Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 17, 2021.

Wikipedia:GRAPE[edit]

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

Wikipedia:MANDARINS[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 25#Wikipedia:MANDARINS

Accessing Wikipedia[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 Wikipedia#Access to content. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odd cross-namespace redirect which doesn't currently have any inbound links. The target page is only a subset of "accessing Wikipedia" too: although the page does briefly mention desktop access, it is primarily focused on mobile as the name implies. the wub "?!" 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honesty matters....The page actually gives info on how to access Wikipedia online and offline on many platforms and many ways....as the lead sentence states. Best just say its a mainspace redirect thats not needed because why would we want to help people Access Wikipedia. --Moxy- 00:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thumbs up Great!Moxy- 23:42, 22 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.

Zombotiny[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 25#Zombotiny

HORUS[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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator as redirect is now mentioned at target. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. I can't find any indication as to what this may be an initialism for or how it is related to the target page. Delete redirect and associated hatnote at target article unless this can be justified. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now mentioned at target, I withdraw this nomination. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:06, 17 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.

Brilliant brown[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) 01:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any connection between "Brilliant brown" and orange, all the search results I get are related to the colour brown, unsurprisingly. Is this some kind of colour nomenclature that I'm just not familiar with? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • That article says that brilliant isn't a valid modifier for brown in the ISCC–NBS_system and that brilliant brown doesn't exist as a colour? I'm still not seeing how you get from there to orange, but that may just be my attempts at searching, everything is drowned out by make-up results. Even if it is correct I'm not seeing that searching for a non-existent classification is a plausible way of looking for for orange, I think most readers would expect to end up at brown. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Improbable redirect. I get the idea (brown objects reflect orange light dimly and this is understood by our eyes to be brown), but it's not something that is needed as a redirect. User:GKFXtalk 11:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to ISCC–NBS system#Color categories, where this specific color (i.e. the lack of its existence) is actually mentioned. CycloneYoris talk! 06:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not actually a color, so I think it more likely someone would be searching for a type of make-up, which dominates my search. -- Tavix (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:GKFX. Jay (talk) 19:19, 23 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.

Halo game[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 Halo game & Halo video game to Halo (franchise); no consensus on Halo (game) & Halo (video game). There was consensus to retarget the two without parenthetical disambiguation (albeit with some !votes to delete them), but consensus was not reached to either retarget or delete the others. (non-admin closure) Tol | Talk | Contribs 20:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

These are ambiguous in my opinion, and do not exclusively refer to Halo: Combat Evolved. Back in 2005/2006 when these redirects were made there were only 2 games in the series, but I think there are now 16 video games in the halo franchise, plus some spin off board games and the like. A google search for these terms turns up a complete mix of results covering every game in the series, so I'm not convinced by the argument in the previous RfD that combat evolved is the primary topic of these phrases. I propose retargeting all of these to the article on the franchise (Halo (franchise)). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Halo (franchise)#Game series. Probably didn't need to be discussed here unless there was pushback on the retargetting. Also take a look at the hatnote on that page following any new redirects to it. Lithopsian (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I listed them here because these redirects are ancient and some have been at their current target for over a decade, two of these have already been discussed at RFD and I shouldn't be unilaterally overriding the previous consensus and there have been numerous attempts to retarget them in the page history, so clearly there's been some disagreement over where they should target. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Halo (video game) Delete the rest The last one is pointing to the right place IMO. The others are unnecessary permutations of the disambiguation, and the search function can handle it fine. (Typing "Halo video game" into search immediately brings up the franchise).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last month these got 57, 12, 11 and 85 page views, so these are plausible search terms and shouldn't be deleted in my opinion. I'm not seeing any evidence that the last one is pointing to the right place, anywhere I search (e.g google) turns up a complete mix of results covering all kinds of games from the franchise. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep those with parenthetical disambiguation that indicates they're looking for the first game and retarget the others to the franchise page. They get a decent amount of views and aren't unreasonable search terms.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Halo (franchise). I think this refers to whichever entry in the franchise someone happens to be talking about, with the primary probably being either the most newly released, or a soon-to-be released game if applicable. Either way, the franchise article has all games listed. -- Tavix (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the unbracketed versions as they are clearly ambiguous with any prestige generating game -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 01:38, 20 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.

