Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 2, 2020.

I Know ( 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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another two that were part of that mass nomination. Aside from the unnecessary space in between the parentheses, these are also ambiguous as to which song with the title they're referring to. Why should these exist when the correctly formatted versions already do and currently redirect to the base titles (which both exist as disambiguation pages)? Regards, SONIC678 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.

COVID-19 pandemic in Canada pandemic in Alberta[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 per WP:SNOW. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted. It is confusing. We have an article about Canada and one about Alberta. Why would we need a weird redirect that uses both terms, and the term "pandemic" twice? It seems to be confusing, particularly when searching for an article as this redirect shows up as a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darryl Kerrigan (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Pretty confusing and an unlikely search term. Ovinus (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this thing. We don't normally use this redundant format, and I don't really see this as an exception to the rule. On that note, are there any other redirects with this format that could be bundled here? Regards, SONIC678 23:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping temporary link generated when renaming the article back in May. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible search term. However, I noticed that the link from the redirect to this discussion leads to the wrong log page: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 3. Can we fix that? Glades12 (talk) 13:16, 3 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.

iPhone (9th generation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 13#iPhone (9th generation)

Siemens process[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 Chemical vapor deposition#Polysilicon. signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect target contains little information about the Siemens process; we would be better served with a red link to encourage the creation of a new article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment that section uses the term Siemens process four times though. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It uses the phrase, sure, but neither the section nor the article has any information on what the process actually is. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:28, 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.

iPhone (Xth generation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 13#iPhone (Xth generation)

Cryptojacking[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9#Cryptojacking

Jalen Razzie[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) 02:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No non-Wikipedia results online, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:57, 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.

Trump campaign controversies[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 10#Trump campaign controversies

Lakshmi Menon(model)[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 17:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be an implausible redirect, from a title with a missing space between the title and the disambiguation to the actual article with the space. If deleted, a histmerge may be necessary. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this error (WP:COSTLY). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin note - I have split the article recreation revisions from the redirect and merged to the draft, and have protected the redirect per WP:GS/PAGEANT. The redirect does not need to be kept for attribution. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:02, 8 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.

Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station[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. Involved close, changes have been made to the target article that address my original concerns. signed, Rosguill talk 17:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, seems like a likely case of WP:R#DELETE #10 signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I can see where this may be confusing. Eventually, if found Notable, the Ag Station should have its own article. For now, as it was an early part of the UMass campus, it appears that this was the best fit for a redirect link. What I know about the Ag Station is that in the late 1800s and early 1900s the Agricultural Experimental Station was co-located to surround the campus of the university, which had been established some ten years prior. Here on this article Campus of the University of Massachusetts Amherst I had found a 1912 map, which indicated adjacency. Looking further, I found another map from 1893 where the buildings that supported the Agricultural Experiment Station were clearly marked: This second map is on a north/south basis, and confirms the Experimental station being the two buildings at uppermost. The Wikilink redirect is important because the Ag Station is featured prominently in one of my fraternity's histories, along with the Wikipedia biographies of several early UMass presidents. Growth in the subsequent century on and around the campus seem to have hidden it, as the mission of the school shifted from a strongly agricultural basis. This helps clarify where the Station once was: straddling the north apex of the early campus ring road. Jax MN (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did some further checking. The East Experimental Station (building) remains at 671 Pleasant, according to current campus maps. The area is near Worcester Commons. EAS now houses the UMass Press. The West Experimental Station building had grown to be unsound, and was dismantled, with its historic facade rebuilt as part of the entrance to the new Physics lab, which replaced it at that site. Jax MN (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the target article to add a couple of descriptive sentences about these two buildings in the North Campus section of the page. The redirect should make more sense now. Jax MN (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jax MN, based on your comments here and the edits made to the article, it seems that neither of the buildings is actually known by this name specifically. Moreover, I don't see the need for links from the other articles, as the target provides no information about the building/research initiative other than a brief, likely WP:UNDUE claim about the building's location cited to a map. signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few thoughts on this. The Ag Experimental Station (AES) was more important for the first sixty-odd years of UMass; the original name of that school was Massachusetts Agricultural College. The AES had cropped up as a red link from time to time, as it had previously been a rather big deal on the campus. It appears to me that the target page has relatively minimal content throughout in comparison with other similar pages; not for lack of value, but because no one has expanded the article to match the treatment that architectural aspects generate at other schools. I could certainly expand my couple of sentences about the AES, but without doing it for other buildings this would create undue Weight in comparison to the other buildings listed on the page. Other significant, old schools have longer articles about their iconic architecture, and such expanded treatment is OK with me - I do NOT think it is unnecessary page bloat. While one of the buildings (East) has been re-purposed, the West building was architecturally significant enough to warrant brick-by-brick disassembly, then re-assembly as part of the new Physics building. One of the references now shows this painstaking process. I think your concern is notability, not that the stations existed or their early buildings exist. The references are clear that we have the correct buildings. The agricultural experiment function has apparently moved further out of town as the urban area encroached. I am not an alumnus, and do not have enough background to write a separate page for the Ag Station. But I hope someone may. It has had a dozen directors as a semi-independent research mission over the years. I've found a number of pages that have red-linked to it, and watched as some of these were edited out over the years. But some persist, in expectation that the AES deserves a page (or my simple redirect). Thus I think it is reasonable to keep the redirect. Jax MN (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jax MN makes a fine and compelling case as to why we should have an article about the AES, but redirecting the name without any mention of it is only going to confuse and disappoint readers. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added text to the target article to satisfy these concerns. Jax MN (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the improved language is available here, which should now be the REDIRECT target. Jax MN (talk) 18:02, 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.

