Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 5, 2020.

Hurricane Delta[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. The move has already been carried out, but as noted, this is the wrong forum for requesting moves. -- Tavix (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion to make way from Hurricane Delta (2020) MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Open a move request. This is the correct way for a requested page move. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 00:07, 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.

GEC Complete Peerage[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! 08:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 'nickname' for Cokayne's The Complete Peerage apparently invented by a Wikipedia editor so they could use it in citations and refer to it in text rather than by proper name (oddly, given that it is has no fewer keystrokes than the actual title). I have purged uses in article space, but retention will only encourage further misuse. Agricolae (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It wasn't "invented by a Wikipedia editor". It's fairly common in older printed works on peerage and genealogical topics for The Complete Peerage to be cited in short form as "GEC, Complete Peerage", "GEC, Peerage", or simply "GEC" (or "GEC"). "GEC, Peerage" remains one of the standard abbreviations used in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography; and "GEC" one of the abbreviations used in The Coat of Arms, journal of The Heraldry Society. We certainly shouldn't be using any of these abbreviations on Wikipedia, but I can see the redirect being of occasional use to a bemused reader, and I see no harm in retaining it. GrindtXX (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with GrindtXX, it's a very common form in older printed works on peerage and genealogical topics, for good reason. Sometimes also called just "GEC" sometimes called just "Complete Peerage", "GEC Complete Peerage" is useful in combining both appellations and removing any confusion. Not "apparently invented by a Wikipedia editor", User:Agricolae may wish to apologise for that accusation, and may wish to find more productive uses of his time than pre-emptive "purging" - before he then asks for community input as to the correctness of his action. (keeping it civil, apologies)Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per established usage: [1]. SilkTork (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't a nickname. The instances above are no more than 'Author, Title' type references that are standard in all fields. This redirect is comparable to writing Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet or Dickens Oliver Twist instead of "Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet", or "Dickens, Oliver Twist". DrKay (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. While it might be equivalent to Dickens Oliver Twist (or more accurately CD Oliver Twist) that is not going to be obvious to many users, so as the redirect is unambiguous and harmless there is no justification for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:10, 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.

Farmer–Worker Party[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) 18:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the Farmer–Labor Party was in a sense a Farmer-Worker party, it's not an exact title match, and there's other possible targets. Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party translates to Farmer Worker People's Party and Federation of Russian Canadians mentions Russian Farmer-Worker Clubs, whereas Progressive Workers' and Farmers' Union and United Workers-Farmers Organization can both be described as farmer–worker parties. On Google Scholar, the results for "Farmer–Worker Party" include articles about Chinese and Australian political organizations. Given that none of the above are great fits for a disambiguation page, I'm thinking that deletion to allow for uninhibited search results may be the most appropriate option. signed, Rosguill talk 17:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep with adjustment, I originally made this redirect for use in Category:United States political party color templates in order to edit election boxes. This Farmer–Worker Party was the Missouri affiliate of the Farmer–Labor Party of the early 1900s. I didn't take global parties into consideration. Thus, I would support the creation of a "Farmer–Worker Party" disambiguation page, as well as moving the current redirects to "Farmer–Worker Party (United States)" and "Farmer-Worker Party (United States)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curbon7 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:28, 5 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.

Dipwad[edit]

 Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 12#Dipwad

MOR Galleria[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) 13:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Enwiki has nothing about "MOR Galleria" at this disambiguation page or anywhere else Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree. There was a edit back in 2007 by another editor and that was the reason back then the redirect was made. Not sure of all of the details anymore. Anyway, this redirect should be deleted as suggested. Msw1002 (talk) 06:53, 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.

Mirak rocket[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) 13:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to make this a redlink consistent with Mirak (rocket) which has several incoming links. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:27, 5 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.

