Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 13[edit]

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

Cherry Pie Productions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 21#Cherry Pie Productions

Dachau[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 Dachau concentration camp. The consensus for restoring the redirect is a bit weak, but it is also the status quo ante, and is thus the option that we would default to even if this was no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 22:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A German-speaking IP editor has been edit-warring this redirect to point to Dachau, Bavaria instead of Dachau concentration camp, so it might be worth establishing consensus. Along with the two main dabs, there are some minor ones listed at Dachau (disambiguation). (t · c) buidhe 15:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Dachau concentration camp (its original target). The concentration camp gets more than ten times as many pageviews as the town. It is not a WP:PTM issue, because the camp is frequently called "Dachau" on its own, eg "He survived Dachau". (When the article on the town was located at "Dachau", many of the incoming links intended the camp as a target). The vast majority of Google Books results for "Dachau", including all of the first thirteen, refer to the concentration camp, under such titles as "Dachau 29 April 1945: The Rainbow Liberation Memoirs", "The Bitter Road to Dachau", and "Dachau: The Harrowing of Hell" (e.g. not listing "concentration camp" in the name.) Therefore a primary redirect is appropriate. (t · c) buidhe 15:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whilst it was a dab yesterday, I resolved Dachau's incoming links. Results:
Making Dachau a disambiguation page again might be reasonable. Certes (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore original target (Dachau concentration camp) per buidhe with a hatnote to the dab page. Very clear primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until the day before yesterday Dachau contained the article of the city and linked to Dachau concentration camp and Dachau (disambiguation), which lists the other objects. So your "original target" ist just wrong. Dachau ist the main topic, the KZ (that undoubtlty has ists big history value) has to have its own topic. Moving Dachau, Bavaria back to Dachau (with the disambiguation link) is the reasonable action to take.--91.37.127.98 (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dachau concentration camp as the undoubted WP:PTOPIC in English. Most readers won't even know there's a town, and possibly not even which country it's in (I do - I've been on a train which mentioned it on the destination board). Hatnote as {{redirect|Dachau|other uses|Dachau (disambiguation)}}. Narky Blert (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dachau concentration camp, clearly the primary topic. Pichpich (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I hear where the German IP is coming from. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. We disambiguate Folsom even though most Americans not living in California think of Folsom State Prison (Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison, "Folsom Prison Blues"). How would the 72,000 residents of Folsom, California, where the median home price is $624,000 and the average household income at $102,692, feel about their town being secondary to its prison? The prison at San Quentin is the primary topic, but San Quentin, California only has 100 residents, far fewer than the 45,000 inhabitants of Dachau, Bavaria. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore original target (Dachau concentration camp) with a hatnote to the dab page per buidhe. I don't think how the townspeople of Dachau feel is as important as the fact that the vast majority of English readers are thinking of KZ Dachau when they put Dachau into the searchbox. KZ Dachau is of far, far greater cultural importance to most English readers than the town. AmethystFloris (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So apparently German readers are thinking different thoughts when they use their search box: de:Dachau. Aren't English readers thinking of Guantanamo Bay detention camp when they search for Guantánamo or Guantánamo Bay? Pageviews suggest they are. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite possibly. We are only interested here in what readers of the English Wikipedia are looking for and there are many examples where the primary topic for a given search term differs between languages. e.g. Soleil here is a disambiguation page but fr:Soleil is the article about the sun. Budweiser is about the American beer while de:Budweiser is a disambiguation page, Reading is about the activity but de:Reading is about the town in England. Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See Talk:Guantánamo#Requested_move_10_July_2020 (t · c) buidhe 02:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And shouldn't Tule Lake be a disambiguation page instead of an article about an intermittent lake that dries up (disappears) seasonally, when Tule Lake National Monument beats it out in pageviews? wbm1058 (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Either be bold or nominate it for discussion, it's irrelevant here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per incoming links found by Certes and American analogy by wbm1058. Per WP:TPTM: The primary topic is "not what first comes to (your) mind". I would like to remark that the terminology "Restore original target" is misleading as Dachau has contained an article on the town for years. Dachau concentration camp may be primary by usage (in English-language sources), but Dachau, Bavaria is primary by long-term significance: it was founded in the 9th century and has a currently population of about 50,000, while the concentration camp has come and gone. Yes, people still write articles about the concentration camp today, but if Apple Inc. went bankrupt tomorrow people will still be writing about it for years; that doesn't mean it's the primary topic of Apple. The city is, of course, not as important as a common fruit, so I'm not arguing for it to be primary; I just think that a middle-of-the-road approach is best. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Primary topic means "the topic that most people using this search term are currently looking for", which in an English language context is the concentration camp by an order of magnitude or more. Apple, the fruit, is primary topic because most people searching for "Apple" in an English language context are looking for the fruit. The reason for this is because the goal is to get the greatest number of people to the content they are looking for as easily as possible. Primary disambiguation is only suited when there isn't a primary topic, because nobody gets to where they want to go without further effort, that is not the situation here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they are not. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My suggestion: Run a WP:DABTEST. Have a disambiguation page at the base title for a few months, and collect data on where people actually want to go when they reach the disambiguation page. WP:PTM is not binary. Dachau concentration camp gets more pageviews than Dachau, Bavaria, but the latter has a stronger affinity for the title "Dachau". The combined result of both effects is impossible to guess, so let's run a test and see where it takes us. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see related move discussion at Talk: Ohrdruf, Thuringia. (t · c) buidhe 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:53, 13 July 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.

