Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 24, 2020.

Moon Valley Commute Club[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) 07:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The club is actually called Valley of the Moon Commute Club, which already has a redirect. Unlikely search term, especially considering it closed 7 years ago. Based on a Google search, it has never been named or shortened to "Moon Valley". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If it's later useful, it can be just easily recreated as it can be kept (which is why WP:RCHEAP is such a weak rationale, on its own for keeping a redirect). One redirect for a commuter club should be fine. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:11, 31 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.

Chachi (DJ)[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) 07:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. Not mentioned anywhere else. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Enwiki has no information about a DJ called Chachi. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:30, 25 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.

Bjønr[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. MBisanz talk 22:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Not mentioned anywhere else. Implausible typo for Bjorn. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not mentioned anywhere, and looks distinctly WP:NN; see Discogs (like IMDb, often useful for denying notability). The spelling is correct; I found evidence that he's been remixed by Alan Walker (music producer), e.g. this. Narky Blert (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing notable to say about Bjønr. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although Bjønr may or may not be mentioned at Tom Bailey (singer), the only other search result is this very redirect, so there are no definite mentions of him here, and therefore no likely new targets. Also, the remix Narky Blert posted appears to be Bjønr's remix of an Alan Walker song and not the other way round, and I don't think remixing a song by a notable artist makes you notable.--ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 12:18, 29 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.

Sara Silavi[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 deleted per G8, the target does not exist. -- Tavix (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion – the target page was speedily deleted as a hoax (text for the article was copied and pasted from the biographical article for another person), so there doesn't seem to be any value in keeping a redirect to a deleted hoax article. Richard3120 (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A Google search turned up nothing of interest except the fact that Simple English WP are onto this one too. simple:Dj Sani - Sara Silavi is mentioned in the cached deleted page, which is inaccessible to mere mortals. Narky Blert (talk) 22:34, 24 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.

Bhurak Starkiller[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. MBisanz talk 22:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target or anywhere else. Paradoctor (talk) 22:15, 24 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.

List of Wing Commander characters[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. MBisanz talk 22:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List was redirected in 2017 over sourcing, but never merged, and target contains no such list. Paradoctor (talk) 22:13, 24 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.

Fulfilment Logistics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 4#Fulfilment Logistics

