Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 29, 2021.

Rocketbook[edit]

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

Tiger Asia Management[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 6#Tiger Asia Management

London Buses route 387[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 19:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Former bus route which was axed and replaced by the EL3. No point redirecting this page to the main list of bus routes; the entry for the 387 isn't even on the table. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepDelete. All London bus routes without articles are redirects to the main list. ~Seems odd to single out just one. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ajf773: I don't think you understand the issue. The 387 is no longer a bus route. It has been axed. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes. I misread that it is a discontinued route. If the redirect target doesn't mention this route, then the redirect is pointless. Change my vote. Ajf773 (talk) 08:33, 2 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.

London Buses route 48[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. The discussion appears to agree with the deletion rationale, despite the dearth of formal !votes. signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Former bus route which was axed in 2019 (see https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/tfl-bus-routes-scrapped-16134311 for reference). No point redirecting this to list of London bus routes. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The entry for the 48 bus on the list of London bus routes isn't even on there because it is no longer a bus route. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the London Buses Route 48 page was long gone. Culled in an earlier purge of London's 'Unimportant' Bus Routes. IsarSteve (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's right but now that the bus route no longer exists, the redirect is no longer required either. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm just surprised it survived at all. IsarSteve (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment over a period of many years there has been a sustained movement to gradually reduce all coverage of bus routes on Wikipedia (not specifically London), winnowing down articles, AfDing them, then trimming anything merged, before getting rid of the redirect. I haven't looked at the detail of this example but it is something to note. A "former routes" section of the list article would seem to be a very useful addition but which is suprisingly not currently extant (perhaps that was trimmed at some point?). Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. I would also be happy to work on that. I gave up years ago, because of the continual culling of route information. Let me know if you set anything up. IsarSteve (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also agree, we shouldn't just be removing information because it's not applicable to the current. A section for former routes would make sense, and this redirect would then be appropriate. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • But there is the problem that the route number may be used again at some time in the future. The current route lists rarely mention earlier incarnations of the route number.IsarSteve (talk) 04:51, 2 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.

USS MSC-312[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 mine warfare vessels of the Turkish Navy#Redwing class later type. signed, Rosguill talk 05:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The hull number MSC-312 is not an alternative hull number for the USS Grackle (AMS-13) as far as I can tell. This was likely generated as a confusion with the different hull numbers MSC(O)-13 and YMS-312. The only place on the wiki that identifies MSC-312 is an (unsourced) user page User:Derekbridges/sandbox/TurkishMineTemplates, which identifies the ship in question as "TCG Sapanca (M-517) (ex-USS MSC-312)." Both the DANFS and Navsource photo archives fail to list the Grackle as ever having this hull number. As such, I think the redirect is incorrect. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 12:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List_of_mine_warfare_vessels_of_the_Turkish_Navy#Redwing_class_later_type, where it is mentioned. I can get a Google books preview of the Jane's sources, which seems to support the connection here. Can't find a whole lot about this, but it seems to be reasonable. We don't have an article about the Turkish minesweeper, so the list is the best target. Looks likes the current target is a conflation between Grackle's MSC and YMS numbers. Hog Farm Talk 04:58, 6 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.