Servilia II[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 19:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


This name was never used for this woman. ★Trekker (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is false. Women in World History is a real encyclopedia that won a Dartmouth Medal from the American Library Association. The text in the linked site is identical to that of the physical encyclopedia, which contains an entry for her under "Servilia II (c. 100–after 42 BCE)". As it was published in 1999, it could not possibly a be a mirror of Wikipedia. Snippet view can be seen here. gobonobo + c 11:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, seems I was wrong about that then. But the name is still completly nonsensical. Servilia (mother of Brutus) was the elder sister, and Servilia (wife of Lucullus) was the younger one. The redirects are just confusing.★Trekker (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a scholarly source on ancient Rome, and the entries are extremely brief, so it cannot be taken as a guideline. There were more than two Serviliae, so the numbering or the 'elder/younger' are inappropriate. No other source calls them that. Delete. Avis11 (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. I'm also merging the formerly separate nomination of Servilia I to this discussion, as the arguments provided in that discussion were equivalent to the ones raised here. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gobonobo's reference. It doesn't matter whether it's "correct" or "scholarly", what matters is whether it is plausible and unambiguous. The entry in the encyclopaedia means it is definitely plausible and there seems to be no suggestion of ambiguity (which would not be a reason to delete but to disambiguate). Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • So Wikipedia should just support mistakes from poor sources?★Trekker (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they are plausible search terms, yes. We have a whole category of Redirects from incorrect names for example - their purpose is to enable readers to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It matters absolutely whether it's "correct" or "scholarly". It's also not plausible and unambiguous. There were more than 2 people named Servilia, the numbering used is completely arbitrary. Avis11 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is a resource for the general reader, not the expert so we do not require them to know (especially before reading the article) what is an is not scholarly. While the numbering might be theoretically ambiguous there is no evidence that these titles are used in practice to refer to anyone else - i.e. someone using this search term will arrive at the article they want to read. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • That numbering was only invented in the 1st place after the two Servilias in question were found to meet that particular encyclopedia's notability standards. That's all. WP shouldn't incorporate new redirects/names every time someone with no pertinent qualifications belatedly invents an ad hoc way of referring to someone. I could also conjure up some random name and create a redirect based on it, and then argue it's a plausible way to address the subject matter. Avis11 (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with arguments that WP shouldn't incorporate new redirects/names every time someone with no pertinent qualifications belatedly invents an ad hoc way of referring to someone. However, in this case, the terms Servilia I and Servilia II are in use, and have been since before Wikipedia existed: Encyclopedia.com, Roman Aristocratic Parties and Families Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999 (a more detailed view: [2]). SilkTork (talk) 14:57, 12 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.

Addlehead[edit]

 Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 14#Addlehead

Dunderhead[edit]

 Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 14#Dunderhead

MOS:QUESTION[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 19:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly recent redirect to the "Instructional and presumptuous language" section of the MOS, presumably because of the note about rhetorical questions. However, the MOS has many notes about questions in various forms all over the place, and this is a somewhat misleading redirect because of that. I don't think any of the multiple possibilities really should take precedence, and I suggest deleting. There are 3 incoming links that can be updated if so. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT There are article talk and other pages which use MOS:QUESTION so if it is deleted, please have the deletion log include the current shortcut or the target in a clickable form, so people can find it without having to hunt. No opinion on this actual RfD right now. Maybe later. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think this is a proper deletion rationale. Internal (project-space) shortcut redirects are very unlike mainspace redirs. Many of them are potentially ambiguous in one way or another, and that's okay (e.g. "WP:V" could, to a noob, refer to any "Wikipedia:"-namespace page beginning with "V"). A shortcut's purpose is not for people to guess at it and hopefully arrive at the material they have in mind. Rather, it is used when the user of it knows where it goes already, to save on typing for oneself and reading time for others, to get them to a specific project-page (or section-thereof) target that the writer has in mind. Furthermore, these two redirects are genuinely meaningful, in an "encyclopedia management" way. Their target section is the main place at which MoS addresses questions being posed, as a writing style, by Wikipedia writers in our encyclopedia articles. There is no possibly more appropriate target for MOS:QUESTION and MOS:QUESTIONS. To the extent people have questions about MoS, the answer is the same as it is for all project pages: go to the page's talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, they can be ambiguous sometimes, but we also tend to give more leeway to older ones that point to core Ps & Gs. This is neither of those. This is one point of one small section that already has other, much more well-established shortcuts. If you really feel the need for one about the bit about rhetorical questions, then make MOS:RHETQUEST or MOS:RHETORICAL or something. There's absolutely no reason to squat on another shortcut for a common word that's potentially useful elsewhere. Why shouldn't this point to WP:MOS#Section headings or WP:MOS#Ellipses or any one of a bunch of other reasonable targets? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SMcCandlish. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 29 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 17:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I take the argument that we should be cautious about using potential useful shortcuts, and that some other wording could be used for this shortcut, but equally, some other shortcut could be used for other potential uses, and up till now nobody else has thought to use this shortcut so it might as well be used for this one. I do occasionally make shortcuts, and if I find someone has already made one with my preferred wording, I simply find some other wording. For WP:MOS#Ellipses I could create MOS:ELLIPSIS? or MOS:ELLIPSISQUESTION; for WP:MOS#Section headings I could create MOS:HEADINGS? or MOS:HEADINGSQUESTION. SilkTork (talk) 15:15, 12 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:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY[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. No prejudice against recreation if at some point we have a policy, guideline, or essay that speaks to the appropriateness of bibliographies on Wikipedia, but for now, consensus is clear against this redirect. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted. I noticed it as mentioned in an AfD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Tirana as a rationale for deletion. I'm not sure where Wikipedia:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY came from, but WP is filled with Bibliographies. It points to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory which doesn't mention bibliographies.   // Timothy :: talk  16:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but find a better target. I know that for some types of individuals like creatives (authors, mostly) we do include their full list of works, but for people like journalists (long-form) and academics, we do not recommend this only because here these tend to number in the 100s for the more notable/influential ones. WP:NOT's feels the wrong target for this, perhaps Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works instead, and I would argue we need to add advice about how to handle other professions that have lists of works (journalists, academics) from their respect projects to this guideline to make this shortcut appropriate. --Masem (t) 16:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm the one who proposed Bibliography of Tirana for deletion. I did it entirely in good faith since the contents of WP:NOTDIR appeared fairly clear: Wikipedia should not host listings/directories of items unless they are inherently notable, especially not if they consist mainly of external links. I did not find problematic that bibliographies are not actually discussed in the guideline; bibliographies are in many cases (including the one in question) curated listings of external links, after all. When nominating, I was unaware that we had lots of articles (e.g. Bibliography of Donald Trump) consisting mainly of bibliographies. It seems that the problem is not necessarily one of a flawed redirect but rather about whether bibliographies should be included in WP:NOTDIR. If bibliographical articles are generally acceptable (as many editors seem to think), the guideline might need to be adjusted to reflect that they form an exception to the otherwise clear exclusion of directories. The redirect would obviously need to be deleted. If, however, nothing is wrong with WP:NOTDIR, neither Bibliography of Tirana nor Bibliography of Donald Trump should be in Wikipedia and the redirect ought to be kept. This problem seems to be a grey are of sorts and I genuinely don't know how to !vote here. But I would be interested to hear what others think. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having read some of the comments on this discussion and the related AfD, I think the redirect should be deleted because bibliographies clearly are accepted on Wikipedia per WP:NOTLAW. I think the grey area in WP:NOTDIR would still exist after the redirect is deleted, so some clarification should be added to the guideline to avoid confusion, as suggested by Drmies. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The section to which the redirect points does not say anything about bibliographies and, as we actually have lots of them, it fails WP:NOTLAW. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but maybe do one of two things: redirect as Masem indicates, or expand on what's in NOT, which might need some updating anyway. I certainly agree with the spirit of the thing, which is to avoid complete listings of every single thing. Serial was thinking, I have no doubt, of those long lists of articles, poems, essays, etc., which are to be avoided, and where I typically say "not a resume". It was not to prevent the creation of bibliographies per se, or to be a deletion rationale for List of works based on Arthurian legends. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Clarity is mainly what I'm hoping for. Perhaps renaming it WP:LISTOFWORKS and pointing it to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, with an appropriate section created for lists of works could be created.   // Timothy :: talk  03:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of moving histories around, I recommend creating a redirect on it instead. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia IS a bibliography, NOT a directory. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:49, 28 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 17:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intention of the shortcut appears to be about when a list is not notable or too long (Serial Number 54129 created it in order to point to WP:NOTDIR when trimming a list of works in this article: [3]), and I think we all kind of understand that. Redirecting to a page such as WP:NOTESAL - which is about when a list is notable - might be appropriate. However, the shortcut's wording implies that bibliographies are not allowed on Wikipedia, which is not true. So delete as misleading, then clean up pages like this: Wikipedia:Directories and indexes ("For the "Wikipedia is not a directory" policy, see WP:DIRECTORY.) SilkTork (talk) 16:06, 12 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.

