Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 19, 2021.

Closing logos of Screen Gems[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 19:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not mentioned in the target article. Dominicmgm (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This isn't Logopedia. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 18:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage of closing logos is included at the target article and if any was to be added it would be removed as WP:FANCRUFT. I don't think the short unsourced article from 2006 is particularly worth preserving, since it's content wasn't merged anywhere. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:28, 27 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.

Closing logos of Hanna-Barbera[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 19:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Dominicmgm (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This isn't Logopedia. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 18:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage or even a mention of closing logos is included at the target article. Any attempt to cover the closing logos would most likely be removed as WP:FANCRUFT. I don't think the page history is worth keeping: some unsourced Fancruft was spun out to it's own article, it was sent to AfD which closed as no consensus on the basis of 3 votes (and the closing rationale reads more like a WP:SUPERVOTE than a summary of the discussion IMO) and was then turned into a redirect by the creator, all in the space of ~3 months in 2005. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:39, 27 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.

63360[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 26#63360

Template:Infobox Coach biography[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 18:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous, as all sports have coaches, nothing special about tennis coaches Joseph2302 (talk) 18:20, 19 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.

List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trum[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 18:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While not an implausible typo, it clutters the search box. Other than a huge spike of views on the day it was created, it doesn't see much continuous use and thus can probably be safely deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 17:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The search function will find the missing "p" at the end for searchers and this redirect just serves no purpose, and imo therefore shouldn't exist. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Typos are one thing, but putting it in a specific topic (conspiracy theories) is nonsense. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 18:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mdewman6 AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:02, 23 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.

Monf[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 18:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible misspelling. Onel5969 TT me 15:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Similar RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 21#Mouf. This was likely created to make fun of certain groups of English speakers in England because their pronunciation of th sounds like f to other English speakers, but none of those speakers would ever spell this with an f. So, I say delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as, frankly, classist accent mockery. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I fully agree with both of the above comments. --Bangalamania (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely search term, and not mentioned at target article. The only site on the internet that seems to recognise this as a word is urban dictionary, I can't find any other reference to this spelling. For the same reasons the creator's other redirects Monph and Norph should also be deleted 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of a series of dubious-to-useless redirects created by this user, including COME, Yoming, Atsf, norph, monph, sowth, ST&P, UWUU, Čhúŋkaške, and others already deleted. —JasonAQuest (talk • contribs) 01:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic
    • @JasonAQuest: Less than a minute's research shows ST&P and Čhúŋkaške are very clearly appropriate redirects and that COME and Atsf plausibly might be. Monph, Norph and Sowth very likely aren't but need a more detailed look to be certain (e.g. I would not be surprised if there is some other use for the latter). The single minute I've spent looking at UWU and Yoming gives me no gut feeling in any direction. Based on this it is clearly inappropriate to base opinions about these redirects solely on who created them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additional research suggests that those quick assessments are incorrect. "ST&P" is not a common term for the country to which it redirects, it appears nowhere in the article, the country appears nowhere in the first several pages of Google results for it, and it is not linked anywhere in Wikipedia. ("If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful.") "Čhúŋkaške" is not found anywhere else (even without diacriticals) in the English Wikipedia, and it's incredibly unlikely to be typed into the search field on the English Wikipedia. I don't see how capslock-malfunction redirects such as "COME" or "atsf" are "plausibly" appropriate; that seems like a bad precedent to set. Redirects should address a need; "monf" and these others do not. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Čhúŋkaške" is not found anywhere else (even without diacriticals) in the English Wikipedia from the very first sentence of the target: "Pierre (/pɪər/;[6] Lakota: čhúŋkaške, lit. 'fort'". I don't know what search you were doing but it clearly wasn't working. I don't understand how you can say "ST&P" is an implausible search term for "Sao Tome & Principe" with a straight face? It appears on page 2 of my google search (page 1 is almost entirely related to a non-notable law firm). {{R from other capitalisation}} redirects are standard and harmless - many people search using the wrong case and redirects take them to the content they are looking for (the point of redirects). Thryduulf (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yeah I don’t think that this redirect is worthy to keep anymore. It isn’t that good and I already had 3 redirects deleted. —Bbaaeeee‎ (talk • contribs) 03:33, 21 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.

Tempate:2012 in artistic gymnastics[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 unambiguously created in error". Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect has a typo in template namespace, but it is actually in article namespace, and it's also not helpful and useful. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete G6 - "unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace". The page history makes it clear this redirect is left over from a typo in the page name and the template was only at this title for 4 minuites. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: G6, obviously created in error. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:08, 20 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.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.[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. In addition to there being a numerical majority of keep !votes, their argument that the redirect is correct and harmless is stronger than the delete argument that the title is very long. signed, Rosguill talk 19:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinarily long redirect. While I can understand the valid purpose of the redirect, it shouldn't be this long. Interstellarity (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is not useful. Shorter redirects encompassing likely search terms from the typical script of the warning could be made if they don't exist already, such as "Right to remain silent". Mdewman6 (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right to remain silent redirects to Right to silence, an article about the concept which is much broader than the set phrase used by one country's law enforcement. Thryduulf (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I see your point, and thank you for starting the discussion above on the other redirects. But in this case, I still don't see this as useful and could possibly be harmful, as the Miranda script varies subtly between jurisdictions and could make it harder for those seeking the other topics that seem to require disambiguation in the discussion above. Even though this is a redirect page, let's remember this is the title of a page and is far too long to not be cumbersome. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as correct, harmless and potentially useful (e.g. if someone copies and pastes it or follows a link to it). Simply being long is not a reason to delete a redirect, nor is being longer than other redirects to the same target. Thryduulf (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I strongly doubt anyone will ever create a link to this redirect when they can simply link directly to Miranda warning. A lot less keystrokes, easier to remember, and easier to copy and paste. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wiki search doesn't even support the necessary width to fully render this title as a search suggest title match. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need every length combination of massive text on the off chance someone (bored?) might enter it and be otherwise lost. Are song lyrics next?—Bagumba (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No harm is caused by having this redirect around and it's useful. Being from outside the US I have heard of the sequence of words before but I didn't know it was called the Miranda warning – so it's a plausible synonym to search up. Most importantly, this redirect gets many, many views. I don't think it's in the best interest of the encyclopedia to inconvienience all those readers. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in a similar vein to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9#Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranio­leipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymeno­kichlepikossyphophattope­risteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleio­lagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon. As long as something is a valid correct synonym or reasonable alternative, which I'll take Thryduulf's word on, length is generally irrelevant to a point. The pageview numbers also speak volumes per J947. I suppose iconicity as opposed to being mundane also plays a role; I would admittedly feel differently about song lyrics (listen to pandora much?). To counter two of the arguments above -- we must remember that everyone searches in different ways (i.e. not just through the provided search box) and that linking is not the only purpose of redirection. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:00, 19 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.

