Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 1, 2020.

Three more "tallest [city]" redirects[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 17:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these three as well per the precedent over at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 24#Tallest redirects, these are also ambiguous like those other 26. They don't seem to be used as much per year nowadays for that reason... Regards, SONIC678 23:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Far too vague. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous discussion and nom. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:13, 2 October 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.

Discovery of America: Voyages of Christopher Columbus[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 17:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was the result of some page move vandalism back in 2017 by the now blocked JavierNF96. Besides not being a plausible search term (it reads like a book title), this is a bit of a misnomer since Christopher Columbus didn't actually "discover" America. Also, there is an WP:XY issue since Discovery of America no longer redirects to Voyages of Christopher Columbus. -- Tavix (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all of the above reasoning. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm surprised this isn't the title of something, but if it is then Google doesn't know about it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 2 October 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.

YOUDUB[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 17:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the Washington University is also known as "U-Dub", "YOUDUB" is not likely a search term. However, this redirect could also be a mispelling of YouTube, so this is ambiguous. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Seventyfiveyears: Do you have evidence that "YOUDUB" is a misspelling of YouTube? Perhaps an example of someone spelling it that way? -- Tavix (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But that’s not enough evidence to suggest retargeting there. Pronunciation of YouTube and YOUDUB is completely different and this would only confuse readers. I guess the best solution is to delete this, as the current target is also confusing in my opinion. CycloneYoris talk! 08:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say that we should retarget it to "YouTube". Also, we don't have the redirect "You-Dub", so I would suggest deletion as well. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any evidence of "YOUDUB" being used to refer to the target, although there is a YouDub, Inc and other unrelated uses. Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Found a company and some non-notable music-related stuff. Does not seem to be something people use to refer to the target. Hog Farm Bacon 03:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Closer to YouTube than U dub. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:54, 7 October 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.

Net zero[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 03:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was recently changed to Carbon neutrality. Had been redirected to the company NetZero for 14 years. Zero-energy building is also mentioned in a hatnote there, and that in turn mentions Zero carbon housing in a hatnote. I don't really know if there is a primary target here, or maybe these terms are related enough to justify a dab page. There already is a related dab NetZero 250. MB 03:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it. From https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/what-is-net-zero it seems to be a synonym of Carbon neutrality. And if you google for it that seems to be the most common meaning. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to NetZero and hatnote If the term were net zero carbon or net zero carbon footprint then those can redirect to carbon neutrality. Other option is to disambiguate. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 05:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC) updated 16:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like the energy term will be the primary topic. A "redirects here" / hatnote to NetZero company would then be approprate. Striking vote. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that disamiguating is a good compromise. I'm not sure of how major the ISP is, but I see that it operates in multiple countries. On the other hand, "net zero" is becoming a better known concept in the general populous. At least with a disamiguation, both pages are given visibility so that users can select the page that they want. CplKlinger (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be redirected to carbon neutrality as it's taking over as a prominent term for that concept. The company has way fewer views, and is less global. Disambiguation seems unnecessary to me as there are two differences with the brandname (capitalization and space). Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With twodabs, the disambiguation page isn't necessary. But it's a possible option if we needed to add wiktionary, and see alsos for ZeroNet, Zero sum AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify: I think this 2DAB scenario falls under WP:NOPRIMARY right now. I concur with capturing the “See also” topics raised by AngusWOOF. - 2pou (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:19, 1 October 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.

India virus[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) 01:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausibly vague search term, I'd suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is nothing specifically called "India virus". There is a Wheat dwarf India virus but that's abbreviated WDIV and not "India virus" as far as I can tell. All the google hits for "India virus" are actually sentences like "India's virus..." or "India: Virus...". Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Thryduulf. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:04, 1 October 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.

Run Think Shoot Live[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. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Appears to be the name of a website for Half-Life mods. Delete unless a duly sourced mention can be added. signed, Rosguill talk 17:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ambiguous and with no substantive content on enwiki. ""Run. Think. Shoot. Live." is mentioned at Tagline but is not a good target for a redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Should get a sizable mention outside of the website itself if it were that notable, but I don't see any news articles that do so. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:48, 2 October 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.

