Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 8, 2021.

Caroline Henry[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 16#Caroline Henry

Coalición Cívica[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 speedy retarget. User:Lembit Staan has boldly restored the old target; as this was essentially just the reversion of a bot error, I'm going to boldly/IAR close this. Anyone can feel free to reopen if they disagree. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 18:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect of a Spanish name of a political party to a Polish political party. Inappropriate use of WP:RLOTE. Eyesnore 21:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: this was caused by a bot fixing a double redirect from Civic Coalition to the page titled Civic Coalition (Poland). Eyesnore 01:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy retarget to the argentine political party Civic Coalition ARI, which is obviously the intended target based on the creation edit summary of the redirect. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @86.23.109.101: It may also point to the defunct Argentine coalition, Civic Coalition (Argentina). Eyesnore 01:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The coalition and the party are strongly related, in that the coalition was started by the party by the same name, and the two articles are hat noted to each other to provide disambiguation. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retarget as listed above -- I'm not sure how this ended up pointing to the Polish party and not the Argentine one, but yes, should be redirected to the Argentine one as above (initial redirect creator). matt91486 (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked in the page history, and guess it was a mess created by bots during page moves and changing a redirect into disambig page. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FIXED Please close, I dont know how. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:57, 9 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]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#Incompetent valves

Put to the sword[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 soft redirect to Wikt:put to the sword. Deryck C. 09:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This could also refer to Capital punishment.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  07:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft Redirect to it's wiktionary entry? I couldn't find any articles discussing this phrase. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Google book search "put to the sword" "no quarter" to see that the two terms are very closely related. One is the action of killing when no quarter has given. Quite a few of these books refer to the end of Cromwell's siege of Drogheda and "put to the sword" is used idiomatically as Cromwell in his report uses the term "knocked on the head" for the way they tended to kill priests and others. -- PBS (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually checking the report Cromwell uses both the sword and head descriptions: "were ordered by me to put them all to the Sword; and indeed being in the heat of action, I forbade them to spare any that were in Arms in the Town" and "I believe all their Fryers were knockt on the head promiscuously". The phrases sword quarter also often used in conjunction about the Siege of the Alamo eg The Edinburgh Review - Volumes 73-74 - Page 265 1841; and in popular culture for exam in Ballad of the Alamo 1:51–2:00 "Santa Anna ... roared./"I will show them no quarter, everyone will be put to the sword." (I use the song, not as a reliable source about the Alamo, but to show that these terms are not obscure academic ones but are also used together in popular culture and therefore widely understood). -- PBS (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm aware of the connection between the two terms, but "Put to the sword" is also used extensively as an idiom in contexts unrelated to military events, a football themed example from the telegraph - "Scotland put to the sword by Belgium". While the usage in that context is related to No Quarter in the sense that it's referring to showing no mercy it isn't 100% equivalent to the military usage. I think a soft redirect to the wiktionary entry which defines three usages of the phrase in conjunction with either a hatnote or see also section to related concepts would be more helpful to searchers, especially since the phrase isn't mentioned in the current target. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @86.23.109.101 ] That is true for the term "no quater" as well eg BBC report "Michael Johnson (left) and David Nielsen show no quarter". If we were to do as you suggest then there are lots of terms that are used as idioms that would have to have their articles scrapped and be replaced with link to Wiktionary. The primary meaning of the term is "no quater" and the average reader is more than capable of understanding the difference between the true meaning a sporting idiom eg "it was murder out there" does not mean that the opposing teams were literally murdering each other. -- PBS (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know (PBS) "put to the sword" is not a phrase that means capital punishment; User:Mr. Guye do you have any examples? As to redirecting it to Wiktionary why when the term no quarter is covered by laws of war "it is especially forbidden ... to declare that no quarter will be given" and as the OED defines it that is precisely what the term put to the sword means (meaning 3 in the OED) -- which is not to execute but to use in the military to slaughter with the sword:
    • 3. [Sword]
      • a. transferred. The use of the sword in warfare, massacre, etc.; hence, slaughter; warfare; military force or power; also, the military profession or class, the army.
      • b. to put (†do) to the sword, to kill or slaughter with the sword.
  • I suggest that if anything is to be done to this redirect it is done by bringing reliable sources to the discussion. So far neither User:Mr. Guye or 86.23.109.101 have presented any evidence as to why this redirect is not correct. -- PBS (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Googling and discovering that sometimes "put to the sword" and "no quarter" were used near each other can indicate that the author thought they were different things (else why be redundant?), and "no quarter" doesn't necessarily involve swords or even involve killing -- my reliable source is a dictionary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Wiktionary or delete. It's averaging 9 pageviews a month. --BDD (talk) 19:36, 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.

Histoire[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While "histoire" is French for "history" the primary meaning given by Wiktionary is "story" (cf WP:RFOREIGN). The incoming article-space links expect an article about a TV channel, the project-space links expect a journal (possibly [1]). Additionally I'm undecided whether it would be a plausible search term for L'Histoire (a magazine), although I would oppose redirecting it there as it is neither a journal nor a TV channel - it would definitely merit a disambiguation see also and maybe a hatnote though. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've actually just found that we do have an article about the TV channel, at Histoire TV, which notes that the channels name was just "Histoire" from 1997-2019, this should be probably be retargeted there instead of being deleted (I found it on page 3 of search results). I can't find that we have an article on the journal, but as we do have articles about many other journals with this word in their title I'm not certain of that. If we do, I'm unsure whether disambiguation should be primary or by hatnote? Thryduulf (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Thryduulf's findings. Add one of those in title or look from searches, add See also to History. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors appear to be split between retargeting and disambiguating.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 8 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.

