Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 13, 2020.

Wild Guns (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 retarget to T.S. Nowlin. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been heard of this film's production since the film's script was bought in 2011. IceWalrus236 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:44, 13 February 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.

Inflatable module[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) 15:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most people would assume that there would be an article about inflatable space habitat on the other side of this redirect page. Therefore, I suggest to retarget this redirect to inflatable space habitat. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This could refer to an object in orbit, on another planet, on the moon, on the ocean, or underwater, if not possibly other places. I'd propose the creation of a disambiguation page, but then I'm not sure what exactly it'd look like. Deletion appears to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are many inflatable modules that have nothing to do with space stations. Even in space, there are inflatable antennas, lightsails. On Earth, there are inflatable rooms, balloon modules, etc -- 65.94.171.6 (talk) 07:37, 19 February 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.

Cassette bomb[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) 18:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This term isn't mentioned in the target article, so readers who search for it or click on links to it (like the one in Stiff Little Fingers) will be left none the wiser as to what a cassette bomb is. My inquiry at Talk:Cluster munition#Cassette bomb (a month ago) hasn't had a response, so it seems unlikely that anyone will add any relevant material to the target anytime soon. None of the other three articles mentioning the phrase (Jake Burns, Glossary of Russian and USSR aviation acronyms: Weapons and armament, and Timeline of Ulster Volunteer Force actions) define the term or provide any context either. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not a cluster munition by any means. "Incendiary Device: [...] cassette incendiaries were used and these consisted of a tape cassette filled with inflammable chemicals attached to a timer, batteries, and a detonator." link
I have no good target, but have no doubt that that's what SLF (fine band!) were singing about. Narky Blert (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Narky Blert. There's no need for it. Doug Mehus T·C 22:21, 14 February 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.

Vagina entry[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 21#Vagina entry

Communist-capitalist China[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 speedily deleted by Ponyo. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a notable phrase, seems to be WP:A11-esque but that does not apply to redirects. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:48, 13 February 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.

Megalophallically[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) 15:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible adverb. No Google search results outside of Wikipedia or mirrors. Suggest deletion. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. If I'm not mistaken, yet another invention by a teenager who would be better spending their time doing their set work. Narky Blert (talk) 23:11, 13 February 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.

Third leg[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 22:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic slang term with multiple other meanings; suggest deleting as ambiguous. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Because there are no full title matches. What would be the point? Narky Blert (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, then I'll stick with my soft redirect to Wiktionary, per WP:ATD as it's got solid enough pageviews worth keeping. Doug Mehus T·C 01:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:third leg, failing a response from @Narky Blert, Hog Farm, and SpicyMilkBoy:. Perfect opportunity to promote Wiktionary for non-encyclopedic content, per WP:SOFTREDIRECT and WP:SISP. Doug Mehus T·C 01:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Soft redirect coding has been set up below the target; if this closes as "keep," which seems unlikely, it can be easily deleted. If it closes as "delete," it's moot. Doug Mehus T·C 01:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If closed as "soft redirect," and I see no reason why it shouldn't, closer will have to manually remove the uncomment the substituted {{longcomment}}, and, of course, remove the hard redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 12:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. This could be slang term for a penis, but it could also – probably more plausibly in an encyclopedic context – be expected to lead to other topics, as pointed out by Hog Farm. – Uanfala (talk) 13:25, 19 February 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.

Draft:Dick (slang)[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 keep. Oops, didn't know about WP:RDRAFT, withdrawing nomination. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect left from a page move, deletion is probably acceptable here. Users aren't going to search for this page as a draft. Hog Farm (talk) 20:34, 13 February 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.

McDankee's[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) 15:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is likely based off of the use of "dank" in a meme/pop culture slang sense. Not mentioned in the target article, not a commonly used name of this corporation, 11 pageviews in 2019 [1], and the editor who created this has one other edit, a BLP vandalism. Not a helpful redirect. Hog Farm (talk) 20:28, 13 February 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.

Papa Buck[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) 15:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Brief mention at Chris Jericho's Rock 'N' Wrestling Rager at Sea, but I don't think there's enough information there to justify a redirect. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject too obscure for a redirect. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:51, 16 February 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.

Guido Mag[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) 15:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created by an account blocked for promotional spam, this doesn't appear to be a common nickname for the subject. I'd suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:03, 16 February 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.

Irish languages (disambiguation)[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 Withdrawn. Never mind, I found a more suitable target for this redirect. Withdrawing discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not pointing at an actual disambiguation page, although it is pointing at a page with disambiguation-like properties, so G14 probably doesn't apply. Nevertheless, it should probably be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 18:53, 13 February 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.

Fulfillment Logistics[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) 15:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 4#Fulfilment Logistics. However, please note that Fulfilment Logistics, before it was deleted, had a different target: Warehouse. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:XY, as with the other spelling. Narky Blert (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Narky; it's WP:XY and ambiguous, not because of the previous RfD discussion. Though helpful for providing context, previous discussions are not precedent setting. Doug Mehus T·C 22:34, 14 February 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.

