Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 23, 2020.

Bart Has Two Mommies (The Simpsons)[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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article was moved to help clear up what show it's from, but it got moved back a few days later. There's nothing else called Bart Has Two Mommies, so there's no real point in having this redirect. Most users would search the title first instead of adding parenthesis. Additionally, no pages currently link to this and it was created before the episode aired. Delete. Scrooge200 (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Neither incorrect, ambiguous, or harmful. It's not necessary, but few things around here really are, if we're being honest. Hog Farm Bacon 20:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hog Farm. {{R from move}}, {{R with history}}, unambiguous, helpful, harmless, etc. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above as an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Who cares if someone searches with such disambiguation if it's still appropriate? Regards, SONIC678 23:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above. "Not necessary" is never a reason on its own to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone above. "Bart Has Two Mommies (The Simpsons)" is technically a Simpsons video, so where is the proof of deleting this redirect? Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:16, 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.

2003 Atlantic tropical cyclones[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, refining targets where able. signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those storms never reached hurricane intensity, nor were there any hurricanes along with those names. Cyclone Larry did occur in the Southern Hemisphere. Same for Cyclone Nicholas and Cyclone Odette. However, I'm not 100% sure if we should retarget Nicholas and Odette to the storm list. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. Harmless. These names are all included in one of the naming lists for the Atlantic, so it's more than likely that we'll see them being used for future hurricanes. Interestingly enough, this list will be used next year. CycloneYoris talk! 22:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm only 85% sure that we should retarget Nicholas and Odette to dab page. Disambiguate Larry just in case that there is another hurricane with this name, for example in 2021. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection to that. However, disambiguating Larry does seem unnecessary, at least for now, we should wait for Larry 2021 to form next year. In the meantime, the hatnote at Larry’s article does the trick. CycloneYoris talk! 06:53, 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.

That Man[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 first, retargeting the second there. Thanks to Shhhnotsoloud for the draft! --BDD (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a WP:DIFFCAPS situation. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate under the new proposal. None of these characters have primary topic, so that would be best. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:14, 29 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.

Babur Lateef[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) 19:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently mentioned at the target, appears to have been recently removed in this edit. If the edit isn't reverted, then we have no use for the redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 17:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If the name isn't included on the page, then there's no reason for a redirect. KidAd talk 18:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without a mention in the article this redirect is confusing, and impedes effective use of Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:14, 25 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.

"NUMBER and NUMBER" encoding[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. I think this fairly could've been either keep or no consensus, though the outcome is the same. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear why these redirects need to exists when their non-quotation equivalents 4 and 4 encoding, 5 and 3 encoding, and 6 and 2 encoding exist. It doesn't seem as though the quotations are used for the name of the subjects, and if they aren't, the use of quotations are somewhat WP:COSTLY as search terms considering the subjects represented by their redirects are not subjects that would traditionally use quotations or double apostrophes on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep They exist because this spelling is used in some of the literature. It is quite normal for such kind of terms that different typographical notations (like with space, with hyphens, quoted, with slashes, in parentheses, etc.) are used by different authors and over larger timespans. One purpose of redirects is to provide an input interface for any of them. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthiaspaul: "One purpose of redirects is to provide an input interface for any of them." That's preaching to the choir. But can you provide any references that shows these terms used in quotes? Steel1943 (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not preaching to the choir, but just tried to be efficient in the use of my time to safe a perfectly valid redirect carelessly nominated for deletion. You are obviously not WP:AGF in your fellow editors. May I ask you to do your homework and be much more careful WP:BEFORE you make nominations for deletion? This is no fun at all, it is wasting other editors' precious time and energy. And there's always a risk involved of good contents to be accidently deleted if the original author is not (or no longer) around to provide background on something and no other competent editor happens to stop by in the few days of discussion. There are other venues (like article talk pages (in the case of redirects probably that of the target page)) to discuss possible issues, if you are not already sure something must be deleted because it is junk or a mistake.
While a lack of Google hits does not tell anything about the existence of something, here are two links from the first page of Google hits using these terms and notations (one historical and one modern):
I could provide probably a dozen others, but I don't want to waste yet more time on this.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You took my "preaching to the choir" statement out of context, and accused me of doing something I didn't. I was saying that I know what purpose redirects serve, which is why I nominated these things in the first place. Your claim that "You are obviously not WP:AGF in your fellow editors." is a claim with no foundation. I did my WP:BEFORE and found no results, which is why I started this discussion. These are redirects, not articles. It should be clear why a redirect targets an page without having to know a figurative backdoor or secret handshake for references that only subject material experts know in order to to figure out why a redirect targets a page; at the same time, the redirect needs to be spelled and punctuated in a plausible manner. Anyways, your whole comment was an WP:AGF failure so I have nothing more to say. Have a nice day. Steel1943 (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Over here "preaching to the choir" is an accusation, that's what I responded to in regard to AGF. Also, because you obviously don't put trust in the competence of other editors, those who wrote the article, provided the references, created the redirects, and answered swiftly above. You certainly don't need to be an expert on a topic, but you should know enough about a topic to be sure that something you nominate for deletion is incorrect. Otherwise, better don't make such nominations (except for in cases of obvious junk) as you are thereby putting possibly good contents or infrastructure at risk - that's potentially harmful, wasting resources, and annoying the contributors, and therefore not good, even if you act with the best intentions (I'm sure you did).
If you have some background in coding theory you will know that there are many sometimes strange looking conventions and notations in use to describe the codes. We can't do anything about it, they are used and therefore we need redirects for them.
It might be difficult to track down a larger body of the printed literature, but fortunately in this case some stuff is online, and it was trivially easy to find the listed refs with Google proving the use of this notation. There's no backdoor or secret handshake involved. You should have found them as well, in particular as one of the citations is prominently used in the article where these codes are discussed, indicating that you did not even look at the locations these redirects point to. So, I really wonder what you did at all to come to the conclusion that these redirects should be deleted even though their purpose is fully covered by our guideline WP:RPURPOSE. Clearly, your necessary research prior to the nomination was not thorough enough per WP:BEFORE. This can happen as a mistake, but it should remain a rare exception, otherwise you need to improve that and your judgement before making nominations for deletion. This isn't the first time that you make invalid nominations. That's why I ask you to please be more careful.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seem like plausible search terms. I'm not sure I follow why having this pattern of quote marks would be costly. signed, Rosguill talk 19:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:50, 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.

