Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 10, 2021.

Hertevin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 18#Hertevin

Sarah movie[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 17#Sarah movie

Abul Qasmi[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 20:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this makes a sense to be a redirect to Abul Kalam Qasmi. This has been nowhere used for him. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:44, 10 July 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:Other uses-section[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 19:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirects, and misleading since the target template doesn't mention a section unless the |section=yes parameter is also specified, making the template call appear redundant. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The redirects are a result of a 2014 TfD of what was at the time a separate template. A strange outcome, as redirecting here is worse than either keeping or deleting. – Uanfala (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and Unafala. This is leftover detritus from a template merge. The result is bad, because these names imply that the section output is what one will get. I was thinking at first that an alternative would be setting up a {{Other uses section}} wrapper for {{Other uses|section}} (or {{Other uses|section=yes}}, whatever), then point all these redirs at that wrapper. But we seem to be doing okay without that, and nothing at {{Other uses}} suggests we need a |section parameter (it doesn't presently have one). The wording of the template doesn't imply that it's applicable only article-wide, and in fact many uses of it are already sectional.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:42, 12 July 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.

Superior Prut and Lower Danube[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 17#Superior Prut and Lower Danube

Train 19[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After the production of Train 18, Govt. of India announced the production of Train 19, but since then there has been no development of this project and this set of rakes with this name, is unlikely to be commissioned ever. Hence requesting for deletion of this redirect. Sony R (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No policy reason to delete: mentioned in the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shhhnotsoloud. There is content about it in the target article, and given the existence of Train 18 and Train 20, Train 19 is a highly likely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 10 July 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.

WPL:WEIGHT[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 06:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WPL: is not a valid shortcutdudhhrContribs 04:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This appears to be an error and is. the only redirect we have beginning "WPL:" Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quite possibly created as a result of a typo, but typos of shortcuts are not normally useful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Obvious typo as L is next to : on a (UK or US) QWERTY keyboard Joseph2302 (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably a typo --Lenticel (talk) 06:49, 12 July 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.

MHA (Japanese anime 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an unlikely search term because if someone was looking for the series, I doubt they would know it was abbreviated as "MHA" and not know the full name. And even if they did, they would probably just see the link at MHA instead. Link20XX (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even if they didn’t just use MHA they would far more likely use MHA (anime) as a search term.--70.24.249.16 (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And even if they did, they would probably just see the link at MHA instead. Keep in mind that one of the main reasons redirects exist is to save users a single click, so I don't find this argument very compelling. However, I do agree that it's probably an unlikely search term. Mlb96 (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, if someone typed "MHA" looking for My Hero Academia (perhaps out of laziness, not because they don't know the full name) and this redirect appeared in the dropdown, then it would save them the click. Therefore, I say we should keep. Mlb96 (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a reasonable search term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid redirect which might be used out of laziness as pointed out above. Super Ψ Dro 13:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Standard {{R from initialism}} with a disambiguator dudhhrContribs 06:41, 12 July 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.

Stephen Baltz[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 17#Stephen Baltz

Refugee Olympic 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 disambiguate for now, with no prejudice against expansion to a proper article. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to encourage article creation, and because there have been 2 Refugee Olympic teams: 2016 and 2020. As such, a generic article about the team could be created, and the redirect is misleading anyway Joseph2302 (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, there should be a general article for Refugee Olympic Team that explains the team in general, with links to the specific years that have articles. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 13:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Rather than deleting the redirect, could we not just convert it to a disambiguation page until such time that a general article is written? 142.161.113.242 (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With Shhhnotsoloud's support, I'll say disambiguate too then. 142.161.113.242 (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because having the DAB page there still discourages article creation- because it doesn't show as a red link on relevant articles, which is a good way to encourage the article creation. If I supported DABing, I would have just made the DAB page rather than creating this discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page does not prevent it being overwritten by an article in future. Deletion to create a redlink is not an option because there are two ambiguous articles to which the title might refer, and no clear primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion to create a redlink is not an option because there are two ambiguous articles to which the title might refer There are 2 partial matches, and neither of these are the correct target for this redirect. WP:PARTIAL says that partial matches like these shouldn't be included on DAB pages, therefore a DAB page with 2 partial matches is wrong. What we need at some point is for a general summary article to be created. That article is more likely to be created if people see redlinks than if they see a blue link (which is a DAB page). Many users use redlinks in existing articles as a basis for creating articles, and so would not realise an article could/should be created. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguation page could be marked {{Broad-concept article}}, per WP:CONCEPTDAB. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate (draft provided). There are two articles (currently) with this title. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SIA-ify with the goal of eventually having a full article. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:13, 13 July 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.

Liquidmorphium alloy[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 06:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deletion of this redirect. According to this page history, this page was created after a company (calling itself at different times as Turing Space Industries and Turing Robotic Industries) claimed to develop a phone (Turing Phone) made out of this material. Supposedly, at the time the company did not elaborate what they meant by "Liquidmorphium alloy" and how they planned to manufacture it. Supposedly, later the whole project was canceled and some people who made preorders received low-scale production prototypes made out of plastic. Supposedly, there were very few phones manufactured and none of them ever used "Liquidmorphium alloy" or anything related to "Liquidmorphium" and Liquidmetal. Anton.bersh (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, Liquidmetal did discuss this term, but unsourced and seemingly parroting the claims you're talking about, so I just went ahead and removed it. That said, I still think we should keep this. Turing got a fair bit of press coverage (albeit not particularly high-quality coverage) over the liquidmorphium claims, so this remains a plausible search term. While an {{r without mention}} is less than ideal, the similarity of the names, and the fact that liquidmorphium was consistently described as a form of liquidmetal, makes Liquidmetal still a reasonable target. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 13:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for cleaning up Liquidmetal article. I think that keeping redirect from Liquidmorphium alloy to Liquidmetal is undue toward Liquidmetal because it is a miss-characterization of Liquidmetal. Simply put, according to Liquidmetal article, Liquidmetal and Vitreloy are commercial names of a series of amorphous metal alloys and there is no evidence that so-called "Liquidmorphium alloy" ever had any contracts with the owner of "Liquidmetal" brand name. Keeping the redirect would be propagating the mischaracterization. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I still see this as an acceptable {{r from brand name}}, even if there was shadiness involved. Redirects don't have to be neutral. Also, in light of bundling, my logic here applies to the new addition, so keep both. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the subject does not have existence beyond the 3 deleted Turing articles, this has to go too. Jay (Talk) 06:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do the same for the Liquidmorphium redirect. Jay (Talk) 06:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bundled. Jay (Talk) 20:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to a lack of mention. If we keep this, it is an Easter egg at best, harmful at worst for someone searching this and coming to an incorrect or incomplete conclusion due to where they ended up. -- Tavix (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since another redirect was added late to the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per above. The recently added redirect is no different. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:17, 14 July 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_July_10&oldid=1035120343"