Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 18, 2021.

President Walker Bush[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 President Bush. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Retarget to Bush family in light of all of the following:

  1. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 23#Walker Bush retargeted Walker Bush to the Bush family, and it is logical that either this redirect also move to it or get deleted per my essay.
  2. "Walker Bush" is not a nickname of his, or a double-barrelled surname in the veins of "Lloyd George", "Lloyd Webber", amongst others. In fact, if it is, it would have been even more ambiguous to have such a redirect
  3. For more reasonings please see links above.

Most apolitically yours, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 21:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC), edited on 05:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was about to say keep because it is one of many ways of differentiating between the two Bushes, but it actually looks to be ambiguous between the two. Some sources use Walker Bush as Bush Snr's last name – albeit probably incorrectly. So instead, retarget to Bush family which has links (which probably should be more prominent) at the top of the page to the two Bushes. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:43, 19 April 2021 (
  • Delete. Ambiguous, not a name actually used to refer to either member of the bush family, has received only 32 page views in the last 5 years. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The IPv4 makes a very good point that every two months, one person looks at this article. Redirects are cheap, but not this cheap. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, but to President Bush, per J947. President Bush has easy links to both Bushes in question. -- Tavix (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I probably should've checked for a better target. Retarget there. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 19:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to President Bush. While I do think most searchers using this seek George W. Bush (and would be fine if kept), this target would logically follow from Walker Bush targeting Bush Family. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to President Bush per above and since "president" is part of the search term, so Bush family is too broad. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:59, 26 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.

Main shock[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 Earthquake#Earthquake clusters. Hog Farm Talk 04:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is some kind of terminology related to earthquakes, which isn't mentioned in the earth article, and the section it's supposed to be tatgeting doesn't exist. mainshock targets foreshock, should this be retargeted to match or is there a better target? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for finding this, looking to fix it, and notifying me of the discussion. It looks like I changed this in 2018 so that it pointed to the same target as mainshock and I agree that that should still be the case. Regrettably, I seem to have used the wrong target at that time; I believe it was intended to be targeting Earthquake#Earthquake clusters. If there is no article specifically about mainshocks, that still seems like a reasonable target. Foreshock is also reasonable, but by that logic, I would think that aftershock would also be viable, so I prefer the general approach if no better targets are identified. —Ost (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would think Main shock and Mainshock should target the same place, so I'll bundle it in with the relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:54, 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.

Ladislaus of Lithuania, Poland, Muscovy and Sweden[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. Deryck C. 09:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:Pointy itself isn't the main factor but its low usability would be. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 20:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not likely to be useful since it's long, it's a rather arbitrary selection and ordering of his titles, and on top of that, Ladislaus is already a less common form of his name. (Also, as a comment, the suggestion of WP:POINT seems to be in reference to a 2006 discussion which took place at Talk:Sigismund III Vasa.) Adumbrativus (talk) 07:51, 27 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.

List of Oman national cricket captains[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 moot. The lists have been created. -- Tavix (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Circular redirects, no such lists appear to exist at this time. Delete to encourage article creation. signed, Rosguill talk 17:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: To encourage article creation if notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation, to prevent these being circular redirects in the template and because navboxes do not render properly on the mobile site, so more than 50% of our readers that come across this redirect will be presented with a broken page. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Joseph2032, Rosguill -> Is it fine if create the page with appropriate contents. Thanks, Vikram Maingi (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello All, I have created both, List of Papua New Guinea cricket captains and List of Oman cricket captains, the pages by commenting out RfD and REDIRECT. Requesting you guys to please review the Page contents. If found satisfactory, please delete the comments for RfD and REDIRECT. Otherwise feel free to DELETE the article. Thanks,Vikram Maingi (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion can now be closed as moot. signed, Rosguill talk 15:14, 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.

EMU Sportswear[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 00:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, which is a list of fitness wear brands with Wikipedia articles. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I fixed the second bullet point, since it didn't appear correctly. Regards, SONIC678 19:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The requirement for being included in the list is to have a standalone article, which does not seem to exist for either of these brands. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As above comment. Not mentioned in target because the list only includes companies with articles. Thus this redirect is not needed, as if they were notable then they'd have an article not a redirect, and if not notable then they won't be mentioned at the target. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:49, 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.

Mayoral elections in Worcester, Masachusetts[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) CycloneYoris talk! 23:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded redirect from a typo SecretName101 (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – helpful redirect from a typo. It's a common misnomer, and deleting this redirect would be a disservice to readers who make this misspelling. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 06:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947. "Massachusetts" isn't an easy name to spell, and Wikipedia's search engine doesn't seem to have the same "did you mean" capabilities as other search engines (e.g., Google). Regards, SONIC678 15:16, 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.

Michael Healy (Oz)[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. Deryck C. 09:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While this might be the full name of Mike Healy (Oz), this name doesn't seem to have been used as I can't find it mentioned in the first couple of pages of google search results. We shouldn't make up names that aren't featured in the show. Gonnym (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No idea how this came to refer to the TV show. I believe this redirect originally referred to L. Frank Baum's Oz books and was changed incorrectly; 12 years later, though, I have no more detailed memory than that. - Jmabel | Talk 17:44, 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.

Computer game[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 5#Computer game

Snitches (The Shield)[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) 01:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not the correct title, which is Snitch (The Shield) Gonnym (talk) 10:41, 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.

