Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 11, 2020.

Crosstown rivalry[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 sports rivalries. In addition to having a narrow numerical majority, this outcome also has support from being a prior status quo established in an AfD discussion that stood for 5 years. signed, Rosguill talk 03:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is far from the only "crosstown rivalry" in existence. Should probably retarget to List of sports rivalries. 119.18.2.230 (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget back to List of sports rivalries per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crosstown rivalry. I considered closing this as a speedy retarget, because the change seemed like borderline vandalism. The editor who retargeted it has also created some questionable redirects. - Eureka Lott 14:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - I agree that this should go to 'list of sports rivalries'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - this shouldn't even be a debate. This link has pointed to List of sports rivalries for 5 years until today (26 April 2020) when someone made what could be thought to be an inappropriate edit. I would have reverted it and flagged it for vandalism however will just let the discussion run here. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crosstown rivalry is a general term that if someone wanted to create a List of crosstown rivalries it should redirect to but having a one sentence blurb in the whole list doesn't seem sufficient to have the term redirect to the whole page. If it had a section of crosstown rivalries sure, but it doesn't. There are many entries on the list that are not crosstown rivalries and there isn't a section devoted to them. This isn't wiktionary that one sentence alone should not justify a redirect. -UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with UCO2009bluejay. --Bsherr (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per UCO2009bluejay. The term could refer to lots of different rivalries and search results are the most useful thing we can offer, given that editors at AfD decided that this extensive list was not worthy of inclusion, and list of sports rivalries doesn't give a definition of the term and is not useful for finding examples either. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per editors above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: one more relist to see if we can get a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget back to List of sports rivalries per nom. This decision is made harder by that target being a rather atrocious list article, being immensely overburdened with minor entries across a huge spectrum of competitions, but "crosstown rivalry" is a really general term. Under a lot of circumstances I'd agree with the contributors advocating a delete, because the search results are better - but ultimately the search results just provide the same awful array of results, just in an even less organised way. A reader looking for a particular crosstown rivalry isn't exactly going to be happy with List of sports rivalries, but it'll certainly assist them in finding the relevant ones more than the search results will. ~ mazca talk 00:25, 20 May 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.

Yasu`[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 Christian terms in Arabic#Y per IP. (non-admin closure) Pandakekok9 (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. Delete per WP:RLOTE OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment look at Yasu, it says Yasu is a name for Jesus in some languages, but none of them match the titles of the redirects here. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:34, 11 May 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.

Characters Per Second in Typing[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 attribution issues actually seem to exist given the creator added the same information to both this former article and the current target. Hence, there are no other arguments offered for keeping this redirect, which is not mentioned in the target due to being created erroneously in the first place. ~ mazca talk 00:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, no one measures typing speeds in characters per second so this is an unlikely search term. A previous AFD closed as merge, incorrectly in my opinion. The creator of the page stated at the AFD (but only after everyone else had commented) that the page was a mistake, and the previous contents make it clear that they had intended to create Characters Per Minute in Typing. SpinningSpark 18:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and tag with {{R from merge}}. Since the content from here was merged, the history needs to be kept for WP:ATT reasons. Hog Farm (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hog Farm: Normally, that would be right, but in this case the editor immediately reposted the article to the correct title, so no attribution will be lost. It actually qualifies for CSD G6, "pages unambiguously created in error", but I thought it would be unwise to do that to a page that had been through AFD. I've now added the R from merge template at the correct title as you suggest. SpinningSpark 22:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The target article has no discussion of characters per second. -- Tavix (talk) 02:43, 19 May 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.

Beaver Dams[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 Beaver dam (disambiguation). Retargeting the redirect to the dab page seems to be the best option here. As Rosguill says, the plural of this redirect is capitalized, so it's reasonable to say that the reader would be looking for the "Beaver Dam", not Beaver dam. (non-admin closure) Pandakekok9 (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should this remain as targeted, or target Beaver Dams, New York, or target Beaver dam (disambiguation) (expanded to include the plural)? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget options that have been suggested: Beaver Dams, New York, Beaver dam (disambiguation), and Beaver dam
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to beaver dam. I don't see why the plural would lead to a different (primary) topic over the literal one. -- Tavix (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the dab page. The simple plural's primary topic is Beaver dam. But the capital plural's primary topic would be the locations actually named Beaver Dams as a proper noun. Currently we have Beaver Dams, New York and Battle of Beaver Dams, which describes at length a location in Thorold, Ontario that is also called Beaver Dams where the battle took place. Thorold, however, makes no mention of Beaver Dams. Probably the most MOS-compliant solution would be to move Beaver Dams, New York to Beaver Dams with a hatnote, and create Beaver dams pointing to Beaver dam, but I'm not convinced that it's worth the additional effort. signed, Rosguill talk 03:23, 20 May 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.

