Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 27, 2021.

Non-notable Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door enemies[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 00:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The enemies for these redirects also aren't mentioned in the target article (nor were they at the time of their creation), making them potentially run afoul of WP:VGSCOPE. I'd recommend deletion unless someone can provide a justification for why we would still need them. Regards, SONIC678 23:33, 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.

Category:Religious Rituals[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 05:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Unnecessary soft redirect, no meaningful page history. No redirect should have been created when the category was renamed. There would be a ridiculous amount of soft redirects if we had one with different capitalisation for every category. MClay1 (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What's the problem with having a ridiculous amount of soft redirects? Unlike what the nominator says, the redirect does have meaningful page history in that it was formed by a page move – thus K4 applies. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • K4 does not apply here. There are no links to the redirect except the ones made for this RfD, and the page history was moved to the target when the move happened as per norm. We only need soft redirects where they aid navigation (see WP:CATRED and WP:Category redirects that should be kept) – this one does not. MClay1 (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mclay1, K4 does apply here. Remember that links aren't only from Wikipedia; most old links are from other websites. This redirect does aid navigation. Someone who searches this category name up in the URL bar will be aided by the existence of the soft redirect page. I don't view that deleting this redirect is helpful in any way. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @J947: By that argument, we would never delete anything. This is not something that needs working links from other sites; it's not an article – it's an obscure category. The category was moved three days after it was created, so the redirect is unlikely to have any external links. It's not needed for search results because capitalisation doesn't affect the basic search function. Without this redirect, "Category:Religious Rituals" would automatically go to Category:Religious rituals. It's more likely to be a hinderance because of the potential for editors to add it to articles instead of the correct category (which would then presumably be corrected by a bot). The redirect wasn't created for a purpose; it was left behind by a move because the original title was incorrect. Normally a category redirect doesn't get left in those situations, such as almost every category moved in WP:CFDS. The admin who created the original category and then moved it !voted to delete above. MClay1 (talk) 09:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Mclay1: firstly, of course we should delete some pages. Non-navigational pages are deleted through various rules, and other types of navigational pages are deleted when they aren't of help navigationally. Redirects are deleted when they are harmful – if they aren't harmful, and are of some use, then they are kept. This is codified in guidelines like RHARMFUL, K4, and K5.
            Redirects exist to reduce confusion from readers. If this redirect is deleted, potential readers will be confused when they encounter a "this page doesn't exist" type of message. After all, they clicked the link expecting to come to the right page. This redirect helps them in that way. Approximately 15 readers were helped by this redirect over 4.5 years. While that doesn't seem like much, it is 15 readers helped by the existence of this redirect. It is 15 readers who will be inconvenienced for extremely negligible gain by the deletion of this redirect.
            This redirect may not be needed for readers using the search function, but I doubt there are many or even any of those. Readers who are linked to this redirect will not be automatically corrected to the correct capitalisation. It isn't a hindrance as you have stated because the bot isn't hindranced by it at all. Besides, the encyclopedia is designed for readers first. The need for minor maintenance comes lower in the hierachy.
            RfD is a higher authority for redirects than CfDS, who may need to rethink their practices. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @J947: You're reasoning for navigation doesn't apply to this case. The redirect is exactly the same as the target except for one letter being capitalised. It's not an alternative search term. There would be no confusion caused without the redirect. It's highly likely that any reader who reached this redirect unintentionally got there through search results and would have arrived at the target without the need for the redirect if the redirect didn't exist, so they weren't helped, they were inconvenienced. All it's doing is getting in the way, making reader experience worse. As I'm fairly sure there are no links to this redirect (not including relating to this RfD), none of the reasons in WP:RKEEP apply to this. There is also precedent for deleting these soft redirects, and I've never seen objections before. MClay1 (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Mclay1: I'm fairly certain that the views come from external links, but YMMV. I doubt the search result argument as it's decently likely a reader (more likely an editor due to the namespace) who clicks on the uppercase version did so as a misclick and is actually helped by this redirect because otherwise they'd be on a different category – but these arguments are getting extremely minor now anyhow. I'm talking about navigation from links, which is in effect the same as typing in the URL bar, which is case sensitive. It being an alternative search term is not the redirect's main use case, but it nevertheless is an alternative search term through the URL bar (which, I imagine, is what editors often use when navigating through categories – because it gives a headstart with the Category: prefix already being there) As far as I'm concerned, RHARMFUL still applies. As an aside, why aren't hard redirects enabled in category-space? Is there a technical constraint? Surely having hard redirects would be more helpful in every way. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 06:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've done a bit (not too much) of archive-scrounging and it seems like the longstanding consensus is that category redirects aren't cheap. As it stands, count me neutral. If categories could have hard redirects, it would be much simpler, it seems. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 07:01, 1 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.

