Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 10[edit]

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

Template:Медаль Жукова[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. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to have foreign language redirects in template-space; unused. There's a few dozen of these I'll nominate it if looks like there's consensus to delete this. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is the name of corresponding template on the Russian Wikipedia. This sort of redirects, which include for example {{Citar livro}} and {{Coloré}}, are occasionally created to assist editors when translating pages from other Wikipedias. – Uanfala (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the name of the medal in it's native language, so there's enough connection between the template and the Russian language to justify a Russian language redirect, per WP:RFOREIGN, in my opinion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not in English and highly unlikely to be used by editors and I do not think WP:RFOREIGN applies to templates 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only reason for foreign-language templates on the English Wikipedia is when they are basically a wrapper for the English template, taking input from foreign-named parameters and passing them to the English-named equivalents. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:🌸 1.Ayana 🌸. 053pvr (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Uanfala and 86.23.109.101. I do not see the harm in maintaining the few dozen such redirects of this that exist, except maybe to stave off the notion that these are acceptable in all cases or should be created akin where possible en masse (but that is unlikely and not a reason to delete). @Thryduulf: That may not have happened in this case, but was it based on the foreign template?; at the least, Elli, I might suggest being careful and looking into the background of each redirect before you group them all together (maybe smaller groups by situation, or some may be acceptable). That aside, is it implausible that editors might search for a template under the foreign name? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Godsy: is it implausible that editors might search for a template under the foreign name? yes. Especially given that any two non-English Wikipedias may use the same name for different templates the only reliable way to find out the name of the English template when you only know/remember the non-English equivalent is to look up that template on the relevant non-English Wikipedia and follow the interwiki links. This also means neither Wikipedia has to know about renames, mergers, etc of templates on other Wikipedias in order to maintain template redirects on their own wiki. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Godsy: the only redirects I would nominate are unused. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep foreign language redirects like this are useful for e.g. if someone was translating articles related to this from Russian Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How? They have to translate all the article text anyway, and the Russian template redirect working just disguises the need to translate the template call too. If it is left in the article it becomes an unnecessary barrier to non-Russian speakers while providing no benefit. If someone doesn't know the name of the template on the English Wikipedia then they can look at the interwikis from the Russian Wikipedia template or ask someone. Not so applicable to this template, but for any template that takes parameters a redirect that doesn't translate the parameter names offers no benefit over a redlink (other than being potentially harder to identify), a mix of working and non-working templates also makes the job of checking the article unnecessarily harder and any templates that happen to share their name with a different template on any other language wiki could lead to unnecessary confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others above. No reason to have this template around when it is clearly unused and unnecessary. CycloneYoris talk! 09:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems harmless, and useful for translating articles to English. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:43, 27 March 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.

Rep. of the Philippines[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 19:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a pretty useless redirect. The target is the vague overview of the entire country, and this term could be used in many different instances, including several which could be official positions of the government. Onel5969 TT me 18:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Onel5969, I don't know whether you recognised this, but it can also stand for Republic of the Philippines (in which case the target is justified) as well as Representative of the Philippines. It's a question now of what it stands for in most instances. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi J947 - yes I did realize that, it was part of the point I obviously didn't make well enough, about how it could point to several different things, not just the article about the nation. Onel5969 TT me 00:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In addition to being ambiguous, it seems a highly unlikely term for anyone to type, and if they do type something so specific they're probably looking for a more specific meaning of some kind. CMD (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Representative of the Philippines with hatnote to Republic of the Philippines per argument of "User:J947". Putting a hatnote on "Republic of the Philippines" would be too disruptive. 053pvr (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Rep. of the Philippines" almost always means "Republic of the Philippines", not "Representative of the Philippines" which is not used to refer to Members of the House of Representatives; either they're called ("Foo" being the name of the district) "Foo Congressman" or "Foo Representative" or "Party-list representative". "Representative of the Philippines" may be used for an actual representative of the Philippines in a competition on organization, but that doesn't deserve a redirect. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:15, 17 March 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.

