Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 18, 2021.

The Bachelor Summer Games[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. MBisanz talk 19:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This spin-off to The Bachelor onto a counterpart of The Bachelor Winter Games cancelled following the postponement of the 2020 Summer Olympics to July 2021. There were no other alternative programming due to the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the television industry into the early days of March 2020. ApprenticeWiki work 22:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Useless redirect of a cancelled show. Heart (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is mentioned at target and being cancelled does not mean we should erase mention of it. For whatever reason, the Bachelor is very popular so it's plausible that someone would be looking for info on the cancelled show. I note that it's had 4,727 views in the past year. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 14:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per El Cid. Well used redirect that leads to a directly relevant target with relevant information. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for those reason that the spin-off got actually cancelled in March 2020 as the coronavirus was getting rapidly and deteriorated in worldwide infections. Here is the several sources why the show has cancelled: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. There are no plans to revive the show after the original host Chris Harrison did leave the franchise in April 2021 following a series of racial controversy in early 2021. Cancelled series/shows don't usually have redirects. ApprenticeWiki work 22:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What matters is not whether or why it was cancelled, but whether we have any content about it. If we have content about something for which unambiguous search terms exist then there are no problems at all with having redirects to that content. Whether other cancelled shows have redirects is also irrelevant, redirects are judge on their own merits - this redirect is a demonstrably useful search term therefore it should be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per El Cid, there is useful information relevant to this search term at the target. signed, Rosguill talk 04:56, 29 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.