Dominican passport[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous redirect. "Dominican" can mean either the Commonwealth of Dominica or the Dominican Republic. Additionally, there are many more people from the Dominican Republic than the State of Dominica. Persons from the Dominican Republic are called Dominicans as well, with the pronunciation different from that of people from the State of Dominica. This redirect has been maintained for 11 years, when the page was moved to prevent ambiguity with the Dominican Republic. Eyesnore 14:53, 8 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.

P-I[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 19#P-I

Astrophysicien[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 17:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TWP:RLOTE, no connection between astrophysics and French. This is also a semi-incorrect translation, in that it means the career of being an Astrophysicist, rather than the area of study. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Don't need random foreign language redirects, especially if they're grammatically incorrect Joseph2302 (talk) 07:50, 15 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.

Strahlung[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 17:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE, no specific connection between radiation and the German language. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There's at least one case where the German word is used in English - Bremsstrahlung. Narky Blert (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Don't need random foreign language redirects, doesn't seems to be an appropriate target for it on en.wiki. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 15 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.

Acustica[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 Acústica. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE. Acoustics is a general concept with no specific affinity to the Italian language. We do have a dab page at Acústica, this could be retargeted there as an {{R to diacritic}}? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:51, 8 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 W10[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! 08:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existent bus route. The W10 bus route has been replaced by the 456 bus route last month. I have created a redirect for the 456 bus route at London Buses route 456. The W10 bus route redirect is no longer required as it's now a non-existent bus route, Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom. Non existent former route. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now redirects to a more relevant section. Lilporchy (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lilporchy: I agree that it redirects to a more relevant section but I am disappointed with the addition of the former routes section in the List of bus routes in London article; former bus routes in London isn't a notable topic just like former bus routes in any other major city wouldn't be notable. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles, and articles can cover aspects of a subject that would not be notable alone, see WP:NNC. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You need proper sourcing to have such lists. Point me to a source which has a list of former London bus routes? There isn't so the table of former London bus routes has to go to the bin. Don't point me to Wikipedia policy; I'm aware of Wikipedia policy. Actually point me to proper sourcing. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Suitability as a redirect is not temporary. If it was a plausible search term as an active bus route, it's a plausible search term as a former bus route. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Plausible search term, adequately explained in the article. Don't know what people's obsession is with removing redirects to former London bus routes.... They're still just as plausible search terms even if defunct. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Physiker[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 plausible typo, delete other. signed, Rosguill talk 17:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE. No specific connection between the career of being a physicist and the French/German languages. Mass created by a script. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:45, 8 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.

Pragmatismo[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 17:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOTE. No connection between pragmatism and the italian language. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:41, 8 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.

Russian Automobile Federation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 16#Russian Automobile Federation

Glizzy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#Glizzy

Anatov[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 and keep, respectively. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a bit of a stretch of a misspelling, in addition to Anatov being a surname in its own right (although seemingly not the surname of anyone with a full article on Wikipedia). Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Anotov, but Delete Anatov - When I was in my teens (several decades ago), I actually pronounced it "Anotov", so it's not totally implausible. (I have a slight issue where I occasionally mix up letter order, or drop leters, in reading, writing or speech, and often tpying.) "Anatov" is less likely to be confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BilCat (talk • contribs) 19:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Anatov" was used to mean "Antonov" in an article on Wikipedia, before I corrected it just now [2]. So it certainly could be a typo for Antonov. I have no opinion on deletion otherwise -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/delete per BilCat: I have no strong views here, but Anotov indeed appears like a possibly plausible misspelling, while Anatov is less plausible and conflicts with an actual surname. – Uanfala (talk) 17:41, 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.

Muscle fiber[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 9#Muscle fiber

IT'SUGAR[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect should be deleted, as it's worse than having nothing. I can see an argument if Sharapova created the company, or something--but this just sends readers to the page of someone who partnered with the company, and is utterly unrelated to the company in a larger context such as the link from from (American Dream Meadowlands) 98.243.132.66 (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added an alternate capitalisation redirect to this nomination, since they should end up at the same place. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that my input may be useful since I created this redirect. Maybe that is a rather weird article to redirect to... but where else would it go? I think it's notable enough to have some mention in Wikipedia, but I am unsure if it's notable enough to warrant its own article. If there are any actual policies that would support deleting or keeping, or if someone believes it should be its own article, please @ me so I can leave a better judgment/opinion on this. So far, this whole discussion (my input included) is all opinion, and opinion should not determine what is removed from Wikipedia. –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 01:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@86.23.109.101: Hmmm... you've convinced me. I support a delete for both redirects. I won't do an author deletion nomination, however, as I would like to leave time for others in the community to add their thoughts. –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As above, the link to Sharapova is tenuous, as it isn't her company. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 16 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.

Cockmonger[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Hog Farm Talk 14:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'm not sure I even need to explain why this is stupid. Do I? This is not a real, commonly used term for a male prostitute. It was created as a rather obvious joke article and somehow has lingered here 16 years as a redirect, somehow even surviving being retargeted a few times. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there is this definition at Wiktionary. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Wiktionary entry states the term has multiple meanings, so a redirect to an article which covers only one of those meanings is not helpful. Not possible to create a disambiguation page either as there are no entries in English Wikipedia which meet WP:DABMENTION for this term. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 08:37, 8 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_8&oldid=1020658909"