Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 20, 2021.

British King who abdicated[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 00:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since Edward II and Richard II both abdicated too, and they are all from England that can be called "Britain" casually. No comment on the Kings' reign, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 23:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't remember creating this, but I presume I did so because I was using this search term to try and find Edward VIII when not being able to remember their name (or someone else mentioned doing so). Neither Richard II nor Edward II were British kings, and their abdication is not the most notable feature of their reign meaning that even if we regard this search term as actually (rather than just theoretically) ambiguous, Edward VIII is clearly the primary topic. Googling for the term (without quotes but excluding Wikipedia) backs that up - every single result on the first 4 pages is about Edward VIII as are all but the second last on page 5 and all but the 3rd and 6th results on page 6. Repeating the search with quotes and again excluding Wikipedia Google shows me 80 results, all 80 of which are about Edward VIII (although one did suggest he abdicated in 1894, actually the year of his birth). I've not found any other evidence of people referring to either of the monarchs of England by this term either, so see no justification for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not the kind of redirect we should be encouraging. James II and VII was effectively a British king who abdicated (he's listed at List of monarchs who abdicated and List of English monarchs mentions that by royal proclamation, James styled himself "King of Great Britain".) -- Tavix (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should we not be encouraging redirects from search terms people (59 last year for example) use to find Wikipedia articles? If people are using this term to refer to multiple monarchs then it should be redirected to a list or become a disambiguation page, however all the evidence shows that there is only one person people who use this are likely to be looking for so, at most, a hatnote is justified. There is absolutely no justification for deletion here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unambiguously question-like redirect which is not helpful - WP:PANDORA - and which, per the above, is an inaccurate recentism. Ignoring the redirect, a user who input the string into the search function would end up with links to pages like Abdication of Edward VIII; List of monarchs who abdicated and List of monarchs who lost their thrones in the 20th century ([1]), so this doesn't help anyway... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, as you correctly note, unambiguous in practice (per all the evidence I presented above) and so demonstrably helpful. WP:PANDORA is nonsense bordering on harmful misinformation (redirects are judged only on their own merits, the existence or non-existence of one redirect implies nothing about the suitability of another - see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Search results are always inferior to a direct link as they are not predictable and, depending on the method and device used to navigate and their account status, may be multiple clicks away from where a user arrives after using the search term. Thryduulf (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You must have misunderstood what I meant per "unambiguous". Fixed. And having a question (which this basically is) as a redirect is not helpful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why' is having such redirects unhelpful when they demonstrably help people find the article they are looking for? {{R from search term}} exists and explicitly covers redirects from related words or phrases. Simply being "question-like" (and this is not unambiguously so) is not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I, regrettably, disagree with your liberal stance on such terms. A sea of search words are not helpful and not normal (do we redirect Atlanta Braves Opening Day Starter, 2021 to Max Fried)? We are not a search engine, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 02:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Chill. It's just an essay, no more powerful than my WP:FRIED or WP:NOTSEARCHENGINE. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 02:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator note: King who died with a hot poker up the ass was deleted per User:Newyorkbrad's reasoning at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass. It redirects to King Edward II, not VIII, but NYB did lay out some good reasons that I echo. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 04:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Meets none of the purposes at Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects. DrKay (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Tavix. Jay (talk) 20:33, 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.

. LORD PALMERSTON[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 02:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being too improbable and under-utilised. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 23:28, 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.

Tecumseh Sherman[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! 20:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this improbable portion of a name - for example, searching for Tecumseh Sherman but excluding "William Tecumseh Sherman" will mostly yield results for "Wm. Tecumseh Sherman" - i.e. there are little evidence that Tecumseh Sherman is used without a form of William in front of it. Moreover, there is William Tecumseh Sherman Fitch III, his descendant. Also see my essay, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 23:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Tecumseh is the memorable part of Gen. Sherman's name, so unsurprisingly "Tecumseh Sherman" -William (or Wm. or W.) does have some use. Examples of use from a cursory search include [2] [3] [4] [5]. You'd be hard pressed to find any reference of William Tecumseh Sherman Fitch III as "Tecumseh Sherman". Unlike his namesake, he does not use Sherman as part of his common name, so there is no expectation that someone would search using that string. -- Tavix (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very plausible search term and the target is most certainly the primary topic of the redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:57, 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.

