Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 15, 2021.

Controversy on Szekely language[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Hog Farm Talk 02:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense article created by an indefinitely blocked editor, see the entry's talk, procedural request fror deletion KIENGIR (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - while the Szekely dialect is mentioned at the target, any supposed/alleged "controversy" is not.Onel5969 TT me 01:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No such controversy is mentioned in the target, and we haven't seen any reliable sources yet (including in earlier versions of the page before being redirected) that such a controversy actually exists. As it stands, it is either a hoax or a privately made-up agenda. –Austronesier (talk) 10:22, 16 February 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.

Followfriday[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 02:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. When created in 2010 this was a two-line stub about a hashtag and a now-defunct website that (I think) was a spinoff from the hashtag. It was redirected without discussion by Non-dropframe (last edit 2019) and reverted to that by Fæ (blocked for unrelated issues) and an ip (all on the day of creation). I'm comfortable deleting it here though because, as an article, it would be speedily deletable as A7 (web-content that doesn't assert significance) and/or G11 (exclusively promotional). It is not speedily deletable as a redirect though. Thryduulf (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. In addition it would appear that the website the article was promoting was just generic spam as the creator of this article also claimed it to be the website of Revolution Muslim [1]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:00, 16 February 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 Restoration in fiction[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 21:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article that this pointed to has been moved to Stuart Restoration. It makes no mention of fictional representations of the restoration. (t · c) buidhe 20:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did some searching, but couldn't find anything relevant. We have content about the fiction of the period, and the preceding English Civil War in fiction, but not this, as far as I could tell. --BDD (talk) 00:43, 16 February 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.

(identifier) wikidata soft redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 23#(identifier) wikidata soft redirects

Brickipedia[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 02:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a duly sourced mention is added. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The best place to add a mention would probably be List of wikis rather than the fandom article, but I've been unable to find any reliable sources covering this wiki in a WP:BEFORE search - everything I find is either blogs, pages on the wiki itself or social media. Since it does not seem to be notable enough for a properly sourced entry, delete. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm fine with adding it to the Wikis list. {{subst:User:JediMasterMacaroni/sig}} (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not easily recognizable either. desmay (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It should be noted that there are two Brickipedias, the original one hosted by Fandom, and the other hosted by ShoutWiki created in 2013 when community decided to move from Wikia. Redirecting Brickipedia to Fandom would (at least IMO) give the impression that the Fandom wiki is the "official" version. 01miki10 (talk) 23:07, 21 February 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.

28-3[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) 20:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

