Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 14, 2021.

Digitalization[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 21#Digitalization

Counting of the electoral votes[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 Joint session of the United States Congress#Counting electoral votes. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too ambiguous a term to point to the 2020 US electoral college count - originally from a move but nothing links here anymore. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Joint session of the United States Congress#Counting electoral votes which is the general article about the process in the USA. I've been unable to find whether any other electoral colleges' counting of votes is a separate act to the voting (and so would warrant being searched for) as even excluding every term I can think of (Washington, USA, US, "United States", Trump, Biden, Pence, "6 January". "January 6", Republican, Democrat, Capitol) every search result is still about the USA process generally or the events a specific instance of the USA's count, so even if it isn't unique it is certainly the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above; clearly too ambiguous for the current target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Electoral Count Act, a dedicated article on the subject as opposed to related a section like Joint session of the United States Congress#Counting electoral votes. At any rate, the count is generic and not a phenomena specific to this year, so some re-target is needed. @Thryduulf, UnitedStatesian, and Power~enwiki: Your input is welcome.—Bagumba (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I considered that article, but it goes into great detail over several top-level sections whereas the section of the join session article gives a concise overview that will better serve someone looking for a simple answer. If someone is looking for more detail then the section links to the longer article. Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is more of an issue that the lead of Electoral Count Act might need to be copyedited to be more accessible. That seems to be a better solution than redirecting to a subsection of a related topic and inconveniencing those readers who want more details.—Bagumba (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see any significant problems with the lead of the Act article as it adequately summarises the whole, detailed technical article. It is significantly preferable to offer a concise (1-2 paragraph) summary (the what and the how) with a link to details for those who want it than it is to send everyone straight to the long, extensive technical details of the act (the why) that probably doesn't give them the answer they are looking for (even if it weren't tagged as too technical). Remember Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopaedia that uses summary style, we should prioritise non-technical overviews above detailed minutiae. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see any significant problems with the lead of the Act article ...": Then the lead of Electoral Count Act presumably meets MOS:INTRO to "avoid difficult-to-understand terminology", even if the rest of the article is technical. I'm still missing why we need to be wary of redirecting readers directly there.—Bagumba (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Simply because it's less helpful for the most people. It is far more likely someone using this term will be looking for a brief overview of what the counting the votes is than an extremely long and detailed article about the nitty gritty of the 19th Century act of congress. If someone arrives at the overview and wants to know more the detailed article is one click away, if they arrives at the detailed article but wants or needs a brief overview then they have to go back to their search engine of choice and try again. Remember that we're dealing with non-specialists who may not have even know that counting of the votes is a separate thing to the electoral college voting (I'm not sure I did before about November). Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per everyone else. Love of Corey (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Love of Corey: two different targets have been suggested so "per everyone else" is ambiguous. Please can you make it clear which target you would like this to point to. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Electoral Count Act, then. Love of Corey (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notice of this discussion has been left at Talk:Joint session of the United States Congress and Talk:Electoral Count Act.—Bagumba (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's see if we can get a slightly clearer consensus of whether Joint session of the United States Congress#Counting electoral votes or Electoral Count Act is better
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, another possible target is United States Electoral College#Joint session of Congress which actually provides more content than the Joint Session section, but searchers for Counting of electoral votes are probably seeking information beyond what is found at the United States Electoral College article. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:21, 16 January 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.

Science modules[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 17:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague to redirect here. The Open University also does science modules. Dominicmgm (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, way too ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambiguous, only got 17 page views in the last year and was created during the clean up of vandalism 13 years ago, it wasn't an intentionally created redirect. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, way too ambiguous, looks like a late night edit that was forgotten. ClemRutter (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:42, 18 January 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.

Earnil[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 21#Earnil

Wellesley Hills ((Boston and Albany station)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 - page created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNNATURAL. This was the title of a duplicated article for one minute, and resulted from a page moving error. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @1234qwer1234qwer4: pages that are unambiguously created in error, including redirects created when fixing such mistakes, can be speedily deleted under criterion G6 so don't need to be nominated here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 14 January 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.

Sacramento NWSL team[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) 18:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted to encourage article creation per WP:REDLINK and similar discussions in the past. Seany91 (talk) 08:13, 14 January 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.

Salem Witch Museum[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 17:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Different museum. Salem Witch Museum is on 19 1/2 Washington Square, and Witch History Museum is on Essex St. There's a Draft:Salem Witch Museum but not sure if it is notable yet. There are multiple museums in Salem that cover the witch trials. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 06:49, 14 January 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.

Alopecia[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 17:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the first rationale in WP:POFR - "Alternative names redirect to the most appropriate article title" - this page should redirect to Alopecia areata, since that's what virtually everyone will be looking for when searching for "alopecia". Hux (talk) 06:07, 14 January 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.

Minimal (Dungeons & Dragons)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 17:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article at this title was deleted in 2019. This redirect was created 10 days later. The only mention of 'minimal' at the target article is a piped link to Phyletic dwarfism. (Presumably, the monsters in the game are dwarf-sized.) I would delete, unless more discussion is (or will be) added at the target article. Cnilep (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – this may be linked to from outside Wikipedia. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 03:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
That's... not really much of an argument in favor of keeping the redirect. The redirect simply makes no sense as is right now. Someone else linking to the redirect doesn't change that. V2Blast (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The redirect simply makes no sense as is right now. As far as I can tell, the only relevance of the word "Minimal" to AD&D 2e is that "minimal mammals" are described as a sort of creature: "half-sized breeds of otherwise normal animals". Unless that's discussed in the target of the redirect, it makes no sense to keep this redirect. V2Blast (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is mentioned on the target article, see "The minimal (a contraction of "miniature animal") is a magically reduced version of a normal animal." BOZ (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is an entry in the table for this monster. It might be worth refining the target to the specific entry. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:24, 15 January 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.

Beanstalk(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. signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Misspelt. Was created as an article in 2009, then speedied, but the creator simply overwrote the content, removing the template. Page history is not worthy of keeping, mostly vandalism. Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:06, 14 January 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.

Blade (2022 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. signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a redirect covering this upcoming film at Blade (upcoming film) with the same target, and the 2022 release timeframe as alleged by the title is not confirmed and therefore incorrect and premature. I have previously found this redirect back in June 2020 through Blaze (2022 film), which was created by the same user from a typo, and that one was deleted. Aside from that, this redirect has clocked in only 379 total pageviews with a daily average of 1 since its creation, whereas the more accurate redirect Blade (upcoming film), of which the Draft:Blade (upcoming film) article points to, has clocked in 2,565 pageviews with an average of 5. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:34, 14 January 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.

Second Trumpeachment[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 17:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at its edit history, you will realize that I created the redirect. This emergent RfD happens minutes after I discovered that Trumpeachment, which used to link to Impeachment of Donald Trump, was deleted on the very same day in my time zone that I created this redirect. The creation happened only a few hours after the old redirect was deleted, and almost immediately after the creation did I realize that there was no such redirect as "Trumpeachment", apparently because it is an unusual portmanteau. I request a review into this redirect, as well as the redirects of Trumpeach, Trumpeachment efforts, Trumpeachment inquiry, and Trumpeachment trial. FreeMediaKid! 01:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think all redirects containing "Trumpeachment" or "Trumpeach" are juvenile and should not clutter up Wikipedia.PopePompus (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It makes sense to use long-established portmanteaus as redirects if there is strong, well-cited evidence of their broad acceptance. "Trumpeachment" has not attained such status. -- Hux (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've added the other redirects mentioned to this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 14 January 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_January_14&oldid=1001862381"