Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 15, 2020.

Five more tallest 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. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot determine how Tallest world/sydney redirect there. Similar redirect pages like "Tallest miami" and "Tallest new york" were already deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 24#Tallest redirects. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per the precedent at those discussions, they're ambiguous as always in their context, as opposed to the world or Sydney themselves. Also, I've found three more of these redirects, adding them here and bumping the number up to five. Working on it...done. Regards, SONIC678 01:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as too vague, consistent with last related RfD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shhhnotsoloud and WP:COSTLY. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:28, 23 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.

Seidenforchis[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) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Draft:Seidenforchis, which states that, according to Margońska, Seidenforchis is a separate genus. If there is agreement that reliable sources agree that this is a separate genus, or at least that some reliable sources state that this is a separate genus, then the redirect should be replaced with a hatnote or reference from the article back to the old genus. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Seidenforchis". Plants of the World Online. Retrieved 16 October 2020.
  2. ^ "Seidenforchis". World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (WCSP). Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
  • Keep as redirect of synonym. The new genus has been proposed, although not accepted by other authorities or resources (WFO and World Plants also have it as synonym), so the redirect is appropriate. The draft article should remain in draft until the genus is recognised elsewhere. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a search for any authorities that support Margońska's proposed new genus was not successful. For now it remains a synonym and the redirect should be retained. Loopy30 (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Based on the above comments, which appear to be a consensus, I have declined the draft, which will be consistent with an expected close to Keep. Thanks to User:Gderrin, User:Jts1882, User:Loopy30 for reviewing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 19 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.

1-Hexane carboxylic acid[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 deleted by Liz per G7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G7: author requests deletion. Incorrect syntax, will create new redirect with correct syntax Mdewman6 (talk) 20:56, 15 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.

Wikipedia:DFD[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 Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion. There is some discussion about "discussions for discussion" being redundant. If this venue does not become established, it may be wise to revisit this some time down the road. -- Tavix (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose disambiguation or retargeting to the new Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion. The status quo is fine if you interpret DFD as "drafts for deletion", but there are a grand total of 10 incoming links, despite the shortcut being almost 14 years old. A disambiguation page could also link to the failed proposal Wikipedia:Disambiguations for discussion, where this did link for a time, but I don't think that's worth worrying about if we want the shortcut pointing to one place. BDD (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete First preference, disambiguating second. It always was a bad idea, it’s virtually never used, and never should be used. Anyone using it should see a red link. Different camps of editors will think Dismabiguations or Drafts. Both are obscure things to most mainspace editors. Both have been debated for where they should be discussed, Disambiguations at AfD or RM or MfD; Drafts at AfD or MfD or a new dedicated venue. The question of what DFD means is an unworthy question, don’t invent ambiguous TLSa, just deal with the ones that have arisen naturally. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retargeting to Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion will make most sense, provided this venue picks up speed. But it's probably a bit too early to tell yet. Venues that exist are always better targets than ones that don't. Whatever is done to this redirect should be replicated at WP:DfD as well. – Uanfala (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get a firmer consensus and also taking this opportunity to include the other redirect mentioned by Uanfala
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion (which, for full disclosure, was my proposal as a venue); it is the most natural "WP:DFD" target that we have right now, and is starting to see some use for its intended purpose. If this redirect becomes a red link now, I would expect that eventually someone will point it there. BD2412 T 04:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Delete, don't retarget. Contrary to the statements above I'm not seeing any uses of this to refer to Discussions for discussion - a very new and lightly used venue that may or not survive in long term use (hopefully the latter as such meta discussions are much better had on the same page as the main discussion to avoid forks, maintain context, provide greater clarity and are much easier to find in the future). The existing uses are a complete mix referring to drafts, disambiguations, MfD (where drafts are handled) and AfD (where disambiguation pages are discussed). Adding yet another venue into the mix will just increase the already existing confusion and make it harder to retarget this to somewhere that actually merits the shortcut in future. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion per BD2412. Discussions for discussion is a perfect venue for uninvolved editors who want to close a very complicated discussion. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the point of WP:ANRFC. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it isn't. WP:ANRFC is for requesting a close, and is little used for discussing issues with difficult closes. Prior to the creation of Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion, there has been no centralized location for such discussions at all. BD2412 T 21:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, because such discussions have been (and should continue to be) had on the page where the discussion to be closed is happening (or its talk page or a subpage of it). There is a reason that we've not created a venue like this in the preceding nearly 20 years of Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are problems with that approach. One is that partisans involved in the discussion will contest questions raised on the article talk page of how consensus should be interpreted. Another is that without a centralized discussion venue, the potential for experienced closers to come across a particular discussion reflecting common close issues is reduced. You are not required to use or participate in the noticeboard, but others may benefit from it. BD2412 T 23:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your first problem can happen just as easily at this new venue, all you are doing is making it a tiny bit harder to find (and making discussions harder to find is a problem in and of itself). For exposure to experienced closers what you need is a central listing of discussions that need closing, which exists already in the form of ANRFC without any of the downsides. Indeed nobody is forced to use it, but that is not a reason to point out that its significant flaws outweigh any benefit people might get from it. Anyway, this is off-topic regarding the redirect and my opinion against the proposal regarding that stands. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 18 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.