These number could refer to anything on Earth, no reason to redirect direct it to one particular football games when thousands of football games have this score Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both and any similar redirects that may exist. There are certainly other matches (some perhaps noteworthy) and certainly other uses outside sports for these numbers, as well as many noteworthy matches (e.g. 8-2 to FC Barcelona 2–8 FC Bayern Munich) for which the scoreline does not exist a redirect. I'm not convinced that the matches are unambiguously the primary topic. ComplexRational (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ComplexRational: I would add 7-1. Other redirects like this have come up in the past and they've always been deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oiyarbepsy: that's not true. 7-1 was kept at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 30#7-1. -- Tavix (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these redirects per nom. Be careful with generalisations though as there are some redirects like this that are good (9-11 and 7-7 are the first examples that come to mind). Thryduulf (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The primary topics for the ones you linked are clear; others can be assessed on a case-by-case basis if needed. ComplexRational (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as ambiguous. I wouldn't expect to end up at these specific sport events with these searches, I would expect to arrive at the page for the date. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are the overwhelming primary topics for these redirects. I'm not impressed with a lot of vague hand waving to ambiguity without providing any evidence whatsoever of other topics this is ambiguous with. -- Tavix (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For example, in the case of 7-1, we have January 7, July 1, and plenty of other football matches (that are probably less notable overall, but well-remembered among their fans), not to mention other sports. I am not aware of these being common practice, and a non-football fan would certainly not be seeking information about a world cup match. ComplexRational (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a hatnote at the article to resolve the ambiguity with the date formats. Ambiguity with dates, however, is not a valid reason to delete these. If anything, that would be rationale to disambiguate between the current target, July 1, and January 7 (or retarget to 7/1). You are still vague hand-waving to other football matches without providing evidence that a "7-1" score is notable, let alone iconic, in other notable matches. The score in the 2014 FIFA World Cup match became a cultural meme that is still being referenced years later. "7-1" is instantly recognizable specifically as this match for most football/soccer fans. -- Tavix (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Sports scores should only be redirects if the score itself is notable (222-0 in gridiron football or 149-0 in association football). The score being a cultural meme isn't enough. (And while we're talking 28-3, the very similar 35-3 redirect should also be deleted.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Naval Rooftops (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should I add 35-3 to this nomination? ComplexRational (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would oppose that. Adding 7-1 has already muddied the waters enough. By the way, the fact that the score itself is a cultural meme is strong evidence that the score itself is notable. -- Tavix (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Some scores transcend their numbers. Every American football fan knows what "28-3" refers to. Everyone who's ever kicked a black-and-white ball on a field knows what "7-1" refers to. As Tavix (talk · contribs) said, "the fact that the score itself is a cultural meme is strong evidence that the score itself is notable". Are we next going to delete butt fumble? Ylee (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per above. Or, Retarget "7-1" to the disambiguation page 7/1. Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget 7-1 to DAB page 7/1 as {{R from modification}} and {{R from ambiguous term}}. Narky Blert (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per Tavix and Ylee. I have absolutely no interest in sports, live in a country with little soccer culture, and I still instantly recognize what "7-1" refers to. "People might be looking for the date" can be solved with a hatnote. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:11, 15 February 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.

Spoliation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. signed, Rosguill talk 21:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a legal expert here, but "spoliation" does not always refer to spoliation of evidence; it can refer to general looting or pillaging. Google Dictionary defines the word as:

  1. "the action of ruining or destroying something."
  2. "the action of taking goods or property from somewhere by violent means."

I think that a disambiguation page should be made with a link to looting as well as spoliation of evidence. Bangalamania (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:13, 15 February 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.

Module talk: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 no consensus. After almost a month and two relistings, the last one of which resulted in no new comments, it's seems leaving this open any longer will result in a consensus arising. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely agree with this redirect. On Wikipedia:About_the_sandbox#List_of_sandboxes, it says that the talk pages of all sandboxes are also sandboxes themselves. But this talk page is not redirecting to any sandbox, instead redirecting to Wikipedia talk:About the sandbox. But because user Lua sandboxes are always Module:Sandbox/Username/Module name, It's unclear to me what should be done with this redirect 54nd60x (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: But what about the fact that all talk pages of sandboxes are also sandboxes themselves, redirecting the talk page to any non-sandbox could cause confusion. What about removing the redirect and turning it to a public sandbox? 54nd60x (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense since Module:Sandbox, despite it's name, isn't a sandbox in the sense of a page anyone is allowed to edit either. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:::@Pppery: Ok, maybe retarget to Module:Sandbox? 54nd60x (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see Template talk:TemplateStyles sandbox. 54nd60x (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That redirect, which was created by me without discussion in 2018, should also be retargeted to Wikipedia talk:TemplateStyles. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery:  Done 54nd60x (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reatrget to Wikipedia talk:Lua. 54nd60x (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Talk pages out of sync with their corresponding articles are almost guaranteed to cause confusion. If we don't want this talk page used, there are templates we could leave. I'm not immediately finding the type that would apply, but it would be something like {{talk page of redirect}} that communicates "don't use this page". Alternatively, we could let this function as a standard talk page, and leave it blank until someone starts a discussion about Module:Sandbox. Retarget to Wikipedia talk:Lua as second choice. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 15 February 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.

