Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 27, 2020.

List of counties and cities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 5#List of counties and cities

Earf[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. The general consensus is that this spelling is unlikely to be done except deliberately, and hence it is not a helpful redirect. ~ mazca talk 21:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone would spell it this way. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are a few entities with the name mentioned here and there on wikipedia, but they're not worth disambiguating for. I don't think it's that plausible as a misspelling for Earth (it misspells the easy part at the end of the word, but gets right the difficult bit at the start), and it's probably at least as likely to be a misspelling for Erf. – Uanfala (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The existence of the song Earfquake shows that "earth" is sometimes spelled as "earf". However, this still seems like an extremely uncommon spelling, as the redirect has only about five views per month. Not a very active user (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While Th-fronting occurs among many English speakers, especially Londoners and Yorkshire folks in the United Kingdom and African Americans in the United States, Wikipedia does not have bruvver for brother or fing for thing. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 21:32, 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.

Kentucky Routes 597[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. No participants have been able to justify any reason for this odd plural of a minor route, leading to a strong consensus to delete. ~ mazca talk 22:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the reason for the plural form here. Also applies to Kentucky Routes 502. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:02, 27 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.

Surf Elite Four Glitch[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 an argument for restoring and AfDing this article in the state it was when blanked-and-redirected in 2006 can reasonably be made, the article was of such clear non-notability that this really would simply be bureaucracy for its own sake. I am comfortable deleting the article under WP:IAR given the weak consensus here. ~ mazca talk 22:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Random non-notable glitch. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was an article in 2006. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per WP:BLAR without prejudice to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a poor excuse of an "article" that lasted for a day in 2006 absolutely should not get restored. This has been a redirect for all but one day of its existence, so it should be deleted as one. -- Tavix (talk) 14:45, 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.

Pokemon platinum; Looker[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. In the absence of anyone actually arguing for the 2009-blanked content behind this redirect, there seems to be a sufficient consensus to remove it here without further AfD. ~ mazca talk 22:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was in article in 2009. This is just the name of the game with a character from it at the end. Unlikely. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore per WP:BLAR without prejudice to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Incomprehensible nonsense" that lasted for a day in 2009 absolutely should not get restored. This has been a redirect for all but one day of its existence, so it should be deleted as one. -- Tavix (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a plausible search term, let alone worth restoring. Please don’t waste people’s time with bureaucracy, just delete this nonsense. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it was only an article for a very brief period of time and there is little to not chance it would be kept at AFD. It’s also not a likely search term so no reason to have it redirect anywhere either.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 21:55, 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.

Googlit[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A baby Google, I guess. Unlikely typo. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unlikely, unless someone was making a joke about "Google it". --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 20:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this one is unlikely. – numbermaniac 08:16, 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.

Googke[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 20:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? TheAwesomeHwyh 19:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The K and L keys are next to each other. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 20:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dekete – L is adjacent to five other keys, and none of them make plausible misspellings. No need to keep these lying around. ComplexRational (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above, so highly used. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 02:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree. This seems to be an extremely plausible typo. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leep per others. --Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 05:20, 29 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.

Guugle[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 3#Guugle

Googer[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goopy goober Googer. Unlikely typo. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably draw the line at misspellings of misspellings here... dibbydib Ping me! 💬/✏ 04:19, 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.

Untitled Picard series[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 20:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer untitled. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete misleading -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It has a title. Redirects shouldn't be directly misleading like this. I agree. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:30, 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.

Kaptain Cirk[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 20:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a joke; a witticism, a gag, a bon mot, a fluctuation of words concluding with a trick ending. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:00, 27 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.

Wikipedai[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 20:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedai, Wikipedio, Wikipedon't need this redirect. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I want to complement you for one of the best nominations I've seen. Natureium (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly weak keep per WP:CHEAP. Also, I can see people mixing up the A and I keys, especially since the A and D keys are really close to each other on a keyboard. Regards, SONIC678 18:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Transposition error typo, as documented on our article for transcription error. It just flips the order of two letters, which could happen with a sticky key, or a slight finger speed issue. Per SONIC -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this spelling mistake doesn't seem unusual enouhg to remove the rediretc. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 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.

