Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 18, 2020.

Duck and Cover (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. as unhelpful searchbar clutter, failing WP:RDAB. ~ mazca talk 17:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo, but is has existed for nearly 3 years so it does not qualify for R3. This becomes the venue. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:07, 18 March 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.

President and CEO[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 26#President and CEO

WikiIndex[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 00:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect to a list where the topic is unmentioned. This redirect was created as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiIndex; however, there is no entry on the list to suggest that this redirect is necessary. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiIndex? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable topics that can be represented in a list are usually redirected to the list as an "R to section". However, this is a redirect that targets a list where the topic is never mentioned. Therefore, if there is no encyclopedic information about "WikiIndex" at the current target, then the redirect should either point to a different target, or be deleted. Alternatively, if somebody felt inclined to write a passage about WikiIndex as a list entry, then I wouldn't be opposed to withdrawing the nomination. However, in the current state of List of Wikis, there is no reason for WikiIndex to point there. If the goal is to preserve the content in the history, then there is always WP:REFUND for when the subject receives more coverage. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47, Masumrezarock100, Clnreee, Spinningspark, Sandstein, Fa suisse, MJL, GermanJoe, Piotrus, Jstalins, CAPTAIN RAJU, 94rain, and Largoplazo: Just because you all commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiIndex. Reckon you may care about this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is what I said in the original AFD: "Keep. I'm tempted by MJL's suggestion of a redirect to List of wikis#WikiIndex, but that is a list of notable wikis. Closing as redirect is tantamount to declaring it non-notable and will result in the list entry being removed. That will just leave a worthless redirect that will likely be eventually deleted." So thanks for the ping, but all I've got to say now is "told you so". The closer, User:ST47, paid more attention to vote counting than my brilliantly reasoned comment. @Rhododendrites: the person who removed the target entry in the list. SpinningSpark 12:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed it because, as the lead says (and as the HTML comments say, and what I would figure self-evident from this being the only non-bluelink), it's a list of notable wikis. Consensus at the afd doesn't change that. As such, delete. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since I've now been pinged here twice for no reason. Spinningspark's comment wasn't that brilliantly reasoned, consensus was clear, and we don't need a redirect to a page that does not mention the subject of the redirect. ST47 (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the closure at the AfD last year was perfectly reasonable given the discussion, but ultimately the consensus was a little faulty because of the requirement of List of wikis to only list sites with bluelinked articles. As SpinningSpark points out, this basically ends up being a delete by default in the end. WikiIndex doesn't belong on the list without an article, and there is no useful reason to redirect a visitor to a list that doesn't include the thing they were searching for. ~ mazca talk 17:22, 25 March 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:Middle-earth dwarves[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 00:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template was recently "merged" in a recent TfD (in practice the other templates already had all relevant links) and this template now redirects to {{The Lord of the Rings}}. That is bad as a just as valid redirect can be to {{Middle-earth}} or even to {{Hobbit}}. Any result can lead to WP:ASTONISH. Since the template is unused, a better solution would just to delete the redirect. Gonnym (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - Does WP:ATT apply to templates? If so, this likely needs to be kept for attribution purposes. Hog Farm (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a now-misleading template redirect that is unused and probably shouldn't be used in future. I agree with Tavix that putting the names of some dwarves into an existing template does not involve enough original thought to warrant any attribution concerns. ~ mazca talk 17:15, 25 March 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:Dwarves[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 00:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No exclusivity for Dwarves in middle-earth. Such a generic name should just not be used for a specific fiction, even if it's Tolkien. Gonnym (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Too generic for the target template, and is the leftover of a page move. No point in having this one, we might actually need this template name at some point. Dwarves are far from having an exclusive affinity to Tolkien. Hog Farm (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hog Farm, who summed up all the relevant points very well. This is not currently a helpful redirect, and I could at least imagine a use for the title in future outside of a strictly Middle Earth context. ~ mazca talk 17:17, 25 March 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.

Hoa Thanh[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 Move disambiguation page to Hoa Thanh. At the risk of supervoting, this seems to be the best way to resolve the issue raised here. signed, Rosguill talk 18:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Hoa Thanh (disambiguation) per WP:XY.