Kamalam[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 17:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Kamalam" has been given by the government of Gujara, India to this fruit. This is easy to verify. Seems like a reasonable redirect, but it's not mentioned in the article because all attempts to do so are reverted as WP:UNDUE - regional name only. So do we delete the redirect or add the mention in the article? MB 19:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the redirect can be kept regardless of if the name is mentioned. Nominations like this skirt the line of WP:POINT, please don't do that. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We delete redirects all the time if they are not mentioned in the target because they confuse the reader if it is not clear why they are sent to an article. MB 01:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of people who search up kamalam are looking for information about kamalam. Deleting this redirect serves only to annoy those readers. A mention in the article is preferable, but nowhere on RDELETE does it say that it is necessary for a redirect. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Redirects are cheap. Discussion of whether the term invented by the Gujarat government is actually notable enough to be mentioned in the Pitaya article should occur at Talk:Pitaya. - Donald Albury 23:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Should a redirect exist (and I'm not saying it should/shouldn't) the correct target for this title would be Nelumbo nucifera, as that is what the long standing definition of the Sanskrit word कमलम् is and is referred to as such in historical/mythological literature. —SpacemanSpiff 10:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    {{redirect|kamalam|the Gujarati dragonfruit|Pitaya}} or somesuch
"kamalam" redirects here. For the Gujarati dragonfruit, see Pitaya.
    • Comment if it does point to lotus, then a hatnote could be added for dragonfruit -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no such thing as "Gujarati dragonfruit", the govt of Gujarat decided to rename the generic dragonfruit with a word that has been in use for millenia for something else! That's all there is to it. —SpacemanSpiff 17:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As in most cases where a redirect isn't mentioned, this is likely to cause confusion for readers. It may well be that the nominator was making a point in bringing this to RfD, but he's not disrupting Wikipedia to do so. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. Without a mention anywhere on Wikipedia, the redirect is unavoidably confusing. If consensus about whether to include the name at the target changes then the redirect can be recreated, but until that point we should not be implying we have content we do not. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This redirect can be recreated if a consensus is reached to include the name in the article. Since this name was created by modifying the name of another plant it is ambiguous, and without mention it is potentially confusing. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that the redirect creator removed the RfD notice on the 4th, so the redirect hasn't been tagged properly through this discussion. I've just replaced it. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The RfD notice has been removed again today, I've restored it (again) and left a message on the creator's talk page. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The redirect can be deleted, but only if the name is mentioned in the original article.Otherwise i don't see the point of removing data that could provide useful for someone JNoXK (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting as the redirect was not properly tagged for most of the discussion

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 15 February 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.

Puddy galore[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 21:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it an implausible spelling of "Pussy" (unless it was "I Taut I Taw a Puddy-Tat") it doesn't even point to the Pussy Galore article. I'm leaning towards deletion but if it is kept, it should be retargeted to Pussy Galore. Dominicmgm (talk) 16:45, 15 February 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 Monty Python Matching Tie and Handkerch[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 21:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo due to missing "ief" at end. Dominicmgm (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is a very old redirect, dating to September 2005, so shouldn't be deleted lightly. This looks to be truncated but I don't recall any title length restrictions back then that would impact this (it's way shorter than the present 256 bytes of UTF-8 limit; the first mention of title length at WP:NCTR dates from November 2005[2] and was 255 characters. 44 characters would be an odd number of characters to truncate at anyway. Back then pages moves were only recorded in the history at the new title, so the absence of any mention in the history of the redirect is not conclusive, but there isn't any evidence in the history of the target so that seems unlikely too. It got only 5 page views last year, and only 49 since records began in July 2015 (WikiShark, which has older stats, doesn't find the page), and google finds no hits for the exact title when excluding Wikipedia. All in all, I can't see a reason for this to exist so I'm left at deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 15 February 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.

