Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 2, 2020.

Mineral species[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 10#Mineral species

Jimmz wales[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 10#Jimmz wales

Ocean docks[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 22:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, and vague otherwise. Either retarget to Dock (maritime) or delete, and I don't have a preference which. Note that at the present time, Ocean dock does not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, far too vague. There is/was an "Ocean Dock" in Southampton, England as mentioned in History of the Port of Southampton, but I don't think a redirect would be particularly useful, especially not from the lower case plural term. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Given the vagueness, I'd rather that we just be rid of this. I'm not too sure about going to 'dock (maritime)' given the variations of terms on that page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:57, 4 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.

Binco[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 22:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Setting/store in the Grand Theft Auto universe. It isn't mentioned in the target article, and it's not mentioned in Grand Theft Auto. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 2 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.

Bingdu[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 22:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, delete per WP:RDELETE #8 as a novel or obscure synonym for the target. Hog Farm (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add to methamphetamine somewhere, though I'm not sure exactly where. This and this are WP:RS. Narky Blert (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You can see enough mentions in reliable sources to be able to say that it is not an obscure term. WP:RDELETE #8 therefore does not apply. I guess you can add the term to note 1 of the article, but I'm not that fuss if isn't added given that there are usually lots of slang and regional terms for drugs. Hzh (talk) 21:07, 3 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.

Dokfmentun[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 14:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, no meaningful results online or in Google Scholar. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I've no idea why this redirects here, but enwiki has nothing useful about "Dokfmentun". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Google search turned up nothing. Also, this word looks so wrong in so many ways for any major language. Narky Blert (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea apparently is that the Ⅎ (which is F upside down) is a Claudian letter for u. – Uanfala (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't decide if the infobox image in digamma is intentional or unintentional humour. Narky Blert (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: I don't get it. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: FFS! Narky Blert (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: Which of the meanings do you mean? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: The Wiktionary one springs to mind. Narky Blert (talk) 14:35, 3 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.

Thenium[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy retarget to List of drugs: Tf-Th. Better, non-problematic target identified. (non-admin closure) 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very implausible and capable of causing confusion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: It happens. Narky Blert (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Lithopsian; seeing as the drug exists, it is far more plausible than a misspelling for rhenium. ComplexRational (talk) 23:56, 2 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.

Surith[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 22:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. PamD 12:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. (1) "Sūrith" is mentioned in Chaldean Catholic Church as a local word for "Syriac". It seems an unlikely search term. (2) "Sarith & Surith" is Sri Lankan musical duo with plenty of mentions in WP (e.g. Sri Lanka in the ABU TV Song Festival) but no good target. This redirect gets in the way of finding them. Narky Blert (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's likely to be an alternative transliteration of the word that gives us sureth which is mentioned in the article, and is Narky's option (1). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be variant spelling of Sureth which is also redirected to the same article. There are many ways words of non-English origin can be transliterated, and it would clutter the article if all of them are mentioned in an article, so I'm fine with it not being mentioned. People can create a Sarith & Surith article if the duo is notable, but I don't think that is relevant here; Sarith for example is also mentioned in other context. At the most consider turning it into a disambiguation page when a Sarith & Surith article has been created and there are also other similar-sounding articles. Hzh (talk) 13:13, 5 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:R ext[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 22:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created for a single use. Not a plausible shortcut. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:37, 2 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.

Talk:The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit[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 replace redirect with talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 22:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a helpful redirect, we don't need to create talk pages for everything a page name could be known as. Hog Farm (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since it's there and causing no harm. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace redirect with {{Talk page of redirect}} and the {{Old RfD}} template for this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Originally created as a talk page with project banner, then an IP turned it into a redirect. Suggest same as Tavix together with the original project banner. PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace redirect with {{Talk page of redirect}} and the {{Old RfD}} template for this discussion, per Tavix above, and per related recent Wikipedia talk page RfD discussions. This talk page probably didn't need to be created in 2010 just to add a WikiProject header, but it was. A hard redirect to the related target page's talk page is an equally plausible outcome, but the addition of the Old RfD template, linking to this discussion, and the soft redirect to the target page's talk page should be more useful in terms of at least giving future editors pause before hard redirecting or making other changes. Doug M. T·C 13:26, 5 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.