It's really obvious from Hoa Thanh (disambiguation) that "Hoa Thanh" is the non-diacritic form for both "Hòa Thành" and "Hòa Thạnh". However for some reason, Lithopsian keeps redirecting the page Hoa Thanh back to Hòa Thành. In the past, the disambiguation page hasn't been created yet, so it is acceptable that it should be redirect to the only article with the diacritics that correspond to that non-diacritic name. However, recently I've added the pages Hòa Thạnh and Hòa Thạnh, Tân Phú, so that redirect is clearly violating WP:XY.

In this case, it makes no sense to say that Hòa Thành is the primary topic for Hoa Thanh (disambiguation). If the page was Hòa Thành (disambiguation), then I agree that Hòa Thành is its primary topic. However, in this case the page name is non-diacritic, so Hoa Thanh may refer to both "Hòa Thành" and "Hòa Thạnh". The same applies to the disambiguation pages Tan Thanh and Phu Thanh. ChanComThemPho (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No more targetting or titling changes should be made to either page nor to any of the articles on the DAB page while this discussion is in progress.
Diacritics are a problem on Western keyboards. I know how to find vowels with acute accents on mine, but not ć. It does support the old Alt-Numpad trick, so that Alt-129 gives me ü. All well and good; but the Vietnamese alphabet is festooned with multiple diacritics used nowhere else on the planet, inaccessible to mere mortals.
Proposal. I see no PTOPIC for Hoa Thanh without diacritics. Hoa Thanh should be at the basename and Hoa Thanh (disambiguation) should be a WP:MALPLACED/WP:INTDAB redirect to it (which will require a WP:ROBIN swap). With that out of the way, clear up any residual mess. Narky Blert (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'll not vote for a particular outcome as I'm sure the experts will reach the right conclusion. However, I will point out that I reverted the 1st attempt at the disambiguation page because it only contained the original redirect target and a bunch of locations that didn't have (English) Wikipedia articles. Another editor did the same thing, for the same reason. ChanComThemPho then created a one-liner at one of the titles and reverted to the dab page. I moved it and here we are. An IP has since linked several of the locations to Vietnamese WP pages. Lithopsian (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lithopsian, for the first revert, I won't discuss it but for the move (especially after I created an article for another locale named "Hòa Thạnh"), there's a lot to say. You moved the page and make Hòa Thành the PTOPIC for no good reason. It's too obvious that Hòa Thành and Hoa Thanh are not the same thing. You are working with Vietnamese articles here, and in Vietnamese, a single diacritic changed will result in a completely different meaning. That DAB has clearly no PTOPIC, so can you explain what is from WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY which suggested that Hòa Thành is the PTOPIC ? ChanComThemPho (talk) 18:21, 19 March 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.

God of Blood[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 23:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing that this be turned into a disambiguation page. Very strange that this currently targets Dwarf Fortress, which is only barely related to the subject. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Blood god redirects to Human sacrifice. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 18 March 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.

Hugbunter[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 23:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user who created this article also created HugBunter which also redirects to the same article. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Edit: I changed this from HugBunter to Hugbunter because HugBunter is the actual username. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hugbunter and leave HugBunter alone. Having 2 redirects where the only difference is that one letter is capitalized makes the other one useless. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If HugBunter is kept, then Hugbunter should be kept as it helps capitalization AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added HugBunter to this nomination as either both should be kept or both should be deleted. I don't yet have an opinion which. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:04, 18 March 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.

Magazine cover[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 Cover. signed, Rosguill talk 00:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can mean either article (publishing) or a front cover of a magazine. It should be redirected to cover dabpage (or another target), converted to separate dabpage, or maybe remain as-is. However, the cover story dabpage also contains an entry that neither refers to nor implies a magazine itself, so the former two options would be more suitable for me. George Ho (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment kinda hard finding entries which would meet WP:DABMENTION: there's cover art, and maybe cover model. I really doubt "magazine cover" can mean "magazine cover story" in the first place; e.g. 99.9% of the Google hits for "wrote a magazine cover" disappear if you exclude "wrote a magazine cover story" [1]. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cover art. From the available options (especially those listed under "Media covers" in cover), I'd say that cover art may be the most appropriate target; possibly with a redirect-disambiguation hatnote linking to cover story. --Waldyrious (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cover per nom. Cover art and cover model should be available to select from there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to DAB page Cover. It's ambiguous, and choosing a specific target would be a good way of accumulating bad links-in. Narky Blert (talk) 12:52, 25 March 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.

