Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 25, 2020.

Joshua Singh[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 2#Joshua Singh

Rusty Crab[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 per WP:R3 by User:Anthony Bradbury (non-admin closure) Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 09:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An ambiguous title, not a likely typo, not present in the article, and never referred to by this name in any media Utopes (talk / cont) 22:17, 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.

Spongebob Squarepants: Bikini Bottom Nightmare[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 20:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was never an alternate name for the subject Utopes (talk / cont) 22:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J947: Honestly, I didn't know about these other mentions of "SpongeBob SquarePants: Bikini Bottom Nightmare" elsewhere on the Internet, and assumed it was just another name for Creature from the Krusty Krab. From looking in the history of its big sister SpongeBob SquarePants: Bikini Bottom Nightmare (created back in 2006 about a working title for a SpongeBob video game and later turned into a redirect to Creature from the Krusty Krab by Lazlo25 who rationalized that it was "NOT a real game!"), I don't know if it's even a real game. Regards, SONIC678 23:06, 1 April 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.

Gerrard Capashen[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 There's broad consensus that this redirect's history is worth preserving for potential future use. As there's no particular work happening now on a characters list article draft, and this redirect isn't doing any particular harm other than potentially disappointing an occasional reader, there's no particular consensus to specifically delete this redirect and draftify the history - though if that will assist future article development, it's entirely allowed in future by this vague consensus! ~ mazca talk 12:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what should be done with this redirect. The redirect was an article which was WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT-ed to its current target in 2013; however, its current target doesn't mention the redirect at the present time. In addition, this phrase is mentioned in three other articles on Wikipedia, but none of the three seem to be a valid retargeting option for this as a redirect. My first thought that as a "WP:BLAR", the default option should be "restore article and send to WP:AFD", but since this has been a redirect for nearly 7 years, I'm not too certain about that. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's non-trivial history at the redirect, and honestly the article wasn't that terrible in its last form. While 99% of Magic characters probably don't merit an article, Gerrard might be a rare exception and does have some reliable source material about non-plot matters to discuss. Good if somebody wants to make a "Characters of Magic: The Gathering" article some day and merge content in. More generally, it's useful - there was a "Major characters" section for a time in the main MTG article (which was justly removed, IMO, but it could easily come back). SnowFire (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SnowFire: Are you by chance privy to the edit that removed the "Major characters" section on Magic: The Gathering? I've looked at the article's history for a few minutes, and have had no luck finding it, but per the current state of Jace Beleren, it obviously existed in the past. (You are obviously more familiar with the history of the target article than I am.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Steel1943: It would have been removed in 2016; see the timestamps of the comments on Talk:Magic:_The_Gathering/Archive_6#Major_Characters. It was a pretty fannish section to my recollection and poorly written, and who decides what a major character is, anyway? That said, at risk of crystal balling a bit, once the MTG television series comes out, I fully expect a separate article to come out on the various characters, since the TV review media is normally pretty good for secondary sourcing. (We already have some good development info, but it's generally primary sourced to Wizards of the Coast, so it's shaky on notability even if useful in an article.) SnowFire (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe the previous version of the redirect as an article could be moved to Draft:Gerrard Capashen for incubation until the character gains more notability in the future? I mean, yeah, as it stands, it's not mentioned at the target, and I am in the belief that {{R to article without mention}} redirects are rather unhelpful as most of them end up misleading readers into thinking information about the subject of the redirect is present in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • My first preference is to keep the redirect as useful, but second choice would be to move the history of the article/redirect into draft rather than delete it, sure. SnowFire (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to make a new list of Magic characters a few years ago, but I'm afraid I totally forgot about it after making a lede and an outline (which does include Gerrard). It's still at User:BDD/List of Magic: The Gathering characters. Maybe we should send it to draft space? Once upon a time we had character lists for each letter of the alphabet, which is probably not appropriate, but a single list seems valid. (A few characters could reasonably have standalone articles, but I don't think Gerrard quite makes the cut.) From there, I don't have strong opinions about the Gerrard redirect as long as its history is kept accessible: kept as is if we could have a list article in mainspace relatively soon, sent to draft space otherwise. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's best to postpone this RfD for now to allow for creation/draftifying of Draft:List of Magic: The Gathering characters (with {{promising draft}}). For now the redirect should include {{R to article without mention}}, {{R from subtopic}}, {{R from fictional character}}, and {{R unprintworthy}}. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 01:09, 3 April 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.

