Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 22, 2020.

Ravenhill (Middle Earth)[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) 16:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenhill is a part of the Lonely Mountain in J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium. However, this mountain no longer has it's own article, and it is not important enough to be mentioned at the target article (an overview of Middle-earth). Redirects are WP:CHEAP, but sometimes, deletion is better than having a maze of redirects that do not lead to applicable content. Hog Farm (talk) 20:36, 22 January 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.

Dominant majority[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. Though the decision will not please a numerical majority (!) of discussion participants, I see no other reasonable outcome. There are fair arguments why the status quo is not optimal, but neither does it seem to be clearly wrong. Some alternatives discussed, such as Ochlocracy, are considered subtopics of majoritarianism. I don't discount the possibility that a broad-concept article could be written here, though I do doubt the possibility of an effective disambiguation page—there's a difference between describing something as a "dominant majority" and treating it as a (near-)synonym. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While there's some overlap between the search term and target here, they're not synonymous. Majoritarianism describes a political philosophy advocating for the political primacy of a majority demographic, whereas "dominant majority" is a phrase used in many different contexts, often simply describing a very large majority. If we were to assume that the political understanding of "dominant majority" is the primary topic, then Majority rule would be a more appropriate target than Majoritarianism, as it discusses the actual incidence of political primacy of a demographic majority, whereas Majoritarianism describes a political philosophy that encourages this mode of governance. That aside, searching Google Scholar and Wikipedia suggests that "dominant majority" is more frequently used for non-political contexts; on Wikipedia, the most common usage of the phrase is to describe the dominant majority of male editors on Wikipedia, a situation that is neither political nor intentional. I think deletion is the most appropriate action at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 19:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Majoritarianism is about majority of the population dominating on others. Crashed greek (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, whose analysis is mostly on point. Crashed greek's analysis is not necessarily correct. While not necessarily proportional representation, majoritarian systems are, usually, more representative than single member plurality systems in that electors satisfice by rank ordering their candidates. An easy delete here, and a well articulated nomination. Doug Mehus T·C 14:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between Majoritarianism, Supermajority, Tyranny of the Majority, and Ochlocracy. I think it's quite plausible that someone might type this in the search box, but there are (at least) four separate concepts they could be looking for, and we shouldn't have an article with this title. Disambiguation is the only alternative that makes sense to me.—S Marshall T/C 00:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to WP:BCA. Per MOS:DAB, a DAB page is for disambiguating between ambiguous titles, not between ambiguous topics. Narky Blert (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't one "primary meaning" that could be the topic of a broad-concept article.—S Marshall T/C 13:34, 23 January 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.

Appllodorus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 30#Appllodorus

River Running[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 30#River Running

Ginglith[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any mentions of this Middle-earth river in Wikipedia. There appears to be no history that would need to be kept for licensing purposes (article was redirected, content not retained). If a user finds a reference in the Wikipedia I missed, I will support a redirect. Otherwise, this should be deleted. Having redirects not mentioned anywhere is like having terms in a book's index that aren't actually mentioned there. Hog Farm (talk) 15:46, 22 January 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.

Bepis[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, this redirect refers to a meme. Delete per WP:NOTURBANDICT signed, Rosguill talk 15:44, 22 January 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.

Mexican Federalist War[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 30#Mexican Federalist War

Jamal ad-Din Abu al-Mahasin Yusuf[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. Justification provided, withdrawing nomination. signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any indication that the redirect name refers to the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Al Aziz" here is an honorific, and "Abu al-Mahasin" (father of al-Mahasin) is a sort of middle name. This is similar to Ibn Taghribirdi. The Arabic in the (albeit brief) article العزيز جمال الدين أبو المحاسن يوسف بن برسباي‎ is "Al Aziz Jamal al Din Abu Al Mahasin Yusef bin Barsbay".
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.