Parity Amendment[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 26#Parity Amendment

Party rights (Philippines)[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) 01:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mention of "party rights" at the target, not clearly associated with the target based on a Scholar and internet search. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment perhaps this is about Par(i)ty Rights?--Lenticel (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The creator of the redirect could have misspelled. It doesn't imply this is a common misspelling. Jay (talk) 19:00, 23 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.

Category:Wikipedians who participate in the WikiProject Old Norse[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 21:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No such grouping of Wikipedians exists at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:38, 17 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.

The Sea Capital[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 24#The Sea Capital

Template:A[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. ✗plicit 13:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extremeley confusing shortcut redirect, there is no connection between the letter "A" and the word "Pagetype". The pagetype template is basically never used in a page directly, it's always part of another template, so I don't see the need for a single letter shortcut redirect which are in extremeley short supply as there are only 26. Newly created, so no backlinks at the moment. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JsfasdF252: You do not need to try to reduce the number of characters of text in pages by creating weird redirects or any other method. It is not helpful and just makes them harder to read. See also TfD of Template:IN. The edit summary for this page's creation is "Save 7 characters". User:GKFXtalk 12:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And by "any other method", do you mean creating "hybrid" template "shortcuts", splitting articles into "subpages", etc? JsfasdF252 (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JsfasdF252: I'd assume so - you definitely should not do that. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and you should have realized that when your edits were repeatedly reverted, the "hybrid" templates you created were repeatedly brought to TfD and de-hybridized or deleted, the article subpages you created were repeatedly deleted as A10 or converted to redirects, et cetera without Elli and GKFX having to explicitly tell you. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:20, 18 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.

Wikiproject spaceflight[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. ✗plicit 13:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate cross namespace redirect. It it extremely unlikely that readers are going to be searching for wikiprojects, and if they are looking for them I think it is inappropriate to send them to an informal forum for discussing improving the encyclopaedia, as opposed to an encyclopaedia topic on the subject (like the Wikiproject article). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 6#All cross-namespace redirects of the following type 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete XNR; not a pseudo-namespace redirect, since it's missing the colon. -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. — Goszei (talk) 22:28, 23 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.

Stalingrad, Bulgaria[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. ✗plicit 13:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect, the city of Varna, Bulgaria was formerly called Stalin, not Stalingrad. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Jay (talk) 18:26, 23 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.

2028 United States presidential election[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. ✗plicit 13:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is premature, and not a useful search term if it's just going to point to the generic presidential election article. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. There is absolutely nothing that can be said about this specific election at the moment, and we still have the 2024 election to go before this one. There was an article in the page history, but it consisted entirely of unsourced crystal balling about Joe Biden's eligibility to run assuming he won the 2024 election, and some WP:A10 able material that just described the generic process for a US election. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in full agreement with the comments below that salting is required, these redirects always have issues with being repeatedly recreated years before we have anything worth saying. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too soon to have this redirect. If it gets repeatedly recreated we might use some WP:SALT until 2024. Dominicmgm (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salt Doesn't really matter if there's a redirect or not but since this was already created WAY too early and likely will be again, it should be protected until November 2024, just as the 2024 page was protected until after the 2020 election. Reywas92Talk 18:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salt until January 2024, when it would be reasonable to have the beginnings of an article. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft and create a skeleton of an article at this title. We already do know some things about the 2028 presidential election. We know the date as provided for by law, and the Electoral College votes apportioned to the states. That's enough to start a draft. BD2412 T 20:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, we already know the date of every future U.S. presidential election, so that isn't saying much. As for your second point, we actually don't know the Electoral College votes apportioned to the states, as the results of the 2020 Census haven't been finalized yet. We don't even know the Electoral College apportionment for 2024 yet. ― Tartan357 Talk 20:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then we can make the same statement about that as we have made in 2024 United States presidential election. BD2412 T 20:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 So, you think we should have an article about 2028 with nothing to say other than the scheduled date of the election? We have as much to say about 2028 right now as we do about 2036, which is literally an example at WP:CRYSTAL of an article we shouldn't have. ― Tartan357 Talk 20:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say that we should have an article? BD2412 T 20:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: You said we should have a draft, which would need to be substantively updated at least every 6 months to continue to exist. I seriously doubt we'll have any more to say about 2028 6 months from now to allow us to keep a draft alive. It's way too soon for even a draft at this point. ― Tartan357 Talk 21:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then the draft will be deleted. Isn't deletion what you have advocated? BD2412 T 21:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm advocating deletion of this redirect, not the creation of an article draft for eventual deletion. There is no reason to create and keep a draft that's clearly WP:TOOSOON for years on end. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:07, 18 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.