Erupt[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 Eruption (disambiguation). There appears to be a weak consensus for this solution, despite a lack of consensus on whether an additional wiktionary definition should then be added to that article. signed, Rosguill talk 23:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an ambiguous WP:DICDEF target which is further confused by the fact that Eruption is a redirect towards a different target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: In case it isn't clear per the discussion below, my preferred option is delete. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:erupt seems like the best option. There is a disambiguation page, but none of its entries include exactly "erupt". Deletion, however, would inconvenience readers looking for any of several meanings of this form (as this redirect has considerable usage), which can be found at Wiktionary. ComplexRational (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a Wiktionary redirect to wikt:erupt per ComplexRational does make sense. That said, where's the dab page? Could we possibly retarget there and add a Wiktionary definition to the dab page? --Doug Mehus T·C 22:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's not a dab page that could exist that would not be a list of WP:DICDEFs for "erupt" ... unless there is found to be a subject on Wikipedia that uses the proper name "Erupt". Steel1943 (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Steel1943 Thanks for the reply, but ComplexRational mentioned a dab page, but I don't see which one he meant. Thus, I was just wondering if we could possibly add a Wiktionary definition template to the right-hand side of that dab page? --Doug Mehus T·C 22:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      My best guess would be Eruption (disambiguation), but it's not a title match by capitalization or stylization; it's a different word. Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that is the page I meant, and I agree it isn't a suitable target. ComplexRational (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Steel1943 and ComplexRational: What about adding a second Wiktionary box to Eruption (disambiguation) for erupt, located immediately below the Wiktionary box for eruption, and retargeting there? I think that's just as good of an option as the soft redirect, if not better, since we keep the visitors on English Wikipedia, and they can right-click and load the Wiktionary definition for erupt in a new tab Doug Mehus T·C 22:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That would be unnecessary and misleading. Since there's nothing on the disambiguation page that is specifically called "erupt", putting "erupt" as a term in either a new Wiktionary box or combine it in the existing Wiktionary box (which can be done; Template:Wiktionary can list more than one term in it) would make readers either assume or believe that the term "erupt" redirected to the page for a specific reason. As stated before, I am in the belief that erupt should not target the disambiguation page. At this point, unless this redirect is deleted, the most helpful and plausible resolution is indeed to convert it into a Wiktionary redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to DAB page eruption (disambiguation) as {{R from ambiguous term}} {{R from verb}}: "Use this rcat to tag any mainspace redirect from an English-language verb or verb phrase to a related word, such as the same root word in the form of a different part of speech". I hate soft redirects to Wiktionary; give readers the Wikipedia option first. They might well find what they're looking for here. Narky Blert (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Eruption (disambiguation) (the dab page) per Narky Blert, and per my comment(s) above, with the rcats proposed by Narky. While I appreciate the good-faith discussion with Steel1943 and the collegiality and camaraderie, Steel1943 even notes there's nothing, per se, wrong with including two Wiktionary template boxes for eruption and erupt (with the former listed above the latter, obviously). It seems to me it's more or less, on balance, a matter of personal preference in that it is much less common. That said, for the reasons articulated above, particularly by Narky, retargeting to the dab page makes complete sense, would provide a mention to both terms in the target, promote serendipitous discovery, and get the user/patron to where they need to go with one or two clicks. In short, it's a win-win-win. Doug Mehus T·C 23:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...No, I never specifically said that having more than one Wiktionary template in a disambiguation page is not "wrong". In fact, I think there's something completely wrong with having more than one Wiktionary template on a disambiguation page. For that reason, I have edited my comment above to clarify that. Steel1943 (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Steel1943 I appreciate the clarification, but I still am not seeing how it's wrong. A dab page is, by definition, not an encyclopedia article nor a definition. It's simply a collection of related links (like a list, like a category, like a portal, like a navbox, etc.) that help the user to get to where they need to go. We're not giving them incorrect information at all. (Sidebar: Did I get WP:THREAD correct this time by beginning with an asterisk?) Doug Mehus T·C 23:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I've been editing disambiguation pages for years, and I would have to believe this is either the first or one of the first times I've heard a disambiguation page defined as a "collection of related links". Disambiguation pages are supposed to provide readers with a list of pages that could be called the title they are searching. This would not be the case if "erupt" targeted "eruption", a page where there is a list of titles that are specifically known as "eruption", not "erupt". Readers may look up the term "erupt" and possibly find absolutely nothing that they are attempting to locate and would be pigeon-holed and forced to use the articles on a disambiguation page like Eruption (disambiguation). And, for example, readers could be looking up the term "erupt" to find information related to Tantrum, which is an article that is not listed on the disambiguation page and shouldn't be since it's a WP:DICDEF, but we still want to provide our readers with the most helpful list or search results of information for the search term they use. In this case, it would better serve our readers to have this redirect deleted so they can use the search results. Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Steel1943: Really? See Category:Redirects from English words (3000+ pages). A lot of those are to DAB pages. For example, Abandoned, third entry in Category:Redirects from adjectives, and Acknowledge, fourth entry in Category:Redirects from verbs. Narky Blert (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Narky Blert: To me, most of those redirects look like WP:DICDEF issues. Those might be something I may comb through later, but since yeah, we have categories for these and as you say, many target disambiguation pages, I'd imagine a lot of those redirects were created years ago and are thus long-standing. (It's something I'm putting on the back burner, but now, I'll probably add it to my "to-do" list with a low priority.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Steel1943: Redirects from adjectives and adverbs (though not verbs or other parts of speech, such as gerunds) are mentioned in WP:RPURPOSE. This is a WP:GUIDELINE issue. Narky Blert (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Narky Blert: Yes, so that just proves that not all are problems. My point is, and I should've mentioned this before, is that a lot of the redirects that were eligible for the formerly-active X1 speedy deletion criterion were redirects from adjectives, adverbs, verbs, etc. so yes, even though a lot of the already-deleted ones were created by the same editor, that would go to show that there may still be some cases were redirected from adjectives are adverbs are problematic. Like I sort of alluded in my previous comment, I would have to look at each one individually to see which ones are indeed problems, but yes, they are not all problems ... and figuring out which is which is not a task that is a high priority for me at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dmehus: Almost; see this edit, as well as how I tweaked your last one. Traditionally, the order of stars/colons should match the level prior to it. Steel1943 (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question if Erupt will redirect to Eruption (disambiguation), why would Eruption redirect to Types of volcanic eruptions? Shouldn't they redirect to the same place? Should we move Eruption (disambiguation) to Eruption? — hike395 (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hike395: You raise two issues. (1) At the moment, eruption is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Changing that status would need a WP:RM. (2) Eruption -> Eruption (disambiguation) would be a WP:MALPLACED error. If there is no WP:PTOPIC or PRIMARYREDIRECT, the plain title must be at the basename. Narky Blert (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: I think WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is correct for eruption. But then erupt should also have a PRIMARYREDIRECT to Types of volcanic eruptions, right? — hike395 (talk) 10:10, 29 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.