赤毛のアン[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 00:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFOREIGN Cabayi (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This redirect would be appropriate because this is a Japanese TV series, and therefore there's a connection between it and the Japanese language. Regards, SONIC678 20:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sonic678, the fact that this is a Japanese TV program does give it an affinity with the Japanese language. Hog Farm (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. It's also used multiple times in the article, so it's not like it is unattested. -- Tavix (talk) 01:42, 19 March 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:User GoogleChrome2[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 26#Template:User GoogleChrome2

Template:Cablegate[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 00:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cablegate is a problematic pseudonym for the US diplomatic cables leak. This template was used in a handful of articles as a synonym for {{WikiLeaks cable}}. I have replaced these redirects, so this is now used only in archived discussions. Guy (help!) 18:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, these unused template-space redirects: Template:Wikileaks cable

Most of these were never used, one was used three times and I retargeted. There's little or not active use of the target template (the events are int he past now), so these seem to be unnecessary Guy (help!) 19:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all since 1) "Cablegate" and "Wikileaks cable" are apparently synonymous terms (they both are redirects that target the same target), and 2) the remaining three are literally punctuation variations (dash instead of space, etc) and/or capitalization differences for the target template page, meaning that deletion of those three serves no helpful purpose since they are not ambiguous, and thus them being deleted doesn't benefit anyone. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. "Cablegate" - United States diplomatic cables leak starts off its lead with The United States diplomatic cables leak, widely known as Cablegate, ... First obtain consensus on that article for deleting the word "Cablegate" from United States diplomatic cables leak if there's a claim that the word is problematic despite being widely used. That's the place for NPOVing and so on. With the redirects in archives: should discussion on talk page necessarily use hardwired URLs rather than templates? I've always assumed that templates exist for good reasons, including long-term maintenance; URLs can tend to change and be user-specific (e.g. the transformation from http:// to https:// thanks to ... Cablegate and the Snowden leaks). So I don't see any need to remove the redirects. Boud (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification - JzG/Guy says that the proposal is only to delete the redirects, not to delete the template itself. (Thanks for the clarification!) I don't think this modifies my arguments. I'm not an expert in template redirect notices, but it should be possible to create a notice (template) to discourage use of the redirected names and encourage use of the "main" names (if the standard is not felt to be strong enough); there could be various degrees of how strong the recommendation is (please/strongly encouraged/must) as a parameter to the template. Boud (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "JzG/Guy says that the proposal is only to delete the redirects, not to delete the template itself." FWIW, I'm quite aware of that, especially considering that this is a WP:RFD discussion, not a WP:TFD discussion. My stance remains unchanged. Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 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.

Egiptus[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) 16:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name for Egypt in...Estonian? Delete per WP:RLOTE. signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look at my comment before saying this. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Double misspellings are rarely plausible. Narky Blert (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The word is really obscure, the misspelling of i for y in the middle of Greek words is common, and it can be argued that the substitution of e for ae is not really a misspelling but an alternative variant. – Uanfala (talk) 22:33, 19 March 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.

Growing a Greener World[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. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target article contains no information about the TV series Growing a Greener World. Suggest deleting redirect so that a separate article about the TV series can be requested for creation. 16:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprentice525 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Because the article mentions the show, either create a new article per nom, or create a new section on UNC-TV that gives a summary about the show itself. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there is enough notability to create a standalone article, it can be boldly done. Same with expanding the programming section at UNC-TV to a paragraph or list entry. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's mentioned in the article, with a little useful information. A quick search turned up some possibly-RS sources which might support an article, though it would be necessary to weed out/prune away the promotional stuff (of which there seems to be lots). I've no objection at all to an article being drafted. Narky Blert (talk) 17:52, 20 March 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.

