Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 31, 2020.

St. Louis Exchange[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 16:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete St. Louis Exchange because the hotel article to which it is redirected has nothing to do with the old St. Louis Exchange. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:53, 31 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.

Wendell and Wild (version 2)[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 resolved by finishing the round robin move, moving Wendell and Wild (version 2) to Wendell and Wild (film) without leaving a redirect. Anthony Appleyard, "version 2" redirects are undesired and appear frequently enough at RfD, please finish these moves with a swap. -- Tavix (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think this content should have been preserved (histmerge?) as early contributions to Wendell and Wild, but if histmerge is not possible then I see no reason to keep this page. Please see talk page discussion for more. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there isn't a purpose for this version. Cardei012597 (Talk) 18:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, that is all good, Another Believer is only saying "the redirect titled Version 2" does not need to exist and should be deleted. Cardei012597 (talk) 22:47, 31 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.

Template:Infobox missile[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. signed, Rosguill talk 16:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People who will use this as an alias of {{Infobox weapon}} will be heavily confused. Retarget to {{Infobox weapon}}. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 16:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unless there is evidence of this being used incorrectly I've missed, yes its theoretically ambiguous but that doesn't matter in template space and it is currently being transcluded on an article (Nike Smoke) where the target infobox is the correct one. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at themissile articles like Blue Streak (missile), Black Knight (rocket), Hermes (missile program), etc. that are using {{Infobox rocket}} instead of {{Infobox weapon}}. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that relevant to this redirect? Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will say that a rocket is not a missile and a missile is not a rocket. Particularly, not all missiles are rocket based, there are a very many missiles that are not rockets, such as all cruise missiles, which are usually jet based. If this is for missiles it is using the wrong box, because, it could be using a jet engine instead of a rocket motor. All missiles are weapons systems, but many rockets are not weapons. -- 70.51.44.93 (talk) 01:44, 27 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 21:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Among other things, arrows, javelins, slingshots, bullets, and shot and shell are missiles, and none of those has anything to do with rockets. Narky Blert (talk) 06:37, 1 August 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.

IPhone 12[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. signed, Rosguill talk 16:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The consensus on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhone 12 was delete, so how does this page still exist as a redirect? And yes, while this redirect will technically help the user, when iPhone 9 was nominated for deletion, instead of being redirected to List of iOS devices#iPhone, which would have also been a helpful redirect, especially since the iPhone 9 was page being visited more than the iPhone 12 page, it was deleted. Delete until a justification can be provided. the ultraUsurper 06:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created the redirect in my editorial capacity after deleting the article, but I'm also fine with deleting it if people here prefer that. Sandstein 06:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no iPhone 12 at that list, so this redirect is misleading and unhelpful. -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You just hijacked my discussion lol. I didn't even know you could do that, as i had withdrawn it. Add the redirect nomination thing on the iPhone 12 page as i'm too lazy.the ultraUsurper 16:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't tell for sure, because it sounded like you still wanted to delete it. If I am wrong about that, let me know and we can get it stricken. As for the tagging, the redirect page is fully protected so you wouldn't be able to tag it anyway. I'll get that taken care of now. -- Tavix (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my extensive rationale at the previous discussion. I remain convinced that this is by far the best way to help our readers. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 24 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 21:29, 31 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.

Woman-killer[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. This can't be history-merged due to parallel histories, but I have verified that nothing from the merge remains at the target (it was removed back in 11 November 2005 after being added 28 October 2005.) -- Tavix (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A minor historical name of this figure. However, the subject is not thing readers searching for this would expect to find. See WP:ASTONISH. This was originally a stub merged into the Custer article, so this should be history merged and deleted. The history needs to be kept for attribution purposes, but this is not a useful redirect. Hog Farm Bacon 19:46, 23 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 21:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Femicide is not an appropriate target because woman-killer doesn't imply killing women because they are women—the definition of femicide. (t · c) buidhe 01:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – to me this seems more likely to be a misnomer of Lady Killer, but the articles listed at that dab page consistently avoid using "woman" so it doesn't seem like it would be appropriate to redirect there. signed, Rosguill talk 16:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly weak delete, Lady Killer (like Rosguill above me) seemed to be my first choice of thought, but I'm not sure about retargeting there, since it doesn't mention "woman." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic678 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 9 August 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.

21st-century Quran[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete No participants seem to have identified any strong actual use of this term to describe this particular edition. An inaccurate nickname like this could be justified if there's actual significant usage with this specific meaning, but without it the redirect is held to be generally misleading. ~ mazca talk 19:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, not clear why a 1924 edition would be considered 21st century. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep The target section says this edition is used in almost all the Muslim world today. That explains why this would be called "21st-century Quran", though whether it should be is a different question. Most Google results I'm seeing are about 21st-century translations. I'll notify WikiProject Islam for input. --BDD (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the current target says, the 1924 version is a scholarly consensus about the original Qur'an text, which has unfortunately fuelled the popular misbelief "that the Qur’an has a single, unambiguous reading". In other words, there's nothing particularly "21st century" about this edition and Wikipedia will be fuelling the popular misbelief if we accepted this new redirect. Deryck C. 22:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A 21st-century Quran would simply be a Quran published in the 21st century. Per Deryck, that isn't necessarily the 1924 version, nor are any other editions popularly called "21st-century Quran" AFAICT. -- Tavix (talk) 18:45, 9 August 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.