Template:Cw[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 05:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only 4 transclusions. Should we promote the shortcut for its brevity, or delete it for its ambiguity? JsfasdF252 (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, too easily confused with other meanings for cw. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not needed, the 4 uses can be corrected to the cite web template with minimal hassle. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:37, 3 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.

Boggly Woods[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 00:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These two locations aren't mentioned in the target article despite serving as the main locations for Chapters 2 and 5 respectively, nor were they mentioned during late 2004 (when they were created). Not sure if we need these lying around, although I'm open to being swayed otherwise here. Regards, SONIC678 20:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, including any other following redirects in relation. Most of these are entirely unmentioned in the article. Panini🥪 20:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not mentioned in the target article.--67.70.100.30 (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As above, and the other Paper Mario RFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:38, 3 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.

Sadako Came to the Arcade[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 00:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, WP:BEFORE suggests that this is a parody of so little significance it shouldn't be mentioned there. Hog Farm Talk 19:57, 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.

Punderton[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 00:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This extremely minor character is a Puni whom the Puni Elder was in love with when she was younger, but at the time his redirect was created, he wasn't mentioned in the article. Delete the redirect unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 19:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the only thing this character is known for is being mentioned in passing by another character that Isn’t covered in the target article either.--67.70.100.30 (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable character, we don't need redirects for every minor character per WP:INDISCRIMINATE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:45, 28 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.

Australasian relations[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 in the absence of a better option. There's general agreement that this is a more general title than the specific target it's going to, but there's also a good argument that this probably is the intended meaning, most of the time. ~ mazca talk 12:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Australasia includes Papua New Guinea and several other states in Melanasia, as well as Australia and New Zealand. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – yes, the target is too narrow. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; most if not all of the time the term refers to Aus–NZ relations. However, I might have a biased viewpoint due to being from NZ where Australasia exclusively means Australia and New Zealand – I didn't know that it generally encompasses Melanesia as well. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There currently exists no page which fits the definition of "Australasian relations" which refers to foreign relations of countries in Australasia. (no page covers foreign relations of all countries in Australasia) 053pvr (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt that foreign relations of countries in Australasia is the primary meaning of this term. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be that my view on this redirect is completely biased by my background, but I think that this redirect is correct. I'd like another pair of eyes on this discussion. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second relist as requested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I′m fine with using the narrow definition given we don't have a good target that I can find for the broader definition. -- Tavix (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Tavix. Sometimes there's a tension between "this could theoretically refer to several things" and "in practice, it only refers to one". Cross-Strait relations could theoretically refer to relations between any two countries separated by a strait, but in practice, it doesn't. The only use of the phrase on Wikipedia now is a further reading entry at British Commonwealth Occupation Force; the meaning is somewhat ambiguous, but at least includes Japan, suggesting a meaning of British relations with Australian and Asian countries. That work dominates "australasian relations" -wikipedia in an incognito window for me, so I certainly consider deletion an option, but I am comfortable deferring to J947 and the Australian perspective. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 12 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.

JesseValentineMusic[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 00:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Already mentioned in the target as his common stage name F-777, but no mention of this alternative name. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:17, 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.

La la la la la la[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 La La La. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is confusing and not mentioned at the target. Google Search brings more up a song called "La La La" by Naughty Boy and Sam Smith. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:16, 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.