Wikipedium[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 20:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the secret element that powers Wikipedian's computers. The world doesn't need to know about that, so delete. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, exactly. Our top scientists have figured out that wikipedium is actually an element with aleph-null protons, neutrons, and electrons. Not only does this have astounding implications for chemistry (as it can form as many bonds as you like while still having more electrons to give away and exactly the same shielding from the nucleus), but harnessing its energy for nuclear fission is also an infinite energy source because the product of fissioning a wikipedium atom must perforce still involve at least one wikipedium atom (unless it fissions into infinitely many components, in which case you have bigger problems). Symmetric fission even gives spontaneous generation of new matter!!!
  • Memories of long-past BJAODN aside (I was lurking by then but not yet editing); delete, obviously. This is hardly phonetically plausible. Double sharp (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. Could also refer to Wikipedium, a genus of digital fungi implicated in linkrot. Narky Blert (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly a joke, this isn't going to be something that's commonly actually thought of in a serious manner. Hog Farm (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This element is never discovered or mentioned on the target. --Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 14:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --TILRs (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the jig will be up! dibbydib Ping me! 💬/✏ 04:21, 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.

Xbox SeX[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 3#Xbox SeX

Xbox 8[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, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is only the third Xbox. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I took a quick Google search and couldn’t find the Xbox One called the Xbox 8 anywhere.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe it’s something to do with Windows 8? Regardless, it seems contrived. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:25, 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.

Xbox threehundredandsixty[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, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I’ve never seen anyone type that talking about the 360.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unlikely anyone would type out the numbers out in words, even less likely that they’d do it without any spaces between words. Sergecross73 msg me 05:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anyone who willingly chooses to type out the word is going to be doing it as a joke, and won't be doing it with the serious expectation that it will redirect to the right article. – numbermaniac 08:19, 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.

Xbox three six zero[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, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely unlikely that anyone would type it this way. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I’ve never seen anyone type that talking about the 360.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 23:47, 27 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.

Pikachu's Beach[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 3#Pikachu's Beach

Gameboy color yellow pokemon[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, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt many people would type this. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many people I doubt type jumbled number of words. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:28, 27 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.

POKeMON[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. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WEIrD capitalization. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is how it appears to be rendered in the logo shown in the infobox. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ​The logo looks more like "PoKéMoN" to me. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's equally plausible, meaning that both would be good redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons already stated. --Diriector_Doc┝Talk
    Contribs    ━━━┥     17:35, 27 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.

PokÉmon[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 20:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UnlikÉly. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:01, 27 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.

Pogeyman[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 3#Pogeyman

Qoob chip[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was restore article. No prejudice against a subsequent nomination for deletion of said article through AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 20:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable GameCube modchip. TheAwesomeHwyh 14:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore per WP:BLAR. This was a former article and the bold redirection, while in good faith, was inappropriate because the target article does not discuss this. -- Tavix (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Tavix. This is without prejudice to an AfD nomination if anyone desires. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 27 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.

Wiintendo[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. Participants consider this to be a non-notable mod at best, and not mentioned in the target. ~ mazca talk 21:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not used online; seems to be made up. TheAwesomeHwyh 14:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless mentioned a 1 minute google tells me this is mod that is basically a Wii inside a NES case, so it's definitely not made up. However it isn't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia that I can find so the redirect is not appropriate, at least currently. My 1 minute google suggests that it might be worth someone who understandings the notability of gaming system mods taking a look to determine whether it does deserve a sentence or list entry or something like that (I don't know which system's article it would be most appropriate on if so though). If the judgement is that it does merit a mention then the redirect should be targetted at that mention and kept. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think that this is worth keeping. Specifically, the above mod doesn't appear particularly notable at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:40, 4 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.

