Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 4, 2021.

The Divine Ponytail (film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of a title of a film that no longer appears to be in production and is not mentioned in target article BOVINEBOY2008 21:56, 4 December 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.

Uncle Crimbo[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, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target article says nothing about Uncle Crimbo and has been tagged as such for several years. Is the term so minimally important that it does not merit mention in the Christmas article? Or is it sufficiently important to have its own standalone article? I am agnostic as to what exactly happens; I bring it here merely because the redirect is currently failing to provide any useful information to readers. Chubbles (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: It is worthy of note that this redirect was created 13 years ago by one DrMcCrimbo. Possibly a hoax. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 20:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @NotReallySoroka: That it may be a hoax was my first thought as well, for the exact same reasons, but a quick search seemed to indicate it is a slang term for Christmas. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox: You are correct, thank you. However, it remains questionable whether this is commonplace enough. For reference, at the Crimbo page, there is a "dubious - discuss" next to the entry for "Uncle Crimbo". --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 21:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle Crimbo is a Kingdom of Loathing character. I don't know if the term has other uses or not. - Eureka Lott 21:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i should amend my previous comment, it is clear that "crimbo" is a slang expression for Christmas. The "uncle" part is another story. Perhaps a retarget to the KoL article? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obscure synonym at best. He also seems to be a minor character in KoL. I found an article for KoL Crimbo but not Uncle Crimbo. --Lenticel (talk) 02:45, 6 December 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.

XFCU[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 by nominator User:SLV100 (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are unused (15 views, or less, in a year) redirects that are associated with the now defunct name of "Xceed." Withdrawn

  • https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2020-12&end=2021-11&pages=XFCU
  • https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2020-12&end=2021-11&pages=Xerox_Federal_Credit_Union
  • https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2020-12&end=2021-11&pages=Talk:Xceed_Financial_Credit_Union

--SLV100 (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{about|the defunct credit union, '''Xceed Financial Credit
Union''', prior to its merger with [[Kinecta Federal Credit
Union]]|Xceed}}
{{short description|Defunct American credit union (1964–202
1)}}
--SLV100 (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am an admin, so I can do the history split myself, but we need this discussion closed down first. Does this comment mean you are withdrawing the deletion nomination? SpinningSpark 21:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have withdrawn the nom for #3. For 1 & 2 the ongoing discussion doesn't necessarily interfere with the history split.
  • Yes, it does interfere. 1&2 are currently redirects to redirects which are not allowed. So what to do with them heavily depends on what we do about the article move. We just don't start moving articles around while there is an ongoing deletion debate. Honestly, I'm struggling to understand why you won't withdraw. If you now support the restoration of the Xceed article, then there is no reason not to have these redirects to it. SpinningSpark 13:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Spinningspark: OK, I have now completely withdrawn the nom. SLV100 (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC) P.S. You incorrectly attributed the earlier mention of trout. It was first brought up by Eureka Lott.[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.

13=42[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 00:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why specifically these two numbers were used; this does not seem to be described at the target. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be in the article [1]. It was added by the same editor (User:Jojan) who created the redirect. SpinningSpark 18:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even with a mention, the numbers selected in the example are arbitrary. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not remember why I created those redirects in 2007 (as well as X=Y); if it was something I searched for, had heard about, or just stumbled upon. I would not mind them being removed. Jojan (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as implausible search terms. Even if these were still mentioned in the article, redirects to them are inappropriate unless these specific terms had notable significance that was described there, which I don't believe is the case. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 20:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing without a mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as implausible search terms. Jojan (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. --Lenticel (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per above Aasim (talk) 03:52, 6 December 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.

X=y[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 00:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"x=y" is not a mathematical fallacy. Not described at target. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As above, this used to be in the article [2] at one time. That is, a (fallacious) proof is provided for any real values of x and y. SpinningSpark 18:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. Jojan (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. --Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fail to see the connection, thus is implausible target. Aasim (talk) 03:52, 6 December 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.

Convolution (formal languages)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 12#Convolution (formal languages)

Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage - Atlanta[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 00:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coldwell Banker is a very large real estate company with over 400 regional offices. I'm not seeing why this one particular office has its own redirect except that somebody with an obvious COI tried to write an article about it as one of four edits they made with their account a decade ago. Their other attempt to write an article about an individual office was rightly deleted at the time, while this one was converted to a redirtect. There are no incoming links, got two pageviews in the past month. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A searcher would soon find Coldwell Banker. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reason to keep, especially for the reason given by Shhhnotsoloud. Anyone would find the target before they found this redirect. Also, specificity in the redirect title doesn't point to anything specific in the target. Senator2029 【talk】 21:42, 7 December 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.

