Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 12, 2021.

Christmas in June[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 OK Orchestra. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't mentioned at the target, isn't linked to from any articles, and has less than 10 monthly page views. Google brings up a song by AJR. Apparently it was created from a page move by @Jax 0677:, but the page history isn't that interesting (just a few moves). I would say delete or retarget to OK Orchestra. Mattx8y (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2021 (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.

Voltswagen[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. Hog Farm Talk 20:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was an April Fool's joke by Volkswagen, and does not appear to be considered due enough to be mentioned at the target. Delete unless a duly sourced mention can be added at the target or another justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:24, 12 April 2021 (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.

Proto gaelic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 29#Proto gaelic

Planetary or gender symbols[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 most to match unicode definitions. signed, Rosguill talk 18:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure of where these should target, but this bears discussion. Male symbol and female symbol both target gender symbol, for context. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. Both the article on planet symbols and the ones about the genders are relevant and explain what these symbols mean. Glades12 (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to a disambiguation article for each symbol, giving pointers to both relevant articles. (I can't help wondering if this is a moot question. The only way to enter these symbols is to copy/paste from an external document, where the notation is likely explained already). If the consensus is for 'keep', then a 'redirects here' notice would be needed at the head of each of the planetary articles, which I don't like because it is such a non-problem.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC) As this RFD has been relisted, I am striking my first response so as to make it clearer that I support the proposal by 053pvr below. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate or retarget to their entries on the Miscellaneous Symbols page which defines their usage per above. These are also used as alchemical symbols and I think there's an argument to be made that ♀️ is associated with Feminist symbology (Which I'm amazed I wasn't able to find an article on). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I consider this the next best alternative to my own preference. My only concern about it is that the Miscellaneous Symbols page is a bit intimidating for visitors unfamiliar with the concept of codepoints, not easy to find the symbol you want and not obvious that it has links to more detailed articles. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC) As this RFD has been relisted, I am striking this response so as to make it clearer that I support the proposal by 053pvr below. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've added ⚧, ⚧️, and ☿ here as well since it's in the same vein. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, just ignore the first two. That wasn't helpful. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget "♂️" and "♀️" to "Gender symbol" as that is what they are in Unicode. Keep the other ones. 053pvr (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They should be targeted according to their unicode text definition per WP:EMOJI. How they appear varies by computer platform and font. E.g. ♂️ , i.e. MALE SIGN, may have an appearance in some places that has no relation to mars but will always have a constant consortium-defined text definition. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note to observe that the effect of Godsy's response would be the same as the effect of 053pvr's. They reach the same conclusion from different starting points. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "☿" (U+263F) is Mercury according to Unicode, so seems to point to the proper place, as it is the planet symbol. -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for the male and female symbols, whatever happens, a hatnote should exist to the other topic (be it planet table or gender table; or their respective individual articles) -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this, but am instead relisting after some discussion on my talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget ♂️, ♀️, ♂, and ♀ to Gender symbol to reflect their Unicode defintions. For example, Planet symbol#Mars says "Its Unicode codepoint is U+2642 ♂ MALE SIGN (♂)." ☿ should be kept as its Unicode definition is Mercury. -- Tavix (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the benefit of others who cannot see the difference between ♂️ and ♂ (because of personal visual impairment or because they are using a web browser that does not discriminate), it is due to a clever clever URL "magic": compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%99%82%EF%B8%8F with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%99%82 : both address %E2%99%82 (U+2642) but the first adds decorative effects that are not visible to many visitors. I don't think we need a specific MOS rule to know that this is not a good idea and certainly not a basis to have different redirect targets according to appearance. [So, in case it needs to be said unambiguously, my vote is for all appearances of U+263F to redirect to Mercury (planet) and for all appearances of U+2640 and U+2642 to Gender symbol.] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget all to Gender symbol per the fact that all these symbols are defined in Unicode as gender symbols. 053pvr (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2021 (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.