Henry Bannerman[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) Vaticidalprophet 15:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or made disambig, due to WP:FRIED and a partial title match for Henry Morrison (cricketer) (full name: "Henry Bannerman Morrison"). PM Campbell-Bannerman is born "Henry Campbell", so that would be acceptable, but "Henry Bannerman" alone would confuse the user into thinking that he was born that, or once simply go by that. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 23:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Easy mistake for those who don't know it's a double-barrelled surname, and there are no Henry Bannermans to confuse this with. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar knight. CycloneYoris talk! 20:18, 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.

Henry Asquith[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! 20:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my essay, WP:FRIED, and the fact that "Henry Asquith" could also refer to Michael Henry Asquith, H. H.'s grandson. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 22:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both both legitimate forms of the name. H. H. Asquith was known as Henry to his family (once Margot came along at least), no evidence that Michael Henry Asquith has any notability whatsoever, still less that he is known as Henry to anyone. DuncanHill (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per DuncanHill. Theoretical ambiguity without evidence of actual ambiguity in practice is not justification for deleting a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as above. john k (talk) 20:02, 24 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.

Incompetent valves[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 Valvular heart disease. -- Tavix (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that this specific term is mentioned at the target.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  08:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for a full 7 days' consideration for the redirects added since the discussion was first opened.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 21:00, 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.

Business Information Systems[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 28#Business Information Systems

MOS:Naming convention[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. -- Tavix (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for Wikipedia:Naming conventions when I entered this; not sure the current target's topic can be called "naming conventions". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to give some history: This redirect goes back a long way... there was a time back in the mid 2000s when we talked about articles having a “name”. This caused a lot of confusion because people were not sure whether we were referring to the name of the subject or the “name” of of the article (not always the same). We realized that we needed to separate these two concepts better, by shifting terminology... we decided to stop talking about an article’s NAME, and instead talk about an article’s TITLE.
So... we changed our WP:Naming conventions guideline (which mostly talked about how to “name” an article) to WP:Article titles (which was soon promoted to Policy status).
However, there were a few parts of the old WP:Naming conventions guideline that dealt with how to present the subject’s name beyond an article title, (such as whether to present nicknames in quotes or parentheses). These were primarily STYLE issues, so we hived these bits off, and created a separate MOS:Naming convention guideline to deal with these issues.
Hope this history helps clarify why the various policies and guidelines are (currently) entitled as they are, why the various redirects exist, and why they (currently) point where they do.
I spell it out not to support or object to any new proposals, but merely to inform the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar This makes sense to me, though I am still not sure if the target is really about "naming". I guess the hatnote which is already present at the target does help, and my search using "MOS:" instead of "WP:", which was my motivation for this nomination, was a bit unfortunate. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, apologies for being oblivious. I guess that means I'm fine with keeping this as-is. - Eureka Lott 16:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Article titles. Probably what people are looking for when they typed this in. SCP-053 (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Someone seems to have pinged me here, althought I can't see their comment. SCP-053 (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC) -- striking comments by a sockpuppet. – Uanfala (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. MoS doesn't establish naming conventions (the naming conventions guidelines do), and shortcuts are supposed to be short and useful, most especially pseudo-namespace ones, which live in mainspace. This seems to serve no purpose, so is just garbage to take out of mainspace. Do not retarget to a non-MoS page; "MOS:" shortcuts are only for MoS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC); extended: 22:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved the above comment from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 3#MOS:Naming convention, where it was posted below the relisting notice. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I needed coffee.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As MOS pseudo-namespace is for Manual of Style pages, it will be surprising if it leads to a non-MoS page. I see that we have 111 "MOS:" shortcuts of which 71 redirect to Manual of Style pages. Unless someone is specifically looking for a MoS, they won't use the MOS: shortcut. Jay (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Article titles, almost certainly what someone is looking for. I appreciate the desire to have MOS shortcuts only point to the Manual of Style proper, but this is the sort of content one might look for in a manual of style anyway. If this were the only MOS shortcut pointing elsewhere, I'd be more skeptical. As such, it doesn't bother me any more than redirects in project namespace to help-space. --BDD (talk) 15:32, 11 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.

