Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 20, 2021.

Viola Q Lin/Cut Piece 1964[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per G6, page obviously created in error. -- Tavix (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to maintain a redirect from a user page? Gjs238 (talk) 21:05, 20 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.

Philosophy, theology, and fundamental theory of canon law[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 28#Philosophy, theology, and fundamental theory of canon law

Rzeczpospolita Polska[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 SNOW. (non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 19:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, as we already have Polska redirecting to Poland, so why would we need Rzeczpospolita Polska? It's a very complicated spelling, and, to restate, we already have the simpler redirect, Polska. KingOfAllThings (thou shalt chatter!) 18:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. This is the official name of the republic of Poland in Polish, which absolutely should exist as a redirect to the article on Poland. We don't delete redirects because we have a shorter one or because they're complicated to spell and at 350 page views a year this is a plausible search term. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per our IP friend. Certainly reasonable to have a country's own official name as a redirect. Vaticidalprophet 12:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per above. Dominicmgm (talk) 23:08, 24 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.

NET-TV[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 Net TV. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NET disambiguation page lists ten channels/networks/stations and one cable company where "NET" is its initialism/acronym or part of the name. It's hard to imagine WNET taking priority over any of them for a redirect, especially since the station usually goes by either "Thirteen" or its full call sign. For what it's worth, the one link to NET-TV, which predates the redirect, seems to be in reference to National Educational Television, not WNET specifically. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 20 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.

Quicker Than Light[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 03:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both redirect to the album these songs are on, but the album page is now a redirect to the artist's article where the songs aren't mentioned. Lennart97 (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since these have been reduced to left-over cruft. If the album turns out notable, or the song(s) worth mentioning on the band page, or whatever, then one or both song redirs can always be re-created.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the rationale in the !vote above. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget "Quicker Than Light" to Faster-than-light since it seems to be a reasonably well used synonym, Weak disambiguate "Hide My Love" Since we seem to have mentions of at least two songs with this name, one on the album Young Beauties and Fools, one by Kiana Valenciano. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (at these capitalisations). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:36, 24 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.

PBS-TV[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 PBS. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"PBS-TV" is probably more likely to refer to PBS in general than to this one specific member station. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Made by a vandal. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to PBS, which is best known for TV programming. "Made by a vandal" isn't actually a deletion rationale, in and of itself.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to PBS per SMcCandlish. Also, add a {{Redirect-distinguish}} hatnote that the redirect is not to be confused with the currect target. "PBS" is the more plausible target and the correct TV station. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:52, 22 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.

South Scandinavian languages[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 7#South Scandinavian languages

Brandon, Bristol[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Hog Farm Talk 00:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:30, 20 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.

Singled Out (song)[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 Singled Out (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Used to redirect to the album the song is on, but the album page is now a redirect to the artist's article where the song isn't mentioned. Lennart97 (talk) 15:48, 20 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.

InterContinental Hotels[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 InterContinental. Hog Farm Talk 00:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current set-up, where InterContinental Hotels and other plural variants redirect to IHG Hotels & Resorts (the parent company established in 2003, previously InterContinental Hotels Group), while InterContinental Hotel and singular forms redirect to InterContinental (about the hotel brand), seems potentially confusing. Since the parent company has since been rebranded as IHG, I think these redirects are most likely to refer to the brand. Paul_012 (talk) 15:38, 20 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.

Online IQ Test Validity[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Hog Farm Talk 00:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target article doesn't discuss online IQ tests Kokopelli7309 (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree that the section is applicable. It's discussing only tests administered by a proctor. I don't see any of the cited sources studying online IQ scores. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending an actually appropriate target. This (capitalized properly, and with a less PoV title) would probably be a good article or section (maybe as "Online IQ testing controversy" or whatever), but if we don't have it then we don't, and redlinks encourage article creation. I would be inclined to delete this one anyway, because the exact string with both the viewpoint-laden wording and two over-capitalizations in a row seems unlikely as a search term.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless significant coverage of all pop psychology ability tests (both paper and online) is added to Intelligence quotient, sending the naive reader to the article suggests the possibility that such poor tests have equal standing with valid tests. Otherwise there is no redirect that I know of that would be acceptable. Sundayclose (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Page is 15 year old cruft from an IP editor, seemingly to advertise online tests. If this is a worthwhile topic to discuss (IMO it's not, given the misnomer of an 'online IQ test') then we can redirect to whatever location discusses it. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The best potential target I found was Self-test of intelligence, but that article is in a terrible state - it seems to be mostly advertising - and it doesn't discuss the validity of these tests. Unless someone finds a better target, delete. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:53, 22 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.