Bio living person[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 04:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an innapropriate cross namespace redirect taking readers out of article space and into project space. The redirect is essentially unused, with 7 page views in the last year and no incoming links. I've never heard anyone refer to the biographies of living persons policy as "Bio living person" and the redirect in the correct namespace (WP:Bio living person) does not exist. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - I don't see much harm in keeping this, I suppose, but then I prefer deletion since the nominator's points make sense. This simply isn't helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:40, 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[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. Subject of discussion has been a DAB page for nearly ten years. Comments regarding the possibility of deleting this DAB page should be made elsewhere. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking comments on whether any place conceivably considered the "home of football" should be added to The Home of Football (the official name) of Sheffield FC's stadium. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close - I don't understand the point of this nomination. The Home of Football is not a redirect... GiantSnowman 13:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been an ongoing disagreement in the page history over whether this should be a DAB or a redirect. It was a redirect when nominated but has since been turned back into a DAB. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my efforts at Talk football (Twice) and Talk:The Home of Football, there has been a deliberate effort by a small group to disrupt WP:RFD including feigning ignorance to mislead Wikipedians here. Surprising that they would let themselves down like this when in all likelyhood the would win the vote if not the discussion. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You turned the page into a redirect against consensus, and then raised it here, so it seems you are the one trying to mislead. RfD is not the place to decide if a stable DAB should be redirected to somewhere that has no chance of being the Primary Topic for the phrase. Spike 'em (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). In the case of Sheffield's stadium, The Home of Football is a proper name with the common noun football. The "home of football" is the proper capitalisation for the miriad the other stadiums, cities, towns and countries that have been given that description. I have already linked to Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" below but I would make the pont that One single person responded to The orginal Talk Football OP - me. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see why this is needed either, the page was perfectly fine as disambiguation, a redirect just cuts out other information. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly: in a manner or way that could not be better This is fine as long as the phrase is mentioned in some capacity at the target. This is not the case for Wembley Stadium (1923), the only alternative when I first reinstated the page as a redirect. Granted the recent additions of Wembley Stadium and Arsenal Stadium meet the above criteria BUT both are wiki-flawed
Arsenal Stadium: The 2 supporting references are photographs, the intreperation of which are obvious Wikipedian "original research"
Wembley Stadium: "The Home of Football" is supported by a reference which specifically refers to the 'home of football' JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was reverted to a redirect without consensus and then nominated for RfD immediately afterwards. I restored to the disambiguation page, which has been an active page for over a decade. This isn't the right forum for this discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 18:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I discussed WP:RFD as early 20 February 2021 - your revert due solely to "no consensus" removed the template notifying users of this discussion without any prior contribution to any of the discussions. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Creating an RfD discussion for a disambiguation page that for its ten+ year existence has never been a redirect until you made it one makes absolutely no sense procedurally. SportingFlyer T·C 10:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • May be worth creating as an actual article. There is a sizeable amount of sourcing that exists to discuss the various merits / claims and history of the claims. Koncorde (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From main talk page because LaArdilla seems to be representing the "Home of Football" as having only one true destination when basic search reveals dozens of uses of both the proper noun capitalised version (as an unofficial title and official name for a variety of venues and organisations) and lower case, as if there is a functional difference between the informal use of describing something in conversation as "the home of football" and someone going on their website and calling their ground "The Home of Football". In truth it is incredibly unlikely someone would think to themselves "I know what I want is to see what the Home of Football is..." and be redirected to a page that says "it's the renamed Coach & Horses Pub stadium where Sheffield FC plays". This doesn't really seem to cover the many informal and formal uses, and ignores its historical precedence / broader discussions and claims by pretty both national entities and club teams, and many informal references by teams to their own grounds.here[1][2][3][4][5][6]Koncorde (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that the functional difference between "the home of football", the "Home of Football" (redlinked as of 8:38 31/3/21) and "The Home of Football" is due to mediawiki software. Checking your references I still cannot see where "The Home of Football" is the official name for anything other than Sheffield's ground. The Oldest football clubs states Sheffield F.C. in England, is the world's oldest surviving independent football club so I certainly don't begrudge their decision to officially rename the Coach & Horses Pub stadium. I certainly begrudge Sports Direct claiming the title. At present the Sports Direct article makes no reference to THOF but, should that change, the hurdle for inclusion is a proper reference, not my personal feelings. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point is Sheffield renaming their stadim is not a claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There are dozens of sources discussing the lower case, upper case, and any variety inbetween that make it incredibly unlikely the sports sections mention of the renaming of the Coach & Horses subsection of Dronfield is really what anyone is looking for. Using Sheffield FC's website is an example of Primary Sourcing, and without a doubt a case of some self promotion by themselves, which does not give it primacy over any other club, organisation or business making equally vapid statements about themselves. It is such a commonly used phrase within football historically, nevermind currently, that arguments over nouns etc seems to be somewhat blatant misdirection. Koncorde (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to a WP:Talk request for input and doubt I would ever search for "The Home of Football" as I would never include the definite article in a search term. But "The Home of Football" is infact the name of Sheffield's Stadium. Wikipedia article pages (should) present facts, not the motivations of others.JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB page clearly many uses for the term, as shown in this discussion and the one at WT:FOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:09, 31 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.

Nelson fork[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 00:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The utensil wasn't even mentioned at the time of the redirect's creation in early November 2009. Regards, SONIC678 23:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Nelson fork seems to be a combination utensil (knife and fork) made for Admiral Horatio Nelson when he got his right arm amputated based on this source. I'm not sure if it merits a mention on the page so I'm neutral. --Lenticel (talk) 03:29, 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.