Kilo Highway[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) 18:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target or the connected svWiki and fiWiki articles. The Finnish article mentions "Kilonväylä" as an alternative name, but it's not clear whether that's equivalent to this term. Searching online I couldn't find anything suggesting that this was an alternative name. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:48, 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.

Etymology of Georgia[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 19:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous with List of state and territory name etymologies of the United States - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 11:55, 16 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 17:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, though I totally agree that the article needs to be moved to Names of Georgia if so. I've added a hatnote for the US state, which should've been there already. I would be fine with disambiguation: the etymology of the state is much more simple than the country's, not necessarily less notable. But in general, it makes more sense to prefer a full article as primary topic over a section or list entry. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 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.

Gugumani[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. G7 per [1] signed, Rosguill talk 18:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, internet search didn't turn up anything that clarified the connection, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:31, 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.

Wayne Lineker[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) 18:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Lineker was only on TOWIE for a month. (Daily Star) He's had just-as-notable adventures since then (Google News) and it doesn't make much sense to have this being a redirect to a page he isn't even mentioned in. Let me know your thoughts! Bernat (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Without a mention in the article this redirect is confusing, and impedes effective use of Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:16, 25 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:Template index/Cleanup/Archive 1[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) 18:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantive history or links. The talk page exists as a talk page archive, but we generally don't create redirects of the subject pages of talk page archives. Bsherr (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Redirects & talk page archives. --Bsherr (talk) 15:23, 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.

Military career of Napoléon the Great[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 19:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Reopening the discussion after 11 months since accented redirects like this are implausible. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep plenty of English language sources use the accent so there seems to be no reason to regard this as implausible. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. No valid reason given for deletion, nom's rationale strikes me as an unnecessary WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. CycloneYoris talk! 22:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per those above – completely plausible. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:05, 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.

Belgians in the Congo[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 19:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a likely target BilCat (talk) 22:17, 5 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 00:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I know precedent isn't binding around here, I can't help but think this outcome is discordant with the deletion of the much more oblique "Fire" lyric British politician sex, but I digress. --BDD (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:08, 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.

Minneapolis Riots[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. Keep and retarget proposals have roughly equal amounts of support. signed, Rosguill talk 19:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This set of redirects are currently targeted at an article discussing 2020 events. It might be better if they went to the more general list List of civil unrest in Minneapolis–Saint Paul (notwithstanding the current hatnote at the target article). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Only the first 2 are averaging more than one view per day. I think for the moment they are probably pointing to the right article for most people. That could possibly change in the future. It doesn't matter much, as long as the hatnote is in place. Station1 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I concur with Station1. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally agree these should be retargeted. --Izno (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is per Station1. They're primary topic at the moment. Other incidents don't come to the same level as the recent protests and reader convenience is served best this way.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:43, 6 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 00:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the target article is, at least currently, the primary topic by a significant margin. Readers looking for other events are served by the hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all of them to List of civil unrest in Minneapolis–Saint Paul. A new article, Minneapolis downtown riot, is about a different event on August 26, 2020. Retargeting to the list would be most helpful for readers as the terms are vague, and it would prevent them from being re-targeted later to the issue du jour.VikingB (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. You say "primary topic for now", I say WP:RECENTISM. --BDD (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:07, 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.

Uboat.net[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) 18:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely WTF-y WP:XNS redirect. A reader searching for Uboat.net does not want to be taken to a citation template. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Clearly misleading and unhelpful. CycloneYoris talk! 07:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but only if the transclusions at SS India and List of hospital ships sunk in World War I are fixed. I think having the redirect is harmful, since it's possible an article could be written about this source, but right now it's more harmful to break those two template usages. Hog Farm Bacon 01:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upon further investigation, these are linked within the template text, not in lieu of the template, so yeah, just straight delete these with no qualms. Hog Farm Bacon 01:54, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_23&oldid=981345301"