Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 23, 2021.

Marianne Schifferer[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 31#Marianne Schifferer

Mordecai Blue jay[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. Participants consider that this is sufficiently plausible to be reasonable. ~ mazca talk 17:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC) ~ mazca talk 17:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Blue jay" is not the character's surname, and it's highly unlikely anyone would type the character's name and their species. Dominicmgm (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I counted less than 1 PVS d-1 since records began. But we don't have any redirects similar to this one, which is otherwise a plausible search term. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:51, 19 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 22:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible and helpful search term. I don't see how deletion would be beneficial here. CycloneYoris talk! 02:02, 31 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.

Dave Creek[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 keep. Now mentioned at the target, withdrawing nomination. signed, Rosguill talk 20:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a duly sourced mention can be provided signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now mentioned and referenced in the target. Was quite easy to find. Took me 2 seconds. Royalrec (talk) 21:51, 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.

ORCHID[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 Orchid (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ambiguous redirect with unhelpful target. ~Kvng (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete (i.e. keep or retarget) this is the only entry at Orchid (disambiguation) which is plausibly rendered in all caps, however if it is felt to be ambiguous it should be retargetted to that dab page and the link there change to point directly at the IPv6 address article, probably the IPv6 address#Special addresses section. If it isn't ambiguous then it should be refined to the section and a hatnote to the dab page added. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ORCHID appears to refer to a manufacturer and a network protocol. Neither appears to be notable. If we created ORCHID (disambiguation) as you seem to be suggesting, it would have two redlinks and a WP:TWODAB problem. Deleting this redirect appears to be a better solution. ~Kvng (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting creating ORCHID (disambiguation), I'm suggesting possibly retargetting the redirect to the existing dab page that covers all capitalisations of the word. The manufacturer is definitely not notable and we have no content other than their name in a list, the network protocol is notable in context given that it's covered (albeit briefly) in about three places in the IPv6 article, and it's also something that people will definitely be looking for encyclopaedic information about. The only question is whether the network protocol is the primary topic for "ORCHID" in all caps, if yes then we should refine the redirect to the relevant section of the article, if it isn't then we should be targetting the disambiguation page. There is no situation here in which deletion is appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say neither is a primary topic for ORCHID so retargeting to Orchid (disambiguation) is a reasonable WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 23:54, 26 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.

Drive pulley[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 Pulley#Belt_and_pulley_systems. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no direct link between "drive pulley" and "drum motor" (many types of motors may have a pulley). I am not sure that "drive pulley" needs a page, deciding about this is beyond my technical knowledge, but for sure, if it exists, then it should not redirect to a type of motor. "drive pulley" may possibly redirect to just "pulley", that would already be much better I think ("drive pulley" is used in at least one wikipedia page on turntables, where pulley would be fine). Pmarbaix (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 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.

Template:Test template[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#Template:Test template

Manganime[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#Manganime

European English[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 English language in Europe. signed, Rosguill talk 20:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This would be better targeted at English language in Europe. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:26, 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.

PLAYPOLICY[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 17:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XNRs like this should use a pseudo-namespace; this one doesn't. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The correct WP:PLAYPOLICY was created by the same editor 3 minutes later, and this one is unusued. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Station1 (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has no plausible mainspace target.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 28 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.

Stats grok[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 31#Stats grok

Catalogue of IDs[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 20:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This could be any kind of ID. I don't think this is a likely search term. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Counterproductive cross-namespace redirect. Nardog (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: maybe a likely search term, but the search term is much to broad to merit a specific XN target. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe retarget to Identifier (the "Identifiers in various disciplines" section is the closest I can find to something resembling a "catalogue of IDs" in the mainspace), but I don't feel too strongly. — The Earwig talk 15:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even Identifier isn't a "catalog[ue] of identifiers", it's an article about the concept of identifiers. If we had a List of identifiers, that would be the right target.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - More likely to be search by reading looking for article content than the current XNR target, but we don't seem to have a catalog of IDs anywhere, so there's no good target to point this to. Hog Farm Talk 17:04, 30 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.

Bardo Nerang/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 speedy delete. I restored the user's sandbox. — The Earwig talk 16:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CSD R2 does not apply for XNRs to Wikipedia namespace, so I nominate this here. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - not a useful XNR. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The target is clearly misplaced; I'm asking the creator if they meant to publish it as an article/draft or move it to their sandbox. — The Earwig talk 15:48, 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.

AFCR[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 Advanced CANDU reactor. Hog Farm Talk 17:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XNRs like this should use a pseudo-namespace; this one doesn't. As AFCRC is also a redirect, this might result in additional confusion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Advanced CANDU reactor, where it is used as an acronym for "Advanced Fuel CANDU Reactor" in the section "Prospects". 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per IP, given that we don't have an article for American Federation for Clinical Research. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget: a cross-namespace redirect like this needs to be carefully justified under normal circumstances, and once there's a plausible mainspace target it becomes even harder to justify. — The Earwig talk 15:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per everyone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:07, 28 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.