Stephanie sarkis[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 11#Stephanie sarkis

The Last Paradise (film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 11#The Last Paradise (film)

First night[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 11#First night

No waiting[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 11#No waiting

Macedonians (Armans/Aromanians/Vlachs)[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. czar 17:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aromanians are indeed sometimes referred to as Macedonians but I don't see the use on "(Armans/Aromanians/Vlachs)". "Armans" is not even an English name for the Aromanians and "Vlachs" is ambiguous and could also mean the Megleno-Romanians who also live in geographic Macedonia. Not useful redirect. Super Ψ Dro 10:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Redirects are intended to help people find articles. No user is going to enter "Macedonians (Armans/Aromanians/Vlachs)". --Macrakis (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per page history it is a redirect from move and while it is not a common search term, keeping the original title, as long as nothing else needs to be located there, is generally fine. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 02:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a leftover redirect from a disruptive move back in 2010 which was reverted in less than two hours. Should have been speedied as G3 back then, and still should be deleted now. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Paul_012. - Eureka Lott 14:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Created by a disruptive page move by a sockpupet of a blocked user who was using Wikipedia to push fringe POVs about the origin of the Macedonians. This should have been G3's or G5'd 10 years ago. Even ignoring the origin of this redirect some of the terms in it are ambiguous or confusing as described by the op, and a triple disambiguated title is not a plausible search term. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 14:50, 4 December 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.

2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea[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 all to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and keep those that already target there. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a special wikidata entry for 2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea. Thus at some point a separate article can be written on this topic, see interwiki. But for now all these links should redirect somewhere. And obviously the target should be the same. Therefore I propose to discuss here which target is better and to refine all redirects to this target. And maybe also use {{R avoided double redirect|2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea}}? --Northumber (talk) 10:43, 4 December 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.

Side story[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 Subplot. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what target is better. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Perhaps subplot would be a more fitting target for the concept at hand. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget To subplot, per Godsy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:AFD8[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 10#Wikipedia:AFD8

Cyanide gas[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. czar 18:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Cyanide, as gaseous cyanide compounds do not simply referred to hydrogen cyanide, but also cyanogen chloride, cyanogen fluoride and many others. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:594A:1C88:144B:4D8A (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No agreement on whether this should be kept or retargeted to one of the options presented by both IPs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Based on a straightforward WHOIS and WP:DUCK, the above comment appears to be a meatpuppet of the nom; both IPs geolocate to the same area in eastern Thailand and have the same ISP and /64. No checkuser required. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's surely the same guy commenting on his own nomination. Which is perfectly fine as long as that fact is acknowledged. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Considering that the second IP's comment is not really a vote, and keeping the meatpuppet angle aside, do we look at the alternate targets, or is the current one the best?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:03, 4 December 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.

C15H11ClO3[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! 10:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since 4'-chloro-2-hydroxyaurone is redlinked next to the mention of this formula at the target, these should be deleted to encourage article creation as well. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is also C15H9O2Cl that redirects to the same target and is similarly associated with a red link for the compound name, so should probably be treated the same and could be bundled here. I am not sure if any particular aurone is notable enough to have its own article, so I wonder if it would be better to keep these redirects, create redirects for the compound names currently redlinked at the target, and then de-link all at the target? There is a bit of useful information with a ref or two for these compounds, so bringing searchers there might be appropriate, since we are unlikely to have articles on these anytime soon. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we redlink all or create redirects for the redlinks?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The suggestion of creating redirects to redlinks is directly against guidelines per WP:REDNO (Jay, is that really what you meant). I'm not seeing the argument that this will help article creation. Anyone following these redirects lands on a page where the potential article title is redlinked, so if they are inclined to create an article, they can still get there. Plus the reader is taken to a page where there is useful information. SpinningSpark 19:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spinningspark I'm pretty sure "redlinking" was referring to deleting the redirects, resulting in none of the search terms (including the one already nonexistent) being rendered blue when linked. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     01:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a potentially useful redirect. There is no reason to encourage creation of articles of chemical formulas, as the name of the chemical should be used as the title. Chemical formula pages can be redirects or set indexes. Most likely these will later become set indexes as there would be more than one thing with those formulae. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:11, 6 December 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_December_4&oldid=1059857004"