Yuri Jardine[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, possible BLPCRIME concerns. I think that the redirect should be deleted unless there is consensus to add a mention at the target. signed, Rosguill talk 17:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If there's no explanation at the target, then this is a BLP issue. In particular, a web search turns up several somewhat people named "Yuri Jardine" who are not the one connected to this case, so an unexplained redirect is a BLP problem with respect to them as well. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the ip editor. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible. 053pvr (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - concerns of defamation. Bearian (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - BLP concerns, neither target or original article gain much from the mention of the name. Mujinga (talk) 09:32, 18 March 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.

Meteorology/Books[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 24#Meteorology/Books

Metereologia[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 19:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate non-english redirects per WP:FORRED. Nothing particularly Spanish/French/Portuguese about the concept of Meteorology 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-English redirects from a since-blocked editor. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 23:00, 10 March 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.

List of weather-related disasters[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 List of disasters#Natural disasters. signed, Rosguill talk 19:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current target of this redirect is clearly inappropriate as there is no list of weather-related disasters in the article, but I found two possible targets. Natural disaster#Meteorological disasters lists various types of disasters, while List of natural disasters by death toll lists various events. Which one should this target? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of natural disasters by death toll, which contains weather related disasters as well as some others. The current target is not useful, and I think that readers searching for this are more likely to want a list of incidents than a list of types of disasters. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of disasters#Natural disasters where the reader can find lists related to specific types of weather event or the broader list of natural disasters by death toll. Neither is more likely to be useful than the other so we should not presume. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per "User:Thryduulf". 053pvr (talk) 05:17, 13 March 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.

MUSEA (Music School of Eastern Africa) (disambiguation)[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 19:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is this redirect totally implausible, consisting of an initialism disambiguated by its expanded form with an additional "(disambiguation)" appended (even though the title does not seem to be ambiguous); this is not even mentioned at the target. A mention may be added per List of university and college schools of music, but this redirect should be deleted. I also think Music School of Eastern Africa should better not be created, as the list does not provide any further information and the redlink there encourages article creation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:49, 10 March 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.