Summary of indira gandhi as prime minister[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 21:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Badly capitalized, grammatically dubious and extremely unlikely to be used as a search term. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Surprisingly this does seem to have been getting a fairly consistent 10 or so page views a month for the last 5 years. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Could be remnant of a WP:STAS, and could explain why there are page views, as assignments are slow to change. Jay (talk) 18:04, 23 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.

Vladislaus IV of Poland, Sweden, Gothenland and Vandalia, Grand Duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Masovia, Samogitia, Livonia and Moscow[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. ✗plicit 13:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this redirect that is created just to prove a point. Editing just to prove a point per se isn't bad but I believe that this page is too long for any actual use besides. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:POINTY and unlikely. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:16, 17 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.

WikiProject Israel/Books[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. ✗plicit 13:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 6#All cross-namespace redirects of the following type * Pppery * it has begun... 02:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom and the previous discussion - Inappropriate cross namespace redirect, we should not be sending readers in article space to informal discussion forums for talking about improvements to the encyclopaedia. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Shortcut. All the WikiProjects, without exception, have a shortened form for accessing the page. That form is, in fact, a Shortcut (see shortcut), which I had mistaken for being a Redirect. My mistake.Davidbena (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Davidbena I'm confused. Could you please clarify which action you are proposing? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The action that I am proposing is described here. It is the same action that was taken for the following WikiProjects: 1) Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel, which, if you notice on the top right-hand corner, has the "shortcut" WP:Israel; or 2) Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Books, which has the "shortcut" WP:PPalestine; or 3) Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, which has for it the "shortcuts" WP:JEW and WP:JUDAISM. At the time of my making the current Redirect for Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel/Books, I was unaware of the existence of a "shortcut."Davidbena (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena The shortcut examples you provided are in project namespace, while the main point of this nomination is that the redirect is located in the main (article) space. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4, so how do we alleviate the problem?Davidbena (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As proposed, I suggest deleting the redirect. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if that will help us correct the problem let us delete the Redirect and put in the correct "shortcut".Davidbena (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it will make it easier to correct the problem by looking at Category:Redirects from shortcuts. I have just now added on the Redirect page the template {{R from shortcut}} If you should have any questions, please address them to User:Rosguill, who is a member of WikiProject Redirect. Davidbena (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena: I think you've got confused here and you're talking about the wrong page, I've not proposed the shortcut you made for deletion (which is located at Wikipedia:Israel/Books) I'm proposing to delete WikiProject Israel/Books, which because it doesn't have the correct "Wikipedia:" prefix is not in the wikipedia namespace and is instead in article space. Are you familiar with namespaces and how they work? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I understand you. Can you please tell me what I must do to put this in the proper "Wikipedia:" prefix so that it will be in the wikipedia namespace? I am unfamiliar with how to make the change-over.Davidbena (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Israel/Books already exists, so I don't think any more shortcuts are needed. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following the directives listed in Namespaces, I have added the template {{WikiProject Israel}} to the Talk-Page of Wikipedia:Israel/Books and it should help facilitate or "pave-the-way" for the page to be removed from article main space. If there is something else that must be done here, I'll need your assistance, because I simply do not know.Davidbena (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:XNR not a pseduonamspace redirect, since it's missing the colon. Not readership material since it leads to a WikiProject for editors. WP:SUBPAGE/WP:SLASH inapproriate pagename for mainspace, since it is a subpage location and uses a slash -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. — Goszei (talk) 22:29, 23 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.

ヒノマルクラゲ[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 21:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted. Seems to be obvious foreign language clutter in enwiki: Estopedist1 (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: I've fixed this malformed nomination and tagged the redirects for you. Could you please read the instructions on how to do bundled nominations properly at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#How to list a redirect or discussion? When you nominate more than one redirect in a discussion they all need to be tagged and put in an RfD2 template, you can't just stick them in a bullet point list at the end of the nomination. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: how do these differ from any of the other redirects in Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms ( 951 )? Why are these particular ones singled out? --awkwafaba (📥) 02:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Awkwafaba: these are categorized into content categories, in this case into: Category:Siphonophorae; hence - obvious clutter. In addition, probably most of these foreign language redirects (ie Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms) should be deleted in future to keep enwiki database clean--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: sounds like you really want to take the above pages out of Category:Siphonophorae and a CfD on Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms. --awkwafaba (📥) 03:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: All of these are mentioned at their targets; however, I'm not sure what makes the Japanese name relevant. If deemed an WP:RLOTE violation, these should probably also be removed from the articles. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all None of these taxa are native to Japan or significant in Japanese culture. The translations should also be removed from the articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:44, 19 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.