United States of Canada[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 Jesusland map. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no "United States of Canada". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - confusing and offensive. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing and an unlikely search term. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Jesusland map where the term is defined. This was the long-term target of this redirect until an IP retargeted it to its current target (via a double redirect). Mdewman6 (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with retargeting to "Jesusland map". The current destination makes no sense at all... AnonMoos (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Jesusland map per above. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:29, 28 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.

Template:Citazione necessaria[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is an Italian redirect. We don't need it. Alcremie (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Harmless and redirects to the correct target. If someone were to transwiki an itwiki article here without correcting template code, this would show the "citation needed" superscript in the correct location (although presumably the preceding text would still be in Italian). I'm sure that's a very rare case, but it's possible, and otherwise I don't see what the downside is to keeping it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as helpful for translating articles. We could have it "auto substitute" to "citation needed" if there is a serious problem with this as a redirect. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful per WP:R#KEEP guideline items 2 and 5, or convert to auto-subst, like {{Référence nécessaire}}. When nominating a page for deletion, please cite a policy or guideline as a rationale for deletion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Would be good to make subst only though. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 30 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 Home of Football Stadium[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 7#The Home of Football Stadium

Sandra Lindsay[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 6#Sandra Lindsay

Cortez (Mario character)[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 00:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not mentioned in article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:14, 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.

Cortez (video game)[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 00:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not mentioned in article, and the disambiguation is confusing, given it is supposed to refer to a video game. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I couldn't find mention of any video games at Cortez, and a Google search turned up results for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez playing Among Us, and it is mentioned in her article, but I'm not really sure about retargeting there because that course of action would also lead to confusion. Regards, SONIC678 15:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not mentioned and I doubt anyone looking up AOC would use that as a search term.--67.70.100.30 (talk) 18:12, 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.

Jitter clicking[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 00:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems to be related to Minecraft PvP, but not mentioned in the list, so pointless as a redirect to a glossary. No other mention anywhere else in the encyclopedia. This term wasn't even included in the list when this redirect was made (Diff). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:42, 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.

Augustin Tamare[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. It appears there is just about a sourceable justification for this, but the overall consensus here is that, given the lack of a mention, such a tiny reference in a foreign language amounts to more of a confusing easter egg than a helpful redirect. ~ mazca talk 12:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Here's a source. --2600:6C5D:5B00:2B99:BD:C419:951B:A1EA (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per our 2600 friend, and add a mention wherever appropriate. This is the character's "real" name in some French press material. Regards, SONIC678 16:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced that translations of characters names, even when verifiably official, are DUE for inclusion at the target. signed, Rosguill talk 21:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see anything about translated names in the article, or similar redirects. Inspector Gadget (1983 TV series) does give French names, but only Inspecteur Gadget for the titular character. The name isn't used in any of the French Wikipedia articles either. This would amount to an easter egg at best, confusing or misleading at worst. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inspector Gadget was produced by a French company so a French translation would make sense, but it does seem that the French translation is Inspecteur Gadget. -- Tavix (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. If a reliably sourced mention of the name is appropriately added to the target article that would be fine, but I'm not seeing meaningful use of that name online, in either English or French – there are mentions on wikis and blogs that Augistine Tamare has been revealed to be the character's real name, but this doesn't appear to have been used in any of the works in the franchise. – Uanfala (talk) 14:59, 14 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.

