Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 3, 2020.

The black ghostbuster[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 22:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty ridiculous title, or even search term. uKER (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not sure what this has to do with the target. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 00:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - @Prahlad balaji: Presumably because he's a Ghostbuster who is black. But stats show that this is hardly getting any hits at all, so evidently people don't find that helpful. I'm... not really surprised by that, although there is precedent for this sort of thing at The one with the whales. --NYKevin 04:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this thing per nom and low pageviews, plus it's kinda ambiguous with Leslie Jones' character from the 2016 remake. Regards, SONIC678 04:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clutters up the page as it isn't that helpful. Plus there is more than one black ghostbuster such as Leslie Jones. Captain Galaxy (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sonic678 and Captain Galaxy. 21 total pageviews in the last 90 days only shows that this redirect is useless. --im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 11:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21 views in 90 days is a very significant number for a redirect (21 views in a year is significant!) and shows that this a well-used redirect. However, as pointed out above this is ambiguous between (at least) the current target and the character played by Michael K. Williams in the 2016 film (about which there is no article). There does exist List of Ghostbusters characters, but that article is unillustrated and while the word black does appear three times it is only in the phrases "black magic" (twice) and "black slime" so someone arriving there will not find what they are looking for, and I haven't found anything else. Delete solely for the lack of a good target, because this is evidently a plausible and well-used search term but we have got nothing suitable to give searchers. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 9 June 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.

Brooke Butler (actress)[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 Brooke Butler. signed, Rosguill talk 22:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actress and singer from Chicken Girls, which meant she has only role. And also, this title relates to previously deleted article Brooke Butler (actor). TheMuscovian (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This should be a page rather than a redirect? This Brooke Butler appears in various pages, but every time the links redirect to a list of characters, not to an actual person (see Brooke Butler). Is an iMDB page enough source to create a WP page? I've never created one before but I'm willing to try! TVI1690075 (talk) 07:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: Should we consider this section for merging with the non-bracketed section below? --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 18:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible search term which currently appears at target article. No reason to delete. CycloneYoris talk! 02:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: N.b., There is a draft article at Draft:Brooke Butler (actor).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:33, 3 June 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.

Ahri[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 and retargeted to K/DA. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of League of Legends is that it has a lot of characters. Appropriately, per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE, most aren't mentioned, and have been periodically deleted at RfD. This one stuck out to me since it's in a hatnote, blocking access to an organization known as AHRI. I wouldn't recommend retargeting to the organization, given the capitalization. BDD (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per above. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 00:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never would've guessed there would be something like K/DA, but that's clearly a suitable target. Thanks! --BDD (talk) 14:46, 4 June 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.

Rtd studies of plug flow reactor[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 22:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links here, and it's a miscapitalisation of a badly-titled fork of Plug flow reactor model Slashme (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Implausible search term. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 00:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though we shouldn't normally delete redirects created from a page move, this is an exception, as the target article was moved 3 days after creation, therefore it's unlikely that deleting this will break anything. The very low 38 total pageview count in the last 90 days is proof that this redirect is unnecessary. --im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 11:55, 9 June 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.

Wikipedia:MIXEDCAPS[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 11#Wikipedia:MIXEDCAPS

!vote[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 11#!vote

Thomas K. Lane[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 22:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am calling for the deletion of this redirect.

Lane is the potentially the subject of a standalone article. In my experience it is both confusing and misleading to redirection to a closely related topic. It is confusing for other contributors. When they find it is a bluelink they may include a wikilink to it in the same sentence as a wikilink to what it redirects to. It is confusing to other contributor who are mislead by the bluelink into thinking an article on Thomas K. Lane already exists.

This practice is terribly confusing and misleading to our readers, as well. They could click on both Thomas K. Lane and Killing of George Floyd, and be dissatisfied by the wikipedia's repetitiveness - not realizing that, due to the bad choice of the redirector, they had ended up reading the same article twice.

While this is a bad practice, in general, in this particular case it is compounded by the rediretor(s) mis-use of the only partially supported technique of constructing a wikilink to a subsection heading within another article.

This technique is widely used, in the wikipedia namespace. The technique has proponents for its use within article space. Proponents of this technique, who understand its several serious pitfalls, wrote wikidocuments about how to use it in ways that they think avoid the pitfalls.

Those safeguards are universally ignored.

Those guidelines call on anyone who uses a wikilink to a subsection in another article to then go to that article, edit that section, and insert special anchor metadata around the section heading. No one who uses wikilinks to subsection headings ever does this and it wasn't done this time.

