Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 13, 2021.

Origin of the name " Windy City"[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 02:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling (a space after a quote). Elli (talk | contribs) 20:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess something linked to it in the past but doesn't seem to now. Support deletion. - Cheers, Burwellian (Talk) 20:44, 13 June 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.

Bartesian[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 02:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bartesian appears to be the name of a cocktail-making machine, but it's not discussed at all at the target. Delete unless a duly-sourced mention can be added at the target. signed, Rosguill talk 17:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as far as I've been able to find, it's mentioned exactly once on Wikipedia - at Fundica.com#2017. The mention there is literally just the name and that they won something (I'm not sure what) at the Waterloo roadshow in 2017. The list is not explicitly sourced (it may be sourced in the previous section, I've not checked) and I'm not convinced it's DUE, but even without that it wouldn't be a useful target for a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 13 June 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.

Hide (pet)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Creator's comment: Commonly used term...
  • "All Living Things® Tiny Tales™ Small Pet Hide | small pet Tunnels & Hideouts".
  • "Small pet hide". Etsy. 2021-06-11. Retrieved 2021-06-13.
  • "Amazon.com : Small Animal Hides". Amazon.com. Retrieved 2021-06-13.
...I just can't find any examples other than sales websites. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's mentioned at Hide (disambiguation)#Common uses, but without a great link (it links to pet and Habit (biology)). I'm leaning towards deletion per WP:REDLINK (adding such a redlink at the dab) but like Invasive Species I'm finding principally sales websites and my first attempt at an alternative search gave me results about why pets hide when they are ill and how to hide pets from one's parents. I've run out of time to do more searching though and it'll likely be Wednesday before I next get chance but I'll try and remember. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to doghouse. Wiktionary's definition is "A covered structure to which a pet animal can retreat, as is recommended for snakes." Doghouses appear to be the only thing matching that definition which we have an article about, and although the term is not mentioned there, it does mention other similar structures for smaller animals. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I suspect anyone using this search query will in fact be looking for Hide (skin). None of the above links are anything close to being a reliable source. Cavalryman (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous (skin?, kennel?, squirrel away?...) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an argument for retargetting to the disambiguation page as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No WP:SIGCOV to warrant an article. This appears to be a commercially created term to help sell products - Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDIC. William Harris (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no good target. Doghouse is also too far away from the meaning. In my youth the main meaning of this kind of hide was "lair", primarily used by hunters about wild animals, not pets. I agree with William Harris (above).  --Bejnar (talk) 22:33, 22 June 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.

Ferrocenium[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 Ferrocene#Redox chemistry – the ferrocenium ion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We also have Ferrocenium hexafluorophosphate, but only the main Ferrocene article discusses the ion itself. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can redirect it to Ferrocene#Redox_chemistry_–_the_ferrocenium_ion. What do you think? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:17, 13 June 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.

Superman and (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 keep most.