Stay the fuck home[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. No major support for deletion, final target can be hashed out elsewhere if necessary. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and uncivil and not mentioned on target. Would be uncivil if mentioned on target as simply propogating invcivility. G10 was declined. Suggest delete; though might be ssuitable as a stand-alone article Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for two reasons:
    1) The title is not directed at any specific person and the redirect is being used for an encyclopedic purpose. Which brings me to...
    2) It is mentioned in the target: There were multiple campaigns around the world guided by notable personalities, such as Busy Philipps and Ariana Grande to get people to stay home utilizing the hashtag #staythefuckhome, #staythefhome and #stayhome and flatten the curve across social media., on Social_distancing#2019–2020_coronavirus_pandemic. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep there is absolutely nothing uncivil about the redirect, the word fuck itself is not uncivil within context. This is a legitimate international campaign run by the big three social networks, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter (#staythefuckhome, #stayhome, #staythefhome) along with countless notable people from big screen actors/actresses, to professors and doctors to flatten the curve with millions of posts about it and coverage in mainstream media as I indicated in the target article. It's not currently suitable for a standalone article but it's absolutely relevant to Social_distancing#2019–2020_coronavirus_pandemic and sourced, contrary to the nominators assertion. A little bit of WP:BEFORE is also your friend. Please remember that it is generally expected to notify creators when you nominate their creations, Djm-leighpark.Praxidicae (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also for some clarity, I've added nearly a dozen sources to the target about this, including a piece from Rolling Stone, two pieces by actual Forbes and HuffPo staff among countless others. If one were to google this term, it would be an easy 30 second search to show that the term is relevant to social distancing and notable. Praxidicae (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A good example about how to spread incivility. Feel happy. I am now off from home to visit a vulnerable person at home who has become non-responsive to phone calls. Trust me what I can think about BEFORE in this case! A stand alone article is appropriate if it is that notable.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly accusing editors of incivility is a baseless accusation and in itself a personal attack. A stand alone article is not appropriate and this is precisely what redirects are for. Please explain how I have been uncivil or created an attack page based on policy or redact your statement. Lastly, you have several years experience here and are not a newbie, you should know what a WP:BEFORE search is or at the very least, how to use google. Praxidicae (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between the incivility of the redirect title and the you accusing you of incivility. You know well the necessary procedure ... ie take me to WP:ANI if you feel I have made a WP:WPA and I am dealing with you whilst dealing RL with a couple of vulnerable people who are sort of alrightish thankfully. thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to article titles. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal matters are not the concern of Wikipedia, if you're so over whelmed by such things, perhaps a break is in order instead of a nonsensical disjointed nomination of a valid topic. As for the subject matter, can you explain where in policy or established consensus this redirect is inappropriate while simultaneously being appropriate for a standalone article?! Praxidicae (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well Stay at home seems to be earlier and has more hits .... but I think its right OTRS should bully me off so I'll take that advice and self impose a mini-break. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: If someone is bullying you through OTRS, you should report this to someone. That's far more of a problem than an incivil redirect. Natureium (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will confirm I am not being bullied through OTRS. I will I was indicating had incoming indicators from multiple vulnerable people since the beginning of this process which means I was finding myself in an escalation. The issues were low level and not critical and more of a frustration to deal with under local Covid-19 restrictions (and my issues are trivial compared to that of others). I perhaps should have engaged with the CSD decliner before noiminating who in common with the redirect creator is a OTRS volunteer and is also I note an oversighter. Hmmm.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: If you're concerned about vulnerable people during this period, they really should be your first priority, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia will still be here when the COVID-19 situation has passed and then we can decide on what redirects we wish to keep and which may need to be deleted or have their target changed. I don't know if you're aware or not, but there are no limits on the number of redirects that can exist for an article, so having both Stay at home and Stay the fuck home is not a problem from either a technical nor a policy point of view. Take care. Nick (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick: Having to real with RL became an increasing issue during this process and just as I thought i'd cleared space other stuff came in. The Stay-at-home dab you raise is an interesting point and I had spotted that also before I self-enforced-break however I could not use the same redirect as Stay the fuck home. The Stay at home slogan/campaigns may pre-date Stay the fuck home in a coronavirus context, certainly February and possibly January. However the same redirect cannot be used and WP currently promotes Stay the fuck home over Stay at home. This is beyond the scope of this redirect discussion. I will also comment is while Wikipedia will survive Covid-19 some of us may not.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. If it's too offensive for wikipedia, it's too offensive for wikipedia. Rather you're saying that it's too incivil to be a redirect but could be an article instead? Natureium (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable phrase mentioned at the target article. Personal feelings about one word in it (good or bad) are irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the term is mentioned and this is no way an attack page.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the begining of this process Old revision of Social distancing the word fuck was not on the target.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Social distancing#Social media campaigns. OcelotCreeper (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - This is a social media term. It needs to go, as stated above, to the specific social media related subsection of 'Social_distancing#Social_media_campaigns'. I should add that there's nothing wrong at all with redirects being mean-spirited so long as they are otherwise justified. For example, 'Tricky Dick' justifiably exists and goes to President Nixon's page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This exact phrase is all over the Internet nowadays. And it cannot be a personal insult as it does not target any specific person. JIP | Talk 22:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Let me say pragmatically it is going towards a keep; and in fact the action is perhaps more on links to Stay-at-home order and the DAB Stay-at-home is more fruitful; though these are not articles I particularly choose to edit. This may be closed if people like; or can be left open for the craic; I'm not too bovvered either way. I leave that choice to other .... or point me at the nom. withdraw procedure if its helpful to others to have this closed earlier. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:01, 29 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.