Vasanthi (upcoming film)[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 09:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The film has been released, so the redirect no longer makes sense. (Not suppressing redirect here since it does not seem to meet WP:PMRC.) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:22, 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.

Nilpotent endomorphism[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. ✗plicit 09:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly to how Idempotent endomorphism redirects to the more general article Idempotent (ring theory), I suggest this be retargeted to Nilpotent. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral for the two targets (not deletion though): On one hand, the nilpotent transformation in the second paragraph of Nilpotent matrix is precisely the notion of a nilpotent endomorphism (just for vector spaces) and may be more useful for someone searching specifically for nilpotent endomorphisms than the more general article (a reader of the more general article looking for nilpotent endomorphism may not realize that they need to consider a nilpotent endomorphism as an element of an endomorphism ring). On the other hand, the more general article is technically correct since a nilpotent endomorphism does not need to be on a vector space. — MarkH21talk 17:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if asked to take a side. The thing is the terms like "nilpotent endomorphism" mostly appear in the context of linear algebra or representation theory. Since it is synonymous with "nilpotent transformation" and that one redirects to "nilpotent matrix", this one needs to share the same target. (This is a matter of tension between common usage and math precision and the common usage should typically be weighted higher.) —- Taku (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think that this is actually a phrase. SCP-053 (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SCP-053: a google scholar search turns up loads of mathematical papers using this phrase, so clearly this is a real thing. We don't delete these kind of technical redirects because someone "thinks" it isn't a real phrase, we are guided by usage in reliable sources. I don't know enough about this topic to make a judgement, so I'm going to stay quiet in this discussion, but I would make the suggestion that you should really read the advice at WP:Contributing to complicated discussions. Knowing when you're out of your depth and don't know enough about a topic to make a sensible judgment is an important skill to have. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:45, 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.

Hugo (programming 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. --BDD (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This redirect was created from an AfD that closed as redirect. It was apparently before that a redirect to the same section, converted to an article. If the target section doesn't mention it, perhaps it should. Vaticidalprophet 08:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps the article should mention it, but it doesn't, so a redirect there is just confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:54, 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.

The Flash (2021 film)[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) feminist (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did not release in 2021. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It was once supposed to release in 2021, but obviously won't with the current release. We also have redirects for The Flash (2016 film) and The Flash (2020 film), all of which I made redirect to the current page, as they all were years of release for the film during its long development. They are still useful for links directed to those, and I don't see anything wrong with them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the 2021 redirect since the film did have that as a release date, but The Flash (2016 film) should probably be deleted since per The Flash (film)#Release there was never an official 2016 date for it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The tentative 2016 release info was discussed in the July 2013 area for the film's development, but left out from the release section. I have added it there, so that redirect should be fine staying. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:58, 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.

47th President of the United States[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 09:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Severe WP:CRYSTAL issues. There are a number of scenarios in which the 47th President of the United States would not be as the result of the 2024 election. Hog Farm Talk 03:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. A very plausible scenario is Biden's re-election, in which case a 47th POTUS would not result from the 2024 election, making this redirect target erroneous. It assumes that a new president will be elected, which is not an assumption Wikipedia can make. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another possibility is that Biden decides he's accomplished everything and retires early, making Kamala Harris the 47th President prior to the 2024 election. There are, of course, other circumstances that could lead to that outcome, but the point is that there are too many routes for the 47th President to be decided other than by the 2024 election, for this redirect to predict that outcome. BD2412 T 04:11, 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.

Wikipedia:UC[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 18:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be made a disambiguation, seeing that there are three other pages (Wikipedia:Changing username, Wikipedia:User contributions, and Wikipedia:User categories) that also fits the acronym. DePlume (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC) - edited on 18:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, longstanding redirect, hatnotes are sufficient. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 14:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not debating the worthiness of keeping the redirect. I am debating its target. DePlume (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotReallySoroka (talk • contribs) [reply]
      • Yes, I understand that. My thinking is that the shortcut does send people who know what it has been used for in the last 14 years to the right place. People who don't know and think it means "changing username" or "user categories" need an extra click to get to the place they want. If we change to a disambiguation page, nobody gets where they want to go directly (everyone has to do the extra click). Kind of defeats the purpose of a shortcut. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 18:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per nom -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not many uses, and some are intended to link to Wikipedia:User categories. WP:WPUC is unused and could redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject University of California. Peter James (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Peter James brings up interesting points. Discussion could use more commentary to determine consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per the above. It is generally difficult in the real world for a two-letter acronym to have a primary topic. Why could this not as easily refer to a Wikiproject for the University of Chicago or Ulcerative colitis? Although those don't exist, username changes and user categories, for example, do. BD2412 T 04:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate (dab drafted below the redirect). WP:UC is conceivable as a shortcut for several guidelines/info pages of general significance and it's weird to have it targeting a dormant niche wikiproject. There aren't that many incoming links (some of them in fact intend different targets). – Uanfala (talk) 14:32, 5 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.

Þ̧[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 09:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not one Unicode character, it uses the combining cedilla. There is no mention of it in the article now and there wasn't when the redirect was created.[1][2] It was mentioned on the talk page (Talk:Cedilla#All these letters but no explanation was provided. It's an unlikely combination as there appears to be no language that uses both Þ and the cedilla. (It was included in a template but was removed in 2013[3].) Peter James (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_18&oldid=1138582988"