This redirect leads to Supergirl (TV series) but was meant for Superman & Lois, but regardless, a better redirect is found at Superman and Lois. Gonnym (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Superman & Lois. It's hard to tell what happened here: I tried to trace the title through multiple moves, moves of a second draft that eventually became the article, a move-without-redirect followed by two unusual bot redirects, and a round-robin move that overwrote one of the drafts after they were promoted. Along with this redirect there are redirects from "Superman and Lois (TV series)" in article and draft space, with all of the iterations you can imagine ("and" vs "&", "series" vs "Series", plus this one that left out Lois, and one where someone started a third draft after the article was already promoted). I'll just say this: it's a complete mess. Curiously this title is very actively used, with 200+ hits in the last 30 days and as many as 28 in a single day; the current target is the result of a bad bot edit but clearly it was meant to point to the Superman and Lois series, not the Supergirl series. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 22:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added in the other redirects for illustrative purposes (not including Superman and Lois (TV Series) which was moved-without-redirect out of process) but I have not (yet) tagged them. The draft redirects probably should be deleted, the others that already target Superman & Lois are fine. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now all tagged for completeness. Some of the old Supergirl redirects are still tagged {{R to section}} which is not correct for any of them. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Superman and (TV Series) as an implausible typo/misnomer (basically, as per WP:R3).
    I would also agree with deleting Draft:Superman and Lois (TV Series) (basically as per WP:R2 and WP:R3).
    Retarget Draft:Superman and Lois to Superman & Lois, and keep the others as is. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    R3 does not apply: none of these redirects are recently created. They're all about a year old, except for Superman and Lois which (along with Superman & Lois) were originally redirects to the article now at Superman and Lois Lane, both created in 2012. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So? This isn't a formal "CSD" discussion – but the basis for my vote on that is correct: that is an completely implausible typo/misnomer (both a missing word and incorrect capitalization on the disambiguation) and that redirect should be deleted on that basis. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the various actions per IJBall. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised !vote, per the discussion above:
-- Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it's not necessary standard practice to delete redirects when moving from Draft to Mainspace – those redirects are kept as often as not.
But I have no objection to your Superman and Lois redirect suggestion – that seems right, and the article has a hatnote to the TV series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know, thanks. In this instance I still favour deletion: the drafts weren't necessarily created under titles referring to the articles where they eventually ended up, so besides not really being all that useful, they're also confusing. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PEIsquirrel and IJBall: because I understand this to be standard practice when promoting articles that is almost exactly backwards, in accordance with WP:RDRAFT such redirects are invariable retained. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my input:
Delete Superman and (TV Series) as incorrect / improbable title and housekeeping
Delete Superman & Lois (TV Series) as housekeeping capitalization of Series
Delete Draft:Superman and Lois (TV Series) as housekeeping capitalization of Series
Boldly fix redirects to Supergirl to point to Superman & Lois
The main article seems to carry the bulk of the edits in 2019 and 2020. If at that time the article was still in draft, then consider retaining the Draft:Superman and Lois and Draft:Superman & Lois AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't usually do this, but I'm going to both relist and delete the two from this batch for which I see clear consensus to delete (Superman and (TV Series) and Draft:Superman and Lois (TV Series)). Further comments after the relist...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comments that include pings:
  • Only one of the remaining redirects points to Supergirl (TV series). I assume there's no reason for that to be the case, whether there's consensus to retarget to Superman & Lois or to delete. I recommend invoking WP:NCRET if appropriate for it. Pinging keep voters IJBall and Favre1fan93—I'm making the assumption that no one actually wants these pointing to Supergirl, but I could be wrong on that.
  • Ivanvector's squirrel: Your third revised bullet-point vote seems to be recommending a double redirect; I assume you mean Superman & Lois.
This is indeed a WP:TRAINWRECK, but since it hadn't been relisted yet, I thought I could try to steer it back onto rails, and drop dead weight in the process. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BDD, you're right, thanks for pointing out that error. I've revised. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Superman and Lois (while redirecting Superman & Lois to it). English is confusing enough without adding Roman bastardized symbols to the mix. Whil it is true that some folk will come here searching for the article using the ampersand, the vast majority will not. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Sebastian (talk • contribs) 03:27, 14 June 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.

Taylor Swift Discography[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 Taylor Swift#Discography. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either retarget this to the target of Taylor Swift discography (Taylor Swift#Discography) or vice versa. Sun8908 Talk 15:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Eureka Lott. I agree that's a better starting spot than jumping to a disambiguation page. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or retarget. "Discography" is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized, and Taylor Swift discography is already a redirect, so I see no use for this redirect, but if consensus is for the redirect to stay, then retargeting to Taylor Swift#Discography is the best bet. Striking per Thryduulf's comment as I did not know that. I support retargeting the article to Taylor Swift#Discography per nom. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC) (updated 00:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Firstly incorrect capitalisation redirects are harmless, and secondly this is the original title for the content now at the albums discography page. It was first moved to the discography title and then to the present title after the content was split. Taylor Swift discography was retargetted to Taylor Swift#Discography a couple of hours after the move in October last year. Thryduulf (talk) 23:59, 13 June 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 Bob Thompson[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 02:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "Billy Bob Thompson" is only briefly mentioned in the infobox of the target. "Billy Bob Thompson" might be notable enough for an article, but this redirect makes no sense. A dozen or so articles link to this redirect. 108.56.139.120 (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - clearly a valid redirect, as the individual is mentioned in the target article. Onel5969 TT me 14:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If all it takes is a mere mention to be a valid target, what makes this target the correct one versus the dozen or so other articles that mention him? 108.56.139.120 (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Billy Bob Thompson is only briefly mentioned in the Greninja article. You also learn nothing about Thompson from the Greninja article (besides, I guess, that he voiced Greninja) so it's not a helpful redirect. Tfkalk (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:XY. He's mentioned for his voice acting in a lot of articles, so this does clear harm in obscuring that for readers. (N.b., I checked to see if Greninja was his only voiced character for a standalone article—not that that would change my position—but it's not. There's at least Mimikyu.) --BDD (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he voices more than just that one specific Pokemon character, but it's hard to tell if he would meet notability in general as he's mostly supporting roles. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reason 10. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are numerous pages that idly mention this person in passing, in the same way they're mentioned in passing in the current target. Search results are better. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:26, 15 June 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.