Autogenous pressurization[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) 15:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not explained on the target article. Delete to encourage article creation. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 08:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I found nine WP articles mentioning it without explaining it in detail; the best description (such as it is) is at BE-4#Availability and use. A Google search turned up enough to suggest that an article could be supported. Narky Blert (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as long as we don't have a suitable target for it. Linking to a specific rocket is odd, it's a general spacecraft concept. --mfb (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I believe it was formerly explicated as to what autogenous pressurization was in the target article... but things change in WIkipedia so perhaps it is not today. But agree that we ought to have a stub article explicating the concept.
Also, the link to the specific article may very well be justified (assuming some explanation occurs there) since SpaceX seems to be the first outfit to actually be developing the tech to bring it into operational use, and Blue Origin says they plan to eventually develop it for their methalox rockets. SpaceX insists that they must fully develop autogenous pressurization for their Mars-capable launch vehicle as the complexity and on-orbit duration of a liquid cryogenic rocket engines need to reduce/eliminate the many additional fluids (helium, nitrogen) commonly used when Earth ground-support is possible for short-duration (hours or a few days at most) rocket flights are intended. N2e (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Autogenous pressurization is not solely a SpaceX topic, many rockets have used this, especially steam rockets. -- 65.94.171.6 (talk) 07:40, 19 February 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.

Jan Paweł II (film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 20#Jan Paweł II (film)

Harvest Home Action[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) 15:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous and confusing name, not a name for the thing that it reflects to. One hell of an easter egg if someone links to it by mistake. 6 pageviews in the last year. buidhe 05:28, 13 February 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.

Department of Highways[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. The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common name of many government agencies; no evidence that the Ontario one comes close to being the primary topic at all. Should either be disambiguated or retargeted to Ministry of Transport. Will need lots of fixing of incoming links. Paul_012 (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BDD If the only Wikipedia article for the Department of Highways is the Government of Saskatchewan, then I guess I can support retargeting that there, without prejudice, of course, to retargeting or disambiguating later on as necessary. As an aside, my step grandpa on my mother's side is retired as a former district manager of the Saskatchewan Department of Highways. Doug Mehus T·C 19:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase. The only instance of the word "highway", singular or plural, at the Department of transportation page, is the listing there of Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure (Saskatchewan) (under a previous name of the ministry, though one that still had "highways"). I don't think there's a case for retargeting any general redirect to the Saskatchewan ministry. --BDD (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be a disambiguation listing all current or former "Department of Highways" worldwide. Ontario road articles will have to have redirects added to links to this page, which I made out of convenience about a decade ago. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've drafted a disambiguation list at the redirect page. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I support the draft dab page prepared by Paul 012. We can probably add Saskatchewan there as well. BDD, what are your thoughts (if any)? Doug Mehus T·C 18:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks fine. I made a change. --BDD (talk) 21:26, 18 February 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.

White marble[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 19:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Bringing this redirect back for individual discussion since it was previously bundled with other redirects, and thus may have not received adequate input on its own merits as a redirect. Partially quoting what I stated at the previous RFD: This redirect receives page views, but "...The page views for White marble seem to stem from the fact that it has a good number of incoming links in the "(article)" namespace. To me, that hints one of two things: Either the adjective "white" is unnecessary to link and thus erroneously included in these links, or the term "white marble" represents an encyclopedic subject separate and independently notable from Marble which rationalizes it being deleted per WP:REDLINK to allow article creation at that title. Bottom line is if anyone searching that term is expecting to find information about the subject "white marble", the redirect in its current form is unhelpful with helping readers find that information since it doesn't exist at Marble." Steel1943 (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Solid keep per WP:R#K5. It's unambiguous in that its targeted to the correct location at marble, and it gets lots of use for a redirect—2,000+ pageviews for the preceding twelve month period, inclusive to yesterday (before today's nomination), based on this analysis. We generally don't delete valid redirects, especially those with lots of use, per WP:R#D10, from what I've observed. Thus, I don't see that as a strong argument for deletion. If someone wants to write an article on white marble, they can convert it to an article boldly or even, potentially, propose a split. Doug Mehus T·C 00:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...And that was my argument in the previous discussion: This is probably not a "valid redirect" per the reasons I stated above. Honestly, all links to "white marble" could probably be replaced with "white marble" unless the subject of this redirect is a distinct subject or a proven alternative name for the target, which at the present time, there is no "distinct subject" article for the subject of this redirect ("delete per WP:REDLINK"), and there is no evidence that this is an alternative name for the target subject as a whole ("the adjective "white" is unnecessary to link"). Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not in any way ambiguous; it does provide readers/patrons/users with highly relevant information on the broader topic of marble. Deleting per WP:R#D10 is one possible argument, and I'd be inclined to agree, if the pageviews didn't substantiate this redirect's utility. Redirects are cheap, and in my view, we should not be inconveniencing readers by sending them to a dead end when marble does provide useful information. Doug Mehus T·C 02:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, if the adjective white is unnecessary, and to test the theory, why not first update all the inlinks to white marble to marble, then revisit this in a year? If all the pageviews were coming from the inlinks, the pageviews should fall precipitously. If, on the other hand, people are searching for white marble directly, then we should be keeping this redirect. In other words, consider my "keep" argument above a "keep for a year; update the inlinks; and reassess in a year." Doug Mehus T·C 02:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do understand the rationale and am often skeptical of "Foo bar → Foo" redirects. But I don't really foresee a separate article on white marble. The phrase is used a few times in the article, and most of the varieties listed there are white. And while I agree that many mainspace links to "White marble" could just link "marble", the fact that editors are doing the former just reinforces for me that this shouldn't be red. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's mentioned in the article and has incoming links and is one of the most prominent types of marble. Hog Farm (talk) 17:52, 20 February 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_February_13&oldid=941993246"