Catstodian[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) 15:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catstodian is not even a real word. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, at least for now. Whatever you mean by "real word", whether something is or is not one is irrelevant - what matters is whether people use it to find the current target. It's not a word I'd come across before, but I'm seeing plenty of uses in two senses (a person who acts as a custodian of a cat, and a cat who acts as a custodian of a place or thing) so it's plausible enough. The redirect is too new to see if it's actually being used. It's not doing any harm existing, so we should leave it in place for a few months until we can get some evidence of utility or otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah I know it is new, but the user who created this made other articles that were deleted because they were joke articles. With that, and a new redirect for a word that currently does not exist, I wanted to confirm this redirect was fine. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who created a redirect is irrelevant, as is whether other redirects were kept or deleted. Also, the word does exist as demonstrated by the many uses of it I found in less than two minutes of looking. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a term that is not described at the target. Someone searching this to want to learn more about it will not be able to find what they are looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism and not mentioned in news articles searches. Is it referring to any cat owner, a zookeeper of big cats, or a Cat behaviorist? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another option if mentioned could be Retarget to Cat lover culture which talks about cat puns such as purr-fect. https://parade.com/969366/parade/cat-puns/ AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this will be retargeted to Cat lover culture, then that article should mention the word catstodian first. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article does not mention or describe the word. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's not mentioned in the target - which means that anyone clicking on this link will find zero information, useful or otherwise. Narky Blert (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by useless WP:NEO that has no real meaning.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 12:53, 21 March 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.

Floof[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. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a decent number of pageviews per day [[2]]. However, floof is not a real word (edit: argument I forgot to add listed below). 209.237.105.108 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that people so far are saying keep because of the number of pageviews. I do agree that the pageviews are good, but you should not just say the pageviews are good, therefore we should keep this (If this is always true, I could for example, make a new page called Black Poonther that redirects to Black Panther and then click on the redirect 2-5 times a day so that it seems like people are using it (If you can track the number of times a user goes onto a page they created please let me know on my talk page)). Since I made an additional argument, I would like for people to prove that they read that one as well when they say keep. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Whether it is a "real word" (whatever that means, wikt:floof has citations going back to 2002 for this sense) is irrelevant. What matters is whether people are using this search term to find this target, and it's clear they are. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – no adequate reason is given for deletion. Decent amount of pageviews is a good sign to keep the redirect. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok the 2 main reasons I nominated this were because it is not a real word (Good arguments against that so far) and the fact that the same user created redirects to Cheetah like Zoom floof, Speedy Danger Floof, Turbo floof, and Speedy floof that were deleted with the reason being that Wikipedia is not a place for jokes and for WP:NOTNEO. I wanted to make sure that this redirect is all right. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the newly presented argument (other redirects were deleted) - please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Each redirect is judged on its own merits, just because "Zoom floof" is not a plausible search term for "Cheetah" is irrelevant to whether "floof" should redirect to "fluff", regardless of who created it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good argument with the WP:OTHERSTUFF. Do you think though that it could be deleted for WP:NOTNEO? 209.237.105.108 (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, because (a) it's not a neologism (at least in the sense we mean it here), and (b) even if it was then the page views show that it is a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The pageviews indicate that this is reasonable. Hog Farm (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of portmanteaus as listed there. It could potentially be a disambiguation given that some other articles use the term. On the portmanteaus list the terms either go to articles or wiktionary entries. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget per AngusFLWOOF, but I can imagine many people accidentally typing this instead of "flood". 94.21.10.195 (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 18 March 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.

Tan Huat[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 30#Tan Huat

Byzatine 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 no consensus. A slight majority is in favor of keeping, with the rest voting for deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 00:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated because of this redirect is a typo, but also because the editor who created it immediately recognized the error and blanked the page. Other editors reinstated it, whereas they should have deleted it as intended. Senator2029 “Talk” 08:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It looks as if creator was trying to do a {{db-author}} but didn't know the procedure. Narky Blert (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from misspelling}}. It's by no means implausible, and early enough in the string to be helpful to searchers (unlike, say, the hypothetical redirect Byzantine Empirt). Narky Blert (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible misspelling. – Uanfala (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The Birla House is often misspelled Birla house. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible double typo. It says "Byzatine" as well as "empire". Anyone who types "Byzatine" in the search window will get "Byzantine Empire" with the correct spelling and capitalization as the top search result. P Aculeius (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Bazatine" is a plausible spelling error, and search suggestions are only a thing for those people who use the internal search engine. There are a great many other ways to navigate Wikipedia, and some of them are case sensitive so the lowercase "e" version is also useful - not the everyone will know that it should be capitalised. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The first one is a plausible spelling error, and not everyone uses the shift key when typing anyway, so lowercase words aren't implausible. Hog Farm (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Byzantine Empire show up as the 2nd item when you enter "By" in the search, and 1st item for "Byz". This is unnecessarily propagating and perpetuating a typo. Cabayi (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 18 March 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.