Darryl W. Perry[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 2020 New Hampshire gubernatorial election#Libertarian Party. signed, Rosguill talk 19:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Target has no biographical information on the subject. It only includes his name in the results table of a nomination process.  — Tartan357  (Talk) 21:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think deleting it would be best given how little information is present at either of the proposed targets, but I would still prefer retargeting it to keeping the current target. — Tartan357  (Talk) 05:35, 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 17:46, 5 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:BACAVIA & Wikipedia:PPCC[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries sure has a lot of shortcuts for a small WikiProject. A quick pageviews comparison shows that all are sparingly used, yet of those WP:CATALAN has the most all-time views. Additionally, the other two shortcuts make no sense to a regular user, potentially falling under RfD Criterion 8. I therefore suggest deleting both WP:PPCC and WP:BACAVIA. Bernat (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I expected at least a dozen shortcut redirects to the page upon reading "has a lot of shortcuts for a small WikiProject." Unless I looked at something wrong, WP:CATALAN is the only redirect besides these, bringing the grand total to three. I see no problem whatsoever with three and do not consider that a lot by any means. The argument that they are obscure, on the other hand, may have some merit. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:54, 29 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 17:42, 5 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]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 15#Wikipedia:DFD

Manor of Tottenham, Wiltshire[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 19:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these exist so the redirects should be deleted. Discussed at Talk:Tottenham House#Relevant discussion from Talk:Manor of Tottenham, Wiltshire.  —SMALLJIM  16:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Neither Manor of Tottenham, Wiltshire nor Estate of Tottenham, Wiltshire exist except in Wikipedia mirrors. There was a manor of Tottenham in London, but not in Wiltshire. These redirects therefore have potential to cause confusion (WP:RFD#DELETE 2) as a Wikipedia search for Manor of Tottenham includes Manor of Tottenham, Wiltshire, and a Google search for "Manor of Tottenham" includes the redirect, which is misleading. SilkTork (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Manor of Tottenham never existed outside of Wikipedia, and retaining it has the potential to perpetuate the error. Estate of Tottenham, Wiltshire is a description, in so much as one can call any property ownership a landed estate, but it is not 'a thing' and not the typical terminology one would search for. Agricolae (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean "Neither of these exist"? The target article describes a manor or estate called Tottenham in Wiltshire, doesn't it? --BDD (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A place called Tottenham House exists, but while the most fine-grained modern history of the county mentions Tottenham House and Tottenham Lodge as locations within the parish of Great Bedwyn, and it mentions that there is a Tottenham park in the parish, never are any of these places named Tottenham called a 'manor' (which means something much more specific in the English context than just the land around a stately home). As to 'estate' - lower case 'e' - yes, there is an estate there in so much as I can also call my back yard my estate, but it is not an 'Estate' - capital 'E' - in any formal sense, and someone looking for Tottenham House might instead search for "Tottenham, Wiltshire, but would have no reason to add 'Estate of' to the front of their search. Agricolae (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the information, but those fine distinctions are unlikely to be understood by most of our global readership. Are there other places that these terms could refer to? Especially since we can tag them with something like {{R from incorrect name}}, will providing access via these search terms be harmful for readers? --BDD (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should delete "Manor of..." because that is harmful. I created "Estate of..." back in May as an expedient measure when I realised there was no such manor. The "Estate of..." redirect won't do any harm, but as Agricolae says it's very unlikely to be helpful.  —SMALLJIM  22:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BDD. The situation is subtle and complex. One way to describe it, would be to give as comparison someone creating Manor of Buckingham to write about the people who have lived in Buckingham Palace, and when Manor of Buckingham is cleaned up, it is turned into a redirect to Buckingham Palace. The problem being, of course, that there never has been a Manor of Buckingham. There was, way in the past, a Manor of Ebury, but that ceased to exist when the land was given to the monks at Westminster (monks owned and managed land in the same way as Lords of the manor, but when they did it was called an abbey not a manor). By creating an article or redirect called "Manor of Buckingham" it would give people the impression that such a manor existed. And people may go around saying "Wikipedia says that Buckingham Palace was part of the Manor of Buckingham", which is not true. In the same way, people may go around saying "Wikipedia says that Tottenham House in Wiltshire was part of the Manor of Tottenham, which is not true, and even more confusing because there was a Manor of Tottenham in London. The likelihood of someone typing in either "Manor of Tottenham, Wiltshire" or "Estate of Tottenham, Wiltshire" is almost zero, but increases by each day that these redirects exist and mirrors are created on the internet. I would have speedied them, but I don't think they meet any of the criteria. SilkTork (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone making such claims needs only to learn that we provide access to readers from incorrect terms, though. It's not accurate to say that Wikipedia claims there is a Prime Minister of the United States, but, well... --BDD (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BDD. I take your point, and I hope you'll take mine: that where a mistake is very common and exists outside of Wikipedia, it is absolutely right that we create such redirects. But when a misguided user has created the only usage of such a term here on Wikipedia, that such a redirect is misleading, and should be deleted to prevent the usage being copied and causing confusion. Wikipedia is not the place for original research or original mistakes. SilkTork (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Not being a common mistake elsewhere is a strike against it, for sure. --BDD (talk) 14:09, 6 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 17:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the estate one, but delete the manor one. Historic England calls it an estate, but the use of manor appears to be an error and should not be perpetuated. Hog Farm Bacon 15:20, 12 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.

