redirect to WP:RAN and it will suddenly become exempt from R2, even as written. The point of this RfD is to find out whether this redirect is plausible, and if people would be fine with this type of pseudo-namespace redirect. I suspect they wouldn't, but the issue has nothing to do with the fact of the redirect's target being a special page. – Uanfala (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Uanfala: "Special:" counts as a namespace. Even though you can't edit or create special pages, such as "Special:Wikipedia", it's prefix still counts as a namespace. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per WP:R2. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 17:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slowly, R2 does not apply. The reason redirects to the Special namespace are not listed is that they don't work as redirects (see User:Thryduulf/R to special) so they are soft redirects which are not covered by the R speedy deletion criteria. SP as a pesudo-namespace is not useful as there is little need for shortcuts to special pages, especially as they can only be soft redirects meaning they don't function well as shortcuts. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose speedy deletion per Thryduulf and Uanfala. See also User:Godsy/R to special. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No community consensus to use SP as a shortening of special. Cannot be a real redirect due to the technical limitations mentioned by the other editors above. I fail to see the need for a shorthand redirect to a page that is already linked in the sidebar of every article and page in the encyclopaedia and sees minimal use in discussions due to the inherently random nature of it's target. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow (not speedy) delete. Of all this talk about speedy vs. slow deletion (and IMO, it doesn't qualify for R2), there has been not a single person wanting to keep this. It can be deleted quickly, but per SNOW, not per R2. HotdogPi 12:47, 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_28&oldid=998686225"