Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 25, 2020.

Sub-Saturn[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. The term is now mentioned. No prejudice against an RM. --BDD (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. While a reader could infer what "Sub-Saturn" means from context, I'm not sure that the redirect is appropriate due to the lack of mention and would lean towards deletion unless the article is rewritten to be about sub/super labels in astronomy more generally. signed, Rosguill talk 18:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:58, 25 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.

Meetei Puya(Meitei Puya Lailik)[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) 14:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not a useful redirect. DAB component makes it an unlikely search term noq (talk) 23:46, 25 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.

Checkuser 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) 14:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them should be retargeted to WP:CheckUser, as both of the targets were recently changed to an article about administrators on Wikipedia. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. The current target isn't appropriate: administrators ≠ checkusers, and the article doesn't mention checkusers. Retargeting them to Wikipedia:CheckUser would make for unnecessary WP:CNRs. There are a handful of articles that mention the checkuser permission, but none that would be a good target. - Eureka Lott 16:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I wanted them deleted in the first place, but I have tried to prod several cross namespace redirects, both of which got removed. I personally think redirects from article space to outside of article space should not be allowed, however that would be a much larger issue not discussed here. I think that the current targets are a suitable {{R without mention}}, however, a CheckUsers section could be added to said target page. I also personally would have no issue with deleting cross-namespace redirects, but current policy allows them and would need to be brought up at VP/P. Naleksuh (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might have meant WP:R2, which is only used for redirects from the main space to any other spaces except the Wikipedia:, Template:, Portal:, Help:, and Category: namespaces. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 11:14, 19 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 20:47, 25 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.

Home Circuit[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) CycloneYoris talk! 22:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Kart Live: Home Circuit has been released recently and readers may use the phrase "Home Circuit" to refer to the game rather than the court system. JsfasdF252 (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This may be opposed by some people, but hey this is an enyclopedia isn't it? So we couldn't possibly allow any of these real life topics to in any way impede access to the latest output of the commercial mass media. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the view trends [2] for the Mario Kart article and the Circuit Court articles, it is weird that suddenly for September there was a doubling in views for Circuit Court (and so I thought it must be people searching for the game and getting these redirects), but since these redirects get nowhere near the same numbers [3] I think it must be a coincidence, unless there's something to do with search I don't know about? A7V2 (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BHG. The hatnote there suffices for the time being. If the Mario Kart article continues to be such a massive search term in a few months then this can be revisited. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 27 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.

Torching[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 1#Torching

Hekate event[edit]

 Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 2#Hekate event

Wikipedia:COMPLEX[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) CycloneYoris talk! 22:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this shortcut redirects to a page describing Indic script support, which is not so complex at all. Perhaps retargeting to WP:Avoid instruction creep. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - Contrary to the nomination it's very clear from the intro to Help:Multilingual support (Indic) as to why this redirects there, as the help page is primarily about support for complex text layout which is required for Indic and other scripts that can have differing character positioning relative to each other. If there was another WP-space page that heavily used the word complex I could see an argument for retargeting it, but I'm not sure if WP:Avoid instruction creep is that page. ~ mazca talk 14:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Mazca. WP:Avoid instruction creep already has the shortcut Wikipedia:CREEP which fits better. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very long-standing shortcut (since 2006) that gets lots of page views, so any change would be disruptive and per both above there would be no significant (if any) benefit to the change. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf and Mazca. It may be complex to work with or render it on some computers. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Even after multiple keeps due to extreme conservatism of shortcuts, I won't withdraw my nomination because of the misleading nature of the shortcut. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:01, 29 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.