Dağ[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 Dag (name). as the most supported target in this discussion. Deryck C. 12:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. Retarget to Dag (name). (Updated by Steel1943 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC) ) The target article's subject has no affinity to the Turkish language. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to DAB page Dag as {{R from diacritics}} {{R from ambiguous term}}. The Wiktionary entry can be accessed from there. Any links to it will be picked up by User:DPL bot and fixed. Narky Blert (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) The issue I see with that option is that there are currently no subject on Dag that uses the specific diacritic combination as stated in this redirect. In other words, of someone is looking up this phrase for a subject with this specific stylization, they won't find it on Dag. Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, let's just make this official. I oppose retargeting to Dag per my comment above. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawing my opposition per below. Steel1943 (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Use this rcat on any redirect with diacritical marks (accents, umlauts, etc.) to essentially the same page name that does not have diacritical marks." Redirects are WP:CHEAP; why make life difficult for readers? Narky Blert (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be expecting to find entries using that specific form of diacritics if I were redirected to a disambiguation page; I'm sure other readers would think the same. That, and if this redirect were to be deleted, it could help readers locate pages that would have that specific combination of diacritics, given the fact that there are no articles with titles that match that diacritic combination. Steel1943 (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: Imagine that you are a reader who's just come across this word with a funny-looking letter 'g'. Your first thought is to look it up in WP. What do you find? A list of search results and no match, like this. How does that help anyone? Will that reader be coming back to WP anytime soon?
Note that there at least two surname matches in that search, Burcu Dağ and Ekrem Dağ. They should be listed on the DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:BEFORE search would have turned those up. Narky Blert (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
..."Note that there at least two surname matches in that search, Burcu Dağ and Ekrem Dağ". That's all I needed to withdraw my opposition to the retarget to the disambiguation page. Let's either get those added to Dag, or convert the nominated redirect into a surname page (preferred). Steel1943 (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...Ha, or just retarget the nominated redirect to Dag (name) per Paradoctor below. If the surname articles are listed there, that we would resolve the issues I thought existed. Steel1943 (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer a dab page at the term, but would be ok with a redirect to a section of Dag (name). Paradoctor (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But all such entries on that disambiguation page would be partial title matches. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On name pages, that is a given. I don't see mass merging of name pages into non-name dabs. Paradoctor (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dag as {{R from diacritics}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dag (name)#Surname. The only encyclopedic topics that could by referred to by this precise title are Burcu and Ekrem, so targeting the entire disambiguation page for Dag (or creating a new one with almost only PTMs and dictionary definitions) would be an unnecessary waste of time for readers looking up this surname. I don't think anyone just randomly adds diacritics to their search query. Glades12 (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dag (name) considering that none of the topics on Dag contain the same diacritics. feminist (talk) 03:35, 1 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.