Regeneration (Magic: The Gathering)[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 List of Magic: The Gathering keywords#Regenerate. In other words, I'm "withdraw"-ing this, so for closure reasons, this can be renominated at any time. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps redirect target to List of Magic: The Gathering keywords#Regenerate ? --Masem (t) 20:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Good find. In response, I'm closing this. Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 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.

This message will self destruct[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 Mission: Impossible (1966 TV series)#Tape scene. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 19:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect as a catchphrase is ambiguous. It can refer to its current target ... or Inspector Gadget. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Retarget to Mission: Impossible (1966 TV series)#Tape scene – it's not ambiguous, and a plausible search term. "This message will self-destruct..." refers to Mission: Impossible, a 1960s TV show. Inspector Gadget, a 1980s cartoon, is parodying Mission: Impossible when it uses the phrase (and obviously so, IMO). Many, many other works have parodied Mission: Impossible's "Your mission, should you choose to accept it, ... This message will self-destruct..." trope. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That claim of unambiguity is not obvious to all, especially those more familiar with one subject over another. In addition, at the present time, the redirect is not mentioned in the target article, so we shouldn't assume that our readers have a clue. The only plausible option I can find to retarget this redirect would be Mission: Impossible (1966 TV series)#Tape scene, but even then, this phrase isn't exclusive to the 1966 series in the Mission: Impossible franchise ... which puts us back into the "the redirect is not mentioned in the target article" situation since the current target is the franchise article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true; changed my !vote to retarget. The 1966 TV show article has a better explanation of the tape scene (and, in the #Inspirations and innovations section, its origin and parodies). Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Levivich. Most logical place. oknazevad (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There should be no bias against retargeting to the franchise page in the future. The franchise page has just started being developed, and it is plausible that it gets mentioned in more detail down the line. This may be an obvious comment, just stating it for the record so that nobody comes back later to undo retargets and say, "RfD determine that the '66 TV show is the correct target."

    I concur with the proposed retarget for now, though. -2pou (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Levivich. A very familiar phrase if you were around at the time, and the target explains it for those who weren't. Narky Blert (talk) 17:30, 28 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.

Nandan Petrochem Limited[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. Consensus holds that there's insufficient available information to make these in any way useful to a reader. ~ mazca talk 12:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. A cursory internet search did not establish that these companies operate refineries in particular. Delete unless a sourced mention of the companies can be added to the target. signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. My findings indicate that Nandan Petrochem almost certainly operates at least one refinery, given that it describes itself as being in the business of refining petroleum and manufactures products such as greases and oils that are produced in a refinery. However I cannot, after about 5 minutes research tell you the location of any specific refinery with enough certainty to add it to the list. Valvoline CUmmins I'm even less certain about - it is possible to source (maybe reliably, I'm not sure) that they planned to open at least one "lube blending plant" but whether they did I don't know and whether that counts as a refinery I lack the subject knowledge to say. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; both redirects are unmentioned on the site and I think the best we can do for our readers is to leave it blank. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 01:18, 3 April 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.

Anastasiya Hamolka[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. 21:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Anastasiya Hamolka is better known by their stage name "Anna Ador",[1] and under that name they do get a sourced mention as appearing in the target. However I can see no justification for pointing the redirect at this target, as it's just one of several productions she has appeared in and doesn't seem to be the biggest. Anna Ador is presently a redlink and so doesn't provide a target. If an article is created (she might be notable enough - it's definitely worth someone familiar with Indian film investigating further) though this would be a good redirect to it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a harmful redirect per Thryduulf word for word. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 21:59, 1 April 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.

U+1F614[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 3#U+1F614

Live (face to face abum)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling, article existed under this title for one minute. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unnecessary clutter. Clearly created by accident (edit summary on moving "ooops", and blanked by creator). Narky Blert (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete multiple errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would have been eligible for G6 and G7 had Closedmouth not reverted the blanking. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in agreement with all points. -2pou (talk) 19:58, 31 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.

Love It (Ai Otsuka abum)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling, article existed under this title for less than three hours. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:59, 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.

Center for Computational Imaging and Personalized Diagnostics[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 Case Western Reserve University - Biomedical Engineering#2010 – present. signed, Rosguill talk 17:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially ambiguous and is not mentioned anywhere on the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:58, 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.