Template:R from alternative hyphenation[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 "incorrect" to R from misspelling. signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They should either both redirect to the corresponding "spelling" rcat templates ({{R from alternative spelling}}, {{R from misspelling}}) or to the corresponding "name" rcat templates ({{R from alternative name}}, {{R from incorrect name}}) or possibly to {{R from modification}}. I would prefer both the first and the last over the second. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SMcCandlish: I think that what's being questioned here is why one sorts them into a name category, while the other goes to a spelling. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are many {{R}} templates which can be difficult to tell apart or to decide which to use. There's also the problem that many redirects are uncategorised, undercategorised, or miscategorised (I find a lot of them while DABfixing.). I'll throw two more into this mix:
{{R from mishyphenation}} → {{R from alternative spelling}}. This looks the wrong target; "mis-" implies mistake, not alternative. IMO it should redirect to {{R from misspelling}}.
{{R from missing hyphenation}} → {{R from alternative spelling}}. This looks appropriate.
These are the first two hyphenated articles which came into my head, and the relevant redirects:
Dunning–Kruger effect
Dunning kruger effect. Uncategorised. Should be {{R from other capitalisation}} plus {{R from missing hyphenation}}.
Dunning-kruger effect. {{R from other capitalisation}} - correct.
Dunning-Kruger effect. {{R from other spelling}} - wrong, the spelling is identical. This looks a clear case of {{R from alternative hyphenation}}, ndash → mdash.
Dunning-Krueger effect. Uncategorised. Should be {{R from misspelling}}.
Dunning-Kruger Effect. Uncategorised. Should be {{R from other capitalisation}}.
Dunning Kruger effect. Uncategorised. Should be {{R from missing hyphenation}}.
Dunning Kruger Effect. Uncategorised. Should be {{R from other capitalisation}} plus {{R from missing hyphenation}}.
DunningKruger effect. Uncategorised. {{R from missing hyphenation}} and/or {{R from misspelling}}.
Seine-Saint-Denis
Seine-saint-Denis. {{R from other capitalisation}} - correct.
Seine Saint Denis. Uncategorised.
Seine Saint-Denis. Uncategorised. I have no idea about these two. The only correct spelling in French has both hyphens. Depending on what English-language sources say, they could be {{R from alternative hyphenation}}, {{R from missing hyphenation}}, {{R from incorrect hyphenation}}, or {{R from mishyphenation}} (those last two point to different targets). Take your pick.
Train-band → Trainband is another uncategorised redirect. Either {{R from alternative spelling}} or {{R from alternative hyphenation}} would fit.
I have no good answer. Narky Blert (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed those two hyphen error templates to point to {{R from incorrect punctuation}} (likely to be an alias of {{R from misspelling}} unless/until we want a separate subcategory for it and make it a real template; I think right this moment it unnecessarily vaguely goes to the parent one level up, {{R from incorrect name}}). As for your list, some of that's not right. En dashes are not hyphens, so Dunning Kruger effect is an {{R from missing punctuation}} (now redirs to {{R from incorrect punctuation}}) not an {{R from missing hyphenation}} (never mind that the latter presently redirs to {{R from incorrect punctuation}}; that might not always be true). Variants mistakenly using em dash instead of en dash should be {{R from incorrect punctuation}} because neither dash is a hyphen, and an em dash is never used for this purpose (in our style guide or anyone else's). Versions with hyphens instead of en dashes are probably fine with {{R from alternative hyphenation}} because various style guides do not use en dashes at all and instead supply a hyphen for this structure (it's a valid, well-attested style, just not WP:MOS style). I think I noted above, or meant to, that some people are going to overly-narrowly try to apply "spelling" to mean "letters, and letters only" when we mean "letters and other characters in the name". So, the template and categories may need documentation adjustments to indicate that they are inclusive of this, but that we prefer to use more specific templates for punctuation matters, in case we ever decide to more narrowly subcategorize them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up that {{R from ASCII-only}} should come into consideration as well when tagging such redirects. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this is confusing. We need to decide whether punctuation is spelling or modification. Originally, it was supposed to be modification. But I don't have a problem changing it to spelling if that's the consensus. MClay1 (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:32, 15 February 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.