RISM (identifier)[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 03:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unlikely disambiguator in the redirect title: RISM is already an unambiguous redirect. The redirect was apparently created for an (in the mean while failed) experiment. Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Puzzling qualifier which doesn't help the reader select between articles at all, especially when RISM is unambiguous. Not even worth keeping as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Narky Blert (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The redirect from the abbreviation RISM and the identifier redirect RISM (identifier) serve two completely different purposes - this is by design, not by error: The former is a redirect used in "normal" article linking, the second one is a redirect only used in links from manifestations of RISM IDs in articles, typically invoked through templates like {{RISM}} (see [1]), citation templates or the like. The parenthetical disambiguator (identifier) is reserved for this specific usage.
The main reasons to deliberately route such occurences through identifier redirects is that there are typically many invocations (up to hundreds of thousands as in the case of identifiers like ISBN). They completely pollute "What links here" to a point that it is no longer usable. Routing them through this redirect, people doing normal article work who are only interested in normal links to the target article, can easily mute them in "What links here" and concentrate on those links they are actually interested it, instead of having to sift through an endless list of links they do not care about at all. Likewise, other people may want to carry out reverse lookup of only those articles which contain manifestations of a particular identifier (while doing research or wanting to maintain articles including a particular identifier). They can narrow the scope to only these incoming links as well. People, who don't care about a specific class of incoming links, can continue to recursively traverse through all incoming links like before and won't miss any articles, as the network of incoming links remains intact (unlike to what would happen in some other proposed solutions to this longstanding problem that have been discussed in the past) as only the grouping of incoming links changes. Also, in some cases, going through the redirect helps to keep the link from being displayed in (undesired) boldface.
Among other places, this was discussed at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_64#choosing_identifier_redirects and it is highly desirable to remain consistent in the naming conventions here, hence this switch to use the identifier redirect rather than linking directly.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "is reserved for this specific usage" – all very unhelpful idiosyncratic system. Please take your experiments elsewhere, this isn't helpful by any stretch. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there is anything idiosyncratic it is your abuse of the |postscript= parameter (Talk:An_Wasserflüssen_Babylon#RISM). If you want to be considered, you should work collaboratively with other users (including trying to understand their reasoning) and avoid using words like "unhelpful" so frequently even when extensive help is being offered.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Matthiaspaul's explanation makes a lot of sense, but does this practice reflect established consensus? It seems that this is really a workaround for the longstanding Wikimedia bug where template transclusions can't be filtered out from What links here. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "...does this practice reflect established consensus?" – No, it doesn't. It's also a (well-intentioned but) botched hack: on mouse-over one gets RISM (i.e. "RISM (identifier)") instead of RISM (i.e. "Répertoire International des Sources Musicales"). This may make possible to sort "what links here" lists, which is of interest for very few users, while the large majority of users would simply want to know what the abbreviation stands for when steering the pointer of their mouse over it – for which "RISM (identifier)" is about as unhelpful as the abbreviation itself.
In other words: Matthiaspaul failed to get consensus for the system they're pushing. For the {{RISM}} template and wherever they wanted to use the "RISM (identifier)" redirect, the damage has been reverted & repaired, remains the unhelpful redirect to be deleted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Francis is confusing things. It is his abuse of a citation template parameter that is causing (easily fixable) problems, not the use of identifier redirects.
He has joined discussions at Help talk:Citation Style 1 only recently (and only after the discussions regarding the switch to identifier redirects). But instead of reading up on the topic and getting some background on this long-standing usability problem of polluting "What links here" for which there were complaints and discussions for years, he started to loudly oppose, revert and even edit-war in various places (see f.e. Help talk:Citation Style 1#Link to ISMN not going through identifier redirect).
