Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 27, 2020.

Loboan[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) 00:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Per this fan wiki, it seems that Loboan is an alien species in Ben 10, and this redirect points to a character that happens to be a Loboan. I'm assuming that a similar dynamic is going on for Thep Khufan. Unless more information is provided about Loboan at the target (unlikely to happen, given the list format), I think that deletion is in order. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment all the characters in the table should have a short prose description, given that, their species would naturally come up within that. The table is missing descriptions and the characters are not otherwise listed in paragraphs, so it seems the table itself should be shorn of all characters that do not contain a prose description -- 65.94.171.6 (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both; Not specifically mentioned in the list, so in the absence of any useful descriptions on the page, no potential reader is likely to learn whatever they were looking for from this redirect. ~ mazca talk 23:49, 8 March 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 Windy Apple[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 8#The Windy Apple

Maharashtrian English[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 00:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four recently created redirects to targets without any relevant content. The two Sudanese redirects were re-created after having been deleted after this discussion from last month (see there for the rationale). Maharashtrian English would presumably be the variety of English spoken by Marathi L1 speakers, but there's no relevant content at either Maharashtra#Language or at Indian English. Vincentian English can be assumed to be the variety of Standard English used in St Vincent (not to be confused with Vincentian Creole), but there's nothing about such a variety at Saint Vincent and the Grenadines#Languages (the section only mentions the official status of the English). – Uanfala (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uanfala's thorough analysis. Consider salting the two Sudanese ones to prevent further recreation. Narky Blert (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think salting is necessary here: the Sudanese redirects have been re-created just once, and it is quite likely that they may actually need to be legitimately re-created again once relevant content is added somewhere. – Uanfala (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should also be cautious about salting titles for what could be legitimate articles, which would apply here. If they're repeatedly, disruptively created or pushing POV or fringe views, all bets are off. --BDD (talk) 22:25, 5 March 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.

Slut slot[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 00:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, not commonly used [1], not a useful redirect. Hog Farm (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom (Hog Farm), as a neologism with little apparent widespread usage, low pageviews, and, perhaps most importantly, as confusing and ambiguous per WP:R#D2 and WP:XY. The word slut is a crude and vulgar slang term for a promiscuous woman, but usage of that part of the human anatomy described by the current target of the subject redirect as an entry point for sexual purposes is not limited promiscuous women or, indeed, women. Both sexes of the human race, without regard to sexual promiscuity, can use this as an entry point for sexual purposes. Doug Mehus T·C 20:43, 27 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.

Non-negotiable[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. No prejudice against anyone creating a disambiguation page if there are sufficient sensible targets, but participants in the discussion have not identified any, and consider the word to be far more ambiguous than just its current target. ~ mazca talk 23:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-negotiable is a word that can be used in many contexts other than the usage described at Nonnegotiable and negotiable instruments. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; open to disambiguation, though, if Narky et al. can find at least three potential bluelink targets to disambiguate. Doug Mehus T·C 20:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a disambiugation page, then you need to put in the research to figure out if one is feasible. You should not be calling on random editors who have not participated in this discussion to do that for you. Secondly, disambiguation is not "at least three potential bluelink targets"—you don't just pull out an arbitrary number of bluelinks and write one up. I would recommend reading about deciding to disambiguate, which illustrates this in greater detail. -- Tavix (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to call on other editors to see if it was feasible, but rather, trying to be proactive in stating that, should another RfD regular support or propose disambiguation before this closes, I would be amenable to that. This may or may not be a candidate for disambiguation, though, as I suspect WP:PTM may apply here. Doug Mehus T·C 21:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The word can be used in many contexts. No full title matches, nothing to disambiguate. Narky Blert (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as violating the Principle of Least Astonishment. No one expects to search or click on "non-negotiable", usually associated with an unwillingness to compromise on a position or on terms of an agreement, and be transported to an article on financial instruments. TJRC (talk) 18:54, 28 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.