Sher-e-Ban National Cricket Stadium[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. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to keep a wrongly spelled redirects. There is another redirect Sher-e-Bangla National Stadium which is often used. But this redirect is very unusual with a wrong spelling. So, requesting to deleted it. Sony R (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Redirecting from a misspelling is encouraged by WP:R#KEEP. Spike 'em (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This naming convention is often confusing one but it will be handy to keep it. Abishe (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirecting from frequent misspelling is encouraged. This bizarre form was made once, by an IP editor in this unexplained and unhelpful edit. It is as unlikely to occur again as it is for users to accidentally type Wemb Stadium or Wrig Field. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Spike. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google exact-match search turned up a couple of dozen hits; none obviously WP:RS, but that makes it a plausible search term. Narky Blert (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. The Google results are all Wikipedia mirrors (Wikivisually, Wikiwand, etc.) besides one obvious rehash [3] of an old vandalised version of our Soumya Sarkar article. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per RHARMFUL and K5. There is extremely little benefit to be reaped from deleting this redirect, and it is demonstrably helpful. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 03:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 18 March 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.

European Imperialism[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 Imperialism. I find the reference to similar redirects and the note that imperialism and colonialism are not synonymous (albeit related) to be the stronger arguments. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above two have different lettering cases but also different targets, which would befuddle readers. Regardless of different capitalization, the two should redirect to the same target. Either "list of former European colonies", "Colonial empire", or somewhere if possible. George Ho (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that they should both point to the same target. I suggest retarget to History of colonialism, whose lede mentions the five main European imperial powers. Narky Blert (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some academic circles European imperialism is a valid and long standing course title and subject area, to redirect to a list seems odd, colonial empire or history of colonialism seems a lesser evil. JarrahTree 09:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to History of colonialism. Polyamorph (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Imperialism, as the term can be used to refer to international dynamics other than outright colonialism. signed, Rosguill talk 23:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 18 March 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.

Algorithmic design[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. I'll add a hatnote that may help. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should this redirect target Algorithm#Design, where the topic exists as a subsection; Generative design, which is a similar topic; or should the redirect be formed into an article? I should mention that Algorithm design is already a redirect and is tagged with "R from merge", from which the content at "Algorithm#Design" is derived from. [4] Utopes (talk / cont) 00:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - algorithmic design does mean generative design, the process of (artistic) design using an algorithm; it by that token does NOT mean the design of algorithms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am the one who submitted the redirect request. While I, too, believe that algorithmic design is practically equivalent to generative design [5] and semantically distinct from algorithm design, I could imagine a compromise in the form of a disambiguation page that links to algorithm design as well as generative design. — Batrachocottus (talk • contribs) 18:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 18 March 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.

Opinion polling for the next Irish general election[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 Next Irish general election#Opinion polls. --BDD (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer the next election, confusing buidhe 18:30, 18 March 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.