He is reverting my enhancements ([2][3]) of the {{RISM}} template and my fixes ([4]) of his abuse of the |postscript= parameter (see Talk:An_Wasserflüssen_Babylon#RISM). The fix for that problem is to simply move the RISM template from the |postscript= parameter (which was designed to define the leadout character of citations, not to hold some template code or other lengthly strings) into the |id= parameter (which was designed for this very purpose), otherwise my switch to use the Catalog lookup link template will create an error message, and he is using his abuse of the |postscript= parameter as an excuse for reverting my {{RISM}} enhancements. The other reason he cited is that the switch to the identifier redirect is changing tooltips (only for users with Javascript disabled). However, in the previous discussions before the switch to identifier redirects (in which Francis did not participate) this was a topic broad forward but regarded as of only cosmetical nature by all but one user. We even had two possible solutions for it. My proposal for this was to go through identifier redirects using the long-form of the identifier name, but in the discussion users found that not all identifiers have long forms and that it was more consistent and long-term maintainable to use the short forms, so we eventually decided against it. Trappist the monk developed another potential solution for it using HTML spans, which would display the "old" tooltip whilst still going through the identifier redirect. This was demonstrated to work nicely and was considered to be rolled out alongside the switch to identifier redirects, but some users participating in the discussions found that the issue was minor enough and that the tweak might even cause unnecessary astonishment. So, it was decided not to roll out this tweak at this time - but it could still be done if more users would find this useful. Either way, the discussion was an example of fruitful collaboration searching for the best possible solution for everyone, and it resulted in a very good compromise. The fact that Francis has now repeatedly complained about it in various places, indicates that he is not even aware of these discussions and possible solutions.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, if you read up the previous discussions you will see that a scheme like #3 was considered as well (actually, it was one of my suggestions, although not the preferred one). But other schemes were found better for various reasons (including that a scheme like #3, while working fine for some cases, could lead to awkward constructions in the general case and that it isn't obvious which parts of the name represent the original name, and which were added for disambiguation purposes).
Regarding your tooltip remark, a solution to display the expanded form of the name was demonstrated as well, but in the end it was decided not to roll it out at this time (could still happen at a later stage). However, this is not an argument against this redirect, because it could be implemented for this redirect as well.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BDD, "RISM (organization)" could be a good choice for a redirect to distinguish incoming links from a meaning as organization from a meaning as a mere abbreviation, but it would not be a good choice for a meaning as identifier. Also, I think it is important to maintain consistency across the board, so, by the compromise established in the previous discussions, the naming scheme for these identifier redirects is "symbolic-name (identifier)", resulting in "RISM (identifier)" here. If, in the future, RISM would have to be repurposed for something different (for example a disambiguation page), and a new redirect would be need for RISM's meaning as symbolic name, a redirect like "RISM (symbolic name)" could be created for it. There would be no need to repurpose "RISM (identifier)" for it.
Actually, in the prior discussions we considered various naming schemes, short names, long names, various capitalization variants, and various disambiguation methods and names with and without parentheses. We settled on "(identifier)" because this is quite unobtrusive (Wikipedians are used to this scheme and almost "overlook" it). It naturally separates the actual name from the disambiguation part (instead of having to invent extended names where it remains unclear which parts represent the actual name and which were added for disambiguation purposes only). The "(identifier)" disambiguator is specific and meaningful enough to be mostly self-explanatory and unlikely to clash with other redirect names. At the same time the scheme is generic enough to work for all kinds of identifiers (regardless their name) without looking out of place.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still not impressed by the lack of broad consensus your proposals garnered. Here is a recent quote from a discussion (in which I didn't bother to get involved yet) where a similar proposal appears to be going under: "... there is no one-to-one relationship between [another Wikidata property] and Wikipedia articles, which is what the constraints of Wikidata suggest, but that's a problem there, not here." There's no consensus for any of this, thus, until if and when a consensus develops regarding RISM, the RISM (identifier) redirect should be deleted to prevent a continuation of fait accompli-like dynamics, where those engineering a fait accompli, which affects a large number of mainspace articles, never bothered to make a consensus among less than a handful of editors official by presenting it to the community on a broader scale *before implementing*. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah, I'm sorry, I just can't endorse populating mainspace with such misleading redirects. The discussions linked here to establish that convention don't have much participation. Please use something that doesn't have negative side effects like this. I would even be fine with a cross-namespace redirect from template space, for example. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 19 May 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.