Julian of Rome[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 all, with the exception of Julian the Hellene, which was withdrawn, and keep Julian the Philosopher, which has received some general support. With the exception of one set of votes which appeared confused and made little sense in the context of the discussion, the remainder of the participants have generally come out in broad agreement about the four deleted targets. ~ mazca talk 22:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of these epithets sound legit. A search for "Julian the Philosopher" on Gscholar returns a few results, but (as someone pointed out in the talk page awhile ago) in some of these the phrase seems to simply denote his philosophical activity – thus, a regular qualifier like any other, rather than a proper epithet. "Julian of Rome" sounds like the name of a priest or monk. A search for the more famous "Julian the Apostate" returns infinitely more results than any of these. Avilich (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Julian of Rome, Julian the Blessed, Julian the Great and Julianus Imperator; Keep Julian the Hellene (maybe) and Julian the Philosopher (certainly). I was perplexed by several references I found to a "Julian of Rome", but it appears to be an error for Pope Julius I. Srnec (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Julian the Hellene", no opinion on the others.★Trekker (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: to the extent that any of these are likely search terms, they should be kept, even if other phrases are much more common. They should only be deleted if it is highly improbable that anyone would search under them—e.g. if they were the invention of a single person with an agenda to puff up Julian's reputation, and not adopted by any serious academics. "Julian the Blessed" strikes me as that sort of attempt to "counteract" the common title of "Julian the Apostate", which, while admittedly negative, is among the most common names for the subject, past and present, scholarly and otherwise, and, IMO, has lost most of its pejorative force (apart from the most fanatical of religious figures, who rails against apostasy these days?). So really Julian doesn't need a fan club to escape his "bad reputation amongst Christians"—most Christians don't really care that Julian, like all of the emperors before AD 337, was a pagan. Of course, if it's actually used in scholarly literature to refer to Julian, and not merely mentioned in passing, then even "Julian the Blessed" would be an appropriate redirect, but only if it's actually in general (not necessarily common, but not limited to a single source of dubious authority, and a handful of citations to it) use. I doubt that "Julianus Imperator" is a useful redirect, since it's just "Julian Emperor" translated into Latin, and this is English Wikipedia. It would be a reasonable redirect for Vicipaedia, or other Wikis that use Latin orthography for Romans, but we never use forms like this to refer to Julian in English—apart from, perhaps, the title of some chapter in a biography, or the caption of an illustration—but in those cases I still don't think anyone would search under the term. As Srnec suggests, "Julian of Rome" seems fatally vague, and might be better as a redirect for the pope. P Aculeius (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nom I still believe "Julian the Philosopher" is very flimsy and questionable. As is already clarified in Julian's talk page (December 2012), the epithet is quite rare and, when it does appear, it likely denotes Julian as a philosopher (a mundane reference to this occupation) rather than a something he was actually known as. If it ever becomes a common term it could be recreated, but currently it does not seem to be so, either in reliable sources or common usage. Avilich (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as of April 17 ~18 The simple way to describe Julian is as “Emperor of Rome” or Emperor. There is only one emperor by the name of ‘Julian’ and that is he. From Burgundian Feudalism (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Burgundian Feudalism I am not sure how to apply your argumentation to the redirects at hand. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its simple to just title the Article as ‘Julian’ (emperor) as most historians tend to not title a ruler as blessed, or any other title if it doesn’t specifically describe the rule of that monarch. With philosopher, does he complete important formats and advancements on philosophy? If not, we usually don’t describe a person with that status in name. Also, when I search up Julian (Emperor) (on Google, Safari, etc...) the first thing I see on the screen is this article. From Burgundian Feudalism (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 18 April 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is already titled Julian (emperor) incase you're confused. Avilich (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "of Rome", as it appears to primarily refer to a pope, "the Blessed" and the Great due to lack of evidence of use, and Imperator per P Aculeius. Keep others based on some evidence of use in a Google Scholar search. signed, Rosguill talk 21:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's noevidence for 'the great' and only very limited for 'the philosopher'. Avilich (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I had seen some use on Google Scholar, but I now see that the only true match was from a rather dubious source, hellenicfaith.com, and the rest were false matches. Amending my !vote accordingly. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 6 May 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.

