Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 16, 2020.

Nigeria national football tema[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 06:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We may have watched one or both of these temas teams at some point in our lives, but I'm not sure how plausible this misspelling is, given how far apart the A and M keys are on a lot of keyboards, and the many different uses of "tema." Regards, SONIC678 23:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this could be plausible. One of my most common typos is "specail", where the A and I are far apart. CrazyBoy826 23:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What is to be gained by deleting these redirects? — J947 [cont] 04:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary clutter. The correct name appears in the search box well before the final two letters are typed. Narky Blert (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No links. No views. No point. DrKay (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as creator; made both over three years ago and wouldn't have done so now. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:44, 17 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.

Liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable[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 Webster–Hayne debate. signed, Rosguill talk 06:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase originates in the Webster-Hayne debate. Perhaps it should instead redirect there? pbp 22:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud: Why do you believe the Seal of North Dakota to be the primary topic for "Liberty and Union, etc"? pbp 21:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89: What does the reader want? If they want to know whose motto it is or whose seal it's on, then there it is clearly at the target article. If they want to know the origin of the phrase, then it's clearly linked from there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Seal of North Dakota only gets about 8 or 9 views a day, so I'm not sure it's what the readers want. Webster-Hayne gets 5-6x the pageviews. pbp 13:09, 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.

1978–79 VCU Rams men's basketball teeam[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 06:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...and yet another case of this, the only link in which is from the second to the first. Not sure if we still need these two lying around, as of now. Regards, SONIC678 22:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete teeam is implausible. CrazyBoy826 23:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What is to be gained by deleting these redirects? — J947 [cont] 04:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible mispelling, nothing but clutter. Narky Blert (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No links. No views. No point. DrKay (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These appear to have been created in error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:56, 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.

⋾[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 06:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CrazyBoy826 22:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of these symbols is used for the "is an element of" relation. (I have no idea what they are used for, or if there is a better target.) --JBL (talk) 14:08, 23 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.

LiveAbout[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) 00:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. My guess is that these are examples of online magazines, but that doesn't make for a useful redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 22:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. Terms are nowhere to be found on target article. CycloneYoris talk! 06:26, 24 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.

COVID-03[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 06:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[ See #COVID-02. CrazyBoy826 17:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy as recently created and implausible. By the way, nice signature CrazyBoy826. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my argument at #COVID-02. Narky Blert (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because the particular coronavirus that's currently making our lives a living hell was dubbed COVID-19 does not mean we suddenly need to create new COVID-## backformations for every other coronavirus that came before it. SARS was never called "COVID-03" in reality, so there's no basis for a redirect. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 24 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.

Order of the Golden Lion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 25#Order of the Golden Lion

Phoenix IV: The Hitory of the Videogame Industry[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A leftover from a pagemove that took place in 2016 because of the typo...nothing seems to link to it now, and it doesn't seem to get very many pageviews per year now. Not sure how useful it is to have this still lying around. Regards, SONIC678 05:29, 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.

Eritrean Autonomous State[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Given that this was a period in which Eritrea and and Ethiopia were unified, the target is arguably the opposite of an autonomous Eritrean state. Searching on Scholar for this term returned zero results. I would thus suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it was joined under Haile Selassie as an autonomous part of Ethiopia? It had a "Viceroy" as a go-between. Its just a simple description as a redirect as there is nothing to confuse it with if you dont know the exact name. --Havsjö (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think. If I understand correctly, this was Eritrea's official status during the period covered at the target. (Note that "autonomous" and "independent" are not the same thing.) If I've misunderstood the history, please correct me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:24, 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.

conspiracy & theories versus allegations[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 wrong venue. Please use Talk:Conspiracy theory. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not english. I edit mainly polish wikipedia, but let me take part in the discussion alone. The term "consipracy theories" is a valuation, a judgement made by wikipedia editors. This should never happen in my opinion. Instaed I suggest to use the term "allegations". Obviously such allegations has been spoken out. Some of them are proved, some are not, but this another question. Wikipedia never does judgements on it's own, but rather notifies facts. Some of them are simply facts, that such allegations has been spoken out. I take part in this discussion, because I wonder how it is possible, that english wikipedia uses such valuating terms like "conspiracy theories". Zbigniew Lisiecki (talk) 03:42, 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.

Loeg Ningloron[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 06:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only mentioned at a dab page, is an alternate name for a fictional location (Gladden Fields) that does not have an article. Hog Farm (talk) 02:46, 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.