In My Time (Gerald Wilson abum)[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 per WP:G7 by User:Fastily (non-admin closure). --Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 12:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling, article existed under this title for less than an hour. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. - that's my fault - DISEman (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since DISEman is the creator of the redirect and the target page, I tagged the redirect with {{Db-g7}}. Steel1943 (talk) 01:46, 26 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.

Y@K[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 1#Y@K

Bruce Wayne (Burtonverse)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 2#Bruce Wayne (Burtonverse)

App£e[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 2#App£e

Not secure[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 Insecurity. signed, Rosguill talk 17:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous term, and wrong target. For one, "HTTPS" the secure hypertext transfer protocol, so redirecting "not secure" as an antonym still would need a retarget, or delete. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete G5. Was created by a sock of a blocked user. Crossroads -talk- 15:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to insecure insecurity. I believe pointing to the dab page will be useful to readers searching for emotionally not secure, data not secure, or several other things. While G5 is applicable, speedy deletion is not a must (except for G10, G12, and a few other specific cases with farther-reaching consequences), since such a redirect could actually be useful to readers. Of course, if this dab page cannot be utilized or expanded, and there isn't another suitable target, I won't object to deletion. ComplexRational (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to insecure per ComplexRational. Hog Farm (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I also oppose retarget to Insecure since the aforementioned page is a disambiguation page, and thus is not a title match for any of the subjects listed there. Steel1943 (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to DAB page insecure as {{R from synonym}} ("Use this rcat to tag any redirect from a title that is a word that has the same or a similar meaning to (is a synonym of) the target's page name") {{R from ambiguous term}}. Narky Blert (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Narky Blert and ComplexRational. Rigid application of dab page guidelines must never get in the way of doing what is best for our readers. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - This needs to go to 'insecurity' because, as stated above, the terms that we're talking about are vague and have multiple specific concepts associated with them. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:49, 30 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.

Team Little Devils[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 17:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned anywhere on the target page. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:04, 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.

Thе trilogy "Witnesses"[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 17:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Useless with a Cyrillic Е in the title; created by move but the article has not existed under this title for one day. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the Cyrillic E makes this an implausible search term. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:08, 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.

Thе Wimbles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Useless with a Cyrillic Е in the title. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – implausible and creates clutter or misleading results in the search bar. ComplexRational (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to Cyrillic E. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:46, 28 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.

Khalil Abdulkadir Farah Hersi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 2#Khalil Abdulkadir Farah Hersi

The Center School (Manhattan)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 17:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No information on this middle school in the target article, and likely out of the scope of the target article. Hog Farm (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article does not mention the school at all. OcelotCreeper (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A retarget to something like List of high schools in New York City or List of public elementary schools in New York City - or to List of middle schools in New York City, were it not a redirect - would be appropriate if some list page or other mentioned Center School. However, so far as I can see, none does. No information in the target? useless redirect, if not worse than useless. Narky Blert (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable with no mention in enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Upper West Side#Education where mentioned and trout Jacona for redirecting somewhere with too big of a scope to mention, leaving an unhelpful redirect for over five(!) years. -- Tavix (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trouting for an edit from 5 years ago is unreasonable, Tavix. Editing other peoples comments is wrong. Feel free to acknowledge your comment was uncivil, but leave mine alone.Jacona (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jacona, telling me to "fuck off" is unequivocally a personal attack, and you are lucky I didn't take further action. A trout is a humorous way to let someone know they did something wrong. I wanted to make sure you knew about this discussion in case you were unaware that redirecting something somewhere that doesn't discuss the topic is a no-no. If you know this already, then great! If anything, it's a good reminder of the consequences of one's actions, even five years later. I apologize that you took this the wrong way, and I hope my explanation helps us reach a mutual understanding. -- Tavix (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tavix, There was a lengthy discussion about whether telling someone to do that was a personal attack, and there was no concensus that it was. Now you're doubling down by telling me that I'm "lucky" that you didn't take further action. Please quit with your threats. In your role as an administrator, that is tantamount to bullying. I apologize for the edit caption, but I believe I am reasonable in taking offense in your insult about an edit many, many years ago when I was a relatively inexperienced editor. If you wish to discuss this further, please take it to my talk page, or discuss it at ANI.Jacona (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Other than an argument over civility that has essentially no bearing on the actual discussion, there hasn't been any discussion of the late retarget proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:06, 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.