Educaton is a sin[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) 14:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems with this. Firstly, the typo makes it an unlikely search term. Secondly it is mildly misleading because Boko Haram objects to western education specifically and not all education in general. Thirdly, Boko Haram are far from the only group that opposes education in some form. Reyk YO! 08:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If you google "Education is a sin" you get several results that are actually connected to Boko Haram, but as the nominator mentioned the sources talk about Western education in particular, not education as a concept. So the redirect can be misleading.Less Unless (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the correctly-spelled Education is a sin also points there, and I generally view that as reasonable because it's not just that Boko Haram believe that (western) education is a sin, it's that Boko Haram can literally be translated as "(western) education is a sin". I view that as a very sensible use of a redirect, in the absence of a better target. In this particular redirect's case, I'm fairly neutral on it because it's not a particularly obvious misspelling, but I feel the principle of the redirect is fine. ~ mazca talk 14:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this spelling error since the correct version exists (but is not nominated here). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat weakish delete this, since the correctly formatted version exists and is used more often (this one may have gotten a somewhat decent number in 2018, but it seems like those pageviews are fizzling out). I'm also thinking the same should be done for Educaton is sin, which I'm adding here. Working on it...done. Regards, SONIC678 06:49, 26 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.

Radio Católica[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) | free Thailand 08:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Term (Spanish for "Catholic Radio") is too generic to point to an article on a specific station, let alone an LPFM in Massachusetts. Search results include "Radio Católica Mundial", the Spanish service of EWTN; "Radio Católica" in Ecuador; "Radio Católica de Nicaragua"; and others. Raymie (t • c) 07:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Station is commonly known as "Radio Católica" as mentioned in target article, and this is even confirmed by its official website. CycloneYoris talk! 08:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the only actual in-text use of the term on this wiki at the moment, though if we actually end up with articles for other radio stations that do call themselves "Radio Católica" it may well be worth a disambiguation page in future. es:Radio Católica is a redlink on the Spanish wikipedia, though, so it's hard to tell if this actually is a common specific term. ~ mazca talk 14:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per 61.239.39.90's draft below; having spotted KLOC as another similarly-branded station elsewhere it looks like there are enough different options to make that the sensible outcome. ~ mazca talk 19:28, 26 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.

Template:Netflix original ended series[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 5#Template:Netflix original ended series

Template:Pr[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 3#Template:Pr

Template:PeerReview[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 Thailand 08:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Tom (LT) with the reason "Cleanup of unused template since 2008, following an article move" FASTILY 05:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks also Fastily. I have been wikignoming and cleaning up the dark and untended halls and recesses of the once glorious peer review. One major part in how difficult it is to conduct housekeeping is that there are just so many little nooks and crannies, and this is one of them. As an unused redirect, it would make life just that much easier by removing it, and thereby also preventing the one or two accidental future uses of this redirect that will require an even more future fix. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What exactly is the reason for deleting? Template shortcuts can be deleted if their title is ambiguous and they can cause confusion, or if the title is to be usurped for something else. As far as I can see, this is as straightforward, transparent and unambiguous a shortcut as you can possibly get. It's also got some history, as it existed as a peer review template before the current target was created. – Uanfala (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Uanfala in this case, my experience in the peer review domain is that this sort of thing ends up generating problems over time, for example with double or triple redirects, or with bots that don't detect when redirects are used etc. I am trying to reduce the burden of technical debt for the PR process and, as this redirect is unused after such a long time, I really don't see why it needs preserving. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, this redirect is certainly neither double, nor triple. Any technical process that's going to deal with the mechanics of PR will have to be able to detect redirects: this is a basic functionality that should normally be there by default, and the technical process will need to have it anyway as the target has two other shortcuts: {{PR}} and {{Peerreview}}, which have not been put up for deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • And how do we even know these are unused? The target template is subst-only, so any correct uses will not show up as transclusions of these redirects. – Uanfala (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uanfala and {{R from move}}. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uanfala Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 09:56, 28 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.

ABC Sports[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 ESPN on ABC. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) | free Thailand 08:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Sports redirected to ESPN on ABC for 14 years when the name (which had been used for 45 years) was changed. The redirect was recently changed to redirect to History of ABC Sports which is certainly plausible. But the history article is a sub-article of ESPN on ABC which still includes much about the history. It may serve readers better to redirect to the main article. MB 02:16, 25 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_25&oldid=987202893"