Three different contributors have used three different targets here:

  • Keep; a huge amount of people will be searching this up – far more than those finding this via a link. This redirect should not be linked in ambiguous scenarios as per the nominator, but it should be extremely helpful otherwise. — J947 [cont] 21:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; linkings of both the article and the redirect at one place should be corrected, but the redirect is a very plausible search term for readers and as such aids navigation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC) (and modified at 10:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep per above, and use {{Visible anchor}} on the names in the target section so we can Refine to Killing of George Floyd#Thomas K. Lane and not have to worry about the section name changing. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Currently typing Thomas Lane George Floyd into the search box gives Thomas Lane the disambiguation page, and Killing of George Floyd as the first and second hit. Why isn't this sufficient?
If they are confused as to which killing of an unarmed black man Lane was involved with, and type "Thomas Lane" Ferguson, the Killing of George Floyd is still the third hit.
So I am concerned as to how your arguments for likely search term are based on how our search mechanism works. Geo Swan (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geo Swan I have made a link from "Thomas Lane" (the dab page) to "Thomas K. Lane" (the redirect being discussed). Hopefully that does the trick. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 15:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: "Why isn't it sufficient": Why would we make the process more complicated for readers and delete a redirect for no apparent reason? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think retargeting to Thomas Lane is a good compromise for both sides. The dab still mentions the George Floyd killing, so anyone who is searching for that Thomas Lane involved in the killing will still find it. And I don't think he is the only Thomas Lane with a K as his middle initial, so retargeting to the dab would also solve the problem of ambiguity. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:56, 11 June 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.

Vyrl[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 12#Vyrl

FanBook[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. Deryck C. 15:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Looking this up online, I came across this website, but I wasn't able to find any connection to SM Entertainment. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—Relisting. Captain Galaxy (talk) 10:24, 12 June 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.

Skuld (old disambiguation)[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 20:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This thing was left over from a move in September 2005 to help direct people to their intended targets (the Norn or disambiguation page?), and a bunch of its history after that consists of fixing double redirects. I'm not sure how useful this is now, but I'm also wondering if it still might be worth keeping. As such, I'm thinking it should either be deleted or retargeted wherever appropriate... Regards, SONIC678 19:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Clutter and not getting pageviews. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per. This redirect has served its purpose and is no longer useful. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 00:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm just going to clarify what actually happened here, mostly because after working it all out, my head is hurting and I don't want anyone else to have to do so again. So, we have three pages of relevance here: Skuld (old disambiguation), Skuld (disambiguation), and Skuld. All three of them date to early September 2005. At that time, the first was a disambig page (with the disambiguation parenthetical in its title), the third was an article (with a different parenthetical), and the second was briefly a redirect from the tagless name to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but was then converted into another disambig page, by the same user who created the first(???). This discrepancy was noticed fairly quickly, and the first page was turned into an {{R to disambiguation page}}. Towards the end of September, it was apparently decided that the third page was actually the primary topic and it got moved to the tagless name accordingly. At the same time, the second got moved to the (disambiguation) name, which necessitated moving the first out of the way (to "old disambiguation"). Whew! So in summary, this probably should have been WP:G6'd in 2005 or thereabouts, and I'm still a bit confused about why it was even created in the first place. --NYKevin 08:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well done NYKevin. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:58, 6 June 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.

German causalties in World War I[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 speedily deleted by Fastily. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likely mispelling, but unsure if it should be kept. German casualties in World War I does not exist as a redirect, but seems like a better name for redirection. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:34, 3 June 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.

Blaze (2022 film)[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 20:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect left from a page move to correct a misspelling of "Blade (2022 film)". Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Slightly weak delete. While the D and Z keys are really close to each other on a keyboard, and I can see "blade" or "blaze" as a kind of plausible error, this thing only got a grand total of five pageviews since July 2015 (all of them since 2019), and the disambiguation page Blaze doesn't list any 2022 films by that title. Regards, SONIC678 19:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 00:15, 4 June 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.

Abdul Matin Chowdhury, Shaikh-e-Fulbari[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 20:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly is this going to serve as a redirect. Shaikh-e-Fulbari may help however. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 14:15, 3 June 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.

Units of length with number 1[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 and refine to specific relevant sections. signed, Rosguill talk 19:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've retargeted the similar redirects from micro-, milli-, centi-, and decimeter to the articles about the units, but it seems there was consensus to redirect them to that list? If this is the case, they should point to sections. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is very likely somebody would search these up for various purposes. It wouldn't hurt to keep them and could be quite handy. Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & refine all to the appropriate "#1 ___ometre" section. I feel like explicitly typing "1" before the unit indicates that a reader is not just looking for the unit itself (in which case they could have typed the bare unit); in the event that they were, each section has an appropriate onward link. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine all to the appropriate "1 foometer" ("1 foometre" in UK spelling) section per 59.149.124.29. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:33, 5 June 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 Liberian Americans[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 20:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No list of Liberian Americans at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:16, 3 June 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.

Even parity[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 12#Even parity

Wikipedia:-IZE[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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling/Words ending with "-ise" or "-ize". (non-admin closure) Sam-2727 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling/Words ending with "-ise" or "-ize" or rather to an existent section of the current target? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:58, 3 June 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.

Circumorbital 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 keep. signed, Rosguill talk 20:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These adjectives currently redirect to a particular use, but I'm not sure that's entirely appropriate given they have general-purpose meanings. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion, as all these terms redirect to an article that describes then well enough to be useful to the reader. I haven't been able to find better general article(s) where these terms are described, but would be happy to consider such as new redirect targets. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is the best target. These are anatomical terms that are primarily used in describing reptiles and fish. The equivalent locations in humans have other names (periorbital, supraorbital, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 3 June 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.