🍜[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 Ramen#Emoji. MBisanz talk 20:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I am sorry to say, but for the "Shallow Pan of Food" emoji has had just one RfD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_21#🥘 and we got to redirect the "Shallow Pan of Food" emoji to a section of the Paella article. For this "Steaming Bowl" emoji, I have sent more than one RfD discussion and is everytime being closed as "No Consensus", and during Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 25#🍜 the last discussion, we were "almost" getting a consensus to redirect to Ramen#Emoji. This is not helpful. We need the same consensus here as in the Shallow Pan of Food discussion so that we can redirect the "Steaming Bowl" emoji to the corresponding section of the Ramen article. The name of the emoji does not equate its primary use. 🥘 is called "Shallow Pan of Food", but its primary use is for the Spanish dish "Paella". Similarly, 🍜 is called "Steaming Bowl", but its primary use is for the Japanese dish "Ramen". Looking at [6], it was an anonymous user who changed the redirect from Ramen to Bowl in 2015 without any discussion. My first step here is to ping the emoji experts Gorobay, JPxG, 1234qwer1234qwer4, and Gaioa as well as the participants of the discussion Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_6#🥘, the admin Tavix as well as Bkonrad, Patar knight, and The Mysterious El Willstro, to form a consensus. And see this link too, concerning all Japan related emojis. Neel.arunabh (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Ramen#Emoji, which discusses the character. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above and LaundryPizza03. (By the way, I'm referred to as an emoji expert? I'm humbled, but not sure what earned me that kind of street cred) Gaioa (T C L) 08:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is because I saw you as the page creator of some of the emoji redirects. Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ramen#Emoji per LaundryPizza03. --Lenticel (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set index (or keep). I'm not sure why the content is at Ramen rather than a page that explains the various uses of this emjoi in addition that that one because it's only tangentially relevant there. A page like Stuffed flatbread is what we should be aiming for here as the most encyclopaedic and, unlike redirecting to Ramen (which I oppose), not misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I’ve been pinged as an emoji expert, here’s some history of this code point. It was originally meant to correspond to an emoji (code e-963) called “どんぶり” (donburi) or “ラーメン” (ramen) by different vendors. That is why the name is the generic “STEAMING BOWL” instead of “RAMEN”. The Japanese national body therefore requested that the representative glyph be changed to be less noodle-specific (which was done) and later noted that the glyph didn’t match the annotation “rice donburi” (which led to the removal of that annotation). Most vendors render it as specifically noodles, but it is originally supposed to be vague about exactly what the hot food in the bowl is. I don’t think a set index for “Japanese foods served hot in bowls” would be encyclopedic. Therefore, I think it would be best to keep the interwiki (whose definition is incomplete, but that can be fixed). A redirect to Ramen#Emoji wouldn’t be too bad (though I don’t prefer it) if it explained that the emoji was not proposed in 2009 for ramen (as it currently misleadingly claims) though it is most commonly depicted as ramen. Gorobay (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A bowl of ramen?
  • Retarget to Curling#Curling stone. It's clearly depicting a curling stone. I don't know how you get ramen from this, unless ramen is part of the bonspiel purse. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PEIsquirrel That emoji is under the "Asian Food" subcategory of the main category "Food and Drink". It is certainly not a "Curling Stone" as you claim. Neel.arunabh (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be subcategorized however you say, but the glyph is a clear depiction of a curling stone. I saw in my watchlist an icon of a plain solid object with a rounded base, a coloured top section, and a colourized handle attached and anchored to the base off-centre, exactly what a curling stone looks like, and I 100% expected to find here a discussion about which curling topic to retarget it to. I'm honestly astounded that anyone sees this icon and connects it to a noodle dish. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PEIsquirrel You are looking at the wrong icon. Look carefully at the at the pictures shown in [7]. They are completely different from the image you have shown. The emoji for "Curling Stone" is 🥌. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not talking about images rendered on an external site, or what formal title or categorization a knowledgeable person can look up in an external directory, we're talking about the page title as it renders on Wikipedia, and that is 🍜. I see how the blown-up version looks like grasping a noddle dish with chopsticks and that's likely what the glyph as rendered here is meant to represent, but isn't ramen more commonly eaten with a spoon, like a soup? See [8] for example. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PEIsquirrel How it renders "on Wikipedia" depends entirely upon which browser, operating system and font you use while visiting the site. Wikipedia doesn't render the emoji - it just passes the Unicode to the browser. A few examples of how the emoji looks on different platforms - https://twitter.com/emojipedia/status/1078595419268091905. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So we agree that the rendering is subjective. In my browser (currently Firefox 89.0.2 on Windows 10 Pro 20H2) it renders as an image that I interpreted as a curling rock. It did not render with additional text or metadata or a popover or whatever that would give me more information to determine that it's actually an image of a bowl of noodles. If a reader clicks on a tiny image that looks like a curling rock (in their view) they will be quite astonished to be taken to information on an Asian culinary dish, just as they would be if curling rock took them there. You can keep telling me that the picture isn't a curling rock, and I completely understand why you're saying it, but to me this only proves that 🍜 is a representation of ramen only when a myriad of external factors and pre-knowledge are taken into account, which is not how titles are supposed to work. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector and PEIsquirrel: To me it also looks more like a curling stone than a ramen bowl at a cursory glance, but I disagree that targeting the reader to Curling#Curling stone is the right idea. The reader searching up this emoji is likely looking for information on what it means. I think that targeting the redirect to a curling page would mislead the reader as to the (official) meaning of the redirect. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I guess. Emoji Redirects like this are probably little used, but Redirects in general are also very cheap. They take up very little server space. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, but in the "Shallow Pan of Food" discussion, you were the last to participate and your comment there was " Refine to Paella#In popular culture per Tavix and per Patar Knight. That Section of that Article, by the way, was added after this debate opened. Also, I wasn't aware of the Section when I wrote my previous (now stricken) vote.", which contradicts your comment above here. There is a reason why I pinged only select participants of that discussion. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's been a long time since I looked at this (or any other) Emoji Redirect. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, redirecting to wiktionary is informative and avoids any possible confusion or surprise. I'm not convinced that the local content at Ramen#Emoji is really due for inclusion, as it appears to rely solely on an Emojipedia entry. signed, Rosguill talk 04:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Local redirects are better than cross-project redirects. Neel.arunabh (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not when the content we have locally is unencyclopedic and undue, and where the emoticon's rendering is subjective per Ivanvector. Repeatedly nominating this redirect for discussion when the status quo is perfectly reasonable is starting to border on disruption. signed, Rosguill talk 20:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, see Mazca's comment in the previous discussion, "While it's a "steaming bowl" rather than "bowl of ramen" in a technical sense, the small section there does give that information. The wiktionary link, while fine, offers no real further information compared to that sentence (and, if anything, confirms that its primary use is in the sense of "ramen"), and it is preferable to avoid a cross-project redirect when we do have broadly equivalent local content.". Neel.arunabh (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To all those !voting keep. This is consistently getting 250 hits a month. That's extremely high for a local redirect and so very clearly this is something people are looking for. We obviously don't want an article on this topic so a cross-project redirect is the exact worst thing we can do for readers here - our job is to educate people and we don't do that by using a cross-project redirect and giving them (if they are lucky) unhelpful search results. Neel.arunabh (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We obviously don't want an article on this topic so a cross-project redirect is the exact worst thing we can do for readers here - our job is to educate people and we don't do that by using a cross-project redirect and giving them (if they are lucky) unhelpful search results. This argument doesn't make any sense. Do you understand how cross-project redirects work? signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I tried to mimic a similar statement that was made in the iPhone 9 deletion discussion, which said We obviously don't want an article on this topic so a redlink is the exact worst thing we can do for readers here - our job is to educate people and we don't do that by deleting the redirect and giving them (if they are lucky) unhelpful search results. . Neel.arunabh (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A soft redirect (which is what a cross-project redirect is) and a redlink are completely different things - compare Anglocentrism and Snapology. A soft redirect directs users to content on a sister project that is about/directly relevant to their search term, a redlink will (depending on a few factors) either invite someone to create a page and/or show search results, which may or may not be relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neel.arunabh: you are not allowed to relist a discussion in which you are WP:INVOLVED. Accordingly, I have reverted this relist. -- Tavix (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But what shows whether I am WP:INVOLVED or not? Neel.arunabh (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are considered "involved" in any discussion in which you have expressed an opinion. -- Tavix (talk) 16:04, 31 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.