Capital equipment[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 Fixed asset , though not with a particularly strong consensus at all. The main consensus from this discussion is that this term is somewhat vague, and that our overall coverage of this area is also confusing and somewhat vague. There is universal agreement that the current target is not good, but a lack of agreement as to how, if at all, to disambiguate it or retarget it. Fixed asset appears to be the overall most popular option, and a clearly "not wrong" target, which makes it a clear upgrade at least. Our overall coverage here needs improving and potentially organising, and if a clear better target for this (or a disambigation page) develops, then further changes aren't excluded by this discussion. ~ mazca talk 13:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently a term that means "Any equipment used to manufacture goods", which isn't mentioned in the current target article. An IP left a comment on the redirect in 2009 saying it wasn't correct, and searching online it seems that a few definitions of the term include assets like buildings, not just necessarily machinery. I couldn't find an appropriate target for this but someone here might find something, or the term has a definition on Wiktionary that might be suitable? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This topic is mentioned, barely, in both Capital (economics) and Factors of production. I don't have a preference to retarget to either article, because in fact this concept isn't well covered in either place. That is kind of surprising given that Wikipedia has plenty of articles on types of production equipment. Manufacturing isn't a good target because the coverage of economics in that article is similarly inadequate. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to "Capital (economics)". 053pvr (talk) 05:08, 13 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 19:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Capital expenditure which better explains that capital equipment is equipment whose cost must be capitalized (amortized or depreciated over the life of the asset). MB 01:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No. 1 This RfD needs more participants. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No. 2 If we retarget, where do we retarget? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Fixed capital and tag with {{R from related term}} and {{R with possibilities}}. No obviously best target that clearly defines the term specifically, but at least capital equipment is a type or category of fixed capital. Another possibility is physical capital; I don't really understand the difference between the terms, and the two articles do not adequately link to each other or relate to each other (as is unfortunately too common on WP). Mdewman6 (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - I'm an accounting student, and would add Fixed asset as something else could be referring to. Since this doesn't have a single good target, and is a known term, maybe disambiguation between at least Fixed asset, Fixed capital, and Physical capital? Hog Farm Talk 20:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You know the subject better than I do, then, but is "capital equipment" a synonym, or even a close synonym, for any of those terms? It sounds like it's a type of those things. I think we could probably have an article specifically about capital equipment. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Fixed asset. "Capital equipment" simply means equipment that is capitalized, so it would fall under the PP&E definition of a fixed asset. Fixed assets are long-term (as opposed to current assets) so they must be capitalized. I don't think this would be something to disambiguate; the other options suggested are a bit broader than Fixed asset, so they aren't quite as good of fits. -- Tavix (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would agree with retargeting to Fixed asset except... that article is kind of a mess. I landed there today when I noticed that the Nasdaq stock exchange article overstated assets by a factor of 100 (trillions), and wanted to check definitions. The fixed asset article had some non-encyclopedic language and too-few sources tags (scary refs, look like regex). I tried to fix it, but it might be even worse now. Concerns were already identified on the talk page. I concur with Capital equipment redirect/retarget IF AND ONLY IF someone who is proficient with accounting nuances of non-current assets, capitalized assets, capital equipment etc. looks over the fixed assets article too.--FeralOink (talk) 03:23, 14 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.

2021 NWSL Expansion Draft[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 00:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per similar discussions previously, delete to encourage article creation Seany91 (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:21, 29 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.

Corporate media[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 Procedural close. As this is already at AfD; which seems to be the existing consensus anyway. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User Neutrality (talk · contribs) recently redirected this article, which had serious sourcing, WP:POV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYNTH issues. But I don't think that "mass media production, distribution, ownership, and funding dominated by corporations and their CEOs" is something that should have been redirected to an article about "a process whereby progressively fewer individuals or organizations control increasing shares of the mass media", and most other articles mentioning the term seem to use it as "mass media owned by corporations". Given the severity of the issue at hand, I think the article should have been brought to AfD instead of being uilaterally redirected. The precise term is not mentioned in the article text at target. More background at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#"Corporate_media"_has_glaring_bias_issue. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Edited 04:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC) with extra detail.[reply]

  • Revert and open a WP:AFD discussion, in that case. We shouldn't decide the fate of a recently-redirected 16-year-old article here. - Eureka Lott 09:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD per EurekaLott. RfD is not a backdoor AfD. Vaticidalprophet 14:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect. The old article was replete with issues and basically had nothing usable, and the redirect target is the natural link. If someone wants to add something specific to the article, then that’s fine, but I don’t think this needs to go to AfD just for the sake of form. Neutralitytalk 14:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first thought (before anyone had responded to the discussion) was to restore and send to AfD, but as it stands this RfD should be thought of as a retargeting discussion. If we can't find an appropriate target, then we restore the article and send it to AfD – but that is only as a last resort. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Keep redirect or send to AfD (if you haven't already) and Delete. This article is really bad. AdoTang (talk) 13:22, 29 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.

Tetartagonist[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 7#Tetartagonist

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_27&oldid=1138583239"