Brokenbridge, Colorado[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 16:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be implausible. Same creator as Kmountain Dew below. Hog Farm Bacon 20:18, 31 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.

Kmountain Dew[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 16:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible error. Nobody's gonna add a k to the beginning of this. Hog Farm Bacon 20:14, 31 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.

Lemsip Armpit[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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a disparaging nickname, no mention at the target nor in an internet search. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It is an insulting nickname; I've come across it before, when he was an MP, i.e. up to 2010. I found one mention in a decent source; but in an parody piece by Hugo Rifkind, allegedly quoting a cab driver: link, from The Times (2006). Narky Blert (talk) 18:38, 31 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.

Alfred Gyan[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 18:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate page. Same as Alfred Ekow Gyan. Currently a redirect has been placed on both pages Ampimd (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close nominator converted the former article Alfred Gyan into a redirect to Alfred Ekow Gyan an hour before this nomination. That makes it a perfectly good {{R from duplicate article}}, just needs to be cleaned up. Don't see that there's anything else we need to discuss here either - the choice to convert the duplicate article into a redirect appears entirely uncontroversial - it had been marked as needing a merge since April. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep legitimate redirect, remove all the other text from the page, and remove merge tag from Alfred Ekow Gyan. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:55, 4 August 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 Members of Congress who have represented Erie, Pennsylvania[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 8#List of Members of Congress who have represented Erie, Pennsylvania

Medium Rarities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 8#Medium Rarities

Untitled Fred Hampton project[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 7#Untitled Fred Hampton project

God's Own Village[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 17:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed the unsourced assertion that the target is nicknamed this. Given that it's unsourced, this is not a suitable redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Good spot. This redirect from such a generic term to a specific subject shouldn't exist, and it is original research. Zindor (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:52, 1 August 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.

El Pozolero[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 17:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear mention of "Pozolero" in either English or Spanish WP, including this English target and the corresponding Spanish article. Bizarrely, Serbo-Croatian (and also Serbian) WP has articles about sh:El Pozolero, Bella Vista and sh:El Pozolero, Motozintla, two villages in Mexico. I could find nothing else, except a mention of a defunct baseball team Pozoleros de Jalisco (see Charros de Jalisco); and possibly also basketball team with the same name (see es:Circuito Mexicano de Básquetbol. Neither Wiktionary (both English and Spanish) nor Google Translate recognise "pozolero" as a word. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 15:52, 31 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.

Justine Sacco[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 7#Justine Sacco

A-double-flat minor[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 Theoretical key#The need to consider theoretical keys. signed, Rosguill talk 17:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enharmonical equivalents not mentioned at target, but listed at Theoretical key#The need to consider theoretical keys. Propose retargeting. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:06, 31 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.

Solid electrolyes[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 17:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a common misspelling of "electrolyte". rayukk | talk 10:36, 31 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.

Dungu River, Romania[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 restore article. signed, Rosguill talk 17:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Old stubs for those rivers were redirected by user:Markussep stating "not sure this river exists".[1][2] The target article Zizin formerly stated "It starts at the confluence of headwaters of the Dungu and Dobromiru rivers" but this was removed by Markussep, replacing the original citations.[3] The article no longer mentions Dungu or Dobromiru. – Fayenatic London 09:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. ro:Râul Zizin says that it arises from the confluence of ro:Râul Dungu and ro:Râul Dobromiru, but all three articles are unsourced stubs. Not mentioned in our article Zizin, therefore useless redirects. No evidence of passing WP:NGEO, which could justify keeping as {{R with possibilities}}. Narky Blert (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Markussep had a lot of hasty redirections which resulted in many confusing and misleading redirects to surprising targets. If Markussep believed the river does not exist, then why would we have a redirect that implies that a river does exist? Restoring the article fixes the hasty redirection problem, and if someone thinks there shouldn't be an article on the subject river, the place to discuss that would be AfD. -- Tavix (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore exactly per Tavix. There are dozens of these in this can of worms. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:18, 4 August 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.

Back to Me (Mariah Hill and Lauren Jauregui song)[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The songwriting duo is called Marian Hill, not "Mariah Hill". This typo redirect will confuse readers if it pops up in the search box. NØ 09:21, 31 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.

Dragon One[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 7#Dragon One

Pakistani empire[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 17:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally created as a frivolous hoax page later redirected ambiguously to another article, retargeted by another sock and his IP (isn't/wasn't mentioned in any of the targets). Gotitbro (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as misleading. The word "Pakistan" was coined as recently as 1933 (see Pakistan#Etymology), and Pakistan is not and has never been an imperial power. Narky Blert (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Nothing but a hoax. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:50, 1 August 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.

Rolf (fictional only)[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 17:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This particular Rolf redirect does not specifically mention Ed, Edd n Eddy like its counterparts. It is a redirect from an implausible search term and should be removed. — Paper Luigi T • C 01:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Rolf#Fictional characters (this Rolf isn't the only character with that name, but I'm not sure someone would search with "fictional only") or delete-this doesn't appear to be a very likely disambiguator someone would use to search their intended target, also ambiguous. Regards, SONIC678 05:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to ambiguity and the bizarre disambiguator. Hog Farm Bacon 20:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible search term. Troll Control (talk) 05:39, 2 August 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_31&oldid=972024749"