Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 27[edit]

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

Murazor[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 5#Murazor

Humanist (typeface classification)[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 Humanist (disambiguation). signed, Rosguill talk 22:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Humanist" refers to two things under the Vox-ATypI classification, and there are two sections with the same name under the current target of the second redirect. Humanist serif is a subtype of Serif#Old-style, while humanist sans-serif is described in more detail at Sans-serif#Humanist. Is either one the more common meaning? Paul_012 (talk) 18:54, 20 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 21:22, 27 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 presidents, vice presidents, first spouses and second spouses of the Philippines by longevity[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. Incoming links have already been addressed. Deryck C. 13:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the redirect page, the article name has been reverted to only cover presidents. First spouses and second spouses are neologisms. The target page is also planned to be converted as a plausible redirect for List of presidents of the Philippines by age. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:19, 20 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 21:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have considered !voting for keep if it wasn't for the "second spouse" part, which doesn't exist. I have fixed the remaining legitimate on-wiki link to that redirect, and I don't think there's any reason for this useless redirect to be kept. Keeping this redirect will only mislead our readers that there is a "second spouse" in the Philippines, even though there's not. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 13:52, 10 June 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.

Brewing stand[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor gameplay element that isn't mentioned at the target. Could conceivably also refer to real-life brewing tools, but even if it doesn't I think that the lack of content at the target is reason enough for deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because of lack of information at target, because it is not a likely search term for Minecraft, and because it interferes with searches for actual brewing stands {like the one I used to have when I did brew beer). On the last point, there may not currently be any text in the Wikipedia that has such content, but as the more common meaning, we should keep that open. --Bejnar (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I almost considered nominating this for rfd 2 days ago. But yeah, I knew it wasn't mentioned then. This is an item in Minecraft where someone trying to learn about it would search the Minecraft wiki instead. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as obscure gameplay mechanic. In real life, it seems to be a part of a brewing setup that could be added to the Brewing article. --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . This isn't a diamond sword in notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Common term not restricted to Minecraft. —Lowellian (reply) 03:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The brewing stand in Minecraft is only one minor thing in the game, and there are search results that could be more useful. CrazyBoy826
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.

Censorship in Poland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Convert to article which has been started at History of censorship in Poland. Thanks User:Piotrus for writing most of this new article. Deryck C. 13:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target page had hatnote-style text: ""Censorship in Poland" redirects here, as censorship is far more relaxed in present-day Poland compared to the PPR. This article is about historical censorship in the communist People's Republic of Poland (1944–1990)." I have removed the hatnote because it doesn't "help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for" (WP:HATNOTE). The intent of that hatnote would be better executed by deleting this redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a general Censorship in Poland article is something that we should encourage creating by making it a redlink. signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rosguill. We should encourage article creation by deleting this redirect. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. There is no censorship in present Poland. There was some marginal censorship in the Second Polish Republic ([1], [2], [3] - maybe I'll stub it). Then we can convert the redirect into a disambig (if one really wants to nitpick, the censorship existed for few months in modern Poland, until the relevant law was changed [4]). But note that beyond a disambig there is little that can be done with this redirect, not unless in the future Poland introduces a new censorship agency :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is no censorship in today’s democratic Poland, communist PRL censorship should be noted with a separate article.GizzyCatBella🍁 02:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's one example of censorship in contemporary Poland [5]. Censorship is a tool of statecraft; rare is the government that doesn't engage in it to one extent or another, even if only to protect the leaking of state secrets or to keep nudity off of the TV. Just look at the long list of countries with articles linked at Template:Censorship by country. Poland actually stands out in that list as one of the only countries to not redirect to a general article about censorship over the course of its history. signed, Rosguill talk 02:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, certain topics you mentioned I can't discuss with you due to myself being censored on Wikipedia (joke :)) but I agree that a new article "Censorship in Poland" could be created but "Censorship in Communist Poland" should be kept separate in my opinion.GizzyCatBella🍁 16:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think anyone is proposing changes to Censorship in Communist Poland here, just that the redirect would be better off as a redlink. signed, Rosguill talk 21:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you're voting to delete? François Robere (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
François Robere - The comment of this single purpose IP, is most likely a sock or meat puppet of a banned user and was directed at me. I didn't comment on the body of the remark. YOU, on the other hand, suppose to stay away from me. [7] So please, stay away from me and stop following me around!GizzyCatBella🍁 21:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being paranoid, Bella - it's a public forum, you're hardly the only one who comments here. Instead of charging, try to WP:AGF and imagine how this looks.[8] Cheers. François Robere (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support redirecting to there to close this discussion, on the fence about whether or not it's similar enough in scope to other Censorship in X articles for it to be appropriate to move it to Censorship in Poland. signed, Rosguill talk 04:44, 2 June 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.

Clearances[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 5#Clearances

Wikipedia:Adding images[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 6#Wikipedia:Adding images

Hoarmurath[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 22:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, and shouldn't be - this is a non-canonical adaptation in a game, so isn't really relevant to the main topic of Nazgul. Too minor to mention in the game articles per WP:VGSCOPE. Hog Farm (talk) 15:17, 27 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.

Greg’s best friend[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that the wrong apostrophe seems to be used here, there are many Gregs besides Greg Heffley, and most of them presumably have best friends. Ambiguous. Hog Farm (talk) 15:11, 27 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.

Sankoh[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 5#Sankoh

Dwar of Waw[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 22:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned anywhere. Non-canonical name invented by the creators of Middle-earth Role Playing. Not really relevant for the Nazgul article (fan speculation, basically), and WP:UNDUE to mention at the game article per WP:VGSCOPE. Hog Farm (talk) 05:09, 27 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.

Romantic selection in humans[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 22:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect, created rather recently on 8 May, should be deleted. There is no such thing as "romantic selection", let alone romantic selection in humans, and thus the target article does not discuss any such thing. Crossroads -talk- 03:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is such thing as how humans select romantic partners, and this should redirect to whichever article discusses that. Benjamin (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To those of you voting delete, why shouldn't it simply point somewhere else instead? Benjamin (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because no-one can think of a suitable target? Narky Blert (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Well, if so, that seems like a gaping hole in the encyclopedia if there ever was one. Benjamin (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not even close to the larger "bleeding holes" that exist here. There is too much to do, and it needs to be done well. --Bejnar (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So suggest a target or write an article. All constructive contributions are welcome. Narky Blert (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking an appropriate target, mostly because it is an inchoate notion. --Bejnar (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the adjective 'inchoate' will often transmogrify a discussion. I once got it into a technical report at work. Narky Blert (talk) 18:04, 31 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.

Norbourn[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 5#Norbourn

Pē̆trŏcŏ́rĭī[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) 19:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritics don't seem to make any sense, and the now blocked user who made this redirect appears to have made many other similar redirects in the past which got deleted (eg: here and here). I can only get one google search result for this exact spelling, which is some random person's Facebook page. Nothing links here, and looking at the page views, I appear to be the only person to have come across this page title in the past 90 days. Seagull123 Φ 00:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 01:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator. Glades12 (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red link this particular spelling, but I see no harm in moving it without leaving a redirect to Pĕtrŏcŏrĭī and then redirecting to Petrocorii. I presume that's what was originally meant: I think it's from Le Gaffiot. Pĕtrŏcŏrĭī is certainly not an obvious spelling, very rare, but I don't think the current spelling is used at all, anywhere. DrKay (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not this spelling. Useless. --Bejnar (talk) 16:57, 31 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_27&oldid=961991391"