Article the Third[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 25#Article the Third

Supermarket News[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 06:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No logical connection, and appears to be a trend of redirections creased by suspicious account. ZimZalaBim talk 01:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Supermarket News appears to be a website affiliated with Informa. See [1]. A7V2 (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Enwiki has no information about "Supermarket News" but an uninhibited Search will reveal some mentions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No satisfactory target, let the search tool do its work. Narky Blert (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Supermarket News is published by Informa, hence the redirect to the Informa page. Supermarket News is a major source of news, rankings, and other information on the supermarket industry. The redirect gets several page views per day. The request for deletion is completely motivated by ad-hominem/personal reasons because the nominator did not like another one of my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor600 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change something. I checked Ulrichsweb, which lists the publisher as Penton rather than as Informa — Penton's an Informa subsidiary, so the redirect isn't wrong, but if it's kept, it ought to be retargeted to the title given by this directory. (ISSN is 0039-5803 for the print version, published since 1952, and the web version the same URL that A7V2 provided.) Also, there's another Supermarket News, published by Elsevier beginning in 1989 or earlier, and apparently ending in 2019 or 2020. I don't see why an Informa Group title would be primary versus an Elsevier title, and it seems silly to create a disambiguation page when neither of the potential articles actually exists yet and our only choices are to link the publisher names on the disambiguation page. Deletion, therefore, is what I'm leaning toward. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Penton was dissolved and folded into Informa Wikieditor600 (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see any references to a supermarket news published by Elsevier. The one published by Informa is used as references in many Wikipedia articles and is well known in the industry.Wikieditor600 (talk) 04:25, 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 21:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The other "Supermarket News" does not seem to have a website or anything about it on the internet so it is likely not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The "Supermarket News" published by Informa is well-known in the industry and is cited in many Wikipedia articles. Regardless, the existence of another publication of the same name does not preclude the publication by Informa from having a Wikipedia page/redirect. If there is a Wikipedia page created for both versions of "Supermarket News", then there can be a disambiguation page but I do not see any reason that the other version is notable.Wikieditor600 (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CrazyBoy826 (talk | contribs) 01:15, 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.

🤑[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 Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs. There are multiple possibilities so this would normally be deleted per WP:XY, but redirecting to the parent Unicode block makes sense. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should this redirect to money, the page on it's Unicode character set, or something else? I'm not sure if anyone would actually type this to get to the page on money. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's defined as "money-mouth face", so it's most closely related to money. -- Tavix (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, a face with dollar signs for eyes is a symbol not for "money", but for some sort of relation or attitude towards money. Greed? Profit drive? I'm not sure it's reasonable to try and find some article that will approximate only vaguely what this emoticon shows. – Uanfala (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone can show that this redirect has some actual practical use. SpinningSpark 22:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Spinningspark: It's currently being used as part of the template that appears at Emoji#Unicode blocks, so there's a reason for this to exist and it needs to target somewhere. CycloneYoris talk! 08:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • So there is a rule that every unicode emoji has to redirect somewhere? No matter how inappropriate? The redirects in that table are of marginal use at best, the target articles say nothing about unicode, emojis, or graphic symbols in general. I wouldn't be sorry to see all those redirects deleted. Besides which, the table can still pipe the link to your chosen article without the need for the graphic symbol itself being a redirect. SpinningSpark 09:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Defined in Unicode as Money Mouth Face 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it has "money" in its Unicode name, but the target article doesn't tell the reader that. A redirect is only useful if the redirect target has information about the redirect subject. If it doesn't it will leave the reader bewildered and wondering why they have been sent there. SpinningSpark 14:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to the Unicode characters. I don't know what information there is on the unicode page, but either way, this is an inappropriate target because it's useless for anyone who would actually search it.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reason as Uanfala, the page's title should accurately reflect it's content. If it means different things it could be made a disambiguation page listing "Money, Unicode Charecters, Greed etc.". - Mullafacation {talk page|user page} 08:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix and Ayana. All of these emojis appear at Emoji#Unicode blocks and they all seem to have their own redirects, so there's no point in deleting this if it will eventually get recreated by some other user. CycloneYoris talk! 08:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs. As Uanfala pointed out, this emoji is vaguely associated with all sorts of concepts. Trying to pick one runs into a sort-of/not-exactly WP:XY problem. The best we can do is point the reader somewhere that tells them the name of this emoji (well, you have to mouse-over it in the table) and let them figure out from there if they want to search for greed, profit motive, etc. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Supplemental Symbols and Pictographs per Uanfala and IP. signed, Rosguill talk 01:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CrazyBoy826 (talk | contribs) 01:11, 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.

Barking scarf[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? TheAwesomeHwyh 00:25, 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.

Computervprogram[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete completely implausible. CrazyBoy826 (talk | contribs) 01:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unambiguouslyvcreatedvinverror. Narky Blert (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakishvdelete,vwhilevthevVvkeyvisvonevofvthevseveralvkeysvjustvabovevthevspacebar,vI'mvnotvsurevpeoplevwouldvmisspellvitvthatvway.vRegards,vSONIC678 22:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:59, 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.

CPU (heart…)[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical disambiguator. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are different redirects, despite looking the same. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:18, 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.

COVID-02[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SARS is the official and most common name. There should not be confusion, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#COVID-12. CrazyBoy826 (talk | contribs) 00:12, 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.

Pictures are closer[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? TheAwesomeHwyh 00:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the person that created these redirects also created Pikturs which also redirects to images. It may be worth adding though it disent appear as egregious as the other 2.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 21:32, 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.

1.3 megapixel[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overly specific. We don't have or need 1.4 megapixel, 1.3 gigapixel, or even 1.9 terapixel, so why do we have this? TheAwesomeHwyh 00:09, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_16&oldid=958843495"