TCL Communication[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An IP user removed this redirect with the rationale: "RE-USE TCL Communication is a different company than TCL Corporation or TCL Technology, TCL Communication is its own company. It has to be used for TCL COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LIMITED. http://tcl.com". Therefore, should this redirect be deleted or changed? It appears TCL Technology was originally called Telephone Communication Limited, but it does not appear that it was called TCL Communication. It does seem like there is a company called TCL Communication - probably a non-notable one, but this redirect does not really serve a purpose if it is more likely to create confusion than anything. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the quoted text above (ie the claim that they were different companies) was the 'article' that was created, and which is obviously not sufficient for an article. I just wanted to do my due diligence and provide a platform for the IP's claims - if you are correct (and I assume you are!) the redirect should remain. Thanks! ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 14:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is for now, as the revision written by the IP does not clearly meet notability guidelines. I would suggest that the IP try submitting a prospective article through WP:AfC. signed, Rosguill talk 22:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer – I've applied page protection to the redirect because editors kept removing the RfD tag. You should remove the protection as part of your close if it hasn't expired before then. signed, Rosguill talk 23:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "TCL Communication" is close enough to "TCL Corporation", and as the company manufactures telecommunication devices (i.e. phones), this is a reasonable mistake readers may make. feminist (talk) 03:24, 21 July 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.

Z-矩阵(化学)[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 19:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected speedy deletion (CSD A10), converted into this redirect instead. Per WP:R#DELETE, "redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created". The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. While I'm normally one of the strictest about not deleting article content at RfD, I cannot see any reason why this did not meet the A10 speedy deletion criteria - the title is a literal translation of our pre-existing target article, which has an interwiki redirect to zh:Z-矩阵 - the Chinese Wikipedia article about Z-matrix in the context of chemistry (the title isn't apparently ambiguous in Chinese). Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:RFOREIGN, this doesn't have a special connection to Chinese. This reasoning also applies to the disambiguator, just like with the deletion of Frozen (película de 2013) (which doesn't have a connection to Spanish) back in 2015. Regards, SONIC678 23:42, 15 July 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.

LLLLL[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 19:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ambiguous, could also refer to e.g Universal Product Code#Numbering or ASCII art Joseph2302 (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Lordy me, I think I first played Leisure Suit Larry when it was a DOS command-line adventure game called something like pornadv.com. No-one played graphical games using the CGA unless they liked a choice between RGB and various shades of purple. Narky Blert (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete shouldn't it be LSLLLL? LSL has Leisure Suit Larry as one of its entries. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delllllete per nom and the consensus at the discussion for DOAW. Similar to how the correct abbreviation for Diary of a Wimpy Kid is "DOAWK," the correct abbreviation for this game would be "LSLLLL," plus "LLLLL" is ambiguous as argued above. Regards, SONIC678 05:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the spirit of MOS:DABABBREV. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:39, 19 July 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.

Rp20[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 Racing Point RP20. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ambiguous, could easily be referring to e.g. Racing Point RP20. And not mentioned in target article. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change into disambiguation page. If the abbreviation has multiple meanings (as it apparently has), then let's change it into a disambiguation page, as is our normal procedure for such cases. We don't need a RfD for this. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:53, 13 July 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.

File:Dronaposter.JPG[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current name is ambiguous, since we also have Drona (2009 film) and Drona (2020 film). Kailash29792 (talk) 11:57, 13 July 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.

Deep vein thrombosis in lower limb (NOS)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 21#Deep vein thrombosis in lower limb (NOS)

Fuque[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sée the RfD of fucq. We do nôt néed mocque-Frençh vèrsion of "f**k". Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing about "fuque". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reatarget to Fugue (disambiguation) per Narky. I agree with Narky that the g and q can be confused with each other. If this will be retargeted, please only WP:GOLDLOCK it if people attempt to retarget it, the protection policy states that protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism (exceptions are mentioned at WP:PPINDEF. OcelotCreeper (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and since "fuque" ≠ "fugue". Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not an alternate spelling or euphemism. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fugue" is what came to my mind at first, but I can't decide whether retargetting to the disambiguation page is useful or not. feminist (talk) 03:22, 21 July 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.

Internet enabled phones[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vague term, could refer to multiple things like voice over IP, as phone does not exclusively mean mobile phone, also some feature phones also provide internet capabilities. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Internet phone redirects to Voice over IP. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:46, 17 July 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.

Subrata roy (author)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 25#Subrata roy (author)

Blue Gold Yellow[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. Deryck C. 02:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to refer to a conspiracy theory associated with the subject on a Chinese plot to undermine the US. It's not, however, mentioned at the target. I would suggest deletion unless a duly-sourced mention can be added to the target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless a mention is added. There are lots of hits but they all seem to be about things that are blue and yellow/gold where "yellow" and "gold" are effectively synonyms (flags, national colours, blue-and-yellow macaw, etc) or where the words appear near each other (e.g. The dress), none of which make a good target for this search term. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding another similar redirect created by the same editor a few days after the first one. signed, Rosguill talk 17:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this since a new redirect was added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:07, 13 July 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.

Complete List of all other Helix Appearances[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the "complete list" thing, this redirect is kinda confusing, as it uses "other," and doesn't specify which specific appearances of the Helix (which Helix, anyway?) in Heroes it's meant to exclude. Plus, this redirect would more appropriately target something related to the TV show than its current target. The closest target I could find was Mythology of Heroes#Helix, but I'm not 100% sure about retargeting there (although I think it should go there if it's worth keeping). Maybe delete or retarget to the above alternative target? Regards, SONIC678 00:33, 13 July 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_July_13&oldid=969467752"