Limobike[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 26#Limobike

Shepherd's Bush Green tube station[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Stations around Shepherd's Bush. MBisanz talk 00:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking this to Redirects for Discussion and proposing this gets deleted because there are two problems with this redirect:

  • There are two stations that are near Shepherd's Bush Green, they are Shepherd's Bush tube station and Shepherd's Bush Market tube station, this can cause some confusion because Shepherd's Bush tube station is not the only tube station near Shepherd's Bush Green
  • Neither Shepherd's Bush tube station nor Shepherd's Bush Market tube station have ever been historically called "Shepherd's Bush Green tube station" which makes this redirect pointless Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Retarget to Stations around Shepherd's Bush which explains the geography and history, mentioning the green several times. The current target likely exists because the original proposals to disambiguate the Central and H&C stations would have seen the Central line station renamed "Shapherd's Bush Green", and this found it's way onto some signs [9]. Ideally this would be covered in the history article and the article about the Central line station, but I can't immediately find an unambiguously reliable source ([10] is the best so far). Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: I think a retarget sounds like a great idea and an idea that I would support. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf's very good suggestion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:44, 21 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.

Berlioz and Debussy[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. ✗plicit 23:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two composers names shouldn't be a redirect to an Album with music by them. It just doesn't make sense. Suggest deletion of the redirect. Aza24 (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete many many musicians have performed works by these composers at the same concert or on the same recording Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete might cause confusion at best --Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I sympathize with the editor who set up the redirect in the first place. Choosing a name for an article about a classical album can be far from easy. In the case of this particular disc, the title on the spine of the CD is "Berlioz/Debussy, Frederica von Stade"; on the front of the CD, the title is "Frederica von Stade: Berlioz: Nuits d'été; Debussy: La damoiselle élue". To me, it seems that the most sensible and helpful title for Wikipedia's article about the album would be "Berlioz: Nuits d'été & Debussy: La damoiselle élue (Frederica von Stade album)". But of course, Wikipedia's protocol demands that the titles of articles should be no longer than is necessary to avoid ambiguity, and thus it was entirely reasonable of User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars to retitle the article Berlioz and Debussy on the grounds that Wikipedia had no other article bracketing the two composers' names together. What is needed, I think, is for Wikipedia's classical music specialists to agree a new naming protocol especially for articles about classical albums, although I doubt that this well ever happen - many classically oriented Wikipedians think that the encyclopaedia's coverage of classical recordings should be limited to lists. Niggle1892 (talk) 06:39, 19 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.

Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations)[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. ✗plicit 23:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect to section of WP:Notability (media), a page which has never had anything more than essay status. There is a current proposal to elevate Notability (media) to guideline status, which is being heavily rejected. The content of that page is actively contrary to consensus on the subject.

This shortcut has the appearance of leading to a Notability guideline. The likelihood of confusion far outweighs any minuscule value it might have as a shortcut-to-a-section of an anti-consensus essay. If and when we have a subject specific Notability guideline (or guideline section) for "TV and radio shows" we will need to use this page for that purpose. Alsee (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as several historical AfDs link here. This actually appears to be the former title of the Notability (media) page per the historical User:Pixelface/Timeline of notability guidelines. As to NMEDIA... It's in an odd place after the discussion. Much of it certainly seems to be an essay at this point, but the radio and TV programming sections are more generally accepted and TV is in the process of spinning out its own SNG to come to an RfC soon. I don't want to downgrade it on the whole to an essay if that negatively impacts the programming area (which was mostly untouched in the text proposal, as a note). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep essays with this naming are allowed. If people don't click through the redirect, that's on them - it's not particularly misleading. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: This is still a "explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline", so.....what? The rewrite was closed. The explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline remains. Nothing has changed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There appears to be lots of precedent for non-guidelines using the title Wikipedia:Notability (X). For example, WP:NMEDIA, WP:NPERIODICAL, WP:NTV, WP:NVG, WP:NJOURNAL, WP:NEARTHQUAKE. I don't think it'd be appropriate to begin renaming/deleting articles/redirects that use this title that are not guidelines. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:02, 19 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.

Assrape[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 26#Assrape

Indian National Congress (Amarinder)[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. ✗plicit 23:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an implausible thing to type when the target is just Indian National Congress. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless the creator can offer a compelling explanation. The extraneous "(Amarinder)" appears to make it an utterly implausible search term. Alsee (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not clear why the redirect was created. Jay (Talk) 15:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks like a disambiguation referring to perhaps a local party or division of the Indian National Congress, but there are no geographical places with this name we have articles about (and the chances of us not having an article about a place in India large enough to have a notable division of a major political party are infinitesimal), so my first impression was clearly wrong. Google suggests this and the also nominated Indian National Congress (Sidhu) relate to Amarinder Singh and Navjot Singh Sidhu, Punjab politicians who seem to have some sort of notably poor relationship [11], which makes we wonder if this referred to factions of the party but the target article doesn't tell me this, nor does Politics of Punjab, India (Sidhu is not even mentioned in either article), List of Indian National Congress breakaway parties implies there have been no breakaways since 2016 (the Amarinder/Sidhu thing seems to entirely postdate that) and while Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee does mention Sidhu, the article is entirely lists and tables and explains nothing relevant. The two biographies mention the other only in the context of preceding/succeeding/superior office holders, so they're not useful either. So either these are not useful search terms and should be deleted as such, or they are useful search terms for which we have no relevant content and so should be deleted to prevent misrepresenting that we do. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 25 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.