Stenter[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 article created. Votes went every which way, but everyone seemed to essentially agree that creating an article was the preferable solution. signed, Rosguill talk 03:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNSaoLUHi_9mTA3r-XlB7_sZrXNtxw:1579696782681&q=picture+of+stenter&tbm=isch&source=univ&client=firefox-b-d&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6ptaMnZfnAhUYSBUIHcLCB8cQ7Al6BAgKEBk&biw=1103&bih=672

Those are stenters, redirecting to Tenterhook. please look.

Tenterhooks do have an historical relationship to Stenters, but to redirect "Stenter" to a pre industrial revolution cloth hook is stretching things. The article Stenter doesn't exist (yet) Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, or perhaps redirect to Tenterground, until a better target is available; from the current target article (emboldening in original): "The word tenter is still used today to refer to production line machinery employed to stretch polyester films and similar fabrics. The spelling stenter is also found.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Tenterground is related to Fulling in that iit was the area in which tenters were used. that would be too misleading. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need an article, or at least a section in Finishing (textiles) where the process is not mentioned. Stentering and tentering are the essentially same thing, and are currently-used and important industrial processes. If you've ever handled a piece of woven, knitted or nonwoven cloth with a selvedge, those marks in it (holes from hooks, indentations from grippers) are (s)tenter marks. From memory, "tenter" was originally wool industry (Yorkshire) and "stenter" cotton (Lancashire) (though it could be the other way round). These YouTube videos (not WP:RS of course) show seriously expensive pieces of kit carrying out what they call stentering and tentering. Narky Blert (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This. Narky knows. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but I have drafted an article in case consensus determines that this deserves one. I can't find much to establish independent notability however. Glades12 (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also found an image that appears to be reusable with credit: [1] Glades12 (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll add to your draft when I am at a computer that supports me. This tablet is useless. The pic, though interesting, isn’t really pertinent, as it could have driven different types of fabric processing kit. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:14, 27 January 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.

Connie Freydell[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Target's wife. However she isn't mentioned on the target article and is not individually notable making this a highly implausible search term
SSSB (talk) 11:00, 22 January 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.

Af'El[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this does not meet the criteria to be in List of Star Wars planets and moons either. Connor Behan (talk) 16:08, 22 January 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.

Untitled Mike Mills project[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per previous practice, all the films now have titles so the redirects should be deleted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:25, 22 January 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.

Ion Team[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 05:24, 22 January 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.

Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384[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 03:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Hddty (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: These particular redirects are used to handle automatic wikilinks from EXIF metadata in files on Wikipedia and Commons, performed by the MediaWiki software. Category:Redirects from file metadata links contains other examples of this established practice. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EXIF aside, the target is too broad. Windows Photo Editor doesn't exist, nor does the target make any mention of a "Windows photo editor". I cannot find any other target that does so either. -- Tavix (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible redirect. Most people are not going to search for the minor version/build number of Windows Photo Editor, and per Tavix (without a ping). --Doug Mehus T·C 14:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:23, 27 January 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.

2023 Louisiana gubernatorial election[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading. 2023 United States elections does not exist. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:19, 22 January 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.

Intensity frequency and duration[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 Intensity-duration-frequency curve. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear how this redirect is exclusive or even relates to its target. The redirect just seems like a major WP:XY issue with its wording. Steel1943 (talk) 00:27, 22 January 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.

Human biodiversity[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 31#Human biodiversity

Lindol[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. Apparently, this word is in Tagalog. Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 22 January 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.

Quake weapons[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what subject on the target page this reader to supposed to refer to. Also, the subjects at Quake (series) and Quake (video game) do not describe this subject either. Steel1943 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this was originally a list of weapons from the video game quake but that article doesn’t contain a list of weapons so that’s not viable and the current target makes even less sense.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not very good suggestion Tectonic weapon, maybe? 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IP 69.157.252.96 signed, Rosguill talk 16:50, 22 January 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_January_22&oldid=1140209691"