Agonistes[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 Samson Agonistes. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would have assumed that the primary topic for this term would be Samson Agonistes, and it seems that we have a few other partial title matches that seem to be inspired by Milton's work. I think that deletion to allow for uninhibited search results may be the best option here. signed, Rosguill talk 17:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral as creator of redirect. I created this redirect as similar to redirects for other Tortured Souls characters, but if there are other topics, then deletion is fine with me. Natg 19 (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rosguill's reasoning makes sense.★Trekker (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The only other article with "Agonistes" in the title is Sweeney Agonistes, and both it and Samson are WP:PTMs; therefore, no DAB page is possible. Narky Blert (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it could be a {{R from typo}} to agonist; where it is mentioned as the root word for the term -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Samson Agonistes, as Sweeny Agonistes and most other uses are allusions to Milton's title—including Nixon Agonistes, which nobody has mentioned yet. P Aculeius (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as this isn't really suitable for disambiguation as it's a load of partial matches, but the search results are actually pretty good. ~ mazca talk 22:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix is also fine. I still kind of think it's a partial title match, but even so it seems to be enough of a primary topic. ~ mazca talk 11:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:57, 19 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.

Norway women's national under-20 football 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. Hog Farm Talk 14:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:REDLINK and previous discussions, delete to encourage article creation Seany91 (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Delete to encourage article creation. We have done these deletes for many U-17, U-19 and U-20 teams recently. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 12:38, 20 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.

Reeee[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) 20:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Term not mentioned at target article. A Google search indicates that this seems to be a part of a popular internet meme, but it still needs to be mentioned somewhere as to avoid any confusion that may arise from this. CycloneYoris talk! 20:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair I can add a section. Des Vallee (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Des Vallee (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget? As far as I am aware "Reeee" is a term commonly attributed to autistic people as part of a slur, caricature and/or stereotype of their behaviour. There does seem to be some connection to the toxic culture that has accumulated around Pepe the Frog but I'm not sure that this where it originated and whether this is the best target. Maybe there is a case for covering it in an existing article about slurs or discrimination and redirecting there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielRigal (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My experience here is that it would be hard to call this a slur per se -- I see far more mildly self-deprecating use by autistic people than use as an insult by allistic people. It's much more of a subcultural expression of frustration than it is an insult, and putting it as a redirect to articles regarding slurs or ableism would, I suspect, not be particularly useful. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral As the creator of the re-direct it really doesn't matter. My rationale is I remembered a frog and forgot what it's name was I typed in "reee" because that's all I could remember I later found it was Pepe. If it is an offensive slur I did not know that should be deleted. Des Vallee (talk) 04:58, 4 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 20:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget to Ree. The Pepe the Frog article mentions A common saying in comics of Pepe is enraged reee, often used for comedic effect of Pepe becoming or being enraged. I have added Pepe the Frog as an entry on the Ree disambiguation page. feminist (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it's mentioned. I don't see anything else at Ree that can be spelled with more than two E's, so I don't think retargeting there is feasible. -- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus for deletion here but opinions are so far about evenly split between keeping adn retargetting to the dab page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ree This is far more likely to be a typo of Ree than a reference to Pepe. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per the creator, it certainly sees use! This is related to the meme, and nothing at Ree is a plausible typo. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:06, 19 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.

Derrogitives[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 26#Derrogitives

Ajront[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 19:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have no content about this slur anywhere on enwiki, doesn't seem useful. Hog Farm Talk 05:23, 19 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.

Soundings A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies[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 19:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably these are publications of the council, but there is no mention of either in the article at this time. I didn't see them in article history, either, but may have missed them. Cnilep (talk) 03:40, 19 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.

Dick Dawkins[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 02:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mature enough to know that 'Dick' is short for 'Richard', but I've never heard anyone seriously call Richard Dawkins this. Bangalamania (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, neither have I. --Bduke (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not all made-up terms are useful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources are produced showing that this version of the name has been significantly used in reference to this Richard Dawkins. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. gets very few pageviews and I can't find any evidence online that Richard Dawkins goes by this name. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Less Unless (talk) 14:48, 20 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.

Transwiki[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 19:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-space redirect to project space. There is a lot of vague evidence that maybe this once was necessary to Transwiki pages properly, but there is also a talk page comment that says this was obsolete in 2010. The target page is listed as inactive. The Meta page on Transwiki describes it as an outdated practice. Documentation on this redirect is nearly non-existent, but as far as I can tell, this redirect outlived its usefulness a very long time ago. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:03, 19 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_19&oldid=1003321337"