Aseka-moke[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no content about this subject. Hog Farm (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Mackal is not a reliable source for thims topic. Please see Roy_Mackal#Cryptozoology. Mackal was a pseudoscience advocate, as Donald Prothero discusses there. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we can find reliable secondary sources discussing the topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of mass killings of innocent civilians by combatants in wars since WWII[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely specific, novel, obscure, etc. Redirects to an even more specific subsection of Genocides in history which is not necessarily equivalent to the redirect's title, which is misleading. AlexEng(TALK) 20:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This was left over from a page move, and was subsequently retargeted. Setting aside the page move, neither target would be predictable. No substantial links. --Bsherr (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambiguous, unhelpful, subjective and non-neutral. How many need be killed for a killing to be a mass killing? Mass killing is not necessarily genocide. Mass killings of combatants can be war crimes. We don't have List of mass killings of guilty civilians by combatants in wars since WWII: innocent or guilty of what, and according to whom? Who decides who or is not a combatant? What about conflicts which according to one side are a war but to the other are terrorism? Narky Blert (talk) 04:52, 12 May 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.

Middle leg[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 three-legged race delete. -- Tavix (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Sounds like a WP:NEO. Delete unless a justification can be proven. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it's been fairly commonly used for decades as a slang, humorous term for the penis - especially if it's large. It's nowhere near new enough or rare enough to be considered a neologism. Jim Michael (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Michael:I added that it isn't mentioned in the target article. Can you add more to your opinion to talk about that? OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should all of the many terms for penis be on that article? If so, it should be on there. Or should it be on human penis instead? Its Wiktionary article has existed since 2015. Jim Michael (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think it matters. Just find a way to properly mention the term in the article. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or soft redirect to Wiktionary since roughly half the human species has a penis, keeps coming up with new euphemisms and dysphemisms for it every generation, and writing has been around for millennia, there are at minimum tens of thousands of alternative names for which we could add a sourced mention at the target. Per WP:WEIGHT, basically none of them actually belong there. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In cricket "middle and leg" often gets shortened to "middle-leg", etc. And of course, many insects have a middle leg (usually two, in fact). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a new term, and a fairly apparent meaning. Insects have pairs of middle legs. A cricket with a bat would be balls-out nuts. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect is ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Shhhnotsoloud. Utility seems to be limited to those who want to see if Wikipedia acknowledges this joke as an easter egg. --BDD (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concur with BDD. --Bsherr (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. An insect has two of them, as does the 4 × 100 metres relay. The middle leg of a triathlon is cycling. A cricketer with a bat might ask for, or a cricket ball might hit, middle and leg. Narky Blert (talk) 05:17, 12 May 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.

Most populous counties[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. Where'd all the admins go? A juicy opportunity for an early G7 close was squandered. -- Tavix (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the US is not a default option on Wikipedia, I think that this redirect should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 19:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, it could refer to counties anywhere in the world, and the concept isn't exclusive to the United States. In fact, it's used in at least 23 other countries! Regards, SONIC678 04:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. My guess is that the second most populous county is Yorkshire (5.3M in 2011). Narky Blert (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I was the one who made the redirect in the first place. In retrospect that was a bad idea. BanjoZebra (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedily via G7. — J947 [cont] 01:50, 18 May 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.

T:R[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created (July 2019), of a type that is strongly discouraged, no incoming links. – Uanfala (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - They are storngly discouraged. However, this one just seems to be a wonderful shortcut and to make a lot of sense. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:37, 11 May 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.

Condensed or evaporated milk[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY: this title could refer to either Condensed milk or Evaporated milk, which are distinct substances. Gorobay (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Dairy product#Milk. While the overall utility of this redirect is questionable, there's a convenient place where both are described and defined. Apparently the process of created condensed milk does involve evaporation. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed, the overall utility is questionable. --Bsherr (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. Narky Blert (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems a pretty clear cut case of WP:XY. Thegreatluigi (talk) 00:17, 16 May 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.

