Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 8, 2021.

John Edwards ((1700?-1776)[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 obviously created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNNATURAL. The title was moved from John Edwards (poet) to this title by Boleyn, whom it took less than a minute to realise the error and move it to the correct spelling, John Edwards (1700?-1776). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; implausible with the mis-matched parens. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:34, 9 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.

James Morgan ((BBC Economics Correspondent)[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 obviously created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNNATURAL; the page was moved from James morgan bbc economics correspondent (which might be worth a separate nomination) to this title and then, 47 seconds later, to the correctly spelt version, James Morgan (BBC Economics Correspondent). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:48, 8 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.

I'd Do Anything ((BBC TV series)[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 obviously created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNNATURAL, moved from this title to the correctly spelt version, I'd Do Anything (BBC TV series), 78 seconds after creation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:45, 8 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.

Hunted ((House of Night))[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) 19:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNNATURAL creation from 2009, not even from any kind of page move. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My only guess is that the creator had some sort of confusion with linking markup? Whatever the reason for creation this isn't a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete error in disambiguating (WP:COSTLY). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:00, 10 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.

William Cather[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 16#William Cather

Bedford,, New York[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) 19:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Double comma, never seen a redirect like this before. I think this counts as an implausible typo, or at least one that Wikipedia really doesn't need to cover. Lennart97 (talk) 20:29, 8 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.

Wikipedia:TPA[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 16#Wikipedia:TPA

Lessssssmahagooww High Schooll[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. Fuzheado | Talk 17:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another implausible typo. Onel5969 TT me 19:03, 8 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.

ML11 0FS[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 16#ML11 0FS

Les ma haggis ow High School[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. Participants assume this is an unencyclopedic local in-joke that's not mentioned in the target. ~ mazca talk 17:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target page. Perhaps it's a local joke name for the school? Onel5969 TT me 18:58, 8 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.

Lesmahagow Hiigh School[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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this, but I would think that we can't cover every possible typo, would we have redirects for hhigh, higgh, highh? Onel5969 TT me 18:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. Seems like unlikely typos in both cases, at least no more likely than other typos as the nom alludes, and unlikely to be helpful. The second redirect takes the first a step further and makes it plural, which makes it an even more implausible misspelling. Redirects with two or more separate typos/misspellings should generally be deleted on sight IMO. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. The first is unlikely to be useful, and the second is just silly. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:31, 9 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.

Outside (Star Trek: Discovery)[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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Episode was re-titled before airing and thus no longer goes by the name given. -- /Alex/21 02:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:57, 8 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.

The Good of the People[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 move without redirect to The Good of the People (Star Trek: Discovery) - all of the suggestions made in this discussion are reasonable and they aren't mutually exclusive. There's clearly consensus that this isn't a good title to have an unexplained redirect to a Star Trek episode list, but it is a former name of the episode, so a disambiguated redirect isn't a problem (and several similar ones to former titles have been kept in recent days at RfD). There's also a valid suggestion that there are several other articles around the broad concept of the "good of the people" that might warrant a set index article - but I will leave that to others if there are enough good targets, and it might be better at a title with different capitalisation and with or without the initial "the". ~ mazca talk 12:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Episode was re-titled before airing and thus no longer goes by the name given. -- /Alex/21 00:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no good target exists and there is not enough for disambiguating. -- Tavix (talk) 16:52, 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.

The Citadel (Star Trek: Discovery)[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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Episode was re-titled before airing and thus no longer goes by the name given. -- /Alex/21 00:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Alex21 it is a former name -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide a non-outdated reliable source that still refers to the episode(s) under a redundant name? -- /Alex/21 12:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would you need a "non-outdated" source? Since Wikipedia is not a newspaper, former names are appropriate redirects, and {{R from former name}} is used for such things. You yourself pointed out that this is a former name, therefore a valid use for a redirect. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because it is an outdated title. Put simply, there is no episode of Star Trek: Discovery titled "The Citadel", there is no reference on Wikipedia to any episode of Star Trek: Discovery ever having been titled "The Citadel" (currently or previously), and hence the redirect should not exist. It's entirely possible that "The Citadel" as an episode title was poorly sourced in the first place. -- /Alex/21 02:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional on sourcing. If mentioned in RS and in the article that this was a working title, then you could keep around, otherwise, it should be deleted per MOS:DABMENTION if it stands to be listed at The Citadel (disambiguation) AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:11, 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 17:56, 8 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.

Shaheen Shah Afradi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 15#Shaheen Shah Afradi

Percipient[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 soft redirect to Wiktionary. There's general dissatisfaction with the current target, and nobody has found a particularly compelling alternative target, nor is there much confidence that a disambiguation page is appropriate. Deleting it to reveal search results (with a wiktionary link at the side) or soft redirecting it (which has a link to search results) are both reasonable outcomes, so I've just gone with the one that's marginally more popular numerically. ~ mazca talk 12:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary says this means a perceptive person. It's not mentioned at the target article, unless you count the hatnote to Witness for "percipient witness". That may be a WP:PTM, but I'm inclined to either retarget there or delete. BDD (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig or soft redirect to Wikitionary. This is a term used in a few articles so I suspect it is the sort of thing that someone will look up here, but we don't have any good targets. "Percipient witness" is discussed in a few places and "Map percipient" is explained at Arthur H. Robinson#Work but they're both partial title matches and so I have my doubts they'd survive as a disambig so a soft redirect (which offers a link to search) might be better. I don't object to retargetting as the nom suggests, but it isn't used exclusively in that context so it's not my favoured outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an aside, I think the usage at Waikhom Gojen Meitei might actually be an error for "recipient" (it strikes me as the sort of incorrect suggestion a spell checker would offer if someone typoed) but I'm not sure enough to correct it myself. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term is mentioned in the Clairvoyance and Parapsychology articles, so Extrasensory perception is presumptive and an overly-specific target. Really it just means the recipient of perception – you need to add a modifier such as "extrasensory", "clairvoyant" or "para" those specific percipients (types of perception). Since the term isn't mentioned in the perception article and readers are likely looking for a definition, just soft redirect to Wiktionary. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to WIKT as best target per above. MB 03:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to reveal search results. I'll note that search results also include "results from sister projects" on the right-hand side. If we keep it, my vote is for a retarget to Perception as a form of that word. -- Tavix (talk) 16:56, 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.