Android S[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. ✗plicit 14:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target or Android version history, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Please read a message I wrote at the bottom of Talk:Android 10. Georgia guy (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not quite sure what you're asking for there, you want those pages creation protected so that the operating system articles can be moves there? If there's a redirect in the way of a page move list it at WP:RM and the redirect will just be WP:G6 speedy deleted to make room for the page move, or if it has significant history a page mover can do a WP:Round robin page swap. There's no need to block protection of those articles. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to be related to Google's developer previews for the operating system. If you look at the android developer blog here you can see that to get code to compile for android 12 you have to tell the compiler to compile for operating system version "Android-S" 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Android version history makes it clear that most versions were codenamed alphabetically with a dessert (eg: Nougat is 7, Oreo is 8, Pie is 9). By the time they got to the letter Q for Android 10, they dropped the dessert name and codenamed it with just the letter. Following that forward, Android 11 is Android R and then 12 is S. -- Tavix (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Jay (talk) 17:51, 23 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.

London Buses route 614[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 bus routes in London#Non-TfL bus routes in Greater London. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect because the 614 bus isn't a London Bus route, it's a Hertfordshire bus route. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of bus routes in London#Non-TfL bus routes in Greater London. Much of this route is in London so this is (as explained in the nominations above) a very plausible search term, we don't require readers to know everything about what they are looking up in an encyclopaedia before they have looked it up. The list article is more helpful as a target though as it details the specific route with a link to the operator (the current target) for those that are looking for that. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:33, 17 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.

Does the Flower Bloom?[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) Adumbrativus (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time nominating a redirect for discussion, so I apologize in advance if I'm doing something wrong. I was wondering if this redirect is valid? "Does the Flower Bloom?" is a fan-translated title for the series that seemed to have appeared when the live-action film was released despite "Does the Flower Blossom?" being used as a title since 2015. lullabying (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: If it's a translation in use amongst fans, it's reasonable to expect people will look for or recognize the title. Vaticidalprophet 11:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Even if it is a fan name, it is still an alternate name for the series. Link20XX (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if it weren't a fan name (which per above is a reason to keep), it seems to me like a very plausible search term for someone who hasn't quite remembered the title correctly. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fan-translated versions of titles are an excellent reason to have a redirect. — Goszei (talk) 22:08, 23 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.

Lexi Rabe[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. ✗plicit 14:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target article has little to do with the subject of 'Lexi Rabe', other than her being a cast member. It does not contain any info about her, and is confusing for someone who searches for the subject. The redirect should therefore be deleted.IronManCap (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 17 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.

Rosen Trap[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 targeting the only article that currently mentions a Rosen trap. If reliably sourced content about a different sort of Rosen trap is added elsewhere, then the redirect can boldly be expanded into a disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Onel5969 TT me 19:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed redirect to List of chess traps. to disambiguation page Sun Creator(talk) 09:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incorrect redirect, as the Rosen Trap is a swindle, not a trap. I'll revert to the original redirect. Maxipups Mamsipupsovich (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well it is an opening trap. If it's a swindle as well, then maybe it's a disambig? Sun Creator(talk) 08:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just noting that changing a redirect's target while a discussion is ongoing is considered bad practice due to the confusion it can cause. As such, I've reverted the redirect back to its target at the start of the discussion. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 09:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Was already in progress of converting to a disambig page, per talk page edit.. Sun Creator(talk) 09:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I think of the phrase "Rosen Trap" as referring exclusively to a Rosen Stalemate Trap, not anything to do with the Englund Gambit. Note that the source linked above is just a mirror of a YouTube video, and should hold no more "weight" than the video itself. This should redirect to Swindle in my opinion. AviationFreak💬 15:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (?) redirect to Swindle (chess) as it is (now?) mentioned there and the other proposed entries at the proposed dab page do not appear to comply with DABMENTION. signed, Rosguill talk 20:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rosguill. --BDD (talk) 01:49, 29 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_17&oldid=1169265818"