COMMONNAME[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#COMMONNAME

Wikipedia:BW[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#Wikipedia:BW

Dow Village, California[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 20:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect resulting from reversion of an undiscussed arbitrary page move — the problem with the comma-California title will become instantly apparent when I reveal that the target is in Trinidad and Tobago, and not the United States as any normal person would have expected upon seeing "comma California". While there is a populated place in Trinidad named "California", its article describes it as a neighbourhood within the larger town of Couva rather than a standalone town in its own right -- and while Dow Village does happen to be near that California, our naming convention for municipal neighbourhoods that require disambiguation is "neighbourhood, town", not "neighbourhood, other neighbourhood", so the correct disambiguator here is "Couva" rather than "California". Since this title is not just harmlessly incorrect according to our naming conventions but crosses the line into being actively misleading, and the original page move to this title was arbitrary and undiscussed in the first place, the redirect should be deleted rather than being left to stand. Bearcat (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I assume that the disambiguator is supposed to be an "official" one? In Trinidad the smallest administrative unit is the community, and the next bigger one is the region already, apart from two cities and three boroughs. Couva is a town, but it is not an administrative unit. The disambiguatro should be Couva–Tabaquite–Talparo then, and Siparia region for the other Dow. The "California" redirect can be deleted. Just my 2ct. Kind regards, Grueslayer 11:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The normal way the town is described in TT is "Dow Village, California", not simply Dow Village, to distinguish it from the other Dow Village (Dow Village, South Oropouche). At issue here isn't Wikipedia's disambiguation rules, but the actual COMMONNAME. To illustrate this, try searching site:guardian.co.tt "dow village, couva" which gets 19 hits versus site:guardian.co.tt "dow village, california" which gets 197 hits. The fact that there's also a California in the US/ Mexico is beside the point - California is Trinidad is believed to derive from an indigenous group, and like other names of this sort form the oldest substratum of place names. The construction of the Point Lisas Industrial Estate (in California) and the construction of several government housing developments (in California) have led to the whole area being perceived as being "Couva" (especially by outsiders). Guettarda (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Guettarda's explanation, and strongly urge someone to add a paragraph explaining this to the article (or at a minimum, to the talk page). Maybe also create the redirect Dow Village, California, Trinidad and Tobago. JesseW, the juggling janitor 16:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment if kept, the target may need a {{redirect-distinguish}} hatnote for Dow, California (and perhaps vice-versa). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with {{redirect-distinguish}} hatnote. MB 19:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but with cleanup suggested above by JesseW, 61..., et al. This is actually potentially very confusing, since probably 99.99% of our readers have no idea there is a California in T&T.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:12, 28 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.

BiFME[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 20:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot figure out what these redirects are supposed to be refering to. It's not an initialism of the games name, they're not mentioned in the target artice and none of my searches online turned up any revevant results. These have very low numbers of page views, 4 views a year each. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can't figure out a connection either. I'm getting a recentish chemistry thing, a corporate product, and OCR scanner errors. I just don't see a connection here. Hog Farm Talk 05:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not a bittle. Implausible typo.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:13, 28 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.

3DPD[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 15:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to deleted Wiktionary entry. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:56, 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.

53x[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 20:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary, but not mentioned in target page or independently on Wiktionary. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find that it was ever included in the Wiktionary appendix, and it isn't mentionend anywhere on Wikipedia or elsewhere on Wiktionary. Although I can find several definitions on Google saying it's leet for "sex" I can't immediately find any actual uses. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This was added to List of Internet slang phrases (as of 21 January 2006, at 11:03) by 141.18.1.19 Deleted revision, without a listed source. I then created the redirect a few months later (on 09:47, 20 March 2006‎). I don't have a strong opinion on keeping or deleting the redirect (but it's nice to see people paying attention to something this old!) JesseW, the juggling janitor 16:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - Nothing in Wiktionary, and the mentions on enwiki appear to be mostly product names and shorthand for "53 times". Nowhere for this to point. Hog Farm Talk 15:44, 30 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.

Brennage[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#Brennage

Arrondi[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 Glossary of ballet#Arrondi. Hog Farm Talk 15:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

cross-wiki redirect to Wiktionary, only language there is French, this is not a heavily-trafficked redirect or common word Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:13, 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.

Spider-Man 11[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 06:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the 11th Spider-Man film. Retargeting would be just plain WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:TOOSOON. I suggest delete. Dominicmgm (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Far From Home is the 2nd Spider-Man film in the THIRD cinematic iteration of the Spider-Man series. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 07:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have an opinion on the matter, really. I created the redirect in 2019 after reading an article that referred to the film as such, and redirects are cheap. I don't remember the source anymore, and didn't include it because I've never seen a sourced redirect. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether this is kept the current target is wrong since it’s actually the 12th film not the 11th. looking at Spider-Man in film we had 3 US made for TV films, 1 Japanese film based on the Toei series, the Raimi trilogy, 2 Amazing Spider Man films, and the actual 11th film Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse between the most recent live action films (the last of which being Far from Home). My best guess is that whoever called it the 11th film either forgot Spider-Verse came first or was unaware of the Japanese theatrical release.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So basically either delete or retarget to Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - counting only the US-made films you can make a rational argument that this is the 11th Spider-Man film, but I can't see any evidence they're actually ever referred to in that way. There's no common continuity or production company across the 11 films, and any unofficial numbering used in media is only really used within the individual groups of films. As this is only arguably the 11th film, with no real usage of the term, this seems more likely to be ambiguously unhelpful than it is to actually assist someone. ~ mazca talk 13:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per mazca, et al. This is basically weird OR that will not even agree with other people doing slightly different OR about how to count and label Spider-Man movies.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In my own defense, as I said above, I created the redirect after coming across a reliable source that used it in this manner. I didn’t cite that source because I’ve never seen a cited redirect, and I cannot support it now because I don’t remember where I read it, anymore. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, don't take the criticism of the redirect personally. It sounds like you had a rational reason for making it - it just now seems like the source (whatever it was) probably had a pretty stupid reason for using it themselves! ~ mazca talk 19:09, 28 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.

Devastator (Ratchet and Clank)[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 03:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This weapon appears in the first game in the series the target article covers, but it isn't mentioned in either article. These redirects also don't seem to get very many pageviews nowadays, and nothing links to them (at least not anymore) As such, I'm thinking they should be deleted (especially the one with the error in disambiguation) unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 03:16, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_23&oldid=1046548579"