Philippine Television Network[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. There's a wide variety of opinions with none gaining favor. Since there's some arguments that the current target is at least appropriate, I'll leave it as is. -- Tavix (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the target is a television network in the Philippines, this does not appear to be an alternative name used for the target as far as I can tell. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that there are articles (even the state-run PNA calls it) calling PTV as such is enough justification for a keep. I don't think a disambig would help here, because the redirect's name is proper, not general (like Philippine television network). I don't think disambiguating will help our readers, if there are even any who thinks that Philippine Television Network refers to every TV network in the Philippines. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 10:00, 12 May 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.

Herumor[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 With Doom We Come. -- Tavix (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herumor is a minor background figure in the works of Tolkien. The group to which he belongs, the Black Númenóreans is now a redirect, and he is not mentioned in a Middle-earth context anywhere. The only mentions in the Wikipedia are an NN song in a track listing at With Doom We Come and as part of a musicians name at Mar de Grises. I'd say either delete or retarget to the album page. Hog Farm (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I'd say, NN, but if anyone favours retargetting I'm relaxed about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, if only because of the very old history at the page. signed, Rosguill talk 21:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:59, 11 May 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.

光环：士官长合集[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a clear case of delete per WP:RLOTE, no special affinity between Chinese and Halo signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 11 May 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.

Mossberry[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 19#Mossberry

Chris Seaver[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 17:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Seaver is currently a redirect to Conker (series), a group of video games, for a misspelling of Chris Seavor, the designer of the games. A draft, Draft:Chris Seaver, is now awaiting review of a film director whose name is correctly spelled Chris Seaver. The misspelled form of the name Chris Seaver was viewed 297 times in the year 2019, that is, less than once a day. Request to delete the little-used misspelling and evaluate the draft for the real Chris Seaver. Chris Seavor, for the correct spelling, has 24 average daily hits. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per another well researched nom. by User:Robert McClenon. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The one issue I see is that the submission for the film director was declined so it may make more sense to wait until it’s accepted before we delete this.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed a misspelling and should not be confused with Chris Seavor. It also appears on the list (while Chris Seavor doesn't) of search suggestions all until "Chris Seavor" specifically is written, explaining that status of the number of hits. It is misleading and useless. —Vipz (talk) 23:19, 12 May 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.

GTFGK[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 20#GTFGK

Carla Cozzolino[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 17:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her name isn't mentioned anywhere else on the project[5] and Pageviews are generally 1 every few weeks/months[6], She's only ever starred in Brooklyn 11223[7] so as such with all of these examples I'm not seeing a reason or even a purpose to this redirect existing, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega/to do[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 18#Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega/to do

Dr. Mundo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 18#Dr. Mundo

List of prestige classes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 18#List of prestige classes

Eng Muhammad Ali Mirza[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 19#Eng Muhammad Ali Mirza

Laguna Creek (Fremont)[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 as retargeted by Evrik. -- Tavix (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects should be deleted (unless someone wants to write an article for the Laguna Creek Watershed). Even though the editor redirected Laguna Creek to Alameda Creek, my guess is they thought Laguna Creek was Arroyo de la Laguna, which, as stated in the Laguna Creek disambiguation page, it is not. The Laguna Creek watershed is not part of the Alameda Creek watershed, even though Laguna Creek and Alameda Creek both run through Fremont, California. Similarly, Mission Creek does not flow into Arroyo de la Laguna (or vice versa), there is a mountain range between the two; it flows into Laguna Creek. I can provide citations for all this if needed, but it seems like a pretty obvious, easy to make mistake. -Tga (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, while I don't have the time to check what you say above right now, the creeks exist. Why don't you point them to the correct place? --evrik (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're an entirely independent watershed with no wikipedia article. There's nowhere to point them to, and right now, they point to articles on water bodies that are miles away from where they exist, with entirely different watersheds and ecologies. -Tga (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't at all understand evrik's argument. The current target is wrong from Tga.D's analysis, and there is no other place to redirect them to, so the only option is to delete the redirects, not keep the error. -- Tavix (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tga.D: how about withdrawing this discussion? --evrik (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sure, is there a designated way for me to do so? Or do I just need to say here that I'm withdrawing the discussion? -Tga (talk) 00:28, 14 May 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_May_11&oldid=1123855718"