Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 25, 2021.

Join-calculus (programming language)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 5#Join-calculus (programming language)

Embarrassed naked female[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 5#Embarrassed naked female

Unboundedness[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 5#Unboundedness

Armada Music redirects[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 01:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, where it was removed as unsourced. Cannot find another target. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:20, 25 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.

Chris Schweizer[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 01:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous redirect; multiple individuals with this exact name. Was removed from target as unsourced. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I think in this case the search results do a reasonable job of finding all the various bits of content we have on people with this name. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:27, 2 March 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.

Allen Watts[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 01:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target; was removed as unsourced. Not a known alternative name for Alan Watts as far as I know. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:43, 25 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.

Yakovlev (disambig)[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 01:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target is not even a "disambig", and this is a nonstandard disambiguation anyway, so it will generate intdab errors if used as a redirect to a "disambig" page. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:36, 25 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.

Wikipedia:PWN[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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter. IP editor pwned. signed, Rosguill talk 01:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was initially pointing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter, but was retargeted by an anonymous editor. Backlinks refer both to the wrestling newsletter and content ownership, while the hatnote at the current target links to the wrestling notability guidelines. I'd prefer retargeting this to one of the wrestling pages, as you can usually pwn n00bs, but not content. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to wrestling per nom. Then give the IP a big slap with a wet trout, accompanied with a big "You just got pwned by WP:RfD!" message. (Did I use that right? Am I a millennial???) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was about to close this as retarget, but the proposed target still seems quite unclear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nominator. No one uses the word "pwn" in a serious context. JIP | Talk 18:29, 26 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.

AB 2[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 5#AB 2

Battle of Zabadani[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 5#Battle of Zabadani

Supercalifragilexpialidocious[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 01:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only misspelling redirect that is missing a syllable in the middle of a word. (istic is missing.) Only 69 total pageviews since records began, or about 0.033 per day. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unused and forgetting an entire syllable does not appear to be a plausible typo. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects are cheap and this looks like a plausible typo to me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirects are expensive and this looks like an implausible typo to me. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:40, 4 March 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:年数[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. No longer redirects, but feel free to continue the discussion at WP:TFD if you would still like to see these deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. The concept of age is not particularly affiliated with any language. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Speedy close as converted to subst-only, per previous discussion. There is no need to keep nominating these useful (see guideline WP:R#KEEP, item #5) templates, then deleting them, then recreating them as subst-only. Please just convert them to subst-only templates. Pinging Plastikspork to check my work, if willing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:25, 25 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.

Rhythwyn Evans[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 18:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This person is not mentioned in the target article. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both - perhaps they were mentioned in the target at one time, but they are not now. Onel5969 TT me 12:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. It is confusing to land at a page with no mention or other indication of why one is there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not mentioned at target, and no particular reason why he would be. Evans did 91 laps for 91st birthday after being inspired by Captain Tom [1], but no reason for that to be included in Captain Tom article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. It's not helpful to readers to redirect them to an article where this person is not menitoned. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:21, 2 March 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.

Katy (singer)[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 Katy (given name)#In music. Consensus became unusually clear after the relist was made. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Perry is not known mononymously. Katy B is more mononymous (but still not quite), and there is also at least Katy Ashworth, Katy Steele, and Katy Rose (and I didn't check other spellings). -- Tavix (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Katy (given name)#Music (1st choice), which lists four Katys who are singers including Perry, or delete (2nd choice). Katy Perry may be what first comes to people's minds when they hear this term, but she's not exactly the primary topic here. Regards, SONIC678 00:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible search term. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 01:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Katy (given name)#In music per Sonic678. There aren't any notable singers known mononymously as "Katy" (or homophones "Katie" or "Katey") but there are less plausible search terms out there and the dab page is more likely to be helpful than search results. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:55, 25 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.

List of governors-general of Nepal[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 18:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely different things. Governor-generals were actual governors with executive power over their domain. Nepal never had one of those. Resident ministers could rise to "powers behind the throne" in states where they were allowed to. In Nepal's case, resident ministers were no more than ambassadors who were confined to the estates they were assigned to live in. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The article content in the page history is a cut and paste move from List of British resident ministers in Nepal. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- because it is giving completely wrong information. There are no reference that proves that any governors-general were ever present in Nepal. nirmal (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I previously had PRODed the article as it failed verifiability. --Yeti Dai (talk) 18:22, 2 March 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:Chat[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 13:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This can refer to multiple things. Should probably disambiguate between Wikipedia:IRC, Wikipedia:Discord, and WP:NOTFORUM. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate Aasim (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or keep as is: I don't really see this as a plausible redirect and I'd probably think deletion is the best course of action. If we must have it, I would think that WP:IRC is the logical target. I also really don't understand the NOTFORUM as a suggested target for disambiguation. Waggie (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per nom, seems correct to me. BlackholeWA (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per nom. I would also include links to the Village pump (since this is where it was originally located) and the Teahouse. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 05:13, 28 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.