Geographic accident[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 21:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear why the reader would be expecting to find the target article if they look up this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as bizarre. The connection between natural geological processes and accidents escapes me. This could equally well redirect to the converse of mountain, oceanic trench. Narky Blert (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per 59.149.124.29's find, I've added accident (geology) to Glossary of geology#accident, wikt:accident, and accident (disambiguation)#Other uses, and changed my !vote accordingly. Paradoctor (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as seemingly nonsensical. The natural process of creating a mountain can hardly be considered an accident. Glades12 (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC), expanded 10:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's an actual technical term [1] much abused by non-specialists (e.g. the usages that Paradoctor found). It might deserve coverage somewhere on Wikipedia (maybe even its own article), but right now we have nowhere to send the reader. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:05, 29 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.

Take Him Out[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. With props to Narky Blert for adding {{R from song}}. The hatnote on the existing album article to Assassination is useful, so will add that post-close. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 16:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-target to Assassination, per recent news. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm ambivalent between Keep but put an informative hat-note at the top of the album article page and retarget and put a hat-note at the top of Assassination pointing back to the album article page. In any case, "per recent news" alone is not a good reason to retarget a redirect. Now, if the news is expected to cause a permanent change in how people think of the term, then yes, that would be grounds to redirect it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doubt people ever thought of the term as referring to this particular album. Not even a regular track. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as-is. Perfectly good {{R from song}}, though undercategorised. I cannot see why anything recent, which might come to nothing, and of which I haven't heard, should replace it. Narky Blert (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Narky Blert. If some article discusses the context in which whatever political figure said these three words, it can be added as a hatnote. If there's other stuff called Take Him Out, it can be turned into a dab page too (with a link to wikt:take him out), but right now the only thing I'm seeing is a couple of episodes of Take Me Out (Philippine game show) which get called "Take Him Out". Assassination definitely should not be a hatnote nor a link on any proposed dab page, as it fails WP:DABMENTION. Note also that the redirect was not tagged until now; I just tagged it. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:19, 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.

Take Her Out[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. No consensus as of now to anything other than keeping this redirect as-is with the {{R from song}} rcat. Similar to the above, the hatnote to Assassination will be added. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 16:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-target to Assassination, per recent news. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as-is - we shouldn't be making decisions based on what may be a flash-in-the-pan definition. Also, if you mean this it means "fire/terminate employment" not assassination. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Told to mob guys, it means assassination. Zero question. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as-is. Told to music fans, it means the song. A suggestion for a change explicitly based on WP:RECENTISM doesn't appeal to me. Narky Blert (talk) 21:21, 24 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.

Halo 7[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 31#Halo 7

Cynthia Palmer[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 21:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lemma as such not a subject of the given target, apart from being mentioned as one of several publishers. Hildeoc (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep useful search term. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I created these redirects (Michael Horowitz & Cynthia Palmer) 15 years ago when Wikipedia was young. If it was up to me there would be a "bot" which would go around changing all the pages with links to these two names and making them link to the Fitz Hugh Ludlow Memorial Library directly instead of using a redirect page. wayland (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Have to disagree with Wugapodes here. How many people are going to be searching for one non-notable founder of some obscure library, to find that library page? Delete as implausible search term and un/under-utilized. --Doug Mehus T·C 06:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:20, 24 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.

Feast of Maximum Occupancy[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 20:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, nor is any other feast. An internet search suggests that there is a Simpson's fandom joke surrounding "Feast of Maximum Occupancy", but I couldn't find any information about which episode it is supposed to come from. Delete unless a justification is provided or a more suitable target can be found. signed, Rosguill talk 20:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as plausible redirect. The cultural reference is from the named episode[2][3]. Best option is to add content to the target page so the {{R without mention}} tag can be removed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:25, 24 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.