Template:R from alternative punctuation[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 R from incorrect punctation to R from incorrect spelling. signed, Rosguill talk 21:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

They should both either redirect to the corresponding "spelling" rcat templates ({{R from alternative spelling}}, {{R from misspelling}}) or to {{R from modification}}. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't we have a massive gap in our system in the absence of {{R from incorrect modification}}? – Uanfala (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, though that would be fine to redirect to {{R from incorrect name}}. Done.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate, but fix one of them. These are different for a clear and specific reason: an alternative is an alternative, and an error is an error. However, {{R from incorrect punctuation}} should go to {{R from incorrect spelling}} is supposed to go to {{R from incorrect name}} (as in the case just above this one); fixed. I have no idea why this was ever going to a non-error rcat like {{R from modification}}. Might have been my own mistake. See RfD just above this one for additional details.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC); revised 02:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would tentatively support this, but is a punctuation error a misspelling? {{R from incorrect spelling}} is a redirect itself to {{R from misspelling}}. I don't remember what the reason is for it's current target. MClay1 (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      For WP purposes, yes. There is no way, no how we should get into some kind of "grammar snob" dispute about whether "spelling" should or not not encompass embedded punctuation, or diacritics, or capitalization, or etc. We mean "the characters that make up the name", and that's what people will expect. If they just use the specific templates, like {{R from missing punctuation}} or {{R from alternative hyphenation}}, they never need to be "exposed" to these being subcategorized under or redirecting to spelling templates. No head need asplode.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "incorrect punctuation" should redirect to something with "incorrect", "misspelling", "error", etc. in its name. jnestorius(talk) 10:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this is confusing. We need to decide whether punctuation is spelling or modification. Originally, it was supposed to be modification. But I don't have a problem changing it to spelling if that's the consensus. MClay1 (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It'll need to be spelling, since we do have error (incorrect spelling) tracking for that but not for "incorrect modifications" whatever that would be. (Aside from incorrect spelling, I'm hard pressed to think what would qualify, other than maybe misapplication of Franco-Latinate or Greek-based affixes to Anglo-Saxon roots or vice versa, like *swimizing and *arraignship. But as those will generally be implausible redirects, we don't need them.) Otherwise, we're going to have non-error punctuation changes classified as "modifications" and error punctuation changes classified as "incorrect spelling", when it comes to the overall structure (that is, "incorrect spelling", "incorrect hyphenation", "mis-hyphenation", "missing hyphenation", anything like that indicating a fault should end up redirecting to or being a subcat of incorrect spelling, so non-error versions should also go under spelling). I can't think of a reason we would try to track "incorrect modifications" as something somehow distinct from spelling-broadly-construed errors. The modifications category is more for things like "golfing", "golfed", "golfs", "golfer", "golfers", etc. redirects to Golf. I.e., a grammatical modification. If we start dumping everything in there from spelling-narrowly-construed errors to punctuation flubs, then we'll just end up subcategorizing it again later to be less of a mess. I suppose an argument could be made to make redirects from incorrect spellings already be a subcat of redirects from modifications, but I don't think that's very helpful. Maybe better as a cat. see also. Incorrect spellings (including punctuation) is more useful as a subcat of incorrect names.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      PS: Actually making Category:Redirects from incorrect punctuation be a real subcat of Category:Redirects from misspellings would probably be helpful at this point. So probably would renaming the latter to Category:Redirects from incorrect spellings, so it is more consistent with the rest of these names. The fact that misspellings is a legitimate word doesn't mean that our hands are tied into using it. Anyway, if there was a real subcat for the punctuation gaffes, and {{R from incorrect punctuation}} was a real template, this would ease some confusion by having all the hyphen error, etc., Rcat redirs to it, instead of to {{R from misspelling}}, which I would rename to {{R from incorrect spelling}} for consistency (i.e., just flip the template/redirect relationship between those two pagenames). Having punctuation ones redir to one with "spelling" in the name may trigger overly narrow and prescriptivist notions of what "spelling" can mean). This would fix several forms of confusion at once (cluttered category, inconsistently named category & template, and terminological dispute). I suppose it would even allow both spellings and modifications to be parent categories for anyone who would be confused to not find punctuation stuff under modifications.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:30, 15 February 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.