Irma Gonzalez[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 convert Irma Gonzalez to dab and redirect the others there. signed, Rosguill talk 18:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot discern a primary topic from the either the wrestler or the judge. They both get similar pageviews, but the page with less views is a GAN. Disambiguation could is possible, but there are still only two entries, so it will have to be clear that there is no primary topic. I don't intend for there to be a large discussion here, as long as there is consensus on where these redirects should target. However, there is no reason for some of these to target one article while the others target another. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate page at Irma Gonzalez as nom. The spellings are near identical that I don't see a reason to split the targets of these redirects in question. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per nom. J947 (c), at 04:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Irma Elsa Gonzalez seems to not have the "á" in her name? or maybe I'm just not looking at this right?? ALso Irma Gonzales is an alternate spelling for the wrestler, is it also used in sources for Irma Elsa Gonzalez? I genuinely do not know. couldn't this be solved with a hat note one each of them? MPJ-DK (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The wrestler is Méxican. In Spanish, it's written González. However, the judge is from United States, in English, people don't use accents like in Spanish, even if it's a Spanish last name, Like Colby Lopez or Pamela Martinez. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the job of the editor to check links per WP:TESTLINK. I've already checked the links and none goes to the wrong article.
Irma González is not ambiguous. The judge is never referred to that way. We use this approach all the time, e.g. Gúa vs Gua vs Guà; canape vs. canapé; borek vs börek. There's no reason to redirect that to a DAB page.
SMALLDETAILS actually says " The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages..." (my emphasis). There aren't currently hatnotes because there's no ambiguity in the article titles, only the redirect "Irma Gonzalez". 85.238.91.68 (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It's the job of the editor to check links per WP:TESTLINK." A counsel of perfection; but, many editors simply do not do so. That's why there's currently a backlog of 10,611 known bad links in WP:TDD (in June 2010, there were 961,936 [sic]). That's why I and other editors have to my knowledge fixed 100+ bad incoming links to each of multiple WP:PTOPICs. That's why another editor and I about a year ago ran a project to fix a subset of bad links to surname pages: we found and fixed about 1,500; it took us a fortnight. Narky Blert (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, but there's all kinds of ways editors can make bad links and surprises. We're still expected to follow policy and guidelines that have consensus.
When it comes to titles that vary only by diacritical marks, the consensus seems to be that those marks are enough to disambiguate. So, while it may be the case that "Irma Gonzalez" is ambiguous, it is not the case that "Irma González" is ambiguous. Were it so, then Gúa and Guà (to repeat the example I gave earlier) would be ambiguous and should target the disambiguation page at Gua.
Now, if we hatnote, some readers get the right article first time and the others are one click away. If we disambiguate and redirect both Gonzalez and González there, no readers get any article the first time and all readers are one click away. We've made the reader experience worse for all readers, and better for none. These are not big articles, so bandwidth is not an issue. It's just a better reader experience to hatnote them rather than disambiguate. We shouldn't visit editors' past sins onto readers. We've also potentially broken external links. Simply reversing the redirects and hatnoting avoids all of that.
The basic question is: does the misspelling of "Irma González" (without the diacritical mark) count towards WP:NOPRIMARY? 85.238.91.68 (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've added a {{redirect}} hatnote to Irma Elsa Gonzalez, without prejudice. 85.238.91.68 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I'm of the opinion that we should disambiguate at the base title by default whenever there is significant disagreement about the primary topic. Deryck C. 00:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Deryck Chan. This will establish a baseline which will make it much easier to gauge primary topic in the future. I strongly reject the SMALLDETAILS argument and the obviously false argument that foreign-language diacritics are never used in English. I have a coworker who uses one in a Spanish name, and he's a native-born American with no accent. --BDD (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Reverse, and Retarget, respectively. The accentless redirects should target the judge and the wrestler's page should be titled "Irma González". Personally, I find the WP:SMALLDETAIL a naturally elegant way to disambiguate. Anyone looking for the other topic will be presented with a hatnote, but ~most will find the topic they want right away without having to fumble through a disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 18 March 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.

Named route[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) 15:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, I don't think that these terms are synonymous. Off the top of my head, I could name a handful of non-special routes in the US that have non-numbered names. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:30, 18 March 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.

Beisebol[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 26#Beisebol

Haligonian[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 using the excellent draft produced by Shhhnotsoloud, which seems to have gained a consensus. The plural will be retargeted to point to the disambiguation page. ~ mazca talk 16:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where these should point to, but they should share the same target. feminist (talk) 12:52, 18 March 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.

Joshua Singh[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Joshua Singh

Epidemiology of COVID-19[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 procedural close. As the nomination states, this redirect's title is currently the proposed move location listed at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory#Requested move 17 March 2020. For one, tagging this redirect with the {{Rfd}} tag caused the aforementioned move request to appear at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Possibly incomplete requests as an error. For two, having this discussion open while the aforementioned move discussion is also open splits and fragments the discussion pertaining to this title, which in effect confounds and creates issues with consensus building and assessing. (For these reasons, there should only be one XFD or move discussion open at a time per title to prevent such issues.) After the move request closes, if there are still concerns with this redirect (if it is still a redirect after the move request closes), this redirect can be renominated since at that time, an RfD for this title will/should be the only open discussion for this title. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Epidemiology. Epidemology has its own section on the page about the virus, so why is the redirect going to country/territory instead? Although this could easily be retargeted, I am listing it here because of a move discussion that involves this page (See Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory#Requested move 17 March 2020). Username6892 18:00, 18 March 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_March_18&oldid=1073158615"