Seth Hendrickson[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. MBisanz talk 22:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SethBling's real name isn't given at the target, so I don't think it makes sense to have a redirect purporting to be his real name pointing to that article. Delete unless mention of SethBling's name is added with appropriate sourcing. signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is not mentioned there, which Seth requested. However, many news articles, such as this one [[4]] refer to him by his real name. People who don't know this shouldn't learn about his real name by reading his article, but if someone already knows his real name from another news article and tries to type it in Wikipedia, they should be brought to the right article. Félix An (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Félix An: No. If Seth Hendrickson is to redirect to SethBling then there has to be a legitimate reason for it to do so and the article must mention it to avoid confusion by those following the redirect. If there is a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons reason for excluding the real name from the article then the redirect must be deleted. The status quo is not satisfactory. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have a WP:RS source (published by Norstedts förlag) giving his name, but there's a note in the article saying "as subject has requested, no full name should be added per WP:BLPPRIVACY". Narky Blert (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; obviously useful but BLP as one of the highest policies on a hypothetical hierachy list states, first sentence: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page [Emphasis theirs]. BLPPRIVACY backs that up. J947 (c), at 04:05, 31 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.

Private life[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 Private Life. signed, Rosguill talk 21:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-target to Private Life, which is a disambiguation page. There was a recent RM at Talk:Private Life (song), which concluded that there was no primary topic for the capitalised version of this phrase, and the disambiguation page is now at Private Life. I contend that there is no primary topic for the sentence case version either. Private sphere isn't really talking about private lives as such, and to be honest I'd have thought it more of a WP:DICDEF than an encyclopedic topic in its own right. Page view analysis shows that Private Life (2018 film) enjoys nearly three-quarters of all page views for any related topic, so for someone who types "private life" (in lower case), looking for the film, it would be better that they are redirected to the dab page than to the article Private sphere, two clicks away from their destination.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:01, 24 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.

Golden Child (2018 novel)[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. MBisanz talk 22:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Target article says it was written in 2019, delete unless a justification is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; and because should disambiguation between novels ever be needed, the correct title under established practice would be Golden Child (Adam novel). Disambiguation by date is something of a last resort, because if you already know the date of publication you probably wrote the article you are reading. Narky Blert (talk) 20:46, 24 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.

Master (2019)[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. MBisanz talk 22:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This film was not released in 2019, seems like we can do without the redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 19:41, 24 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.

French reform[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. It appears that nobody is opposed to deletion. The rationale presented here is that there are multiple things that can be informally referred to as "French reform", "English reform", or "Spanish reform", and the list is too long and the uses of these terms too informal for a disambiguation to be the best solution. Deryck C. 00:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't unambiguously refer to language, could also refer to French government reforms, or even the Reformed Church of France. Disambiguation may be feasible, but given the amount of possible targets deletion may be a better solution. signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one should be considered as well, although due to England being part of the United Kingdom, there are fewer governmental reforms that could plausibly be named "English reform". I'm going to relist this discussion to the current day to make adding both that and [[Spanish reform to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: early relist to make grouping easier
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. English reform is also ambiguous to Shavian alphabet, a proposed reform which never really got off the ground; even though one edition of Shaw's play Androcles and the Lion was published using it by Penguin Books. Narky Blert (talk) 20:56, 24 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.

Crap Bag, etc[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. All but one. MBisanz talk 22:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it's entirely possible that these redirects (or at least those capitalised correctly) are correctly targeted, they are slang, not mentioned in the article, and generally unencyclopaedic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Poo bag/rename to Poop bag which is the more common, everyday terminology for this bag. It is fairly commonly used in Kelowna and, likely, Canada as well. Add rcats "from misspelling" and "to alternative name" to Poo bag and "to alternative name" (or similar) to Poop bag. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Pee bag per rationale above
Delete the rest. Those should be the two or three most commonly used alternative names that we need. Doug Mehus T·C 17:50, 24 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.

Crapflooding[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 21:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:31, 24 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.