Lists of ecoregions in the United States (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 no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 17:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target is not a disambiguation page, it is a list of lists, which does not disambiguate the term "Lists of ecoregions in the United States". Speedy declined by User:Hut 8.5. This case is similar to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 6#List of ambassadors of India (disambiguation) (closed as delete). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that arguing that the target is not a disambiguation page is splitting hairs, it's a disambiguation page in all but name and if moved to "List of ecoregions in the United States" (with no change in content) then it would definitely be a disambiguation page. WP:CSD#G14, which this was tagged for, excludes "pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists)". Hut 8.5 21:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only purpose of a page with a (disambiguation) qualifier is to tell User:DPL bot that it's a valid link to a DAB page and not a WP:INTDAB error. (Not that that stops some editors from reacting to a DPL bot nastygram by linking to a DAB page through that qualifier rather than to a more useful target.) Whatever WP:G14 might say, this sort of redirect is purposeless useless clutter. Narky Blert (talk) 00:11, 18 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 04:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hut8.5. Narky Blert is plain wrong, "(disambiguation)" redirects serve to facilitate reliable links to disambiguation and disambiguation-like pages for any reason (not just DPL bot), including use by people who are looking for an article they know is not the primary topic for the given title but do not know the name of. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 26 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.

Na‑Dene languages[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 17:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is a non-breaking hyphen (U+2011) helpful in a redirect title? The difference between this and a standard hyphen is hardly visible, and it seems very highly implausible that one would use it or type it. I recommend deletion. ComplexRational (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created the redirect, since the redirected page exists as a link at Dené–Yeniseian languages, specifically in the classification tree. At the time, I was curious how a language family was still a red link; a non-breaking hyphen makes more sense, but still someone at some point managed to use it. Dralwik|Have a Chat 18:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...that's strange, and it would seem like an error. Even stranger is that it won't seemingly let me correct it with a normal hyphen; I'm not sure what the root of that is. Maybe someone familiar with at template can take a look? ComplexRational (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A non-breaking hyphen (U+2011) is a distinct character from the standard hyphen (U+002D), in that it prevents line-breaks such as when words are hyphenated across two lines. ComplexRational (talk) 19:23, 17 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 04:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the light of the explanations above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. As a quick and dirty fix, I've replaced the hyphen with an n-dash at Dené–Yeniseian languages. However, this appears to be a more general problem, and the solution will ideally not involve having to create redirects for variants with non-breaking hyphens. I've posted at Template talk:Clade#Non-breaking hyphens, and hopefully a general solution will be found at some point, but in the meantime it won't be wise to delete the redirects. – Uanfala (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue has been resolved, so this redirect isn't needed anymore and can safely be deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful per Dralwik's explanation. -- Tavix (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dralwik and Tavix. It's also entirely possible for someone to arrive here after copying and pasting from an external source that uses a non-breaking hyphen. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The issue that this was a solution for has been resolved now, so we don't need the redirect any more. I don't think it's a good idea to keep redirects from any one of the large number of visually indistinguishable typographical variants there can be. – Uanfala (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The typographical variants being visually indistinguishable is actually a very good reason to keep the redirects - one cannot tell which is being used so not ending up at the intended target when using what appears to be the exact title would be harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 1 April 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.

Ghost of You[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 17:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Outline in Color, because this is the only band that has an article for this exact song title. Jax 0677 (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain target. Outline in Color is hardly notable as it stands, and the My Chemical Romance from 15 years ago is still far more notable than this one song by this band has been or ever will be. The My Chemical Romance song is still referred to as "Ghost of You" without the leading definite article. Titles without definite articles are frequently redirected to existing titles with definite articles; this user's nomination for a retarget seems oblivious to this practice. Ss112 06:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Ghost of You (Outline in Color song) over redirect to fix the edit history. -- Tavix (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Are you saying Ghost of You should not remain a redirect to The Ghost of You? Like the absence of a definite article is not a valid redirect to a title with "the" present? Ss112 09:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that the history for Ghost of You is now incorrectly at Ghost of You (Outline in Color song) so Ghost of You (Outline in Color song) should be moved back to Ghost of You to fix this. -- Tavix (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Are you saying you don't think the definite article-less Ghost of You should point to The Ghost of You as a valid alternative name? Ss112 10:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said that, one way or the other. At this time, I am only concerned about getting the history fixed. -- Tavix (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Well, if you have no objections, and if Ghost of You (Outline in Color song) is deleted to move it back to Ghost of You, then I'll repoint Ghost of You to The Ghost of You. If Jax 0677 wants, he can recreate "Ghost of You (Outline in Color song)" to repoint to Outline in Color. Problem fixed...hopefully. Ss112 10:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definite or indefinite articles hardly ever distinguish between names of bands, albums, songs, films, TV series, and so on. They often get added or dropped in everyday speech. See e.g. The Buzzcocks, whose name is written wrongly more often than not. About the only examples I can think of where a definite article is a distinctive qualifier are The The and The Who.
Hatnote The Ghost of You with {{redirect|Ghost of You|the song by Outline in Color|Ghost of You (Outline in Color song)}}. Narky Blert (talk) 00:56, 18 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 04:03, 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.