Alicia Dominica[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 21:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor character from warhammer 40,000, not mentioned anywhere on wikipedia. The article this is supposed to be targeting was redirected in 2017 following an AfD nomination, so as it stands this redirect does not help readers. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:57, 15 February 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.

Jokaero[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 21:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor species from the warhammer 40,000 universe, not mentioned at the target article or anywhere else on wikipedia. This used to target a list article where the species had an unsourced 1 line entry, which was converted into a redirect over a year ago due to being unsourced and tagged for notability issues for 6 years. As it stands this redirect is completely unhelpful to readers. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:43, 15 February 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.

Cherubael[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 21:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor, non notable character from the warhammer 40,000 universe, not mentioned at the target article or anywhere else in wikipedia. The section this redirect is supposed to be targeting hasn't existed for years. The article content here was transwikied to the 40K wikia in 2008, after which it was converted into a redirect with the edit summary "transwikied already, no 3rd party sources possible." 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:34, 15 February 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.

Illuminati (Warhammer 40,000)[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 21:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An extremeley minor, non-notable faction from the warhammer 40,000 universe that is not mentioned at the target article or anywhere else in the encyclopedia. The article in the page history was prodded in 2008, which resulted in the content being transwikied to the 40K wikia and the page turned into a redirect after it was found that no thrid party sources at all cover this faction 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:18, 15 February 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.

Playa Salvaje[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 21:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page. According to a note on the Talk Page, this title relates to ¿Dónde está Elisa? (American TV series); but that article does not mention it. The redirect is ambiguously linked in five articles, in all of which it relates to the 1997 Chilean telenovela es:Playa salvaje. Delete to encourage article creation/translation, if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Narky's research. The current target is confusing and unhelpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:44, 15 February 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.

Peg Bowen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 22#Peg Bowen

Anice[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 set-indexify. I don't see a need to prolong the discussion longer per SNOW. (non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stub article. Redirect claims that it's linked because she's the only "Anice", in Wikipedia, which may have once been true but now is not (see Anice Badri, Anice Das Anice George). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Set-indexify as WP:APO given name index (which the redirect creator has already done just now). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set-indexify per above. Seems like the obvious solution if we have articles on more than one person with the same given name. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set-indexify per above. I've add a {{distinguish|Anis|Anise}} hatnote as all three are homophones in at least some accents, the other two pages already have hatnotes to each other which will need updating to include this one if not deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 15 February 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.

Quarrel (software)[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 21:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an unofficial Discord client, but it is not mentioned at the target, so it might be better to show the reader we do not have any information on it. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've just removed the Dab entry from Quarrel because it does not have an article and is not mentioned in the main Discord article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:21, 15 February 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.

Beautiful Woman at Le Vrai[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 Tory Mussett. Formally no consensus, redirecting as uncontroversially preferrable to keeping. signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, or in List of Matrix series characters as of this edit; the only other mention is in Tory Mussett, which I don't think would be a useful target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:10, 15 February 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.

Mega City (The Matrix)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to have any coverage of settings in the Matrix films anymore, so there's nowhere for these to point. Each is mentioned in a handful of articles but none strikes me as a useful target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:09, 15 February 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.

Draft:Mansoor Ahmad Saghar[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 21:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old autobiographical draft redirected to the mainspace, neither this redirect nor the old content appears useful. Hog Farm Talk 07:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Draft should have been left for G13 rather than being redirected. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the spirit of G13. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:57, 15 February 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.