UNC-R[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 27#UNC-R

Chees[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. Really more of a no consensus outcome, with deletion and disambiguation as front runners. Given "keep" arguments were a minority of 1 in a discussion that saw quite a bit of participation, and the inherent middle ground nature of disambiguation, I am closing as disambiguate as the best compromise between the proposed courses of action. signed, Rosguill talk 18:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recognising that April Fools is now over and that this is a proper RfD, this redirect should be deleted. It's tagged as a misspelling but it could refer to cheese, chess, cheers, etc. An alternative could be to retarget to Cheez but I prefer deletion. Anarchyte (talk • work) 05:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chee, for the same reason as Peter James. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. None of the entries at Chee naturally take a plural. As a typo, too ambiguous to be useful. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment both the given name and the surname nautrally take plural forms. Like "keeping up with the Joneses" uses the plural form for "Jones", a surname. "there are 3 Toms in class" takes the plural for "Tom", a given name. Thus the given name and surname "Chee" can use "Chees" as plural. -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but Chee just has links for Chee (surname) or Chee (given name), rather than a list of names that could be plural. I guess searchers could be seeking a list of people with the name, which would be plural because there are multiple such people with articles. In such a case it seems like a pretty week search term if that's what was really being sought, which seems unlikely, and will bring the searcher to a dab page where none of the entries can be plural and they still have to choose given name or surname. So search results seem better here to me, given the potential that it could just be a typo as discussed above. There seems to be no consistent way to handle plurals of names. For example Nicks targets Nix (surname) rather than Nick or Nick (disambiguation) (though there is a hatnote). Joneses targets The Joneses and not Jones or any of its entries. (These could probably benefit from RfDs too, as I'm not sure their current targets are best.) Mdewman6 (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate unorthodoxly as ambiguous. The vast majority of readers finding this redirect will not be looking for Chee and as such, a retarget there would be suboptimal in my opinion. Cheese and chess are likely what most readers are looking for. J947's public account 23:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The dab page looks good, Certes' idea of moving the misspellings to a see also section would probably be for the better but otherwise it looks much much superior to the search results. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a google search shows that "cheese" is what the vast majority of people using this word on the internet mean. Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 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 17:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. My search was dominated by chess (however I do play often, so it might be tilting my results) but I can see how Cheese and Chess are both likely, and how it can be a rare-ish plural for Chee and a typo for Cheez. Those are probably all "see also" entries, but we can also fill out the disambiguation page with a couple of super minor uses: a character in Delfy and His Friends and a work by Pravin Darji. -- Tavix (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I appreciate Tavix finding some legitimate uses, and maybe a good draft would convince me, but I really don't like disambiguation pages that are nothing but errors, and per nom, I don't see one to prefer. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, draft available below the redirect. I don't think the dab is particularly unorthodox. There might be particular arguments for each individual case (is the Delfy character sinficant enough to warrant inclusion?, is the 16th-centurry spelling for "cheese" relevant now?, how likely is it for readers to be seeking the plural of "Chee"? how should dab pages include misspellings?, etc). However, collectively there's enough for a dab page even under the narrower understanding of what counts as a "correct" entry, and the dab page is a clear improvement over the search results, which in this case are almost useless. – Uanfala (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, though I would make the draft more orthodox by moving misspellings to a "See also" section. Certes (talk) 17:29, 16 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.