BMZ GmbH[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 List of electric-vehicle-battery manufacturers. --BDD (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect from a random battery manufacturer to the article on smart batteries, where they are not mentioned in the article prose. Given the next edit of the redirect creator was to add an inappropriate external link to the companies website it seems it might have been made as part of a minor spam campaign. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to de:BMZ (Unternehmen). We don't have a English Wikipedia article that discusses this company, and this search term is indeed in German, so an interwiki redirect would be the best option. 053pvr (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree strongly with this - redirects to other language projects are always deleted with unanimous or near unanimous support when brought here, and we don't have an appropriate soft redirect template as there should be 0 redirects to other language projects in mainspace. if you want to add a link to the German language article you should use Template:Interlanguage link, not a redirect. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of electric-vehicle-battery manufacturers per Shh. signed, Rosguill talk 18:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Shhhnotsoloud: local content is always preferable to content on sister projects. The target list has had an entry for BMZ since 2019, and has survived several big cleanups, so I take it that it's presence there is non-controversial. – Uanfala (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2021 (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.

{ꭜ, ꭝ, ꭞ, ꭟ}[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 Latin Extended-E (keep the two that already point there). --BDD (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should these redirects target the Unicode block or the generic article about superscripts? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think they should redirect to Teuthonista. That's what these characters are used for. In my mind, the fact that they're encoded in Unicode, or a specific block of Unicode, is secondary to what they're used for. For example, Ꜧ doesn't redirect to Unicode block Latin Extended-D, it redirects to Heng. It would be nice if these characters actually appeared in the Teuthonista article but I don't have the time or expertise to expand it. DRMcCreedy (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teuthonista is my ideal destination but Unicode subscripts and superscripts would be my second choice. Not that I'll oppose any outcome of this discussion. DRMcCreedy (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Latin Extended-E currently looks like the best target. My computer doesn't have a font that displays these characters, so I just see a box with e.g. "AB5F" in it. This target explains what U+AB5F is, and it seems to be the only one that does that at the moment. Sadly, it does not explain which language uses this character, which would be more encyclopedic. Assuming these symbols are only used for one purpose, I agree with DRMcCreedy that ideally, Teuthonista would be the target. But first I think it needs to list the characters and Unicode code points (and hopefully some day a picture, for those of us who don't have the right fonts) for each of the characters in this writing system so I could make sense of why I was redirected there. (We typically see that in a section titled something like "Computer encoding".) -- Beland (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these characters were put into Unicode for Teuthonista then that is where they should be directed to.Spitzak (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I am not quite a fan of targeting redirects at pages that do not mention them when mentions in other articles exist, so I would prefer a different target than the discussed Teuthonista. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:05, 12 April 2021 (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.

शिवाजी महाराज[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 Shivaji. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there is an appropriate local target for this page. Sending readers to non-English content is not helpful. Additionally, the plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). See here for precedents. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:24, 12 April 2021 (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.

Defined Lines[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 18:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. Dominicmgm (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2021 (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.

Basit Saeed[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. While the !vote count is even, the keep rationales are much stronger than the delete arguments. signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article was deleted at [1] (I closed). I fail to see how this is a logical redirect if the person is not notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection to a list is a reasonable alternative to deletion isn't it? Given that the chap played five top-class cricket matches (see CricInfo) there's a claim that can be made about notability (if he played one Division 4 football match in the UK he'd "qualify" for an article), even if no information beyond stats can be found about him. The list didn't exist at the time the AfD was done; it does now. It's not an unreasonable redirect imo. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a perfectly reasonable redirect IMO. BST is right I don't think the redirect existed at the time, and if it did so then it would have been discussed as a WP:ATD in the discussion. The majority of cricketers at AfD are resulting in redirect like this. FWIW the player also currently passes the cricket SNG (was deleted as there wasn't enough for GNG) so there is some notability there, just not enough for a full article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is not mentioned in the article. 053pvr (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
053pvr, Have added him to the list. It's likely the list was made from Category:Sialkot cricketers and given the page was deleted before list created, is why he wasn't included. This shows he played for them though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2021 (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.

Tom Marlowe[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned on target page, and I can find nothing online that links Brian Cox and Tom Marlowe - absolutely baffled why this redirect was created. Could be eligible for speedy as G1 or, given the creator's edit history, as G2. schetm (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2021 (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/2021_April_12&oldid=1020430992"