Draft:Rafael Wendel[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 21:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Self promotional draft redirected to the mainspace in 2018, neither this title nor the old autobiographical content appears useful Hog Farm Talk 07:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not a useful redirect. The draft should have been left for a G13 deletion rather than being redirected. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:16, 15 February 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.

Creepy Joe[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 retargeted to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump § Sleepy Joe — No opposition expected, probably should've just asked the creator (non-admin closure, original nominator). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be retargeted to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump § Sleepy Joe - someone searching this is likely more interested in the nickname than the person. See Crazy Bernie. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • As creator, I agree with the nom about the better target. Support retargeting, this can be speedily closed as retarget if nobody else rejects. Hog Farm Talk 04:55, 15 February 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.

Mit german haus[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 21:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, [https://dh.scripts.mit.edu/home/ small dorm community doesn't seem to warrant a redirect. Hog Farm Talk 04:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - not a notable student society and not mentioned at target. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:14, 15 February 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.

Cambridge Tool and Die[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 21:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, Google primarily brings up a defunct manufacturer in Ohio. Doesn't seem to warrant a redirect to here. Hog Farm Talk 04:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. a google search for " "Cambridge Tool and Die" MIT " brings up about half a dozen blog websites using this name to refer to MIT. Does not seem to be a remotely notable nickname and not mentioned in the target article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:13, 15 February 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.

William R. Fitzsimmons[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 21:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article - apparently he's the dean of admissions at Harvard, but I'm not convinced that that's enough to warrant a mention in the main university article (also the name of a "prominent East Tennessee newspaperman" mentioned at Daniel Ellis (Unionist). Not sure what is the best thing to do with this, but the current target tells a reader nothing. Hog Farm Talk 04:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable admissions officer that isn't mentioned at the target article. I don't think that either of the other name drops is a suitable target for this redirect. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also the link in the nomination should be to Daniel Ellis (Unionist). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out! I've corrected the link in the nomination statement. Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 15 February 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.

Starf*ck (party)[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 21:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be mentioned or explained anywhere on enwiki. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starf*ck (party) (from 2006) deleted this content as not even meeting 2006 notability guidelines, which were extremely low. Doesn't seem to even warrant a redirect. Hog Farm Talk 03:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content had been merged into the Brown University article at the time, but then removed a year later as mentioned at Talk:Brown University#Modern Traditions Section. I don't object to that removal, and therefore I support nuking the redirects. DMacks (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable party that hasn't been mentioned at the target for 14 years. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:06, 15 February 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.

Churches in diss[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 21:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely viewed (9 views in 2020[3]) unhelpful redirect given that there are multiple places called "Diss". (t · c) buidhe 01:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a helpful redirect to a Dab page. Of the two location articles on the dab page one has a single line saying it has 9 churches of various denominations and the other has no content related to churches as it is a list entry. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This badly-capitalised redirect targets a page that was recently moved to Diss, Norfolk which only mentions one church. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COSTLY. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly useful as a redirect to Diss, Norfolk - unlike "churches in London", there seems to be only one place with this name with a church (otherwise it could be a disambiguation page). However, we don't usually have redirects such as this, and there are only two that are similar - Churches in Bamford (misleading as it redirects to a specific church when the village's article mentions three) and Churches in Leicester. Peter James (talk) 12:24, 15 February 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.

BIXie[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 22#BIXie

Avenue G[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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. This redirects to a section that says "there is no Avenue G". Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The target says an avenue with that name did exist. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 01:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The avenue has a sourced section at the target article showing it did exist for a few years. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there was an avenue with this name, and the assertion that the section says "there is no Avenue G" is misleading since it says "There is no longer any Avenue G". If we were to remove everything from Wikipedia that no-longer exists, there wouldn't be much left. A7V2 (talk) 02:27, 17 February 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_February_15&oldid=1008681252"