Glizzy[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 so it will be kept as is by default. However, I will add 61.239.39.90's hatnote suggestion to (hopefully) cover as many bases as possible. -- Tavix (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to hot dog. Glizzy is a regional dialectical synonym of hot dog, and people searching for it would not be expecting the rapper. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it’s not currently mentioned at all at the proposed target so is there any evidence that people typing Glizzy would be more likely looking up hot dogs?--67.70.101.238 (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed that at one point Glizzy was a dab page where it was also said to be a term for a Glock and that article doesn’t mention the term either. Basically, we need more evidence.--67.70.101.238 (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to that is simply. Yes. The terms are related and it's slang that originates in the Washington DC and Maryland area. A simple search brings up multiple references to the term on articles, and even youtube videos from area residents. Interestingly enough, it the term is also referenced on the Wiktionary glizzy as a hot dog reference, as well as a reference to the rapper, AND the gun. The term may in fact originate from said rapper or involve him in some way. 216.9.28.77 (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly on odd situation, in that we have three different meanings, but only one of them is actually mentioned in an article. Redirecting it to an article that does not use the term is not a good solution. Perhaps using WP:HATNOTEs on the article on the person is the correct answer? Something like
This page is about the person. For the sausage, see hot dog. For the firearm, see Glock 9mm.
maybe? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnote solution might look a little messy. Why not restore the DAB? BlackholeWA (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use a hatnote to direct a reader to an article where the term isn't mentioned. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do that all the time with informal nicknames like this. It's certainly preferable to a redirect that does the same. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we? Where? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:07, 8 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 17:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make a disambiguation page. Considering "glizzy" could refer to 3 equally applicable things at once, it's not really viable to handpick one over the other. The best solution is to make a disambiguation page to direct the reader into what they're looking for. Nekomancerjade (talk) 02:57, 7 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.

Wet tar[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. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would these be better targeting Asphalt or Tar? although this is used as a road sign after Asphalt concrete has been laid it's referring to the asphalt component of the mix. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think it's fine as it is: the article has sufficient explanation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I may be underestimating its value as a term someone would search for (it seems to be more in use in Australia than other places), but I don't see any links actually using this phrase. If it's kept, it should stay pointing to asphalt concrete or maybe redirect to sealcoat. Looking at how it's used, it seems to be more about sealcoats, chipseals, and/or tackcoats than about asphalt concrete, but pointing to just asphalt would be going too far back up the production chain and tar is the wrong product. Carter (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Tar. The term is also used for roofing so we have go broader (and more literal) than roads. -- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: one more try to get some consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or disambiguate. Ambiguous term, but it does seem that in a plurality of cases it is in reference to the current target, even though the words "wet" or "tar" do not occur in the article(!). Ideally would be disambiguated if someone wanted to take that on at some point. Deletion to rely on search results doesn't seem right, as searchers seeking the current target would be out of luck. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although there is no mention of "wet", there is mention of "liquid", "dissolve", "water", etc., in the target. A Google search gives plenty of images of caution sign-boards saying "wet tar". Jay (talk) 20:17, 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.

List of films set in ancient Greece[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 Fiction set in ancient Greece#Films without prejudice against overwriting the redirect with a stand-alone list. -- Tavix (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander the Great ≠ Ancient Greece. Off the top of my head, Jason and the Argonauts (1963 film), Hercules (1997 film), and 300 (film) are all set in Ancient Greece and have nothing to do with Alexander. A list article could probably be created at this title, but until then this redirect should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 17:46, 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.

Melissa Cross[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 27#Melissa Cross

North American winter[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 major snow and ice events in the United States#Seasonal summaries. ✗plicit 02:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing particularly relevant to North American winters in particular at the target, delete to encourage article creation. I considered retargeting to Climate of North America, but that's just a redirect to a section of North America that does not discuss winters in much detail. signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created that redirect since we have seasonal "North American winter" articles (2020-21 North American winter, etc.) but with no article titled North American winter. I created it so that if "North American winter" is typed, it actually leads to something rather than being taken to a nonexistent article. – 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 (contribs) 17:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that leaving a red link to encourage article creation is a better solution; I don't think anybody clicking through "North American winter" on those pages is likely to be satisfied by the content at Winter. signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I don't see the case for this redirect, since it would surprise me that someone would search on the term "North American winter" any more than they would search on "Scandinavian winter" or "Siberian winter". Nor do I see a case for red links, unless there is something that so distinguishes a North American winter from those that I've mentioned that it warrants a separate article. I could see a list article on "List of North American winter storms" that the link could point to. HopsonRoad (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An article titled List of major snow and ice events in the United States does exist. I suppose it could redirect to that instead. – 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 (contribs) 16:57, 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.

