Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 22, 2020.

List of lists of lists of lists of lists[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. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A list of lists of lists of lists of lists would not contain the list of lists of lists, as the redirect implies; a list of this sort would only be possible or useful with a list of lists of lists of lists, of which there is none, and as of now serves to confuse more than inform. Zoozaz1 talk 21:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, I also consider this pointless search clutter (t · c) buidhe 21:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - someone was bored I guess. --mfb (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I created this because people are perenially interested in the recursive lists here (List of lists of lists of lists has been created and deleted an unimaginable number of times, as far as I can tell each time with List of lists of lists as its only entry). These articles get created every once in a while because people want to know if we maintain, have use for, etc a list of lists of lists of lists (of lists): so I think it is probably best if we tell them "no" rather that make the implication that it simply hasn't occurred to us. jp×g 23:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pedantic note: List of lists of lists does include Lists of books, which includes Lists of encyclopedias and Lists of dictionaries; one could claim (and many have. in talk page arguments there) that since Lists3 does contain at least one list3, it is also a list4. While this is obviously a minor technicality and doesn't justify the creation of a whole article, I think a redirect is fine, both at Lists4 and here at Lists5 (since we only have one list4, and not a multitude of them, such as a list5 would require). jp×g 00:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This nonsense could go on ad infinitum. You can make pedantic arguments about whether there technically is a list of lists of lists of lists of lists, but the potential for confusion outweighs any humorous aspect. ―NK1406 talk•contribs 16:50, 28 November 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.

Han/gul[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. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the article nor the sources used in it suggest that the topic is known under this stylisation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Google finds plenty of results for "Han-gul", "Han'gul" and some for "Han.gul", all referring to Hangul (the Korean script). Unfortunately it (Google) insists on trying to be helpful and even when in direct quotes and verbatim only results are requested, it refuses to distinguish between different punctuation marks so I cannot reliably say whether or not "han/gul" is used at all, only that if it is used it is less frequent than the other forms listed. Adding word processor to the search string does at least find some uses with a slash, but only ones that seem to be derived from Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del/ete per nom. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a straight transcription of the stylised Korean name, The Korean Wikipedia article on this topic is in fact located at ko:한/글 (note the slash in the middle and the fact that the title does not have a parenthetical disambiguator -- with the slash in the middle this is far more likely to refer to the word processor than any other topic by the name "hangul"). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I added content at the target article explaining this name. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Common Korean stylization; redirects are cheap, no need to delete. Zoozaz1 talk 01:24, 27 November 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.

2020–21 Argentine Primera División[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 30#2020–21 Argentine Primera División

Top 10 tallest buildings in Moscow[edit]

 Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 30#Top 10 tallest buildings in Moscow

Umass[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 Target all to university systemm. signed, Rosguill talk 20:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In puzzled on whether this should redirect to the university system or the flagship campus. I would like to community to answer that. Interstellarity (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment added UMass, U-Mass, and U Mass. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd think the system would be the better target, as to my knowledge UMass Amherst is typically called UMass Amherst, not just UMass. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, the system is the better target. So keep most, retarget the second. Certainly this can be a name for either topic, so we should keep it in line with the full name ("University of Massachusetts"). If we ever deemed the flagship campus the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, that would be different. --BDD (talk) 19:54, 30 November 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.

Colonize University[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. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article --TheImaCow (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Lenticel (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I looked up takushoku in several dictionaries and the definition in the article is accurate. Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary defines it as "colonization; exploitation; development; settlement". As for the suitability of the redirect, Eiichiro Azuma's In Search of Our Frontier says: "Takushoku (literally 'Colonization') University opened a 'colonial higher school' in Tokyo and a branch in Brazil. ... [The Prime Minister] wanted to produce colonial adminstrators and experts for Taiwan." (p. 135) So the term is accurate in this case and this source even has as a subtitle "The Colonization University", which would be more grammatically correct. Opencooper (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Colonization University could be a reasonable redirect given that several different WP:RS mention that interpretation of the university's name, but I don't see how this grammatically-incorrect phrase would be a likely search term. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 09:36, 29 November 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.