(identifier) wikidata soft redirects[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 WDQ to Wikidata, retarget PIC to New York Public Library#Website and digital holdings , delete FNZA. While there were a fair amount of editors who professed neutrality for redirects other than WDQ, among those who did opine about PIC or FNZA there apppears to be a rough consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 21:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The plain soft redirect template, i.e. {{soft redirect}}, is not used in the mainspace (WP:SOFTSIS). I heavily caution against retaining these soft redirects to Wikidata: and suggest deleting them along the lines of WP:NOTDIR. These seemingly do little for readers and might confuse or surprise them (the format of Wikidata may seem foreign to what they are expecting etc.). However, if these are deemed appropriate, then a new specialized soft redirect template is due to excise these occurrences of the plain soft redirect template from the mainspace ({{Wikidata redirect}} is a redirect category). I would be happy to handle that aspect if it is determined that these should be kept. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. These have numerous incoming links due to Module:Authority control; other redirects there target appropriate mainspace articles. I can't see any suitable target article for Find New Zealand Artists. Retarget PIC to New York Public Library consistent with Photographers' Identities Catalog. Retarget WQI (Wikidata Q identifier) to Wikidata. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I first saw AnomieBOT III placing {{soft redirect}} on WDQ (identifier) here; I assumed it was configured properly, and propagated that change to the 2 other #Rs listed above. I have no problem replacing {{soft redirect}} with #REDIRECT [[:d:Q43649390]], as originally intended prior to AnomieBOT III.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That won't actually redirect, which is why {{soft redirect}} exists in the first place. If {{soft redirect}} should not be used in some instance, feel free to replace it with the appropriate specialized template, or turn it into an appropriate stub article, or delete it. Anomie⚔ 20:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Anomie: The appropriate specialized soft redirect template does not exist at this time (i.e. there are no other soft redirects to Wikidata in the mainspace besides the ones listed here at this time), but I would be happy to create it should it be deemed that any of these should be retained as soft redirects (tried to say that in the nomination but it may not have came across clearly). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support creation of of an appropriate template.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason these 3 #Rs exist is not against WP:NOTDIR - they are but 3 exceptions to the "<ID> (identifier)" Module:Authority control #R convention, whose #Rs were created by Matthiaspaul & myself.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 
  • The general purpose of these "(identifier) redirects" instead of direct links is to reduce the clutter at "What links here" and improve reverse lookup capabilities. They are used by citation templates, authority control templates, catalog lookup link templates, infoboxes and various other templates, and they should point to the corresponding Wikipedia page explaining the identifier. They should only be used in conjunction with identifiers, not for "normal" links to the target page.
Until recently, all these redirects actually resolved to Wikipedia pages, and this should definitely remain the default in order to not undermine the idea. In rare cases, where an identifier redirect needs to be created although we don't yet have a good target page in Wikipedia, I think, we can extend the idea and let it temporarily point to the corresponding Wikidata entry, but this should remain the exception.
"WDQ (identifier)" should be changed back to point to our Wikipedia article on Wikidata.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for further discussion of most recent comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is cosnensus to retarget WDQ (identifier) and PIC (identifier) to the article targets identified, but further discussion about FNZA (identifier) is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To clarify, I support the deletion of FNZA (identifier). If it is kept ({{soft redirect}} is not used in the mainspace), it will trigger the creation of a a new specialized soft redirect template for redirects to wikidata. I have concerns that the existence of such a template will lead to the idea that such redirects are acceptable sometimes, e.g. against certain notions. There are currently no redirects to wikidata in the mainspace; is sending readers there something the community wishes to endorse? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Godsy: To be honest, we might just consider having a catch-all sister project soft redirect template for {{Wikispecies redirect}} and Wikidata. We only have one Wikispecies soft redirect, and the template isn't the most popular (see also: here and here). It could say something generic and explain that the target page isn't actually an article but still may contain useful information on a sister website. Just a thought there. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, it would also have to explain that this soft redirect is only used in exceptional circumstances and per consensus. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: I like the idea of warning text of sorts on the template that "explains that the target page is not actually an article but still may contain useful information on a sister site." However, I prefer seperate templates. It keeps the coding simple & easily editable and does not require auto-detection or an extra parameter to specify which site (easier on those applying the templates who are not familiar with it and even me because that is something I monitor and often end up fixing). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Godsy: In that case, then I think we'll need a new Wikidata template. I drew something up for you to see what I propose in practice. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: Yeah; I based the ones for wikibooks, wikispecies, and commons off the ones that existed prior to that. More than happy to sort out the specifics with you, if this redirect ends up being kept. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Godsy: we already have {{Wikidata redirect}} which is in the same vein as {{Wiktionary redirect}} etc (though it is currently also used on hard redirects, which I'm working on changing). The wording could realistically be changed to indicate Wikidata as the only target, but... yeah, not sure if we should do that. But there is no need for a new template here. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elli: {{Wikidata redirect}} isn't meant for this use case though. It's more of a type of WP:RCAT than a soft redirect template. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: it's meant for both and is named like a soft redirect template. I think the rcat and soft redirect functionality should be split, personally (you can see various discussions about this on the talk). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elli: I am familiar with the rcat template. I could not quite follow what you are getting at; from what I could glean, I seemingly disagree in many regards. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it premature to discuss how to implement a hypothetical keep closure before the discussion is closed. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At this length, you're making a fair point (hence, my hesitance to discuss certain matters further at this time in reply above). My intention was merely to mention that, regardless of what happens, this will not remain a plain {{soft redirect}} and the potential repercussive waves that such a new specialized template might cause. Nothing more, nothing less; certainly did not imagine it turning into this big of an exchange. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Probably not going to be used by anyone. 053pvr (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @053pvr: Did you read the discussion above? These redirects are used in the {{Authority control}} template and are linked to in thousands of articles - "PIC (identifier)" has over 6,000 incoming links. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then Speedy Keep. 053pvr (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @053pvr: Please read discussions before you comment—and then only do so if you understand the discussion enough to comprehend its nuances. It is clear you have not done so. WP:SPEEDYKEEP is not appropriate for this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh my god. 053pvr (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @053pvr: Please explain. Which WP:SKCRIT has been met? -- Tavix (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Doing anything to one on these redirects would cause too much damage. 053pvr (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • @053pvr: How would retargeting these to an appropriate local target (which is what many people in the discussion above are proposing) cause any damage, and why would a discussion with lots of input from multiple people over the last three weeks now qualify for speedy keeping? This style of redirect is used to avoid making a mess of the "What links here" section of articles, because {{Authority control}} has made hundreds of thousands of links to various identifier systems. You really need to slow down and read these discussions carefully, especially for complex cases like above. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Retarget to some local target. Someone really needs to just close this as no consensus, because there will not be consensus. 053pvr (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget PIC (identifier) to New York Public Library#Website and digital holdings for consistency with Photographers' Identities Catalog per above.
Retarget WDQ (identifier) to Wikidata per above.
Delete FNZA (identifier), and modify the template to stop the creation of redirect links as we have no appropriate local target. Perhaps use something like {{Abbr}} to create a rollover explanation of the initialism instead? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:35, 14 March 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.