Cable 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 retarget to Cable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 11:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect - leads to a specific company rather than the general information readers are most likely expecting. Ionmars10 (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to cable television. However, that article has very little about cable as an industry outside of the U.S. One could perhaps assemble a Cable television providers section, drawing from Cable television in the United States and Cable television by region; if someone were to, this redirect could be refined to that section. Tamzin (they/them) | o toki tawa mi. 23:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Cable industry india also exists. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the disambiguation page at Cable. I oppose a straight redirect to Cable television or similar as that is not the primary topic for the term - google results are split between that and the design/manufacture/supply of cables (wires) of various types (mechanical and electrical), with the latter being the more numerous (but not primary). We don't, that I've found, have a single article about the non-television use but the disambiguation page lists the pages about the various types of cable which will get the reader closer to what they are looking for specifically (maybe a link to Category:Wire and cable manufacturers should be added too). The dab page also includes a link to cable television for those looking for that meaning. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to DAB page Cable per Thryduulf. CycloneYoris talk! 05:15, 15 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 19:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambiguation page. This is ambiguous, and the current target is certainly not suitable. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:18, 16 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.

Louise Gluck/Averno[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 20:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a very weird redirect, and I don't see any CSD that applies. Suggest deletion. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This appears to hearken back to the early days, when subtopics would sometimes be developed at a subpage of the main article. The article was indeed created at this title back in 2007, but it was moved later the same day, so I see no reason to keep it. – Uanfala (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding that this redirect is a few years too late to be an {{R with old history}}. The article stayed at this title for 11 hours, then got moved to Louise Glück/Averno (which I'm adding to the nomination now), and an hour later got moved away from that too. That's too little time, too long ago for any of the considerations about redirects from moves to be relevant. The redirect is causing harm though – it pushes away other results in searches. For example, if you start typing "Louise Glück" in the search box, you'll only see two article suggestions: Louise Glück and this redirect. This can, for example, mislead readers into assuming Averno is the only one of her poetry collections that we've got articles about. – Uanfala (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless and per {{R with old history}}. If the redirect hasn't caused any issues in 13 years then there is no benefit to deleting it now. Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems pretty late for an old mainspace subpage. Those seem to have mostly died out by 2004, which is when WP:Do not use subpages (old version) was redirected to WP:Subpages. Seems like whoever created this in '07 was a bit behind the times. In light of that, I'd say weak keep. Tamzin (they/them) | o toki tawa mi. 03:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Uanfala, since both redirects do seem to clutter the search bar. CycloneYoris talk! 05:35, 15 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 19:18, 15 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.

Bow down before the porcelain god[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 (aka soft redirect) to wikt:bow down before the porcelain god. There is a consensus to send this to Wiktionary, and thanks to BD2412 we now have a 1:1 match. -- Tavix (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, and isn't really related to the target. We could retarget to Vomiting, but this doesn't look like particularly common slang. Was an article from 2002 to 2004, but I don't think a restore-and-AFD is necessary for this. Deletion is probably best. Hog Farm Bacon 17:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Porcelain god, itself a soft redirect to Wiktionary. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD. Or restore and send to AfD as second preference - there has been no discussion about this content that resulted in a consensus that it should not be an article that I can find and it would not be speedily deletable therefore neither situation where deletion of an article at RfD is appropriate applies. Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Seems pretty useless. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that Worship the porcelain god redirects to Vomiting. – Uanfala (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD; Worship the porcelain god should probably retarget as well, as "porcelain god" isn't in the Vomiting article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've nominated Worship the porcelain god for retargetting at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9#Worship the porcelain god. Thryduulf (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much as I like this page (it was created in February 2002 with its entire content being the succinct A colloquialism or slang expression meaning "to vomit." and lasted until December 2004), I have to admit this is not plausible as a redirect here. In a dictionary, yes, but not in an encyclopedia. All the more so because this is not a set phrase, but one of may possible descriptive expressions that utilise the trope ("worship the porcelain god", "worship at the porcelain altar", etc). – Uanfala (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:worship the porcelain god. A better target that cuts out the middle man. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:00, 11 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 19:07, 15 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.

