Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 9, 2021.

Vietnam flashback[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 Post-traumatic stress disorder. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor changed it from Post-traumatic stress disorder to the current redirect but I feel it should target the former instead seeing as it's a nickname for PTSD. Instead of potentially starting an edit war I'm gonna leave it to be discussed. Dominicmgm (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Return to original target. PTSD is much more relevant that the history of the war.--Grahame (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rosen Trap[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 17#Rosen Trap

Talk:Abdulla2021/sandbox[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 00:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was mistakenly moved here and then moved to the draft namespace. FF-11 (talk) 18:08, 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.

Allentown, Pennsylva.[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 00:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links here and Pennsylva. is not a standard abbreviation for Pennsylvania. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 17:36, 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.

UNC-R[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#UNC-R

Met Him Last Night (Demi Lovato 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 Met Him Last Night. ✗plicit 00:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article already exists for Met Him Last Night, and this redirect points to the album that it's on, instead of pointing to its own article. Even if it pointed to its own article, I would say it's unnecessary. I'd like to delete it to prevent further confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylx (talk • contribs) 14:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both "Met Him Last Night (song)" and "Met Him Last Night (Demi Lovato song)" both are redirected to Dancing with the Devil... the Art of Starting Over and were created by unregistered accounts/unverified editors when the original target Met Him Last Night was redirected before the topic became notable. Both redirects are unrequired. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 16:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect it to Met Him Last Night. This redirect is valid and harmless, and a plausible search term. I want to note that there were similar RFDs at this discussion and this discussion. All responses to both of these were "keep". CountyCountry (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Met Him Last Night per CountyCountry. That's what people are looking for when they search this term. Why have it redirect to the album if there's already an article on the song? Regards, SONIC678 22:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per CountyCountry. Vaticidalprophet 11:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To keep deliberately created name space redirects would be totally against the principals of Wikipedia:Article titles. Either the article is at the correct place or it is not, if redirects are necessary then Article titles needs to be re-written. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused – are you saying that redirects wouldn't exist if article titles are right? Because that's a very odd interpretation. Should United States of America be deleted, or what? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      No, J947, I am saying the title, Met Him Last Night, is sufficient. When typing the title out in the search engine, does anyone continue until they find (song) or even (Demi Lovato song)? Or is the actual title of the song sufficient? Nobody will see these redirects. If you are arguing that the title itself is not sufficient, then you need to review Article Naming, which confirms that the actual title is sufficient unless disambiguation is necessary. Both redirects, before even being listed here are tagged as 'unnecessary disambiguation' and those wishing to keep them are saying we need unnecessary disambiguation. That doesn't make sense.--Richhoncho (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Many people ignore search suggestions and keep typing, and the search engine is definitely not the only case of a redirect's usage. This redirect may not be needed, but it sure is helpful. How exactly would deleting this redirect benefit the encyclopedia? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Define helpful? J947. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Richhoncho, it is helpful to people searching in both the URL bar and the search bar, and as Tavix says it is helpful for linking. How is deleting the redirect helpful? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Firstly in your last but one post you said that searchers will keep searching until they have completed their search term, so the extra parenthesis words are a disadvantage to them, and you still have failed to explain the helpfulness in any way that is meaningful to me. secondly, the argument that unnecessary disambiguations help because... 'it works well in songs,' but I can't think of another WP situation where that might be the case, which makes it music exceptionalism, and thirdly, it is not helpful for linking, instead of one change necessary, we now need 3. This is why deletion of unnecessary disambiguation is not disadvantageous to anybody save those that think their particular favorite artist is bigger than everybody else's. Finally, we are talking about redirects. In the future nobody will need or see them. They will become electronic clutter. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, but I'm not understanding your arguments very well here and I don't think you're understanding mine. Firstly, the readers often keep searching until they complete the search that they want to search for. They don't keep going as long as there's an option in the search bar left – why would they do that? What's music exceptionalism? It is helpful for linking as Tavix explained. Simply stating it is not helpful for linking does not invalidate that. Why would three changes be required by keeping this redirect? And why would this be searched up by those that think their particular favorite artist is bigger than everybody else's? I'd like to reiterate that it is helpful to readers who search this term up, as you don't seem to acknowledge that. It's a perfectly plausible search term because so many article titles are titled in this manner.
      Now Richhoncho, after reading my comment, answer this: How exactly would deleting this redirect benefit the encyclopedia? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Met Him Last Night as an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. These redirects are useful when an unambiguous link is desired that we know will not need to be updated if another song by the name becomes notable. Redirects are not articles, so the article title policy is irrelevant. -- Tavix (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Met Him Last Night per above. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Enola(Waterworld)[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 01:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed redirect with lack of space. Dominicmgm (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I recently created the correctly formatted Enola (Waterworld) that redirects to this one's target. Also, during the malformed one's time as an article about the character, it was never moved to the correct counterpart. Regards, SONIC678 19:13, 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.

London Buses route 659[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 01:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existent London Bus route which has never ever existed before. Could be potentially speedy deleted but I'm taking it to RfD. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:08, 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.