RAF Group Captain Walker[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 some editors supported disambiguation, the numerically larger proportion of delete voters did not appear to be persuaded by their arguments, and the disambiguation position was further weakened by the lack of a single coherent proposal supported by all disambiguation supporters. signed, Rosguill talk 22:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing ... "RAF" isn't mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article refers to "Captain Walker" as being in the British army, but that's confusing since "RAF" normally means Royal Air Force. The "Captain Walker" isn't at all a problem, but the "RAF Group" is confusing. I'm leaning towards favouring deletion per WP:R#D2 and/or WP:R#D5. Doug Mehus T·C 07:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above comment. No incoming links and 12 hits all last year. Useless even if it wasn't wrong. Station1 (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article was wrong, and I've corrected it. In the film and musical, Captain Walker was an RAF bomber pilot with the rank of Group Captain. I found several citations saying so: 1, 2, 3, and most importantly the thoroughly-RS 4 by Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian. Narky Blert (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget (changing !vote) to Tommy (1975 film). I was wrong about the album, but right about the film. Narky Blert (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We had some movement on a retarget, but this doesn't seem settled as to whether that's useful. Would appreciate some more consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shhhnotsoloud and BDD commented after "Station1's find of several bluelinked dabification targets. They have had the opportunity to reply to this finding, but it did not influence their !votes. I'm not sure why you feel the need to ping them to get them to comment on that, seeing that they implicitly declined to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did note that Shhhnotsoloud replied after Station1's comment, but wanted to make sure I notified everyone. I even notified BDD, who even evaluated disambiguation before ruling it out. Since Shhhnotsoloud's rationale for deletion was "ambiguous and confusing," that's usually the rationale for disambiguation (note that Station1's bolded vote is "delete," but they support disambiguation as well). It's reasonable to expect they either hadn't fully ruled out disambiguation or hadn't specified it as an alternative to deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 21:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or even better, don't notify anyone. Your comment did nothing but annoy people who are likely already aware of the point you made. Besides, those who care about this discussion probably have it watchlisted anyway... -- Tavix (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, just to be completely clear, I favor deletion. My comment in reaction to 3 retarget comments that came after my original deletion !vote was simply to point out something that seemed to have been overlooked, just in case the discussion resulted in keep/retarget. Disambiguation is a distant second choice, only slightly better than retargeting. But as hardly anyone ever uses this redirect, it matters very little what happens. Station1 (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I remain supporting delete and do to support disambiguation. The blue-linked examples (along with at least one other) are not known for being Group Captains (for most of them it was one of many ranks they held during the course of time). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The character is not mentioned this way in the article on the album nor the film, and I concur with BDD's conclusion. Please, if this this is kept in any form, retarget it to Captain Walker. There would be too much overlap for a separate disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Army captain on the one hand and naval captain or group captain on the other bear no relationship to each other. The army rank is very junior, and the naval and aviation ranks are very senior. RAF group captains are never simply called captains; as in civil aviation, a captain may just be a pilot; possibly a sergeant pilot. I could perhaps live with a retarget to Captain Walker, though. Narky Blert (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(As an irrelevant but interesting fact, Luftwaffe bombers were often captained by the radio operator.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Narky's comment above, but should add that, should there not be a rough consensus to disambiguation at close, I would support, somewhat weakishly, Tavix' alternate proposal of retargeting to the Captain Walker disambiguation page. I say "weakishly" because of Narky's reply that "Army captain on the one hand and naval captain or group captain on the other bear no relationship to each other." Doug Mehus T·C 21:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know that group captains are never simply called captains, I was unaware of that and have struck that part of my rationale. That being said, the title would simply be Group Captain Walker, correct? If we need to disambiguate, I can see it happening there. RAF Group Captain doesn't seem to be a (common) way to title it. -- Tavix (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(My WP:OR for the day: turning Captain Walker in the original into Group Captain Walker in the film was a typical piece of Ken Russell nonsense. Army captains are everywhere; group captains are equivalent to army colonels and naval captains, and aren't exactly thick on the ground.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: I still believe that the redirect should be deleted per BDD and Tavix. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate by retargetting to Captain Walker, and add an additional redirect from Group Captain Walker (ie. Colonel Walker); the U.S. media keep referring to Group Captains as just plain "Captain", so it would be sensible to list all types of Captain at the Captain page. (including Captain-Generals; sports captains); add a see-also link to the O-5 disambiguation page Colonel Walker if that would be created, and add O-5 Group Captains and naval O-5 Captains there as well. -- 65.94.171.6 (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Walker is not a place to list "Group Captain Walker" because Gp Capts aren't Captains. And no variation of Captain is an O-5, by the way. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:44, 2 March 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.