DEMOCRATS MAKE SWEEP OF STATE OFFICES[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 20:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect appears to be inspired by the smaller headline below the famous one, which says "G.O.P. Sweep Indicated in State". However, the use of this term doesn't seem to be connected with Dewey defeats Truman. Based on the content at 1948 Illinois elections, the state headline also seem to be incorrect, but since this isn't a phrase commonly associated with it, I don't think this redirect has much value. Hog Farm Bacon 17:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This can't be accurate on more than a state scale (there has never been, and probably never will be, an election where one party sweeps all state offices in every state). However, there are undoubtedly multiple elections for which this is true with respect to a particular state. Therefore, the target article is inappropriately narrow, while the redirect itself is unusably broad. BD2412 T 17:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD and also the fact that the USA is not the only country with Democrats, some of whom might have made a sweep of state offices at some point (I've not looked). Thryduulf (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:52, 18 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.

Ami go home[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) 16:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:R#DELETE #10: this slogan is likely notable in its own right (see this deWiki article), but isn't described at length anywhere on enWiki. Deleting will encourage article creation, and readers will be better served by search results in the meantime. signed, Rosguill talk 16:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • After glancing at the German article and seeing "Yankee go home" in the lead image, I noticed we do have Yankee, go home redirecting to Anti-Americanism. That phrase is mentioned there in the context of a Turkish protest, though not explained. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless explained somewhere. Ami could be anything. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:54, 18 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.

Stonebridge Entertainment[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:13, 15 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.

SKA Films[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 22#SKA Films

Face Productions[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, now mentioned. Thanks! (non-admin closure) 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:09, 15 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.

Daystar Productions[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, now mentioned. Thanks! (non-admin closure) 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:06, 15 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.

Clasico Entertainment[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 Mutual Film Company. signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:05, 15 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.

Mike Peterson (comics)[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 20:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Peterson / Deathlok never appeared in the comics. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:57, 15 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.

Blucher (1939 German criser)[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 20:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unused redirect with a typo in the title ~ GB fan 09:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a double error. Ships are generally denoted by the launch year, from what I've seen, and this Blucher was launched in 1937. Hog Farm Bacon 17:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an error in disambiguation (WP:COSTLY). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, due to unfortunate errors User:Carsten R D talk 19:03, 16 October 2020 (CET)
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.

Indian Space Program 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 retarget to Department of Space. signed, Rosguill talk 20:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should retarget to Department of Space as Indian space program is not entirely contained in ISRO. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:43, 15 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.

Egyptian alef[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 both to Aleph#Egyptian. signed, Rosguill talk 20:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They should point at the same target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:40, 15 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.

Egyptian ayin[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 both to Ayin. signed, Rosguill talk 20:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These should point at the same target. @Anomie: You retargeted Ꜥ. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • agree. --dab (𒁳) 15:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep both as is Someone searching for "Egyptian ayin" is clearly interested in content specifically about Egyptian and of the two targets there is more (but not much) relevant information about at Transliteration of Ancient Egyptian#Uniliteral signs. However if they search for "Ꜥ" there is nothing to indicate they are interested in Egyptian specifically (indeed they may not be interested in that at all) and so Ayin is the better target. This does leave someone searching for information about Ꜥ related to Egyptian poorly served as there is almost no content there. This is probably best served by editing the Ayin article though - indeed if content about Egyptian is added there then it will probably become the best target for both redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget 1st to Ayin. These should be consistent with each other, and also consistent with the alef nomination above. I've added a hatnote and See also link to the Ayin article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • On further reflection, "Egyptian ayin" might be interpreted as meaning the use of ayin in the modern Arabic language as used in Egypt, which is a further reason for a redirect of the 1st to Ayin, and not to a uniquely Egyptological use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:09, 15 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.

Dirty joke[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 Ribaldry. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be quite the right fit for this term. I think Ribaldry would be a better target, unless someone can come up with something better. BD2412 T 04:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nominator. A dirty joke can cover a number of different taboos, not necessarily just those indicated by black comedy. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per rationale. Black comedy for me personally has a little to do with dirty jokes.Less Unless (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. Dirty jokes are a feature of blue comedy (although not exclusive to that) not black comedy. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment wherever it redirects, the term needs to be bolded in the lead sentence. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:57, 18 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_15&oldid=985048639"