London Buses route 691[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 17:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existent London Bus route from a quick search on the TfL website at [1]. May have existed in the past but currently doesn't exist. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:05, 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.

London Buses route N13[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. I have found an appropriate article to redirect this to. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Former London Bus route which no longer exists. Makes no sense to redirect this to a list of current bus routes. There is no "former routes" section in the article which this bus route is being redirected to. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:54, 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.

London Buses route 611[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of bus routes in London#Non-TfL bus routes in Greater London. This is a keep and refine outcome. signed, Rosguill talk 17:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense to have a redirect called "London Buses route 611" when the 611 bus isn't a London Bus at all. A more sensible redirect would be something like Uno Buses Route 611 redirected to List_of_bus_routes_in_London#Non-TfL_bus_routes_in_Greater_London. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note - From my analysis of Non-TfL bus routes, the 611 and the 614 below are the only bus route redirects which aren't TfL bus routes. There are no others. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine to the "Non-TfL bus routes in Greater London" section. Plausible search term, and there is a bus route numbered 611 in the list. The vast majority of searcher's aren't going to know or care who the operator is, or that it isn't technically a London Buses route, they'll just be looking for information on bus route 611 that operates in London, and having one route that doesn't follow the standard naming pattern for the hundreds of other routes in the list is likely to be more confusing than helpful. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No because the other Non-TfL bus routes do not have redirects and it's implausible because London Buses do not operate the 611 bus. There is no London Buses route 420, London Buses route 515 or the other non-TfL bus routes in the list. Also, it's a rarely used search term. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine per the ip above. That WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST (but should) is irrelevant. Redirects exist to help people find the content they are looking for, regardless of whether they know all the details about it before they've read the content. There is a route 611 that runs in London and so this is a perfectly logical search term. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: I am still not convinced to why it's okay to have a redirect starting with "London Buses" for a bus route that isn't operated by London Buses. This redirect and the other one below both aren't rarely used. Secondly, if I put all the points that I made aside, a quick look on the Uno bus tracker website shows that the 611 bus service is non-existent. There is a 614 bus but there's not 611 bus. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I used the Uno bus tracker website which is here. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The 611 only runs during the day Monday to Friday during University term times[2] so, it's not surprising that they aren't featured on the bus tracker on a Saturday evening during the Easter holiday. As for the London Buses prefix, it's acceptable because it's plausible that someone looking for a bus route in London will look for a page starting "London Buses route" whether that service is operated by London Buses or not. See Category:Redirects from incorrect names for thousands of other examples of redirects that are not correct being used to guide people to the content they are looking for. Just because a redirect is lightly used does not mean it's harmful, and we do not delete redirects unless they are. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: Actually, no. The 610, 612 and 614 bus routes are not in service today but are still featured on the Uno bus tracker website saying when they will next be in service. This is not the case with the 611 bus; it's literally non-existent. If the 611 bus existed, it would show on the bus tracker website saying when the next 611 bus service will run on which day. Also, if you think it's so useful, why can't it be moved to something like London Buses route 611 (Non-TfL)? Right now, it's so misleading because it looks like it is going to a 611 bus route operated by TfL which doesn't exist. How about support the alternative proposal of moving it? Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    London Buses route 611 (Non-TfL) would not be a plausible search term so I oppose that suggestion. The whole point is that we do not require people to know the operator before they look it up. Redirects do not have to be correct, they simply need to be plausible search terms. If they are incorrect then the target should correct any misunderstands, misrememberings, etc. and this one does. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: Why would it not be plausible? It's a Non-TfL bus route and it would come up if someone typed up "London Buses route 611" in the search bar, it would come up. If not deletion, at least moving it to a more correct name would make sense. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The internal search engine is only one of many different ways people use to find Wikipedia content and one of only a minority where search suggestions are available. There is only one route 611 so disambiguation is not needed, but even if it was needed then the undisambiguated title would always either redirect to the primary topic or disambiguate between them meaning that even if moved (and see WP:MOVEREDIRECT for why it's generally better not to do that) a redirect at this title would still be needed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

London Buses route 614[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 17#London Buses route 614

Com.com[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. Hog Farm Talk 01:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2021 http://com.com does no longer redirect to CNET but is instead parked. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The URL is mentioned at the target article, and as far as I can tell, that's the only place it's mentioned. There are a bunch of articles with faulty references like nytimes.com.com, so I might have overlooked something. - Eureka Lott 15:40, 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]
  • Keep per EurekaLott. feminist (talk) 08:33, 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.

Chees[edit]

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

DSV limiting Factor[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) 21:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links to this redirect. The redirect is improperly capitalized (it's a ship's name). Renamed to [DSV Limiting Factor], seeking to delete this redirect. sbb (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a miscapitalization and as record of a page move. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Does the Flower Bloom?[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 17#Does the Flower Bloom?

Muscle fiber[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Muscle fiber

Multiplikator[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) 21:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These were mass-created by a script, and might fall afoul of WP:RFOREIGN, since multiplication doesn't have a special connection to German. Delete them unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 00:00, 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.

Lexi Rabe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 17#Lexi Rabe

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_9&oldid=1019174666"