Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 24, 2020.

(UK Single Market / Internal Market)[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. This would have been a G8 when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Single Market closed if not for a confused double redirect bot. -- Tavix (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect with an obscure name (yes, that's really brackets!). Apparently part of a series of moves for a now deleted article, most redirects in this chain were deleted/suppressed, other than this one apparently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:33, 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.

Plot armor[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Plot armour → Plot device#Plot armor.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:05, 1 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.

Lakshmi Menon(model)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 2#Lakshmi Menon(model)

Incorrect (disambiguation)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 17:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per G14, This disambiguation page does not mention any title that associates with the title "Incorrect". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incorrect is currently a Wiktionary redirect with four see also links. Would it make sense to reformat it as a proper disambiguation page? - Eureka Lott 03:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Incorrect, per Laundry Pizza. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete absent a proper disambiguation page. The four see also links on the current redirect are not Wikipedia topics for the ambiguous title "Incorrect", and a quick search did not surface any other suitable topics. If a suitable disambiguation page is drafted, I'll update my !vote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:49, 18 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 21:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing to disambiguate. No notable media titles with the name. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert Incorrect to the disambiguation page it's trying to be and retarget this there. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I attempted that conversion and found nothing to put in it. If one can be drafted, I'll update my !vote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think the status quo at Incorrect is...correct. There is nothing to disambiguate (cf. WP:DABDIC), but a hatnote is in place to catch the "close but not quite" terms. -- Tavix (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tallest 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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non encyclopedic. Александр Мотин (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonsensical/ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, tallest what? Buildings? People? Trees? Moscow itself? While I can see people using this as a shorthand, it's also potentially ambiguous as to what exactly they're searching for. I've also found a bunch more redirects like this, most of which were created by the blocked user OOODDD, like this one, which I'm adding to this discussion. Working on it... Regards, SONIC678 16:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ...done. Regards, SONIC678 16:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, keep the ones that say tallest (city) buildings though if those were created. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Possible moose cow. --T*U (talk) 19:08, 1 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:Sutro Library and Wikipedia:Sutro library[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 19:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article was erroneously created in the Wikipedia namespace in good faith by new editor, first at Wikipedia:Sutro library ; then moved to Wikipedia:Sutro Library; then moved to article namespace as Sutro Library : a branch of the California State Library, then finally moved to draft as indicated above. The WP: space redirects are still hanging around. They don't seem to qualify for a Speedy (WP:R2 applies only to redirects out of article space), so I'm listing them. TJRC (talk) 18:28, 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.

Malaria 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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enwiki has no content about "Malaria Party." Hog Farm Bacon 17:02, 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.

Old Kurdish language[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the target article, nor Kurdish language mention "old Kurdish" in any capacity. Searching on Google Scholar, the only relevant match I could find for "Old Kurdish language" was an article naming Avestan as such [1]. This seems dubious, however, as Kurdish is classified as a Western Iranian language, whereas Avestan is described as being in a totally separate subdivision of the Iranian branch. In the absence of more conclusive literature, I would lean towards deletion, although redirecting to Kurdish language may also be a workable option. signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should be indeed deleted. Kurdish didn't even exist at that time. There has been too much ethno-nationalistic editing recently trying to force the Medes and Kurds into one ethnic group. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of the 40 mentions of "old Kurdish" in Enwiki, none concerns a language. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is based on a controversial proposal that the Medes are the ancestors of the Kurds, which has become some kind of ethno-nationalistic myth regularly pushed here in WP. In the study of Iranian languages, the term "Old Kurdish" is virtually non-existent, except in fringe outputs such as the above cited paper from the Journal of Kirkuk University Humanity Studies. –Austronesier (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just another fringe ethno-myth. --T*U (talk) 19:57, 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.

Lucius Licinius Murena (praetor 88 BC)[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 19:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The specific date, 88 BC, is not securely attested, and this redirect isn't used anywhere, so a deletion will cause no disruptions. I already reached a consensus with the creator of this redirect in his talk page not to use "praetor 88 BC". Avis11 (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I suggest the Licinia gens article should list those folks in a format more like the disambiguation pages as there are a ton of people with the same name. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This suggestion is not related to to the subject under discussion—or even the article under discussion. All articles on Roman gentes use a standard format: chronological by stirpes. Disambiguation page formatting would eliminate nearly all of the information included, and make the articles useless for one of their primary purposes: following the history of a gens through its members. P Aculeius (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'm prepping a set index / disambiguation page for the Lucius Licinius Murena name in general. Sample of that in my sandbox. [2] AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not particularly useful as an alias by the interested parties. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: Thanks for the support but there's no need to create an extra disambiguation page. You basically copied what is already said in the Licinia gens#Licinii Murenae section, which already shows everything that needs to be shown. Avis11 (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Triumphator" isn't a particularly familiar term in English, and feels like hypercorrection. Would be better to say "(triumphed 81 BC)", or else simply indicate uncertainty about the date, i.e. "(praetor circa 88 BC)", assuming this is the most important thing about him. I note that this only comes up because the article was moved from the perfectly reasonable "Lucius Licinius Murena (propraetor in Asia)". And is this discussion even relevant, since the page was moved to the proposed title before anybody could respond? P Aculeius (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was previously labeled as '(Second Mithridatic War)', but on 23 September I myself changed it to 'Lucius Licinius Murena (propraetor in Asia)'. T8612 immediately moved it to 'Lucius Licinius Murena (praetor 88 BC)', citing his wish for a date to be displayed. Since I pointed out that the year (88 BC) is likely inaccurate, he suggested "triumphator 81 BC" as a compromise. I myself still prefer 'propraetor in Asia'. But this discussion isn't about that, it's just to delete this particular redirect, 'praetor 88 BC', since the precise year is not established. You'll have to take up the matter with T8612 separately. Avis11 (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If the year is uncertain then it is unlikely to be very helpful.★Trekker (talk) 18:51, 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.

Agile methodology 2[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 with the old history merged back to Agile methodology. This is a good example of why moving redirects is rarely useful. -- Tavix (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created accidentally. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Eraserhead1: But you’re not the author, this redirect was created by an IP back in 2003. And was originally titled Agile methodology but you moved it. CycloneYoris talk! 09:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I thought I could then be bold and move Agile software development to Agile methodology which makes more sense as Agile can and is used a lot more widely than software. Anyway I created a mess and would like it cleaned up. Sorry about that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's explanation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Histmerge to Agile methodology to show original redirect history. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I agree. A histmerge is the solution for this, so the redirect’s history is kept. CycloneYoris talk! 04:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy with histmerge or delete. Whatever is fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the edit history in question appears to just be clutter. signed, Rosguill talk 19:21, 1 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.

Net zero[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 1#Net zero

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_24&oldid=982008760"