Jirnbo Wales[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete by User:Fastily (see the deletion log of Jirnbo Wales). --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how "m" turns into "rn". Delete as unlikely. Hog Farm (talk) 17:25, 2 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.

Jumbo Wales[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 22:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely typo, changes the meaning entirely. Hog Farm (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Not a plausible redirect, and arguably mildly insulting to Jimbo, calling him Jumbo...  — Amakuru (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Amakuru. I agree with Barkeep49's edit summary declining my G6 that it's a borderline G10. The age of the redirect means my preferred reason R3 doesn't apply here, but so I'll just echo Amakuru's comment here that this is not a plausible typo for Jimmy Wales in Main: namespace. It could be a typo for User:Jimbo Wales, but we generally don't create redirects for users' userpages (at least not that I've seen; when we do, it's usually the user themselves that creates it). So, in short, we don't need this redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 01:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not necessary since Jimmy Wales appears in the search dropdown when you type this in.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:42, 5 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.

Bush White House[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy retarget to Presidency of George Bush. Nomination withdrawn, good retarget point identified. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could refer to either the Presidency of George W. Bush or the Presidency of George H. W. Bush. I don't see a clear case for a primary topic for either president, so delete per WP:XY unless a strong case for either presidency as the primary topic can be made. Hog Farm (talk) 17:07, 2 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.

Phra Khanong[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 Phra Khanong (disambiguation). signed, Rosguill talk 22:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like Phaya Thai (disambiguation), Phra Khanong is one of those Bangkok place names where changes of district boundaries have resulted in the name being scattered all over the place. Today, most references to Phra Khanong are probably to the neighbourhood served by the BTS station, Phra Khanong area (the article was recently created). I'm not sure though whether it's prominent enough to be considered the primary topic, or if the redirect should point to Phra Khanong (disambiguation) (followed up by a title swap). (Pinging Ahoerstemeier, who made the redirect to Phra Khanong District.) Paul_012 (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re-direct to the dab page sounds favourite.--Petebutt (talk) 17:15, 2 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.

Wikipaedias[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 22:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo, won't let me search pageviews, but using redirect view of all redirects to Wikipedia for all of last year [2] registers an API-not-found error, which sometimes indicates 0 pageviews. Hog Farm (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:. I think this is intentional rather than a typo. Plural form for Wikipaedia, a sometimes humorous alternative spelling referring to the alternative British spelling encyclopaedia. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have merged Wikipædias into this discussion. Pinging Hog Farm to inform them of this add. Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paul 012. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Plausible plural.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:03, 2 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.

Wikipaedius[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 22:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely spelling, [3] 28 pageviews, creator blocked for creating large numbers of bad redirects. Hog Farm (talk) 16:59, 2 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.

Talk:Wiikipedia[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 to talk page of redirect to Talk:Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 22:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This either needs retarget to Talk:Wikipedia, or deleted due to the typo. A redirect from the talk namespace to the article namespace is useless as is. Hog Farm (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Talk:Wikipedia per nom. As long as Wiikipedia exists as a redirect from a misspelling, the corresponding talk page redirect should exist. Given the age of this talk page and its plausibility of being a misspelling or typographical error, I'm inclined to favour retaining it. Otherwise, there's probably little harm in deleting it except that it could easily be recreated. Doug Mehus T·C 16:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete. Talk page redirects aren't required to accompany every existing Mainspace redirect, and this one was created as a vandalism/test edit. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should just WP:BOLDly retarget to Talk:Wikipedia to sync the talk page redirect with its corresponding article namespace redirect Wiikipedia (I believe we even have bot-created reports that list talk page redirects that aren't synced with their cooresponding parent page), and move on. Oppose "delete" for the simple fact that this page exists, though I don't advocate creating unnecessary talk page redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: I agree with you completely here. A bold retarget to Talk:Wikipedia was likely all that was needed here. Noting Tavix' reply below, I actually prefer Tavix' suggestion in this case (and not just because I love soft redirected talk pages), but I think, in this case, having {{Old RfD}} displayed prominently at the top of the soft redirected talk page actually makes a lot of sense for quick reversions of vandalism because the vandalism-patrolling editor can quickly reference the previous discussion and revert any present vandalism. Doug Mehus T·C 18:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace redirect with {{Talk page of redirect}} and the {{Old RfD}} template for this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...This works as well. Either way, for the most part, I think discussions for talk page redirects are unnecessary since there are options for WP:BOLD resolutions ... unless the page needs to be discussed due to a denied WP:CSD tag that was placed on it. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 2 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.