Indian National Congress (Sidhu)[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. ✗plicit 23:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an implausible term to type when the target is just Indian National Congress Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:22, 18 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.

Surfing at the Olympics[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. ✗plicit 23:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title is not related to the specific Olympics in the target. Animal lover 666 (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is a tricky one: 2020 is the debut appearance of surfing at the Olympics, so it's technically accurate, but once or if surfing happens at another Olympics in 4 years, it will be inaccurate again. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It can be overwritten by an article in future if necessary. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with everyone - the redirect is currently a bit weird, but it's nonetheless pointing to the right place and it will presumably be overwritten with a new target page once there have been multiple Olympic Surfings. (Surfings? Is that a proper word lolz?) Alsee (talk) 05:18, 19 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.

Surfing at the Summer Olympics[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 per above. ✗plicit 23:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This title is not related to the specific Olympics in the target. Animal lover 666 (talk) 14:10, 18 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.

2020 Sapporo Marathon[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 Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics#Olympic stadium and venues. MBisanz talk 00:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent reason on the target article for this redirect, tarhet section doesn't exist. Animal lover 666 (talk) 13:37, 18 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.

Reclamation law[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. ✗plicit 13:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Newlands Reclamation Act, the law creating the Bureau of Reclamation, a better target than the agency itself? Or, given that "reclamation law" is a general term for a subcategory of Category:Land law, should the redirect be deleted and thus become a red link to a future article? Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 10:41, 18 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.

Billy Cosby[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. ✗plicit 13:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that anyone refers to Bill Cosby as "Billy" or would search for him under this name. Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. Jay (Talk) 07:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no character named Billy that is named after him. Not a nickname used. The only one that can be retained here is William as full name. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – His name is universally known as Bill Cosby. He does not refer to himself as Billy, nor does anyone else. Retaining the Billy Cosby as redirect makes it possible that Wikipedia editors include that name as a link in articles (either by accident or intentionally), thus introducing error. Further, anyone searching for "Billy Cosby" won't be left stranded, as shown here. For these reasons, deletion is warranted. Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 10:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Senator2029's points, this is going to introduce error. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I want to delete, I wish we could delete, but Tamzin's search results show that there are in fact a shocking number of Reliable Sources somehow making this error. WTF? It is entirely credible that someone will view one of the many botched news stories then show up here looking for "Billy Cosby". The entire reason we have redirects is to help those people who are too clueless to enter the right title. Alsee (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin's findings. Redirects do not have to be technically correct, they have to be plausible search terms. Widespread errors and misconsceptions make plausible search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above, more or less; it's not his name, but Billy is a form of Bill, and there is no other reasonable target (I don't count William Cosby). While I think a lot of times it's just a typo, the name does appear in RS. If you want to nominate Dave Bowie, though, I'd support deletion there. --‡ El cid, el campeador talk 15:10, 20 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.

Kevin Jenkins[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. ✗plicit 09:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether this should be deleted entirely, but none of the wikilinks for this page really relate to its redirect target. Bangalamania (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are hundreds of names in the List of Grange Hill characters article; all could potentially be created as redirects, which wouldn't have much of a point. It's likely that a name or two here could match with someone notable, requiring disambiguation and creating further confusion. There's also a chance that the reader could be searching for an unrelated person with the same name. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous and likely to lead to confusion. A Search for "Kevin Jenkins" returns 55 articles. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:52, 18 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.

Hertevin[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 Changed to article. (non-admin closure) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted to encourage article creation as it's the name of a notable settlement; see fr:Hartevin. (t · c) buidhe 23:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added a tag for translation. The only mention (apart from current target) of Hertevin as a village is one word in the Assyrian Genocide. There is no mention of it even in the Siirt articles where the village is located. Jay (Talk) 08:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 18 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_18&oldid=1116028038"