T:TL[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 11:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently created template of a format that has been effectively deprecated since 2014. The problem with these redirects is that they are in mainspace (so interfere with reader searches), and – unlike regular template redirects – can't easily be used in transclusions. – Uanfala (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Uanfala. There is no reason at all to create new redirects in this style. Gonnym (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: You're right. The category only contains around 10 entries, most of which were created a long time ago as far as I can tell. I wasn't aware of the consensus at the RFC at the time, because I hadn't done proper research before I created the redirect. I'll try to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. Opal|zukor(discuss) 13:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are around 70 existing redirects of this format (there are 75 redirects with the T: prefix [1], but some of them point to articles). Some of them probably wouldn't survive if nominated at RfD, but the majority are established, grandfathered redirects to pages that only happen to reside in template space but are actually more akin to project pages (esp. the DYK-related ones). But yeah, this is a closed class of redirects and it's not meant to grow – but the rule to this effect is pretty obscure and not many people are aware of it (I, for example, had been here for years before I found out about it). – Uanfala (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Shortcut redirects are only appropriate to templates where people commonly view the template itself rather than a transclusion/substitution (e.g. T:ACOT). This template is not one of those. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 14 June 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.

"Christopher Desloges"[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 11:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per recent consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 3. The page was moved from this title seven minutes after creation and is only impeding full-mention search. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:19, 13 June 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.

"Cheryl Savageau"[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 11:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per recent consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 3. The page was moved from this title 13 minutes after creation and is only impeding full-mention search. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:18, 13 June 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.

"Carla Denyer"[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 11:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per recent consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 3. The page was moved from this title three minutes after creation and is only impeding full-mention search. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:17, 13 June 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.

"Battler Britton"[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 12:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per recent consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 3. The page was moved from this title within a minute after creation and is only impeding full-mention search. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 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.

"Antoni Milina"[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 12:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per recent consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 3. The page was moved from this title within a minute after creation and is only impeding full-mention search. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:15, 13 June 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.

"Angel Nafis"[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 12:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per recent consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 3. The page was moved from this title a minute after creation and is only impeding full-mention search. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:10, 13 June 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.

"Amanda Cassatt"[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 12:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per recent consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 3. The page was moved from this title four minutes after creation and is only impeding full-mention search. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:07, 13 June 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.

"Aaron Heffernan"[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 12:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per recent consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 3. The page was moved from this title within 30 seconds after creation and is only impeding full-mention search. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:06, 13 June 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.

Oyata[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 the first to Ryū-te, the second to Adachi, Tokyo#Districts and neighborhoods. ✗plicit 12:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retarget of first redirect to Ryū-te. Propose deletion of second redirect. This martial artist, who founded Ryū-te, is not a location in Tokyo. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Oyata to Ryū-te and tag as R from avoided double redirect of Seiyu Oyata, since the person appears to be the primary topic for the name. Retarget Oyata, Tokyo per 61.239.39.90. Consider a hatnote from the former. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the Retargets per Paul. The Tokyo neighbourhood may be more notable than the South Sudan village mentioned at Lokoya language, since it has an article in the ja Wikipedia. - Jay (Talk) 13:00, 13 June 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.

1989 (Taylor's Version)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 20#1989 (Taylor's Version)

Great Great East Japan Earthquake[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 11:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see how this would be plausible as a search term. The only way it makes sense to me is if there was already a "Great East Japan Earthquake" and the 2011 event topped it. Apparently this was a mistake made by a minor newpaper in Oakland (Michigan, not California). The link used in the edit summary does not work for me and I found zero external uses of the phrase when Googling. -- Tavix (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I wanted to re-read the article but found it was not archived, not on the wayback machine nor on archive.today. That's why it's important to back up the sources one uses :( WhisperToMe (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is. I don't see the mistake there though. Why was the redirect created in the first place when term was known to be a mistake by a minor newspaper? https://www.theoaklandpress.com/news/japanese-consulate-to-mark-anniversary-of-2011-quake-thank-supporters/article_df9aebf3-c584-53fe-9862-d5f3ccba0eeb.html - Jay (Talk) 05:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: I created such redirects because that if this publication made this mistake, an ordinary editor/user plausibly could as well WhisperToMe (talk) 14:44, 13 June 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.

2011 JAPAN TSUNAMI AND QUAKE.[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 11:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the combination of all caps + a period to an article not stylized that way. -- Tavix (talk) 01:37, 13 June 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_June_13&oldid=1030812677"