Jessica Jones (singer)[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry (now that I've deleted the unlinked entry with no WP:DABMENTION). Delete to encourage article creation, if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 12:40, 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.

Pot parlor[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9#Pot parlor

Template:Ichnobox/short[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 17:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect should be deleted. At one time, there was a template at the redirect title which behaved differently. When automated taxoboxes were first updated to use Lua, the 'short' version was simply redirected to the 'full' version, although this did not quite produce the same behaviour. In the last few days, Template:Ichnobox has been fully updated to use Module:Automated taxobox, and all occurrences of the redirect as the taxobox template in articles have been removed, with changes where necessary so that the taxobox works properly with the new version of Template:Ichnobox. It would be misleading now to leave this as a redirect, as it implies that the difference in behaviour still exists. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:06, 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.

Clothing optional[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9#Clothing optional

Creation of India[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 History of India. Votes were close, but no one is in favor of the status quo and editors in favor of retargeting made persuasive arguments about the utility of the search term. signed, Rosguill talk 17:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Between its current target, History of India and History of the Republic of India, it seems unclear where this redirect should target. Probably best to delete if a proper target cannot be determined. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to History of India (1947–present) (note that History of the Republic of India was renamed by RM last month.) History of India is describing a geographic region, which really wasn't "created" except in the cosmological or tectonic sense. I think readers using this search term probably mean the creation of the state. But it's definitely one of the two, and with the reciprocal hatnotes, the stakes are low. No need to delete. --BDD (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:53, 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.

BERSATU Blackout[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) 20:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Note that BERSATU refers to Malaysian United Indigenous Party, but the term isn't mentioned there either. Delete unless a justification can be provided. I found some coverage of the "blackout" here [1], but it doesn't mention the Paty of Homeland's Figthers. signed, Rosguill talk 21:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, the article linked doesn't directly mention the Party of Homelands Fighters, but it does confirm that the "Blackout" faction that left the party was led by Mahathir Mohamad, who's gone on to form this party. I'm not familiar with the situation, but it reads to me like this is the most likely target someone searching for it is going to look for - though a mention at the target would be useful. ~ mazca talk 12:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see "blackout" mentioned in either place. It seems very likely that someone using this search term already knows more than we can tell them. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:52, 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.

The Center for Global Ministries[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]

No strong connection to Liberty University here. It's a thing at Liberty, but there's also this organization, one at Oklahoma Christian University, one at Regent University, and a variety of Church of the Nazarene and Seventh Day Adventist organizations. That's just from a quick Google search. Too ambiguous to be a useful redirect. Hog Farm Bacon 15:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Considering the page history, and the possible usefulness of older edits to improve Liberty University, I would say "keep" and possibly rename to The Center for Global Ministries (Liberty University) either now or later, if and when another "Center for Global Ministries" has a page in Wikipedia. Also, the fact that it became a redirect at all was as an alternative to PROD. Had the pre-redirect version gone to AFD, I would have recommended "merge and redirect." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The former article is minimal, and very WP:RUNOFTHEMILL for a Christian college. With the parent Department of Cross-Cultural Studies not even mentioned in the main Liberty article, I can't imagine a merge would be worthwhile. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see mainly one for an organization in Plano, Texas, US. It could be brought back if mentioned in the Liberty University article. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:33, 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.

Lunar System[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 disambiguate. The discussion is closer to no consensus, but given that no one has spoken in favor of the status quo, disambiguate seems like a better outcome than defaulting to keep. signed, Rosguill talk 19:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect redirect, since no natural subsatellites of the Moon ever existed in the first place. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Edit: Dabify per BDD. The draft looks good so far. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:17, 5 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 19:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate I decided to draft one after seeing many uses of the phrase on Wikipedia referring to lunar calendars. If we choose this option, the page should be moved to Lunar system after the RfD closes. Admittedly, the uses on the draft page are more like see-alsos, but I think it's enough. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:50, 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.

Tell Your Friends( The Weeknd 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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two more redirects from 1234qwer1234qwer4's mass nomination back on June 7, which I'm not really sure should exist (per the precedent with the deleted and repeatedly recreated Tell Your Friends (The Weeknd song )), especially since the correctly formatted Tell Your Friends (The Weeknd song) does. They also appear to have far less pageviews per day than the day they were created. Regards, SONIC678 06:29, 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.

Clothes free[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9#Clothes free

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_2&oldid=983254207"