More Wii modchips[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. None are mentioned in the current target, and the suggested alternate target was promptly deleted via AfD for being unsuitable for an article. As the drivechips en masse are considered non-notable, there is unlikely to be any useful content for these redirects to point to. ~ mazca talk 21:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable Wii modchips. TheAwesomeHwyh 14:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sections they link to exist anymore, by the way. TheAwesomeHwyh 14:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Wii drivechips, after I have fixed an inappropriate WP:BLAR from 2018. -- Tavix (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of these things are the type of things that are generally covered by Wikipedia. Retargeting the list of drive chips article is just an indirect way of stating delete, as there’s no way that article has independent notability. Cut to the chase and just delete. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not mentioned at the target article and it barring a barrage of keep votes the drive chip list will be deleted as well so there’s no reason to retarget there.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 03:16, 4 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.

Take The L (dance)[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 Loser (hand gesture)#Usage of an "L" handsign in specific contexts. signed, Rosguill talk 20:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target page. There is a brief mention of the dance at Loser (hand gesture)#Usage of an "L" handsign in specific contexts, so retargetting might be possible. However, the information about the dance at Loser (hand gesture) is not sourced, so I'm not sure if it should be there at all. Not a very active user (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. I think the mention at the proposed retarget is enough. Nb I've just converted Take The L to a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:18, 29 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.

AUTOEXEC.BAS[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 keep. (non-admin closure) 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File not mentioned in target article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snow keep. Meanwhile mentioned in the article, with reference. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:06, 27 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.

Kashmir shawl[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 pending the creation of a new article at the redirect, currently being worked on in sandbox signed, Rosguill talk 20:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is inappropriate. "Pashmina" refers to a type of wool, and "Kashmir shawl" refers to a category of clothing. The redirect can plausibly be expanded into a full article, which I am working on doing. The target of the redirect carries very limited information about the subject, some of which is inaccurate. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why not just create the article over the redirect? You can copy-and-paste what you've recently created in your sandbox. – Uanfala (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the redirect for now, and write the article there (good spot, good work). See the first bullet point on this page. Narky Blert (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uanfala (talk · contribs), Narky Blert (talk · contribs) I guess I wanted to be able to take credit for creating the page; bit annoying that someone who created an incorrect redirect gets that. No problem - I'll transfer the material I've worked on there. Many thanks for the compliment. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kohlrabi Pickle: Don't worry about not getting credit - anyone who looks at a "View history" page knows what the big plus numbers mean. Narky Blert (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: Thank you. :) Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 07:53, 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.

Nintendo CameGube[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 20:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Runlikely uedirect. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:16, 27 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.

Nintendo's Wiii[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 20:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikeliii. Between Nintendo being plural here and Wii having three I's, I doubt many people will use this redirect. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete too many errors to be plausible.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nintendo is not plural here, it is a possessive form. -- Tavix (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the misspelling of the second word is the only actual error here. "Nintendo's Wii", i.e. the Wii belonging to Nintendo is an uncommon but not incorrect way of referring to the console. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - “Nintendo’s Wii” is plausible, and “Nintendo Wiii” is plausible, but both at the same time is one too many deviations to be likely. Sergecross73 msg me 02:19, 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.

CycloWiz[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. Given that the AfD for the proposed retarget is approaching SNOW levels, I'm going to go ahead and close this as delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure Wii modchip; unlikely to be searched in 2020. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the Wii article doesn’t even cover modchips and I doubt any other article would cover this specific one.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Wii drivechips after I have fixed an inappropriate WP:BLAR from 2018. -- Tavix (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the recently resuscitated “drivechips” article is nowhere near notability standards. There’s no way it sticks around, retargetong to it is just going to lead us right back to a double redirect or a redirect to a redlink... Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Until or unless that happens, we now have a suitable list to retarget to. If the list gets deleted, the "redirect to a redlink" problem gets taken care of automatically. -- Tavix (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget for now per Tavix. While that article still exists, the redirect should target there. Since this discussion is on a trajectory to a relist, if the AfD for the drivechips article closes as delete before this closes, just go ahead and delete this redirect. Hog Farm (talk) 18:36, 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.