The Magic Diner[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 28#The Magic Diner

Саrоlуn Тrеnсh-Ѕаndіfоrd[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 02:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mixed script redirect - the first letter is not a letter "C" but is instead a cryllic Es. Seems to have been created as a typo, the article was only at this title for a couple of days before being moved to the correct title. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating Cаrоlуn Тrеnсh-Ѕаndіfоrd here for the same reason, it contains a Dze instead of an s. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These should not exist. The weirdest thing was that they used to have incoming links from mainspace, but they seem to have been fixed. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 15:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I had found the article at the title of the first redirect and moved it to the title with the initial Cyrillic es replaced by the Latin letter C. Only after that did I notice that the title was full of letters in the wrong script, and as the current title of the article was already a redirect, nominated that for G6 speedy deletion. A couple days later, the second nominated redirect came into being this way. Note that the first redirect's title, with Cyrillic letters marked in blue and Latin ones in red, is Саrоlуn Тrеnсh-Ѕаndіfоrd. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for if they ever mistype the Cyrillic C, the search engine will still use "Trench-Sandiford" to redirect reader to the Carolyn article. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Mixed-script redirects are only very rarely useful, these are not exceptions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Vaticidalprophet 00:28, 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.

Bitter (song)[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 Bitter#Music. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 19:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename to "Bitter (Remy Zero song)" as there are multiple songs called "Bitter". dylx (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 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.

Sai Srujan Pelluri[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 03:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is a minor actor who made no significant contributions to Telugu cinema, and there is no mention of it in the article. No reason to keep the redirect. Ab207 (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, not mentioned in target. The article in the page history was already sent to AFD where it was determined that the person was not notable enough for a standalone article and should be merged, but anything that was transferred over has been subsequently deleted. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to facilitate uninhibited Search, which would find the only mention at Aa Okkadu. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:16, 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.

Image upload[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 03:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No inherent relation to Wikipedia. Even our articles, such as Upload components#Image upload, refer to this as a general term. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for being too vague. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this undesirable cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are only 5 and 30 hits per month on these, so may not be very useful. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid was invoked to justify a similar deletion earlier. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Uploading images is a general process that occurs on lots of websites, it's not a concept unique to Wikipedia, so people coming across these redirects could be looking for our article on Uploading, for example.
  • Delete per nom, unless we find a good, suitably generalized mainspace target. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:28, 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.

Example Article Name[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 03:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why anyone would be searching for this, but if they are, this will almost certainly come as a WP:SURPRISE. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt. This has been repeatedly recreated as an example page over the years, so I think this should be salted. We already have an example page people can use in documentation (WP:Example), and the only incoming links are in broken templates and the like, where the editor clearly was not intending to link to an example page. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:53, 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.

Community health initiative/Per user page, namespace, category, and upload blocking[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 03:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible WP:XNR; probably an accidental creation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems to have been created because someone used the mass message extension to send out a message with a broken link in it 3 years ago (e.g. in This message the words "full proposed implementation here" are a broken link missing the WP: prefix). In this case though the kind of editor who is going to be interested in the development of partial blocks (i.e. administrators) is going to be aware of how namespaces work and should be able to resolve the issue on their own. I'm leaning Delete on the basis that everyone interested has probably already read the 3 year old message, and I don't see any other reason to keep a cross namespace redirect to this specific subpage. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:18, 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.