Elendur son of Isildur[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 20:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only mention on the Wikipedia is at List of fictional last words in ""Forgive me, and my pride that has brought you to this doom." — Isildur in Unfinished Tales (J. R. R. Tolkien, 1980), to his son Elendur before attempting to escape the battle of the Gladden Fields with the One Ring.[13]" I don't think that content is helpful to anyone searching for information about this incredibly minor fictional figure. Hog Farm (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an implausible search term. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 02:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I admit I actually said "who?" on seeing this. Not mentioned at target, nor should it be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That anchor and retarget would be for Isildur, who spoke the last words, not Elendur. So Delete remains the only option with any argument for it (and including nom, there would be three !votes already for Delete). Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: Why WP:!votes and not WP:votes? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of the Wiki-consensus procedures are pure vote-counts, it's always by argument, which in this case is pretty much all on one side really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless, essentially no information about this person on WP or likely to be added. buidhe 18:39, 3 June 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.

Martuni, Azerbaijan[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 20:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to determine whether Martuni is an alternate name for Yeni Göyçə. I am able to determine that Yeni Göyçə is an alternate name for Saler which oddly is a separate article. I suggest that unless there is positive evidence they're the same, the redirect is deleted as ambiguous (see Martuni disambiguation page). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I too was unable to find a correspondence between the town of Yeni Göyçə and places named Martuni. It certainly isn't in Müräkkäb quruluşlu Azärbaycan toponimläri (2008) [Azerbaijani toponyms with complex structure]. --Bejnar (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I went back and checked the history of the redirect and the cited database at GEOnet Names Server refers to Martuni as an alternate name for Günəşli, Shamkir, which is nearby Yeni Göyçə. I have added that to the Martuni disambiguation page. However, because this entry is ambiguous, I still opt for delete and let the disambiguation page do its job. --Bejnar (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is not an alternate name for Yeni Göyçə. It is the former name of the nearby village Günəşli, Shamkir. See Update above. It appears, from the history section of the redirect that we are discussing, that a series of edits to a former article resulted in a misidentification when it went from article status to a redirect. Check it out.  --Bejnar (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
>The reason to delete is that the term is ambiguous, there is more than one place that it could refer to. However, none of them is Yeni Göyçə. The disambiguation page at Martuni works just fine as a navigational aid. --Bejnar (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove retargeting given the ambiguity. Hzh (talk) 16:13, 4 June 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.

Opteon[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 Hydrofluoroolefin. as most plausible target Deryck C. 15:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a duly sourced mention can be added. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link from refrigerant. I suppose I could reference the Chemours web site, as it is their trademark. Or should it be to the USPTO? Gah4 (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the Chemours web site on Opteon refrigerants. I have no connection to Chemours, so don't know if they plan to use the trademark only for Hydrofluoroolefins. As well as I know, it is intended for low GWP chemicals, which may or may not be HFO. Gah4 (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gah4, Þjarkur, how about 2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene? That page has IMO the most readily-digestible information about this subject, coupled with wikilinks to these other related subjects. signed, Rosguill talk 23:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That appears to only be the product name "Opteon YF". But since according to Hydrofluoroolefin it's the main variant of the compound, I guess it's not a bad target. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are at least a few Opteons, some of which aren't refrigerants. It seems to be the beginning of a group of replacements for freons. Gah4 (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some more opteons are described here. Some are replacement for common solvents, such as TCE. Gah4 (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems that Honeywell sells 1234ze, but under their Solstice trademark, instead of Opteon. Gah4 (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an overly generic, non-notable, tradename with no appropriate target. Remove any added text (see above) as overly specific. --Bejnar (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:43, 3 June 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.

Industrial Intelligence Centre[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 22:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, except for in a title of a citation, so a reader who searches for this is left none the wiser as to what the Industrial Intelligence Centre was. Discounting others citing the same work, the only article mentioning this is Desmond Morton (civil servant), which says nothing substantial about the subject. My inquiry at Talk:Metro-Vickers Affair as to whether a mention could be added to that article hasn't had a response in the last month, so in the absence of any better options I think these should be deleted. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Only on NOTPAPER grounds. It's a pretty low probability search term, yes, but cost-free to leave in place, plausible at least, and will get the inquirer to the article where they need to go. Most likely scenario would be a search of the term by a native Russian speaker making a translated query. "Metro-Vickers affair" would be the common name for a search. Carrite (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. There's a whole chapter on it in this book. Narky Blert (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:39, 3 June 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.

Temper Temper (Eric Wooden and Melaine Williams album)[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 20:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For deletion; both the artist names are misspelt (correct names are Eric Gooden and Melanie Williams) and another redirect already exists here (with the incorrectly spelt Eric Wooden). Also the duo are credited as Temper Temper, not separately by their own names. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 03:06, 3 June 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_June_3&oldid=980225562"