WiiJii PIC 12F629 Test Kit[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 20:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely unlikely. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Likely never really functioned correctly, as such a section title would not have lasted long either. Sergecross73 msg me 00:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is another artifact of your redirection of List of Wii drivechips. When this redirect was created, there was such a section. It is no longer mentioned there or I would have suggested a retarget. -- Tavix (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apologies for not doing a thorough search for implausible redirects when I was redirecting non-notable articles two years ago. Regardless, your link more it illustrates what I was getting at though. You linked to a dif from 2008. I imagine if you had to dig that far back, the redirect hasn’t been functioning in its intended purpose in quite some time. Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I literally just went to the version of the article as it existed when the redirect was created. It took me probably one minute to do. Hopefully you are starting to get a sense of the consequences of senseless redirections when the rationale is actually one for deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • What consequences? Some implausible redirects no one was using...continued to not be used for two years until now, where they’ll be deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 03:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • The redirects to List of Wii drivechips, along with that title itself, has absolutely no business being redirects to Wii. As the redirector of that list, you are responsible for that. -- Tavix (talk) 14:40, 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.

Wii-Boss[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. I'm reading this as delete, given the very strong consensus to delete the proposed retarget at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wii drivechips, which should close in a few days (including a vote from the editor proposing the retarget here). signed, Rosguill talk 20:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect to a section that doesn't exist. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Delete per nom. Note that this originally went to List of Wii drivechips which was a list (with external links...) to modification chips for circumventing Wii piracy protections. Not notable on it's own, and not mentioned at target. -- ferret (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the article for the Wii doesn’t mention modchips at all and likely never will should we also consider deleting List of Wii modchips and List of Wii drivechips which redirect there?--69.157.252.96 (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should, as there’s no way any are anywhere near Wikipedia’s independent notability standards. Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the way to do that would be to nominate the list for deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That’s a waste of time, there’s no way that’s going to stand as it’s own article. It’s not even close to notable. That’s why I boldly (and uncontroversially) redirected two years ago without any problems until today. Sergecross73 msg me 19:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sergecross73: I find it very controversial to redirect something somewhere that doesn't describe the term. The waste of time is having to clean up the mess you left when redirecting it. If you would have taken the proper route and AfD'd it back in 2018, we wouldn't have to deal with all these redirects. In the meantime, we now have a place to target this redirect, and should the list be deleted, this one would follow per G8. -- Tavix (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conversely, I find it rather troubling that such an experienced editor would restore such an article, of such terrible writing and sourcing, and not only not nominate it for deletion, but actually recommend its use and integration into the project. Truly baffling move. Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why haven't you nominated it for deletion? If you would have done so back in 2018, we wouldn't be having this issue now. It's not too late to fix your mistake. I don't object to the deletion of the list—but I strongly object to redirecting things to targets that do not describe the term. Your redirection would only be appropriate if the Wii article contained a list of drivechips, but it did not have such a list in 2018 and it still doesn't today. -- Tavix (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t know why you seem to think I won’t? You just undid the 2 year redirect hours ago, and I’m stuck on my mobile phone at the moment. I don’t particularly want to go through the AFD nom process on my phone this exact instant. I’ll do it later if someone doesn’t do it in the meantime. I’d be shocked if it wasn’t nominated soon just with it already being such a discussion point one deletion themed board, and it being such an egregious violation of policy in its current state. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 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.

NWii[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 20:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NUnlikely search term. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:02, 27 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.

Nwiiu[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 20:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Old, unlikely, and technically a G5 as well as it was created by the sock of a blocked user. -- ferret (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per ferret. This didnt end up being a common abbreviation for the subject, and with it being discontinued, this is unlikely to change. Sergecross73 msg me 03:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have never seen this abbreviation used.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not a typo, but seems to refer to Nintendo WiiU. Hzh (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it’s not a typo but is there any evidence that people looking up the Wii U would type Nwiiu?--69.157.252.96 (talk) 01:22, 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.

Xboxen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 3#Xboxen

Questionably plausible misspellings of "series"[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 20:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...and three more questionably plausible misspellings that likely come from someone mixing up the letters of the word "series," with "seires" being used outside referring to the Greek village Seires. I'm suggesting we should maybe delete these six redirects-especially the "sreies" one, since that seems the least plausible-unless justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 00:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Landing serise" was me fixing a bad title back in 2012. I am not sure if there was an option to not leave a redirect behind at the time? In any case, there's no other reason that it exists other than that it was originally misspelled by the article's author. Since I'm here, looking at others, delete all as random obvious typos. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 00:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unnecessary clutter when the correctly-spelling version exists. Narky Blert (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:22, 29 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.

National population register[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 National Register of Citizens#National Population Register. This is considered by this discussion to be an appropriate target, and both capitalisations are considered harmless at worst. ~ mazca talk 21:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be wise to delete one of them. Italawar (talk) 15:24, 19 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 00:00, 27 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_27&oldid=949161613"