Biodegradeble Polymers[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 Biodegradable polymer. signed, Rosguill talk 21:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides there being There is no such list at the target article. there doesn't seems to be a completely helpful, precise target either. There are some options of possibilities, such as Polymer and Polymer degradation, but neither of them seem to provide such a list as identified in the title of this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion; favour dab-ification here, possibly titled Biodegradeable plastics, with this redirecting to the dab page? Failing that, I think the redirect target identified by Narky Blert is better than a keep, with one or two hatnotes to related articles. Keep could still be used as I disagree with nom's further reply referencing WP:HARMFUL essay, which is an interpretative essay, not a policy. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ..."Fine with keep"? Not all polymers are plastics, so "keep" makes no sense. In fact, plastics are known to be one of the slowest biodegrading polymers in existence... Steel1943 (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Steel1943 I disagree, respectfully. My understanding was all polymers were plastics. Nevertheless, I still think it can make sense as a "keep" because, to the layman's understanding, they regard polymer as being the technical term for plastic. We have lots of redirects for incorrect, non-neutral, synonym, and other names. The accuracy of the redirect doesn't have to be correct, if it provides the user to their intended destination. Doug Mehus T·C 16:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) I am rather unclear how Plastic could be the reader's intended destination when looking up this term when the article Polymer exists, and the concept of a biodegradable polymer is not exclusive to Plastic. The current setup pigeon-holes readers into thinking that plastics are the only biodegradable polymer, which is just not true. The present situation is an obvious WP:HARMFUL setup as just plainly erroneous. Steel1943 (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) (x2) Steel1943 Wouldn't the rcats R from incorrect name and R to related topic clarify this, if kept? Doug Mehus T·C 16:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Steel1943 Respectfully, I don't think WP:HARMFUL is appropriately applied here. This is a redirect, from an incorrect name. Nevertheless, the target identified by Narky is preferable to keeping. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      ...Yeah, that redirect didn't target I thought it did, and I cannot find what I was intending to link, so I went ahead and struck out that part of my previous comment. Steel1943 (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Steel1943 No problem, and it is a good discussion. I appreciate you bringing this to RfD and the patrolling you're doing. I still don't know what you meant by "make sure WP:THREAD is followed". If it's because I indent with a colon instead of an asterisk, I don't see the point as I've seen both done commonly. Arguably, this is an outdated policy that would likely be impossible to amend. If there's a functional reason why, I'm open to trying to focus on indenting with asterisks, but it's just so common (about 50/50) in terms of how editors indent their replies. Seems, to me, sort of like an WP:MOS thing the strictest MoS adhering editors like to guard is all I can see. To me, asterisks are for bullet points, not indentations. Even though it's a moot point as I favour retargeting per Narky Blert, I still don't get how WP:HARMFUL is correct. How is it demonstrably harmful to the reader, as a redirect from incorrect name? Doug Mehus T·C 17:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      ...Wow, I guess the second part of my edit did not save. The reason why it is a problem that the redirect targets where it currently targets is because the title of the redirect represents a topic that is targeting one of its subtopics; the current situation is akin to Basketball player as a redirect targeting Michael Jordan. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dmehus: It's an accessibility issue; MOS:LISTGAP. Just best to follow it. J947 (c), at 03:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to biodegradable polymer. Narky Blert (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) (x2) Narky Blert Okay, that's better than keeping. I still favour dab-ification here, but I will switch my preferred choices. Doug Mehus T·C 16:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Why is "disambiguate" even an option? This redirect is clearly a incorrectly capitalized version of an {{R from plural}} if it targeted Biodegradable polymer. Steel1943 (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to biodegradable polymer as fairly well used. J947 (c), at 03:49, 31 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.

Age of Plastics[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 Plastic pollution. signed, Rosguill talk 21:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target page doesn't seem to mention the word "age" in reference to the subject of the article, either by the age in years a plastic has existed after being made, or as an era of plastic itself. However, in the article, the era of the Middle Ages is referenced, but it's not completely clear if the section which it is referenced is a proper target for this redirect. Probably best to delete this redirect, especially given the ambiguity of the word "age", especially since plastics are known to take many, many years to decompose. Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this redirect is kept, the target should have a {{redirect}} hatnote pointing to The Age of Plastic, an album.
Not all plastics are slow to degrade. See e.g. Surgical suture#Materials, specifically the ones called absorbables. Narky Blert (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...@Narky Blert: Dang, you're right. I forget that a few years back, I got so excited about that new-ish type of plastic made primarily from corn/maize. Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 24 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.