Builder works[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 19:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out the connection between this redirect and it's target. To me it seems that this should be targeting something like Construction, but I don't think it's a particularly plausible search term to get there either 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep or retarget to Construction. "Builder's work" or "Builders's work" is a Britishism for constructing buildings or machinery. Wikipedia doesn't actually have either of those as redirects, but it should. The nominated redirect is just a variant of those more standard search terms, so there's nothing wrong it. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm familiar with the phrase "Building works" meaning construction, but I've never come across "Builder works" before and I wouldn't associate it with engineering. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a native speaker of British English and I've never heard this phrase (unlike "building works"). Google results for the exact phrase are a mix of a couple of specific companies, "builder's works" and partial matches for phrases a like "a builder works on...". Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible search term. 053pvr (talk) 05:11, 13 March 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.

Automagic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 19#Automagic

Roman equivalent[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 19#Roman equivalent

Capital equipment[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 19#Capital equipment

IndustrialHydraulis[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 19:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible double typo redirect, has both a spacing error and missing c from hydraulics. I just retargeted Industrial Hydraulics to Hydraulic machinery which seemed like a better target to me, but I don't think this typo redirect is worth keeping. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is not worth having since the correct version exists. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quite implausible; 76 page views in the last 6 years. I usually delete these contemporaneous with the move from the bad title, if rather implausible like this one, and since I wasn't yet an admin at the time of this move, tag for deletion. I have no memory of this ministerial move from 15 years ago, of course, but not doing so was likely just an oversight.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. It's an {{R with old history}} at this point and pretty harmless to keep around. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page history for the article is in the correctly spelled Industrial Hydraulics redirect, this one only contains a redirect. The article was at this misspelled title for 5 mins in 2006 so I don't think it's a valuable "R from move" either 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:18, 10 March 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.

Baroody (surname) (disambiguation)[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. WP:G7 —Bagumba (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baroody (surname) has been moved to Baroody and is no longer a disambiguation page, so this redirect is not needed (and is awkward). Leschnei (talk) 12:42, 10 March 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.

Spruce Text List[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 19:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be targeting Spruce Technologies, as the name of a DVD subtitling technology that they released, but the article on Spruce Technology was merged into the apple aticle in 2010 following an AfD nomination. As it stands this technology isn't mentioned by name anywhere in the encyclopedia 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable software. 053pvr (talk) 05:05, 13 March 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.

Draft:2019[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 24#Draft:2019

Grafikkort[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 19:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. Nothing Swedish about a video card. There is a Swedish language article in the page history, but it would be A2 / A10 speedy deletable if restored 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This should have been deleted in 2008 instead of being redirected. In any case, graphics cards are indeed not especially Swedish, so this is not needed on the English Wikipedia. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 13:14, 10 March 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.

Évaporation[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 19:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. Nothing French/German about evaporation 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:23, 10 March 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.

ジングル (ラジオ)[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 19:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. No connection between the concept of a jingle and the Japanese language. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:21, 10 March 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.

Fågelsång[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 19:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. Nothing particularly Swedish about birdsong 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:16, 10 March 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 Nest (stadium)[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 The Nest#Other uses. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should dab or delete as ambiguous between Croydon Common Athletic Ground and The Nest (football ground)- both were used between the world wars, and no evidence either would be the primary topic that people are looking for Joseph2302 (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support this, if I'd found that dab page before nominating, would have just speedy redirected it there. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 12:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as suggested, as ambiguous. GiantSnowman 12:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above comments. 053pvr (talk) 05:02, 13 March 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.

Fringer[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 19:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Astaire and Rogers were never referred to as Fringer. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:21, 10 March 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.

Planetary or gender symbols[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 26#Planetary or gender symbols

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_10&oldid=1041626389"