Hindh[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) 23:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this is not an alternative name for the target. At most, it appears to be a romanization of the ancient Iranian term for all of the lands east of the Indus. I would thus suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should Hindhu not be added to that disambiguation page, Narky? Doug Mehus T·C 01:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sindhis as that has a paragraph about the group name Hindh. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sindhis#Ethnicity and religion with rcats {{R to section}} and {{R to related topic}} per AngusWOOF above, since it's mentioned there. Barring a mention to Hindh at Hind, as proposed by Narky Blert, I think this is best. We can always hatnote the disambiguation page, if needed. Doug Mehus T·C 02:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY as this can be seen as an etymology-influenced misspelling for either Sindh or Hind. I don't think it is a reliably attested name for either: the dh in Hindh is not a plausible way to render the Persian or the Arabic sound (which is d plain and simple), and the scattered instances of this term you can find on google books appear to be almost exclusively OCR errors (a notable exception is this, where it seems likely to be a typo instead). Don't retarget to Sindhis please: if the term were reliably attested then it would need to be added to a relevant article (like Sindh#Etymology) instead of redirecting to the first random place on wikipedia that happens to mention it. And it doesn't mention it anymore: I've just removed the paragraph in question as unsourced and out of scope; and anyway, the use of Hindh there was introduced with a quick copyedit in 2012, and is almost certainly an error (ping to the editor in case there's something I'm not seeing). – Uanfala (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. "Hindh" refers to either "Hindu" or Sindhu". --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY as identified by @Soumya-8974 and Uanfala:. I would also support a weak retarget to the Hind disambiguation page per earlier comments. Doug Mehus T·C 13:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous with no potential for a disambiguation page. (Also, a note for those citing WP:XY: Per my interpretation of WP:XY, you are citing it incorrectly. WP:XY only applies if the redirect contains more than one distinct topic in its title; this redirect is one word ... so, it's just ambiguous, not an WP:XY issue.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: Okay, fair enough. Quite a few editors have cited WP:XY in this discussion, so it's perhaps useful for us all to brush up on that essay/guideline by re-reading and re-interpreting it. So, more or less, this would be a case where WP:R#D2 applies but not WP:XY? Doug Mehus T·C 00:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge of either XY's history or its application by others, but I've always taken it at face value: Redirects that could equally point to multiple targets for me subsumes cases where a string can be seen as an equally plausible misspelling of two or more terms. If XY isn't intended to cover such cases, then its wording would need to be made more precise, and the broader ambiguity principle articulated somewhere else. – Uanfala (talk) 00:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, me too, that's how I've interpreted it as well. I will have to reread it, and see if I've missed something. Doug Mehus T·C 00:46, 29 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.

John Chetwynd-Talbot (Oxford Union president)[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 00:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no evidence that a John Chetwynd Talbot ever was the Oxford Union President. List of presidents of the Oxford Union includes Henry Chetwynd-Talbot, 18th Earl of Shrewsbury, the brother of this John, so this may have caused the confusion. Fram (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and possibly move without redirect. Move to John Chetwynd-Talbot (judge) without redirect. This is obviously the John Talbot who was one of thirteen United Debating Society (as it was then called) presidents, and it also says he was a Queen's Counsel which is the more notable part. Also the sources I put in a comment. ミラP 14:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where in that source does it state that he was a president (or even a member) of the Debating Society? Fram (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Fram: The list in this section is cited to an offline source (the link is to a database entry) so WP:AGF applies like in WP:DYK, where I've had experience with paragraphs cited to offline and/or foreign sources. ミラP 15:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • (No need to ping me). Why did you first point me to a source (at Wikisource) which has nothing to support your statement? This redirect seems like an extremely unlikely search term, the presidency, if he ever was president, is an extremely minor footnote in his life at best, not the kind of thing we should use to disambiguate someone by. Fram (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • He's the only John Talbot who is listed as attending Oxford at the same time John Talbot was (as an offline source cites him as) a President of the United Debating Society. ミラP 16:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it seems the redirect was created in error. Since it's wrong, it is indeed a most unlikely search term, and as a redirect serves no useful purpose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fram, thanks for doing the research! I would oppose moving the redirect, there is no history that should be preserved: the entire history is the creation of this redirect (in error?) and the notice for this RfD—which would inaccurately be included in the history of a different title should it be moved. If there is a different redirect that would be useful to create, simply create it without tying its fate to this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fram and Tavix' added comment. The only thing noteworthy is that this redirect is linked to a Wikidata item, but I'm not sure we need redirects for every Wikidata item. Doug Mehus T·C 14:41, 28 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.

Steelhaven[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 6#Steelhaven

Destined for Greatness[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 6#Destined for Greatness

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_27&oldid=1141905955"