Clean Start[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 12:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little to none of the web search results seem to relate to Wikipedia. Implausible WP:XNR. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Disambiguate. This phrase is used in a large number of non-Wikipedia contexts, such as being cleared of debts after a Bankruptcy discharge, being assigned a new identity as part of Witness protection or the process of being released from prison, or as the antonym of a False start in spots (This isn't a comprehensive list). I therefore don't think this should point readers into project space. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a textbook example of point 1 under the arguments for deleting CNRs being proven. While I can understand the IP's wish to convert the page to a disambig, the page would largely lead to articles in other names, so it's better in this case that the redirect is deleted. Hx7 13:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete are there even any good non-shortcut mainspace -> projectspace redirects? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • ProcrastinatingReader, IMO no, the vast majority of them are not helpful. Only a tiny fraction of our readers edit the encyclopaedia and these kind of redirects are far more likely to catch unwitting readers than editors who forgot the WP: prefix. I'm also really not keen on mainspace → template redirects, since template pages are full of documentation that really is not reader friendly, and often the templates being targeted do not render properly on the mobile web site, e.g. navboxes. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ProcrastinatingReader: There are a small number, mostly related to pages that very new users who have not yet learned about namespaces need to be able to easily find, e.g. About Wikipedia, How to cite Wikipedia, Request an article, etc. There are also some that exist for historical reasons to avoid breaking links (e.g. Rules to consider, which has been a been a blue link since 4 February 2001, long before namespaces were invented). Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this cross-namespace redirect. There's nothing to disambiguate at this capitalisation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if someone knows the term clean start exists they will also know about namespaces. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on in what context they know the term. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 06:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate It clearly shouldn't point to a WPspace page. It could refer to safe mode restart for operating systems, bankruptcy discharge, full pardon, witness protection, etc -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 17:38, 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.

Attack page[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 speedily deleted by Fastily per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quick web search reveals a lot of unrelated meanings, such as a so-called "Google Attack Page" and general malicious websites. No reason for this WP:XNR to exist. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A google search shows this being used in a number of different contexts, e.g. to refer to Cyberbullying or Computer virus infected webpages. Not Wikipedia specific jargon so I don't think it's a good idea to be sending searchers into Wikipedia space. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:12, 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.

Chupa peak[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 12:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No relevant Google hits + chupar is Spanish for to suck. Whatever the original joke may have been, this is clearly useless. AngryHarpy‍talk 10:51, 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 world's littlest scyscraper[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 12:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. Misspelling "skyscraper" as "scyscraper" seems to be uncommon. Aasim (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think that the target page should be moved to "Newby-McMahon Building". The redirect itself, though, can be gone. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:21, 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.

Bharat (place)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 27#Bharat (place)

TWD[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! 00:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The primary topic is currently New Taiwan dollar and there should no longer be a primary topic. The TV show "The Walking Dead" now commonly abbreviates itself as "TWD" in marketing and on promo art and these pages The Walking Dead (franchise), The Walking Dead (comics), and The Walking Dead (TV series) collectively receive many more views. There are already redirects for TWD episodes, TWD (season 1), etc. UserTwoSix (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move the disambig page to TWD because the former lists many uses of the abbreviation, including the currency and the TV show. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 01:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing per WP:CRUFT that dictates that WP should not lend undue voice to content that might only interest a few. Unfortunately, just because The Walking Dead goes by TWD, doesn't mean that we have to redirect the abbreviation there. Also see the good reasoning by User:wbm1058 below. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep.
Page history –has been a primary-redirect to New Taiwan dollar for nearly 15 years, vs. a disambiguation for less than 3 years:
3-letter currency codes for major currencies are common primary-redirects: AUD, CNY, GBP, JPY, NZD, USD – but not always: CAD, KRW
Only 7 pages link to TWD, which is not a big deal, but it's a matter of convenience for editors:
Example: Taipei Dome infobox: cost = $37 billion TWD
New Taiwan dollar has the most long-term significance, which is one of the two major WP:PTOPIC criteria (the other being usage, i.e. page views)
The Walking Dead is itself an ambiguous term.
I searched The Walking Dead (franchise) for "TWD" and came up empty. The logo doesn't use this acronym. The Walking Dead (comic book) only uses "TWD" as a code in the tables of collected editions. The Walking Dead (TV series) just uses "TWD" twice, deep into the article. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:15, 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.

Pseudoscience in Pakistan[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 12:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral redirect. Pseudoscience is not discussed at the target, and frustrates users looking for, say, Pervez Hoodbhoy. This is the only redirect beginning with Pseudoscience in. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without regards to its content, I say delete, failing which re-target to Pervez Hoodbhoy. Per nom and the fact that P in P is a work of Hoodbhoy's. Deletion is still my first choice, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 02:00, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_20&oldid=1138583003"