Halloed[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. I think consensus here favors delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how one could make this typo. Extremely unlikely. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also note that this redirect was created by User:Neelix. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; according to Google's dictionary, halloed is an acceptable past tense and past participle of hello. Gets views also. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google listed halloed as the past tense of hello rather than hallo, but a soft retarget to wikt:halloed would be more helpful as pointed out below. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced this is useful: halloed is the past tense of a rare(ish) verb whose meaning is to shout out the greeting that the target article is about. If this is at all considered plausible as a search term for this meaning, then the best course of action would be to redirect to Wiktionary's wikt:halloed, which in one simple line of text explains what currently most readers following the redirect will only be able to figure out after pausing to think. – Uanfala (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a wiktionary redirect might be more useful. My first thought was that it was a typo for haloed. (t · c) buidhe 21:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Google results suggest most people looking up this term are interested in learning about the word. We don't have content relevant to that, but Wiktionary does. I've added to that entry noting "hallowed" is a homophone. Thryduulf (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wiktionary, as the current target doesn't explain what "halloed" means. Not a very active user (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wiktionary per Thryduulf and NAVAU. CycloneYoris talk! 01:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had second thoughts about this. Redirecting to Wiktionary is an option when the relevant content isn't available here on Wikipedia, but both Hallo and Hallowed contain considerable amount of lexical detail, so there isn't really a need to send readers across project boundaries. However, I still believe: that a redirect to the section in Hello is a bit confusing, that a link to the Wiktionary entry will be helpful, and that many readers will be arriving here because of a typo. To accommodate all that, it's probably best to create a dab page, unusual though it may be. How about the following:
    Halloed may be:
Again, that's not a typical dab page, but probably serves our readers better than anything else we can do. – Uanfala (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TheAwesomeHwyh, J947, Buidhe, Not a very active user, Thryduulf, CycloneYoris: what do you think of the dab proposal? – Uanfala (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow for consideration of the recent suggestion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Uanfala: while that is helpful to readers, I'm wary of suggesting as the answer given that it's extremely unlikely to survive dab page patrollers - I fear the misspellings will just be removed and then it deleted or redirected as a dab page that doesn't disambiguate anything. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if we decide that such a dab page is the best way to go, then we'll have consensus that shouldn't be overturnable by unilateral "repairs" by a dab patroller. – Uanfala (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shouldn't. My experience though is that this is not the same as won't - most likely this discussion will be dismissed as a local consensus that disagrees with dab page style guidelines and so not relevant. If you can somehow convince the patrollers that what is most helpful to readers in any given circumstance is more important than adherence to general guidelines then please go for it, but given that set indexes exist as a separate concept is evidence that people have tried and failed previously. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • But wouldn't that be an argument against seeking consensus on anything, because later someone might come and overturn it? I won't completely disagree with your evaluation of dab patrollers, but we should at least grant them the capability of understanding consensus. Also, the dab page I'm proposing may look unusual, but it doesn't violate any of the dab guidelines that I know of. – Uanfala (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Thryduulf's comment above. If we can somehow prevent any unnecessary changes from dab page patrollers, then I would also be in favor of this proposal. CycloneYoris talk! 09:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe it's just because I was around for the custom CSD for Neelix's redirects for every which grammatical permutation of a word, but this just seems totally frivolous to me. It's an unlikely search term, such that a Wiktionary redirect feels wasteful. Though I think it's often overlooked, Template:Wiktionary redirect gives criteria for its use, and I don't think this comes close to meeting them. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. I would oppose a disambiguation page because it would only contain trivial "see also" entries. This also doesn't seem like a word that would be likely to be searched, which makes a soft redirect to Wiktionary tenuous. -- Tavix (talk) 12:43, 2 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 17:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (I wish I could say per WP:X1). This is a pretty obscure form of the word, used only once here, in a quote in a footnote. This redirect serves no real purpose, and I'd think it even more likely to be a typo/misspelling for "hallowed". I'd also oppose a soft wiktionary redirect – these interfere with normal searching, and anyone searching for this will be given several links to sister projects already, the first of which is to wiktionary. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other !votes above. I’ve changed my mind and concluded that deletion would be most appropriate here, given that this term only appears once in all of Enwiki, and since it’s practically just another redirect that was created unnecessarily by Neelix. CycloneYoris talk! 20:47, 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.

Developed[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 12#Developed

Lady Yates[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 19:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to delete both redirects. Lady Yates is the author of, while "Poodle the beating stick" is some sort of character/object in, a webcomic, Earthsong, which no longer has a Wikipedia article. Now they both redirect to an unrelated Michael Jackson song. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom these redirects are redundant. Polyamorph (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Enwiki has no information about either subject. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:11, 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.

Jungle (2011 film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 12#Jungle (2011 film)

Oiseaux[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not obvious that someone searching Oiseaux will be looking for Trent Oiseaux. There are loads of partial matches to articles with oiseaux in them (as oiseaux is French for bird), with no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As such, this redirect should be deleted, as we cannot assume what people will be looking for Joseph2302 (talk) 11:34, 5 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:Infobox Finnish Municipality/waters area[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 19:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect, data storage not restricted to usage in Infobox TerraCyprus (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note spearate nominations with identical rationales combined. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are all WP:G8 as Subpages with no parent page. --Gonnym (talk) 19:06, 9 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.

John Ryan (basketball)[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) 13:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry. Linked in 1991 FIBA Under-19 World Championship. Delete, to encourage article creation if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 10:31, 5 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:TF[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 12#Wikipedia:TF

Diformaldehyde[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 19:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Term not mentioned in target article, and I cannot find this term at all in SciFinder, PubChem, or Chemspider. DMacks (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google scholar has only a tiny number of hits for this word and none of them are equivalent to acetic acid. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 09:38, 5 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_5&oldid=984148006"