VIP syndrome[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 AfD. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in article 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert to the last version as an article [1] or Restore the content in the target, which was removed by an IP without discussion using only the edit summary "bad". The article is the same in both places, and while it isn't great it is reliably sourced so if it is going to be deleted it needs discussion at an appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to VIP medicine. Judging from my searches, it appears the primary topic of this term is alteration of usual medical care when VIPs are patients. (t · c) buidhe 21:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The old article content was broader than that so I would prefer not to redirect to the narrower topic - at least not without a discussion of that article content that concludes it should be deleted, moved and/or merged somewhere first. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article per Thryduulf; being a stub is not reason to delete. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:12, 23 November 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.

Inferior race[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 Supremacism#Racial. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This term has multiple meanings (the Nazi one is actually better covered at Untermensch)—and appears to be more common with regard to non-Nazi racism. Therefore, it's better to direct to the more general article at Supremacism#Racial. I would have done this boldly but the page is fully protected. (t · c) buidhe 08:32, 22 November 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.

Jay Holstein[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. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a case of WP:R#DELETE #10 signed, Rosguill talk 19:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. If he's notable he should have his own article, and making his name a WP:REDLINK will signal editors that an article needs to be created. If he's not notable, then he shouldn't be mentioned in the target in the first place. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to facilitate uninhibited Search (which in any case reveals only one use in Enwiki). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:52, 23 November 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.

Beautifful (Beast Song)[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 move without redirect to the obviously intended title Beautiful (Beast song). This is without prejudice to a new RfD if anyone objects to the new title. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created today, I'm inclined to think that the typo isn't very likely. Taking her instead of WP:R3 as it isn't super ridiculous. Hog Farm Bacon 04:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per R3, as the implausibility threshold for typos is very low. Note that Beautifful does not exist. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:31, 22 November 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.

@Thryduulf: per WP:MOVEREDIRECT, I disagree with your moves. If Beautiful (Beast song) is a plausible redirect, it should be created by its own merits and not be usurped by the history of a different redirect. Could you please revert and reopen? -- Tavix (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: Beautiful (Beast song) did not exist before I moved the page, no usurption has happened. I really don't understand the point of reverting, speedy deleting as an implausible typo and/or page created obviously in error and then creating a new redirect (which I will as it's an obviously plausible redirect from a single to the album it's from). That's even more pointlessly bureaucratic than things you frequently complain about being pointless bureaucracy. Additionally, there were and are no pages unrelated to this discussion that link to the redirect with a typo unrelated to this discussion. Literally none of the reasons given at WP:MOVEREDIRECT are relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: No, you messed up the edit history. Now it's showing Jameslulo as the creator of the redirect Beautiful (Beast song), which is wrong—he is the creator of Beautifful (Beast Song). We do not know what his intentions are; misspelled redirects are frequently created, and this one could very well be what he wanted to create. You are the one that wants Beautiful (Beast song) to exist, so you should be the one creating that one. In the meantime, leave Jameslulo's redirect alone unless he confirms that his intentions were to actually create the other redirect. If so, then this redirect could be G7'd. Now, please revert your moves and reopen this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I reverted my move, then deleted it under the applicable WP:CSD#R3 and WP:CSD#G6 (although I typoed and hit enter too soon entering the latter into the deletion log). I then recreated Beautiful (Beast song) afresh. I trust we are now all done here? (any objections to Beautiful (Beast song) as a redirect should go to a seperate RfD) Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Distant (upcoming film)[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 procedural close. Redirect is now an article. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine to Amblin Entertainment#Motion pictures (where the mention is). While the film is upcoming, and for at least a short time afterwards, this is a plausible search term for the film, especially as there is no mention of an expected release date. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I do not think redirects with "(upcoming film)" disambiguation are plausible search terms. This is a good example of a WP:COSTLY redirect, because it will have to be deleted once the film is released. While we are here, we might as well take care of it now. -- Tavix (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm just waiting for someone to accept the film's draft so we can end this discussion. Filming had already concluded and the film even has a logo, so all that's needed is for the draft to be moved into mainspace. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:50, 23 November 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.

Druck (key)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 30#Druck (key)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_22&oldid=1084348604"