Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 7, 2020.

Nicolas Po[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. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 21:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be an alternative name for the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 22:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. ULAN has an authoritative list of variants of the name; Nicolas Po is not among them. Ewulp (talk) 01:14, 8 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.

Midel[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 procedural close, redirect converted to article. signed, Rosguill talk 02:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Midel is only mentioned in a coatrack fashion as a collaborator of Khea's. I would suggest deletion, as the redirect is not particularly helpful and it's not clear that mentioning Midel at the target is DUE. signed, Rosguill talk 22:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer a redirect. ~SML • TP 02:09, 8 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.

How to tie-dye[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 15#How to tie-dye

4680[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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Disambguation is an excellent solution (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No primary topic, since could also mean Round One Corporation (based on its Tokyo Stock Exchange symbol). UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but change into a disambiguation page, as I have just carried out. Thanks for making us aware of the ambiguity. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:18, 7 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.

Galactic Marines[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 19:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 30#Galactic Marine. Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 7 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.

Jacques Désormeaux[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 Timeline of the Front de libération du Québec. -- Tavix (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, an internet search didn't seem to turn up anything relevant. Delete unless a justification is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 7 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.

Latinos[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 Hispanic and Latino Americans. -- Tavix (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Hispanic and Latino Americans. A quick perusal of incoming links shows most using "Latinos" to refer to the ethnic group, not the terminology. This is consistent with using plural demonyms in general to refer to people groups. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. @Sangdeboeuf:, Latinas and Latina, the Spanish feminine plural and singular, also target Latino. Perhaps they should be added to the nomination, or is it too late?
At least "Latina" also seems to be linked mostly for the ethnic group, though there are many incorrect uses where Latina, Lazio is intended.
Also considering the text at Latino#Criticism, these could be categorized as {{R from non-neutral name}}, but that doesn't make sense vif the term "Latino" itself is not neutral.
I remember having some qualms about these when copy-editing "Equal Pay Day" a few weeks ago. But I did nothing about it, then. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a retargeting of Latinas as well. Not sure how to properly format the nomination after the fact, though. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (again). I've gone through the links for Latina and fixed the articles that should have linked to Latina, Lazio or elsewhere. There were quite a few of them. This redirect has been retargeted a few times over the years, but not with any discussion after 2009 that I could find. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
I've gone ahead and added the requested redirect while relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 08:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget (was Keep) to separate targets identified by, or similar to, as necessary, per the IP user but add the suggested {{R from non-neutral name}} Rcat (1st choice), though would support a weak retarget as a 2nd choice as well, provided it's without prejudice to retargeting in the future. I just don't see a strong retarget case here. Doug Mehus T·C 03:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus: you say Keep per the IP user, but I don't see where the IP user has made an argument for keeping the redirect as is. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sangdeboeuf: Oops, you're right, it was confusing the way I !voted. I've clarified my !vote. Basically, retarget Latinos to Latino#Criticism with Rcats for non-neutral name and to section and Latinas to an applicable target (i.e., Latina and an applicable section). Doug Mehus T·C 15:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sangdeboeuf: Latinas, I see, is a redirect to Latino. Why do we have an article for Latino but not Latina? Failing that, I would support a retarget both per nom, but should we still add non-neutral name and section Rcats? That is, would you have any opposition to that, or is it not necessary in this context? --Doug Mehus T·C 15:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally don't think {{R from non-neutral name}} is warranted in either case. As I understand it, the Hispanic–Latino naming dispute comes down to one name or the other being more factually appropriate. Have Latina or Latino been described as pejorative or offensive? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sangdeboeuf Oh, it's refreshing to hear you say that as, personally, I don't find the terms offensive. I think it depends on the context in which it is used. If someone is just describing the person's ethnic heritage in a neutral context, then there should be no problem. I guess was I just trying to be ultra P.C. as I assumed Wikipedia tried to be that so that's why I suggested non-neutral name. Given that, I don't think we need a non-neutral name Rcat then. Note, too, to the closer, that if a subsequent redirect target presents itself, I'm supportive of that as well. In short, I don't have strong feelings either way. Doug Mehus T·C 21:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus: That's fine, but you suggested retargeting to Latino#Criticism. Grammatically, Latinos is just the plural of Latino. Why would we redirect the former to a section about criticism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Hispanics and Latinos redirects to Hispanic and Latino Americans, and has been more or less stable. I think it makes sense for the individual terms Hispanics and Latinos to point to the same target. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:04, 18 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.

Orcan[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 21:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This word isn't used in the target (though "orkan" is), and most Google results seem to refer to other topics. There are some sources (and some Wikipedia articles) that refer to "orcan" as a synonym for the target, but I haven't been able to find anything substantial enough to add it to this article or any other. Given the absence of useful content and the likelihood that a reader who searches for this is looking for something else entirely, I think we might be best off deleting this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 08:26, 7 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_7&oldid=936440850"