Ghost Of You[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 17:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Outline in Color, because this is the only band that has an article for this exact song title. Jax 0677 (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain target. Outline in Color is hardly notable as it stands, and the My Chemical Romance from 15 years ago is still far more notable than this one song by this band has been or ever will be. The My Chemical Romance song is still referred to as "Ghost of You" without the leading definite article. Titles without definite articles are frequently redirected to existing titles with definite articles; this user's nomination for a retarget seems oblivious to this practice. Ss112 06:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Ghost Of You (Outline in Color song) over redirect to fix the edit history. -- Tavix (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename. Wikipedia article titles normally do not capitalize the O of of. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my argument in #Ghost of You, above. Tag as {{R from other capitalisation}} (a category with 404,746 entries, so the argument that "Wikipedia article titles normally do not capitalize the O of of" is a non-starter – this debate is not about MOS:TITLE, but about redirects). Narky Blert (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - partially per Narky Blert, but also because the capital "O" means that this term does not match the exact song title of Outline in Color. Rlendog (talk) 13:07, 24 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 04:02, 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.

Changèd[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. While certainly mentioned at the target, the rough consensus seems to be that it's not particularly helpful to have this particular term, simply used as an example, as a redirect. The search function will ultimately turn up that article anyway. ~ mazca talk 12:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just the example used in the article, otherwise arbitrary. WP:PANDORA. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep due to it being used at the article. I have no clue how the existence of this redirect would encourage the creation of plenty more just like it, nor why that would be a bad thing if so. -- Tavix (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: there's no particular association between the word and the target article, it just happens to be one of the examples given there (and any number of words could have been used in its stead). – Uanfala (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sympathetic to both sides. Keeping simply because it's used as an example strikes me as a poor rationale—what if it's changed to a different example? I do see value in providing access to the poetic usage described at Grave accent#English, which is otherwise difficult to find, but I don't know that a single example is a good way to accomplish that either. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 18 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 04:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although any English past participle ending '-ed' can take a grave accent to stress the syllable - except those which are already stressed such as "fitted" or "hounded" - very few ever do. That is true even if the word serves both as past participle and as adjective and is pronounced differently, e.g. "beloved" and "dogged". I can't think of any word where '-èd' is at all common. Changèd is no more likely than any other such word, and it's an unlikely search term. Narky Blert (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the justification of creating this redirect was that it was used as an example in the target article, we should let search do its job. Deryck C. 21:46, 2 April 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.

TORCH (search)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 17:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This REDIRECT links to an article that doesn't contain any information on the lemma of the REDIRECT anymore since https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tor_onion_services&diff=next&oldid=811076001 - the edit summary was "removing items that do not have a corresponding page. WP:WTAF" (I tried to do everything right by filling in the template of the previous entry here ...) Maybe the aforementioned edit "orphaned" more REDIRECTs in this fashion. -- marilyn.hanson (talk) 20:33, 16 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 03:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List of Tor onion services is supposed to be a list of sites with an onion service that have a Wikipedia page. It should contain almost no information about the site itself, just link to the respective page and maybe a one sentence summary. This restriction of things listed on it needs to be pretty strict, otherwise you get lots of drive-by edits by people trying to turn it into a link farm. There's no reason I could imagine for a specific site to redirect to that page. If it was notable enough to warrant it, it would have its own article. Tga (talk) 20:04, 31 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.