USA Vermont[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. This has received enough discussion that I don't think a relist would be productive. signed, Rosguill talk 05:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure why these exist. There doesn't seem to be any use of USA (disambiguation) applicable to Vermont, and "USA" isn't mentioned in the article other than to mean "United States of America". It could be a misspelling of USS Vermont but I think unless there's a very good reason to keep it then it should be deleted, given the ambiguity. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't really have an opinion yet, but I did find the similar USA Georgia, which I'm adding here. Regards, SONIC678 18:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that I think about it, USA Georgia is a useful disambiguator from the country. I'm thinking maybe I should withdraw it. Regards, SONIC678 22:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know of any non-USA usages of "Vermont", but there is a definite need to disambiguate the country/state of Georgia (in Asia) from the USA state of Georgia (United States American Georgia or Georgia, USA). "USA" preceding a noun can form an adjective as "United States American" (sometimes shortened as just "American", such as American Georgia versus Asian Georgia, though this technically refers to the American Landmass, and not just the USA). Nicole Sharp (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "USA, Vermont" (with a comma) seems to be a typo and should be deleted. I don't know of any usages where the order is reversed with a comma from "Vermont, USA". A reversed usage should use a hyphen, em dash, or colon instead, such as the international abbreviation of "US-VT" ("USA—Vermont" or "USA: Vermont"). Nicole Sharp (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "USA Vermont" (without a comma, as United States American Vermont) is a grammatically correct usage and should be kept (along with "USA Georgia" and any other similar redirects). Nicole Sharp (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep USA Georgia as it seems like a reasonable-enough disambiguated search term. No opinion on the Vermont ones.—Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 21:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the one that is "USA, Vermont" as I can't imagine anyone entering that one and needing the redirect. I don't really have an opinion about "USA Vermont", but that also seems excessive. Is there any way to see how many people are actually using these redirects? - Dyork (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dyork: You can see how many views a page has had in the last 30 days by clicking "Page information" under "Tools" in the grey column to the left of the page content. "USA Vermont" has had 12 hits in the past 30 days, "USA, Vermont" has had 8 hits, and "USA Georgia" has had 23 hits. Some of these might be due to this discussion.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email)
  • @Molandfreak: Ah, I knew you could do that for regular pages, but didn't realize you could do that for redirects! (But that makes sense because they are really just a "page".) Thanks! - Dyork (talk) 00:43, 31 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 station[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Hog Farm Talk 04:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ambiguous and/or nonsense: it could mean a station called United, but its current target infers it might be a person from the United States. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ambiguous, per above. There are a large number of railway/radio/tv stations that are partial title matches for "United Station". I think in this case the search results do a better job than the redirect. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless any citations can be provided for usage. Also the spelling would be wrong as an English demonym, and it should be "United Station" instead. Would be curious to learn if this is an actual usage though. I personally liked Frank Lloyd Wright's proposal of describing US Americans as "Usanians" (or "Usonians"). If people in the USA start going around describing themselves as "United Stations" that might be interesting. Nicole Sharp (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – too vague and ambiguous. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:11, 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.

Us (verson 2)[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 resolved. "Version 2" redirects created by Anthony Appleyard are WP:ROUNDROBIN moves that he neglects to complete. In this case, it was moving US (disambiguation) to Us. To make that move, he got the edit history out of the way of Us by moving it to Us (verson 2) [sic]. However, once US (disambiguation) is moved to Us, Us (verson 2) needs to be moved to US (disambiguation) without leaving a redirect to finish the round robin and tidy up this undesirable redirect. I'll have to finish it with a WP:HISTORYMERGE now that there is additional edit history though. -- Tavix (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has a long history but was moved recently by @Anthony Appleyard: as a step in a series of page moves. Notwithstanding its history, I suggest delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:33, 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.

Canebrake (former town), California[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) CycloneYoris talk! 01:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Does every community that moved need a redirect like this? Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 06:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This redirect has a history as an article, and the subject is a separate place from the subject of the target article. If this is kept or deleted (as opposed to the article restored) then the hatnote and wikilink at Canebrake, California needs to be removed. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Shhhnotsoloud: The point is, why was it an article that needed to exist in the first place? Many communities have moved in the past for many reasons, but this is the only instance I know of where the "former community" ever had an article of its own. No notability was established independent of the current community, and the community only moved three miles. This isn't a case where the places clearly have separate origins and just happen to share the same name, like Rice Lake (ghost town), Minnesota, Rice Lake (CDP), Minnesota, and Rice Lake, Minnesota. Reviewing admins, please exercise a little common sense.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mx. Granger: Again, this isn’t an article that needed to exist in the first place. There were never two places in California named Canebrake, there is only one that happened to move three miles once.—Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 03:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Molandfreak: Again, there was an article at this title for a long time. Have you read WP:RFD#HARMFUL? If a redirect has existed for a long time, and especially if there was formerly an article at the title, deleting the redirect can be harmful because it may break incoming links from other websites. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:28, 4 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.

Tubby Toast[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) CycloneYoris talk! 01:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, appears to be a minor fictional plot item. With no content about this minor plot elements, this isn't useful. Hog Farm Talk 20:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hog Farm: Hope you don't mind, I added the alternate capitalisation to this nomination. Also it's worth noting that the article on this was deleted at AfD in 2007 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tubby toast) 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't mind at all. If I'd seen the other variant, I would have bundled that in myself. Hog Farm Talk 21:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As 2 of the original AfD contributors noted, and as a Google search would show, Tubby Toast is very much linked to Teletubbies and, as far I can tell, nothing else. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tubby Toast is a well known element from the show. Dominicmgm (talk) 22:12, 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.

Infravision[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 15#Infravision

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_29&oldid=1017976711"