Private house[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 21:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "private" is unclear on how it refers to its target exclusively over other subject, or for that matter, any specific subject at all. In other words, it is unclear and there's no evidence that this target is the subject readers are desiring to find when searching for this redirect's title. For that reason, delete so that Wikipedia's search function can do its job, or weak retarget to House as the closest title match. Steel1943 (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think it's unclear. A private house is one that is privately owned and that generally means it will be someone's home, even if they rent it. It stands in contrast to a building owned by a company or other public body. Bermicourt (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bermicourt. I disagree, respectfully, with nom's rationale. Whether mentioned in the target or not, there can be a case for keeping redirects (perhaps with {{R from synonym}} (or similar) if the likely destination is clear. In this case, it is, and, as WilyD et al. and others have articulated in recent RfDs, if it gets the user/patron to the desired article, or to a dab page, we should be keeping it. In this case, a dab page is unnecessary. Doug Mehus T·C 16:32, 24 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.

Private residence[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 21:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "private" is unclear on how it refers to its target exclusively over other subject, or for that matter, any specific subject at all. In other words, it is unclear and there's no evidence that this target is the subject readers are desiring to find when searching for this redirect's title. For that reason, delete so that Wikipedia's search function can do its job, or weak retarget to Residence as the closest title match. Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Again I don't think it's unclear. A private residence is clearly one that is privately owned and a residence is someone's home, even if they rent it. It stands in contrast to a hotel or other collective accommodation e.g. a nursing home. Bermicourt (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments above and Bermicourt. I would, however, add an rcat {{R from synonym}} (or similar) to the subject redirect. Similar to my comments above, I respectfully disagree that it's unclear: it's very clear what the user/patron is wanting. Home is a perfectly acceptable article. The only other possibility would be House, but, perhaps per WP:TWODABS, it's likely unnecessary here as we could just add hatnotes on the target pages. Doug Mehus T·C 16:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Residence is complete drivel, and should itself be redirected to Home, with a disam page for the tax etc senses. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 26 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.

Christopher Wilson (reporter)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 31#Christopher Wilson (reporter)

Sheila Gunn Reid[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) 16:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. Implausible search term. No indication of the context in which the subject is related to the target. Doug Mehus T·C 13:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to lack of mention. signed, Rosguill talk 21:04, 24 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.

Adolf Hitler Campbell[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 Heath Hitler. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name is not mentioned on the target article. Therefore I suggest deletion. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BDD, thanks. That works, and is more specific as it relates to people. --Doug Mehus T·C 15:40, 24 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.

Head of the household[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. Quick close as the page is no longer a redirect. Rightfully so, it has been converted to a disambiguation page. I recommend all editors work to improve the disambig page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this redirect is not the subject of the target article. In fact, for example, in the United States, this term has a specific meeting that relates to federal taxes. It's probably best to delete this per WP:REDLINK unless a more specific target can be found. Steel1943 (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the tax filing status has an article: Head of Household (called by that name on tax forms and in the section headings of the Internal Revenue Code; see e.g. 26 U.S.C. § 2(b)). "Head of the household" is also a concept under family register systems (e.g. hoju in Korea) and in other cultures as well (e.g. Kyrios). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate There's lots of potential uses. WP:REDLINK is a reasonable rationale, but this can be accomplished through the redlink(s) at the dab page. --Doug Mehus T·C 13:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Preliminary dab page created, with preliminary blue- and red-links, at the subject page. Feel free to add to or clean up as desired (looks, particularly, at dab page fixer Narky Blert, as well as others, of course). Doug Mehus T·C 14:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft DAB page edited. Narky Blert (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That looks better, I think. Doug Mehus T·C 14:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support all the suggestions proposed by Narky Blert. Doug Mehus T·C 14:27, 24 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.

Domestic architecture[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 31#Domestic architecture

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_24&oldid=939041856"