Category 5 (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 keep until a draft article to replace the redirect as ready, at which point the redirect can be uncontroversially deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 16:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This film was originally known as "Category 5", but the film was renamed to "The Hurricane Heist". However, there is also a 2014 film of the same name, which Google search more likely brings up. Also, the redirect has its own article on German Wikipedia, and since 2014 film is notable enough on that wiki, it would be best to delete to encourage article creation on the English Wikipedia. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have drafted the film for this redirect. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the redirect when the draft is ready for acceptance:
      • I have declined the draft because it has no references.
      • I have added a hatnote to the draft for the movie that is the subject of this RFD.
      • The draft should be updated and resubmitted.
      • Please do not delete the redirect until the draft is ready for acceptance.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{R with possibilities}} AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 04:18, 27 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.

MO3 (rapper)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 5#MO3 (rapper)

Untitled Spider-Man: Far From Home sequel[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. The discussion has received sufficient participation such that relisting would be unlikely to change the outcome. signed, Rosguill talk 01:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Film no longer untitled, hence redirect is unnecessary. Possibly could be tagged with {{G6}}. – Sean Stephens (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't well thought out, as the IP vote below points out. Keep since it is unambiguous, and deleting could break internal and/or external links (and no real reason has been given to delete other than unnecessary). A7V2 (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we not delete the draft link? -- /Alex/21 14:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The default option is to keep unless there is a reason to delete (and as far as I can see none of the reasons to delete apply). Given that that was a working title for the article, and that the draft has history, it is acontent fork so keeping as a redirect will eliminate the possibility of it being recreated. Additionally, if it had been sent to WP:MfD it would be speedily redirected due to WP:SRE so there is no point deleting such redirects. A7V2 (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, there is no film titled Spider-Man: Phone Home, so a redirect from either the draft- or main-space is not required. It was never a working title. -- /Alex/21 03:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect, to avoid breaking wikilinks. The film is no longer untitled, but it used to be, and consequently there are places on Wikipedia and elsewhere that still link to the "Untitled" article name. We would break those links if we didn't have this as a redirect. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are zero mainspace articles that link to the "Untitled" article name. -- /Alex/21 14:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This is still receiving 400 - 500 page views a day, so there's some significant incoming traffic from somewhere. Just because a name was announced a week ago doesn't mean that everyone searching for this movie is going to know it. We should revaluate in a years time or so when traffic has died off. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Alex21. Starzoner (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No longer untitled. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you mean to post this in the section above? JIP | Talk 20:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • This !vote is clearly relevant for an untitled redirect and clearly not relevant to Opera Scotland, so I'll boldly move it (courtesy ping to Kailash29792). -- Tavix (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now to catch the traffic the redirect is still generating. Let's wait to delete this until the film is released. -- Tavix (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: still getting hundreds of views a day, so obviously something (probably external sites that haven't updated) is still directing traffic to that redirect. If view count goes down to single figures, then fine to delete then, but right now it would inconvenience people, so WP:CHEAP applies. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:17, 4 March 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.

Opera Scotland[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 18:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because they are different organizations (http://www.operascotland.org/ and https://www.scottishopera.org.uk/). Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom (would also argue against a future creation of Opera Wales as a redirect for the Welsh National Opera). Scarabocchio (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Opera in Scotland (changed to delete, see below) as it would appear a plausible search term for that article. It seems as though Opera Scotland is a non-notable website/organisation which writes about the history of opera in Scotland so unlikely to cause confusion. A7V2 (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not appropriate to retarget to "Scottish Opera" when Opera Scotland is not mentioned there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean? I'm not suggesting we re-target to "Scottish Opera" (the current target). I'm saying that Opera Scotland is a plausible search term for Opera in Scotland. A7V2 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Opera Scotland" is the actual name of an organization (which is cited a few times in articles). That organization is not mentioned at "Opera in Scotland". I agree that "Opera Scotland" may be a plausible search term, but a REDIRECT would be misleading, unless we introduce hatnotes that allow external links (which I'm not advocating). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned in the Opera in Scotland article, and in a way that underlines that it should not be a redirect (to anything). ("For Scotland the task [of establishing the history] is more challenging. Attempts must therefore be made to identify and build the detail of early performances and casts using mainly newspaper reviews, programmes and playbills. An ambitious attempt to pursue this online, and unique in trying to work nationally rather than in relation to a single company, is that of OperaScotland, a website for listings and performance history. Current content runs from 1755 to the present day, includes 650 operas and the names of over 11,000 performers.") Scarabocchio (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... perhaps work that up into a section within the Opera in Scotland article, one which has its own anchor, and set the redirect to that specific section? Scarabocchio (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek: Being the name of an organisation is not reason enough to not create or keep a redirect. Probably just about any common English noun is the name of a company somewhere. The test is if it is likely to cause confusion. If the organisation is at least cited on Wikipedia I agree that it could cause confusion as it is more likely someone will be searching for it, so I am switching my !vote to delete (especially since someone searching "Opera Scotland" will probably get Opera in Scotland in the first few results anyway). A7V2 (talk) 05:17, 1 March 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_25&oldid=1138583112"