Anomalous cognition[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 16#Anomalous cognition

Shaheen Afradi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 15#Shaheen Afradi

Redirects to SIE Worldwide Studios[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 18#Redirects to SIE Worldwide Studios

Revival (Selena Gomez music)[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 18:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does not make much sense if Revival (Selena Gomez song) is clear enough. This redirect was created from a user's draft, and should not exist. HĐ (talk) 16:03, 8 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.

Did you know-Puerto Rico?[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 18:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, how many people will be searching this? I say we delete it and get it over with. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nonsense redirect. HĐ (talk) 15:18, 9 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.

National Highway 45C (India)(old numbering)[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. There appears to be a rough consensus that RfD is not the appropriate forum for this, and that a wider-ranging discussion about how to handle Indian road numbering needs to be had. signed, Rosguill talk 18:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is definitely wrong. NH 45C (old numbering) is in Tamil Nadu, but NH 24 is in Uttar Pradesh. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not only is this incorrect, there's also no space between "(India)" and "(old numbering)". Dominicmgm (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to the last article version and move to the title that is correctly spaced. Thryduulf (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: I originally raised this issue on the redirect itself via a templated call for expert assistance, but I was reverted and told that instead I should raise it here. Deleting the redirect would create several redlinks, which helps no-one. As for the spacing, as far as I can see there are two common formats for titles related to the old numbering of India National Highways, the primary one being as in "National Highway 46 (India, old numbering)". What's really needed here is a subject matter expert. This isn't the only questionable redirect of this type - the whole subject area relating old and new numberings is a tangle and a mess that seems to have been created by a combination of human and bot actions. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone who is familiar with the renumbering really needs to go across the whole system and fix all the redirects. I don't think one RFD is going to solve the problem, unfortunately. --Rschen7754 18:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. And it's not just redirects; there are articles and templates which mix mentions of both old and new numbered roads, sometimes without indicating which is using the old numbering and which the new. Every national highway link needs to be systematically checked - it's a massive task, needing someone very familiar with the subject who also has a lot of patience and determination. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 13:40, 8 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.

Moral Government Theology[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 15#Moral Government Theology

Isabel Guzman (politician)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 15#Isabel Guzman (politician)

Datenpirat (CCC)[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. The keep argument is stronger. signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: neither of these terms appears in the target article, and the parenthetical makes them very unlikely search terms. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Redirects are perfectly accurate per WP:REDIR. Datenknoten and Datenpirat are German names given to the CCC logos also known as Chaosknoten and Pesthörnchen, both already shown and relevant in the target article. I now added the alternative names as well. As these terms can also be normal German words just meaning "data node" and "data pirate", the "(CCC)" is needed for disambiguation. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:29, 8 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.

Purple Numbers[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 18:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at DRV, this is a redirect to an article, Douglas Engelbart, which does not mention the title, so this is confusing. As I've outlined on the target's talk page, I can't find sufficient reliable sources even to mention this in the article so that the redirect makes sense (only a personal website, a wiki, etc.)—never mind to recreate the article. Thus deleting the redirect is the only plausible option. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There appears to have been a Mediawiki extension at mw:Extension:Purple MediaWiki, but that's now historical, so we can't redirect there. The exact phrase "purple numbers" may not be verifiably associated with Douglas Engelbart, but it certainly fits with his vision for how hypertext should be organised. Maybe a mention could be added to Hyperlink, or some other related article? – Uanfala (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would very much support doing so if someone can find the sources, but I'm really struggling to find anything in reliable sources about purple numbers: I have in addition a blog post, [forge.blueoxen.net/wiki/Purple_Numbers a page on another wiki] and what looks like another blog post, though that latter is the best candidate I've found so far. (The latter does connect the concept to Engelbart.) YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. In Formula 1, a "purple number" means that you've set the fastest time in the race for a lap or a one-third section of it. Links 1 2 3 (and more). Narky Blert (talk) 18:13, 11 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.

Moo Moo Farm[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 closed per WP:WRONGFORUM (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting UNdeletion (previous discussion). Moo Moo Farm is a name of a level within the game Mario Kart 64. It doesn't fall under any of the rationales for deletion at WP:RFD#DELETE. Harmless redirects like this shouldn't be deleted if there is even a small possibility of being useful to a reader/searcher. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close contested deletions need to go to WP:DRV not here. Also, there are currently two other Mario Kart tracks heading towards a unanimous consensus for deletion so it’s highly unlikely that this request will succeed.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 01:57, 8 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_8&oldid=1001602405"