Fourth Coast[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. I suspect this hasn't been closed before since the usage was still unmentioned. I added something and linked to this discussion in the edit summary, but admit it's borderline WP:OR. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, no clear indication from an internet search that this is an alternative name for the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the top google hits are for a bakery in Kalamazoo, a renewable energy system supplier in New York state, a SoundCloud user, a Chicago-based quartet (which may or may not be the SoundCloud user), a cafe in Massena, New York, an Urban Dictionary definition matching this redirect, a journal article about Alaska's Arctic coast and a cider producer in Lake Orion, Michigan. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: there was an unreferenced article at this title for over a decade before it was PRODed in 2019. The article stated that it's a "reference to the Great Lakes region, with a particular reference to Michigan". The term does appear to be used in that manner, but I'm not aware of any reliable sources that make the connection explicit. - Eureka Lott 00:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anecdotal comment Grew up in Michigan (not in Kalamazoo), lived there 15 years, family and friends were there longer, and I never, ever heard this term before. OTOH, I see that there is apparently a book: The Fourth Coast : Exploring the Great Lakes Coastline from the St. Lawrence Seaway to the Boundary Waters of Minnesota by Mary Blocksma (1995, Trade Paperback). Don't know if that counts as RS to make connection explicit. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Third Coast and add a blurb summarizing Thryduulf's findings there. -- Tavix (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Thryduulf's findings, most of which I also located. This just doesn't seem to have a single established meaning, so I don't think we can really point it anywhere. Hog Farm Talk 03:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to and explain at Third Coast per Thryduulf modulo Tavix. This is obviously just a variant of "Third Coast", for those who consider the Third Coast to be the Gulf Coast. Certainly has too little real-world use to consider it a legit term for "the Great Lakes [area]".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to Third Coast per tavix, with deletion as a second choice. In addition to the above findings I ran across some more references to the great lakes [1] [2], a reference to the arctic [3] and even one to the Mississippi [4]. A brief explanation at Third Coast is fine, but there's not much to be lost by deletion. 83.136.106.119 (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Third Coast per tavix. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 03:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment, Tavix's retarget proposal to Third Coast sounds good to me. signed, Rosguill talk 19:42, 7 April 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.

ESPN plus[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 ESPN+ per SNOW. Such non-controversial retargets like this don't need discussion. (non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to ESPN+? O.N.R. (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, of course. Stusutcliffe (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Uncontroversial, missed avoided double redirect that failed to be updated to follow ESPN Plus. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded. This redirect needs to be updated. Regards, SONIC678 20:59, 20 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.

Feminin[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. signed, Rosguill talk 04:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect is meant to be a mis-spelling of 'feminine'? I can't find any instance of 'feminin' being used as a name for the molecule 'estrogen'. Maneesh (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Femininity, like Feminine, but with {{Redr|{{R from misspelling}}}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a very old obsolete name for Estrogen that was used around the time it was discovered - see Estradiol#History. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, and move/copy the paragraph about the discovery of estrogen and it's early names into the article on estrogen. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I can go along with that; if there's actual sources for it being an old name of estrogen. Even so, I would use {{Redirect}} at the top of the Estrogen article, since this is so obscure, it's more probable that the average user of this string here has misspelled "feminine".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's already two sources in attached to that list of names, I can't access either of them to verify but it does appear to be sourced. If you run a google scholar search for "Feminin" with a date range of about 1920 - 1930 you'll find papers using the term, e.g. This one from 1926 which discusses "injecting feminin, the female sex hormone". I agree that refining to the section on historical names (wherever it ends up) hatnoting to the article on feminine would be a good idea. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Neat, didn't know this etymology related to estradiol. Some things to consider: "féminin" is French for feminine or female and it naturally shows up in modern French language biochemistry studies that look at estrogen related molecules (random example). This account suggests that "feminin" refers to a "mainly oestrogenic"substance suggesting the name refers to a hetrogenous material vs. a specific molecule. The name is so archaic, unspecific and easily confused with French word that has a related meaing I think it is best not to redirect anywhere. Maneesh (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to disambig, the connections with estrogen are interesting, but let's remember what redirects are for. The chances that any user typing this term, on purpose or by accident, is seeking the hormone are vanishingly small. They'd be much more likely to be seeking Feminine, and just as likely to be seeking Féminin/Féminin (a Canadian web series), or Féminin, masculin (a 2007 documentary), as a hormone. The truth is, we just don't know. That's what we have disambig pages for, to get them to the right place. Having a redirect here is complete guesswork, and imho targeting the hormone doesn't serve the majority of readers. Please reconsider. Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Mathglot, who has presented lots of possible topics this search term can be looking for. feminist (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Mathglot. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 03:55, 5 April 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.

Meghan, Princess of Arizona[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:CSD#G3 – Muboshgu (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted. Was made from vandalism. cookie monster (2020) 755 00:27, 20 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_20&oldid=1016910411"