Noo Yawk English[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 1#Noo Yawk English

D!NGD*NG[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 1#D!NGD*NG

ترانه علیدوستی[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. Discussion has concluded that the title is not actually a misspelling, but rather is the correct Farsi spelling of the target's name. signed, Rosguill talk 17:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misspelling of a BLP's name in Persian. All of these factors combined lead me to believe that this will not be a likely search term for the subject, especially when the correct form does not appear to be a redirect either. (My RDCheck has been pretty buggy for me, so this might not be the case.) Utopes (talk / cont) 03:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Utopes: how is it a misspelling? Unless there's some odd character lurking in there, it appears to be the same as [2]. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just going off of the redirect page, which states that the title is a misspelling, and shows a very slightly different name for the correct spelling. I was hoping at the RfD that somebody who can read Persian can solve whether this redirect is necessary or not. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignore the rcat on the redirect page, because I just compared the version there and the version in the title, Unicode character by Unicode character, and they're identical. Largoplazo (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rather than wasting any more fime trying to work this out given that it was recently crested by a user who is now globally blocked and whose only other substantive edit on enwiki has been reverted (see [3]. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This does appear to be the correct spelling of the person's name in her native language, by the evidence of (a) the matching article on Farsi Wikipedia and (b) the fact that the supposedly correct spelling from the "R from misspelling" rcat on the redirect page is identical to the spelling in the title, Unicode character by Unicode character (I copied both to Excel and extracted the Unicode code point for each character in both of them), indicating that the use of that rcat was misbegotten and can be ignored. Largoplazo (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was going to argue for deletion on grounds that we don't have redirects for Russian-language names, but I tested three, and we do have redirects for the Russian spellings of the full names of Putin, Yevtushenko, and Pushkin; Farsi is as valid a language as Russian. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:16, 26 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.

Big Globe[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 17:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be a term that has ever been used to refer to the Earth. Created by a user who was recently topic banned from making redirects. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In a Google search, the great majority of hits were for big globes; but I found a couple of references to a conspiracy theory which has a strong whiff of WP:MADEUP about it. Nothing at all equated Big Globe with the Earth.
This redirect exemplifies the issues recently discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Soumya-8974 and redirects. Narky Blert (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. This seems like a clear-cut case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Big Globe" doesn't clearly invoke Earth. Loooke (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Three pages of Google results, nothing about the earth, a lot about "Very Large Globes for Sale". Hog Farm (talk) 23:35, 31 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.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (iflm)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 17:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more search bar clutter containing a spelling error with questionable plausibility. I'm also thinking delete here. Regards, SONIC678 02:43, 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.

Darkness to Light (alubm)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 17:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This term seems like search bar clutter because of this spelling of the word "album" (which I can see people mixing up the B and U keys, which are kind of close to each other on a keyboard). Also, this is the wrong target (the correctly spelled version, I retargeted to Rick White (musician) (where Elevator (band), of which he was a member, redirects) a moment ago). As such, I'm leaning delete here. Regards, SONIC678 02:36, 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.

Video piracy[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 17:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY. As well as copyright infringement, the term could equally refer to broadcast signal intrusion (e.g. [5][6]), pirate television, or unlicensed broadcasting in general. The option to disambiguate with hatnotes or a DAB page seems iffy, since I haven't found any articles that use the term to describe their subject matter. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Collins dictionary definition is "the unauthorized or prohibited use of audio-visual works covered by copyright law" which is covered at the target. Those other targets offered by the nom would be good See also entries at that article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shhhnotsoloud. This is a good example of a {{R to broader topic}}. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 26 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.

Girardia (disambigiation)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize that this article had already been CSD'd by the mover of the page. (Wasn't sure what the "db" edit summary meant at first). Regardless, here's another typo in the disambiguation qualifier to !vote delete on. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:11, 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.

Bed Wars[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 per G7, author requests deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned on target page. (It's ironic because I found myself passing through the target page just a couple hours before this redirect existed.) Utopes (talk / cont) 00:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; not mentioned in the target, therefore a useless redirect. No prejudice against keeping if someone adds a mention to Hypixel with a citation which is better than the fansites that clutter a Google search. Narky Blert (talk) 07:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BedWars is a generic minigame not specific to Hypixel. Nixinova   T   C   07:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In hindsight, I should have looked at WP:R instead of playing Minecraft. Biscuit3413(talk) 12:15, 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.

Yurop and Meksiko[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 1#Yurop and Meksiko

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_25&oldid=955619239"