Publishing rights[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where this should be targeted, but music publisher seems wrong. I'd suggest publishing contract, but since there are a bunch of plausible options I thought I'd bring it here instead of boldly retargeting unilaterally. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:28, 1 October 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.

Francium hydroxide[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francium hydroxide should not redirect to Francium as francium is one chemical and francium hydroxide is a different one. Acidic Carbon (Corrode) (Organic compounds) 13:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarget to Base anhydride which contains useful information or restore the last version as an article (without prejudice to AfD) per WP:BLAR - the article content survived a prod before being unilaterally redirected so this should definately not be deleted at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This existed as an unsourced two-sentence-long article for a few months in 2008, and the back-and-forth around the prod at the time suggests there was uncertainty over whether this thing exists in the first place and whether the scant mentions in sources are of any use. If anyone would now like to try building an article, sure – move that to draft and let them work on it, but we absolutely can't have that in mainspace. Don't retarget to Base anhydride, as that article only has a mention that doesn't say anything about francium hydroxide that you wouldn't otherwise figure out from its name, and more importantly – this mention is also unsourced. – Uanfala (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "there was uncertainty over whether this thing exists in the first place and whether the scant mentions in sources are of any use" these are reasons why it should be discussed at AfD rather than deleted outright and are not relevant to whether the redirect should exist. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the tacit consensus for 12 years has been that such an article shouldn't exist, I don't think you need an AfD to reconfirm that. Though if you'd like to convert this discussion into an AfD, I'll have no objections. Like you, I generally prefer for RfDs not to lead to the deletion of pages with article history, but only if there's anything at least remotely salvageable there or if the issue has to do with notability (which is a tricky area that AfD excels in). Here, we're dealing with a verifiability problem; that's not something we're really conditioned to think about at this venue, but WP:V is a non-negotiable policy: there's no way the restored article could be allowed into mainspace. I think there's no excuse for what happened with this recent RfD for "Extinct cultures" – something is being done about that now only because I followed this up. If I hadn't, the nonsense that was restored would have gone straight past WP:NPP and would have likely lingered unnoticed for years. I don't think it's acceptable for consensus-building discussions – even at such humble venues as RfD – to ever result in dubious content getting a free pass into the encyclopedia. – Uanfala (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing gets a "free pass" into the encyclopaedia and you've demonstrated exactly why - any editor is free to nominate it (or any other page) for deletion at the appropriate venue. As for "no excuse" for the Extinct cultures RfD, I couldn't disagree with you more - that was consensus operating exactly as it should and preventing the deletion of article content at a venue that is not one that is set up to consider article content. I am not going to convert this discussion into an AfD because, per my recommendation above, I believe the best course of action is retargetting which will give the best outcome for readers. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uanfala, whose analysis I agree with. In fact, I have WP:CHALLENGED the unsourced section of Base anhydride. -- Tavix (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I mean, of course it must exist, but there seems to be no significant coverage of it. (And I don't expect any, because francium's chemistry seems to be somewhat boring; it's just another heavy alkali metal, only extremely unstable, and not even as big as caesium. The only interest I can think of seems to be some possible use of the inner 6p3/2 orbitals for chemical bonding as well.) We don't have francium perchlorate, francium iodate, and francium tartrate even though these exist (Fr+ coprecipitates with the respective Cs+ salts), and I don't see why this should be any more interesting. Double sharp (talk) 12:21, 6 October 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.

'B', 'C'[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'0', '2', '3' and '9' was deleted following the RFD precedents at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_23#'0' and has been deleted per WP:XY. I think these redirects should be deleted per WP:XY. 223.206.246.56 (talk) 02:17, 1 October 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.

Ȫ, Ȭ[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 8#Ȫ, Ȭ

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_1&oldid=983081987"