List of countries by Human Development Index,2006[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 22:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article doesn't have data for 2006 and this is an implausible search term. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Misleading as content about the 2006 data is not included in the target, and the lack of space between the comma and the year makes it implausible. Hog Farm (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – article does not contain 2006 data, and there is no space between the comma and '2006' (incorrect and poor formatting). JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 09:36, 9 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.

Sarah Fortune (League of Legends)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 14:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another LoL character with no mention at the target, delete unless an appropriate sourced mention can be added. signed, Rosguill talk 04:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unless the characters have a strong presence in all major scenarios, they shouldn't need character articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:18, 2 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.

Symcor[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 9#Symcor

Schedule II (US)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy retarget/nomination withdrawn. It occurred to me, after nominating this redirect, that we might have redirects or pages numbered as Schedule 1, Schedule 2, Schedule 3, etc., and, indeed, we do. As it happens, they are disambiguation pages. So, to resolve the ambiguity, I'm withdrawing my own nomination and speedily retargeting there. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 01:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't want to bundle this with the Schedule II (Canada) RfD discussion as it may have a different outcome but, equally importantly, its potential disambiguation links will be different, so this keeps the discussions separate. So, I'm recommending to delete-ing this redirect or, alternatively, to disambiguate-ing to potential U.S. federal and state Acts which have two or more schedules attached to them, per WP:XY and/or WP:R#D2. Doug Mehus T·C 01:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nom Comment We already have Schedule 3 and Schedule 2 as disambiguation pages, the latter of which mentions the applicable schedules of the U.S. and Canada drug control acts. So, I think retarget-ing this there will satisfy any ambiguity, and our naming conventions seem to be that we title our disambiguation pages using standard cardinal numerals as opposed to Roman numerals. Doug Mehus T·C 01:11, 2 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.

Schedule II (Canada)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy retarget/nomination withdrawn. It occurred to me, after nominating this redirect, that we might have redirects or pages numbered as Schedule 1, Schedule 2, Schedule 3, etc., and, indeed, we do. As it happens, they are disambiguation pages. So, to resolve the ambiguity, I'm withdrawing my own nomination and speedily retargeting there. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 01:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed this redirect and believe it's ambiguous per WP:R#D2 and/or WP:XY as many federal, and provincial, Acts have schedules numbered in this way. There's no way the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is primary topic over Bank Act or, indeed, other Canadian or provincial Acts for which we have articles and which have two or more schedules attached to them. Thus, I'm recommending that we delete this redirect or, alternatively, to disambiguate it (if willing editors want to add potential disambiguation links below the current target; we already have two potential links to add). Doug Mehus T·C 01:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nom Comment We already have Schedule 3 and Schedule 2 as disambiguation pages, the latter of which mentions the applicable schedules of the U.S. and Canada drug control acts. So, I think retarget-ing this there will satisfy any ambiguity, and our naming conventions seem to be that we title our disambiguation pages using standard cardinal numerals as opposed to Roman numerals. Doug Mehus T·C 01:12, 2 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_2&oldid=944918185"