Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 21

September 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 21, 2020.

Battle of Montevideo (1863)

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) 14:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Montevideo (1863) → Battle of Montevideo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It's circularly linked at the dab page, but I'm not finding any evidence that an 1863 event known as the "Battle of Montevideo" happened. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this circular redirect per nom. If this event did indeed happen, readers would more than likely be confused if the circular link remained. Regards, SONIC678 21:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing at Montevideo about 1863. 1863 leads me to Venancio Flores#Civil war role but it's inconclusive. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's likely this is meant to refer to an 1865 action in the Uruguayan War, the same event mentioned in Shhhnotsoloud's link. --BDD (talk) 14:21, 23 September 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.

Ocean Planet

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! 19:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Planet → Ocean world (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

As Ocean planet already redirects to Ocean world, this R from miscapitalization is not needed and should be deleted. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not necessary isn't really a rationale for deletion of redirects. For instance, while the search bar isn't case sensitive, hypothetical inline linking is, and searching via the search bar is case sensitive at all. While it may seem redundant, it's not harmful (I'm presuming the current target is correct), and it may, on occassion, get someone to the right spot. I don't see a need to delete this. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly standard and perfectly harmless {{R from other capitalisation}}. As Hog Farm notes, these redirects are almost always useful to have. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Not needed is not an acceptable deletion rationale – nothing is absolutely needed – whereas RHARMFUL is. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:03, 22 September 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.

Nasty guy

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! 19:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty guy → Nasty woman (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Totally pointless redirect PepperBeast (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in the article, referring to Ted Cruz. Someone Not Awful (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It might be ambiguous, but I can see no better target. It is actually mentioned in the lead paragraph of the target article, so the redirect certainly isn't "totally pointless". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:08, 23 September 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.

Creation of India

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 2#Creation of India

"3 June Plan" or "Mountbatten Plan"

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 18:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"3 June Plan" or "Mountbatten Plan" → Indian Independence Act 1947 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I suppose this could be retargeted to Partition of India#Mountbatten Plan since 3 June Plan and Mountbatten Plan redirect there, but the use of quotation marks and the use of the word "or" when this is not an official title in full make this an implausible, WP:COSTLY redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Too costly redirect to maintain per nom. ~~I bet J947 to agree with this deletion~~ He didn't. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding the comment immediately above, it seems this was created based on the end of the first sentence at Partition of India#Mountbatten Plan (and end of the first sentence in the fourth paragraph of Partition of Bengal (1947). Retarget to Partition of India#Mountbatten Plan as this phrase (with double quotes) seems a legitimate way of referring to the plan. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:07, 15 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 19:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete implausible redirect. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A conjunction of two synonymous titles is implausible. --Bsherr (talk) 15:45, 28 September 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.

Ranpat falls

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) 21:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ranpat falls → Ukshi railway station (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Now information has been added. Crashed greek (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, given that the station does not appear to be part of the falls tourist attraction, I think that deletion may still be appropriate per WP:R#DELETE #10 _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rosguill Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with Rosguill. --Bsherr (talk) 15:48, 28 September 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.

Primera Plastics 200

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 Berlin Raceway#ARCA winners. (non-admin closure) NASCARfan0548 ↗ 19:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primera Plastics 200 → Stars & Stripes 150 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target. Seems to be a different race, albeit held at the same location. Berlin Raceway or ARCA Menards Series East could be more appropriate, but there's no mention there either. Delete unless a duly sourced mention can be added somewhere. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget - This is not the same race. The "Primera Plastics 200" appears to have been the Berlin Raceway race of the ARCA Menards Series in 2018 and 2013, but not every year (eg see [1]). Suggest retarget to Berlin Raceway or Berlin Raceway#ARCA Winners but ideally it should be mentioned by name there. A7V2 (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one. Berlin Raceway doesn't seem to list any of these individual race sponsor names, so only adding the Primera Plastics one doesn't make much sense. ARCA Menards Series East does list sponsor names, but not Primera Plastic right now, and I don't know how organically we could add it. This is a rare case where I might tolerate a {{R without mention}}, to Berlin Raceway. The race is mentioned by name at 2013 ARCA Racing Series and 2018 ARCA Racing Series, so perhaps disambiguation is the best option. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Berlin Raceway#ARCA Winners. The ARCA race there has held a number of different names, I can add a list of names if it makes retargeting an easier sell. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would, and provide some other helpful information for readers too. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 30 September 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.

Ainsley Veraa

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 21:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ainsley Veraa → Abbywinters.com (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Abbywinters.com makes no mention of this name, and Google search yields no hits other than related to this redirect. No logic for this to exist. ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It turns out that founder/CEO Garion Hall was born "Ainsley Verra" so this is a typo of that, but even the correctly spelled version would not be a good redirect as the name is not mentioned in the article (and I strongly suspect that mention would not be due). Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 22 September 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.

Vanished (album)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 28#Vanished (album)

MusicPlus

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) 21:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MusicPlus → Musica Studio's (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is also https://www.musicplus.in/ making it ambiguous. -2pou (talk) 19:48, 28 September 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.

Next Cantabrian parlamentary election

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 18:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next Cantabrian parlamentary election → Parliament of Cantabria#Elections (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible typo. Should have been updated to Next Cantabrian regional election, but it's likely to fail to be updated again and not worth the burden of maintaining. Paul_012 (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep that's a very plausible type. We don't delete redirects because they might not be updated in the future, what matters is that readers are best served at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whilst I agree with Thryduulf, we do have MOS:CURRENT which discourages statements likely to become outdated, and we do have an essay WP:COSTLY which reminds us that "redirects need looking after", so on balance I'd say this redirect is likely to be less helpful in the longer term as it is helpful now. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shhh. Their argument is persuasive in this case. (t · c) buidhe 00:25, 24 September 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.

Point break

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 18:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point break → Surf break#Point break (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I tried to retarget this to the Point Break film as it makes more sense since it is just the lower case version of the article title. However, it was reverted. Currently, this redirects to Surf break#Point break. I would understand if the article title of the film was Point Break (film) (and not just a redirect to it), but... it's not. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I just realized that Point Break (the film) was the target of this redirect for almost 12 years before evrik changed it in January of this year. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it at the same time it was defined in the surf break article. --evrik ^(talk) 17:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The term has been there since as early as 2009. Honestly, if I had noticed that you had just changed it on your own with no discussion, I wouldn't have even started this RFD. Truly, the onus is on you to justify your change. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, maybe my memory fails me. I was editing a bunch of surfing-related articles at the time. In any case, I made the change because the redirect should go to the term, and not the movie.--evrik ^(talk) 02:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A point break is a specific surf term with a corresponding entry in wiktionary. The current redirect points to an article (surf break) where the term is defined in wikipedia. In fact, the movie gets its name from the term. It is appropriate as it is. --evrik ^(talk) 14:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. The film is by far the primary topic for this search term in all capitalisations. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at this capitalisation. There is a hatnote to the film. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are not exactly talking Citizen Kane here. In a hundred years time the film will have rescinded into obscurity but people will still be surfing. Long-term significance should trump pop culture in an encyclopedia. Betty Logan (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Betty. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This redirect is the actual name of the target. Retargeting it to a miscapitalization of another topic seems counterproductive. --Bsherr (talk) 15:58, 28 September 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.

Khamzat Chimaev (fighter)

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 18:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khamzat Chimaev (fighter) → Khamzat Chimaev (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Creator of Khamzat Chimaev (fighter) copied and paste the content of Khamzat Chimaev into Khamzat Chimaev (fighter). There is only one Khamzat Chimaev in English Wikipedia and not need to have a redirect, seeking the Khamzat Chimaev (fighter) page to be deleted. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Talk page of the forementioned page shows how ridiculously this was conducted by the creator. No need for that page as redirect per above. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There might have been a case for {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} but having look at the history, it should never have been created in the first place. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:56, 23 September 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:CENTER

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 18:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:CENTER → Wikipedia:Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center/World AIDS Day 2018 editathon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible redirect. Nobody looking for Wikipedia:Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center/World AIDS Day 2018 editathon is going to type in WP:CENTER. (I was looking for a page about replacing the obsolete HTML center tag) Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see a meaningful connection other than the fact that the target has the word center in it. It also originally targeted to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism but I don’t see that as any better than the current target.--76.67.170.18 (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism, which was the original target of this redirect, or to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion which appears to be a more plausible target. This redirect's current target was added in 2017 by Bluerasberry without explanation. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither one of those is a plausible search term. I say Delete without redirect so that later we can make a page about dealing with the obsolete HTML center tag. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget: WP:Centralized discussion is the only target for this that makes any sense to me (maybe with a hatnote dab to MoS section on centering text, or MoS on "center" vs "centre", or any darn thing besides an editathon that happened in 2018, really). { $\mathbb {JPG}$ } 10:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect Redirects answer demand and are not preemptive. I set this redirect to assist a group in finding an event page. Since that time there has been no great demand for change. Delete and leave the page blank so that it would be easy for anyone to see it is available to promote for any useful purpose. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bluerasberry; the current target is non-obvious and underused, and while you can make an argument that WP:Centralized discussion is reasonable, it's not really an obvious use. We shouldn't be actively encouraging more of these different shortcut links when WP:CENT etc are fine, and this could very plausibly be used for something else in future. ~ mazca ^talk 17:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was looking for formatting info. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 27 September 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.

September 21

Battle of Montevideo (1863)

Ocean Planet

Nasty guy

Creation of India

"3 June Plan" or "Mountbatten Plan"

Ranpat falls

Primera Plastics 200

Ainsley Veraa

Vanished (album)

MusicPlus

Next Cantabrian parlamentary election

Next montenegrin parliamentary election

Next Galician parliamentary election

CinemaWorld

Next Thai legislative election

BERSATU Blackout

Point break

Khamzat Chimaev (fighter)

Wikipedia:CENTER