Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 5
May 7 >

May 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 6, 2021.

New Jersey Arena[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. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 10:53, 7 May 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.

Mary Ann Bighead[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 Recurring jokes in Private Eye#Jibes aimed at individuals. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This name is not mentioned anywhere in the target article leaving me confused. It is mentioned at Recurring jokes in Private Eye#Jibes aimed at individuals, but I'm unsure whether the best course of action is retargetting there, adding some content at the present target or deleting. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the article on the recurring jokes in private eye, which seems like the most relevant target. I think adding a section on the name to Mary Ann Sieghart would probably be undue, and when we've had to deal with potentially insulting names in the past we've targeted them at articles explaining the name, rather than the person they're aimed at (e.g. Crazy Bernie and Sleepy Joe (nickname) target the article on nicknames used by Donald Trump, rather than Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden). 192.76.8.91 (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Recurring jokes in Private Eye, unless there are plans to remove this as with the Jargon section of Rush Limbaugh. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per IP, Angus, and precedent for unfortunate nicknames. Vaticidalprophet 04:45, 7 May 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.

National Entertainment Commission[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. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this in target article. T*U (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only "reference" I can find connecting this name to the Media Rating Council is a youtube video uploaded by a user with a username suspiciously similar to the username of the editor that made this redirect. A number of this editor's other redirects are up for deletion as probable hoaxes, and this seems no different. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 22:05, 6 May 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.

Burton and Elmer V. McCollum Residence Hall.[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. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible with trailing punctuation, receives very minimal pageviews. Hog Farm Talk 21:12, 6 May 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.

Big Head[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 and move as suggested by ZXCVBNM. I'm guessing there would not be serious disagreement about where to disambiguate, and since more than twice as many uses don't use a space, I'll have it at Bighead. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete for now — this might be a good candidate for a dab page, but I'm a bit busy at the moment — I don't think this is a good WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT in any form, when there is other at least equally valid targets such as Bighead, Bigheads, Bighead (record producer), Bighead carp... WT79 (speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing) 20:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig. I've drafted a rather extensive disambigation below the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 6 May 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.

Season 8, 2016[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. --BDD (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the only series in which season 8 premiered in 2016. Ambiguous search term, see search results. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:17, 6 May 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.

Vida (dog)[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. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed an otherwise non-notable dog has a redirect for inexplicable reasons. One has to wonder if the dog is even alive at this point. Trillfendi (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not mentioned in the target article or anywhere else in the encyclopaedia. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 22:11, 6 May 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.

Qaumaniq[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 (soft delete). --BDD (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. The only search result is currently a mention in a ref at Inuit Studies Conference. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Qaumaniq was earlier mentioned in the target. The section was then cleaned and made to reference the main article Angakkuq. I have notified this Rfd at that article as well as the user who had cleaned up. Jay (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 6 May 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.

Biunnillium[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) 18:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 3#Elements 185+ and WP:BALL, it seems like E184 was decided as a stopping point for these redirects given mentions on WP and in the literature. Sure, there are a few trivial mentions for some hypothetical elements beyond that, but continuing a "predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names" ad infinitum would create lots of redirects of questionable utility, especially since they aren't referred to by their systematic names the few times they are mentioned. ComplexRational (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and most predictions in the literature place the end of the periodic table somewhere between element 126 and shortly after element 164. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the article actually discusses specifically E274 and E210, so these two redirects are not random element number redirects, they refer to topics specifically commented upon in the target article, thus are valid search terms for the information found in the page that is specifically about E210 and E274. -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that article, they are mentioned by atomic number and nothing else. The sources only mention these as possible magic numbers, so the focus is on their nuclei and hardly on the elements themselves; I do not believe any source uses the systematic element names anyway. Furthermore, one could make a similar argument for any number mentioned—no matter how trivially or briefly—even though the likelihood of using and searching the systematic names becomes virtually nil. I've seen trivial mentions of 186, 188, 190, 204, 216, 260, 354, and a bunch of others in reliable sources, albeit discontinuously. Whether or not we decide to keep/create redirects past 184, we still need a clear stopping point somewhere; 184 was chosen because most sets of predictions (for most/all intermediate elements) and anecdotes stop there. ComplexRational (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A "stopping point" with no reasoning is a bad idea. If the element is discussed, then whatever the stopping point is won't matter for specific redirects for topics that exist at the target. Thus, regardless of whatever stopping point is decided on, if the element is discussed, then it should have a redirect. If the element is not discussed, then it doesn't need a redirect. The existence of the redirect is predicated on it being discussed, if it isn't discussed then delete it, even if it is less that arbitrary cut-off. -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the predictions we have, I would think 184 is not really arbitrary; there isn't much aside from trivial mentions beyond then and the use of systematic names falls off (except examples of systematic names). Maybe a case could be made to justify redirects up to 210 or 218 if we want to consider trivial mentions, nuclear shell predictions, and the Aufbau extrapolation. However, I believe that not forming a rough consensus for a cutoff would encourage the creation of redirects for arbitrarily high Z and someone will inevitably think "if Z exists, why not Z+1". That said, I wouldn't encourage randomly deciding on some number (as you say), though I don't think a one-line mention in one reliable source (the question perhaps is what counts as "discussed") is substantial enough to merit a redirect. To highlight this contrast: (almost) all the redirects we have up to 184 have something more substantial that is discussed in detail (and actually about the element, not just the number as an example for theoretical nuclear physics) in the target article; as the article content and sources demonstrate, this is not the case beyond 184. ComplexRational (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep These element redirects were specifically created. See above for my reason.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is the redirect a plausible search term? I'd say yes, because the systematic names tend to be used by everyone outside the scientists involved. (Maybe less so than before, but only because right now all known elements have permanent names.) Does it take the reader to relevant information directly relating to those atomic numbers? Yes, it does (though it should probably go to the magic numbers section). So, I think having the redirect is a net benefit. Double sharp (talk) 06:53, 7 May 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.

Abolish Wales/Abolish Scotland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 23#Abolish Wales/Abolish Scotland

MJ (singer)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 14#MJ (singer)

Svea Rike[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#Svea Rike

The creation of Nazo and Silver the hedgehog[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 21#The creation of Nazo and Silver the hedgehog

WWAFAWDWG?[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#WWAFAWDWG?

File:Rogers3.jpg.jpg[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! 20:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Double extension, no article pages link to this redirect. EpicPupper (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:FILEREDIRECT. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:FILEREDIRECT, the file was that title for nearly 5 years. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 19:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947, the file was at this title for so long that it is likely deletion would break things. Hog Farm Talk 21:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recall that I checked for hundreds for duplicated extensions some years ago. I would say we should delete the old filenames for cleanup. Now that we have a better search system in Wikipedia it's highly unlikely that someone will arrive at the file via its redirect. Also deleting it's a way that I sometimes detect vandalism. If someone reverts to a very old revision of a page that includes the image it will cause a red link and cause user attention. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • These redirects are often linked from outside Wikipedia, and breaking those links only disservices the potential readers who click on them. Redlinked templates, files, and categories often stay in an article for years; and besides, there are many other ways of checking whether a change is a revert to an old version of an article, and I doubt that such reverts happen often. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, there's absolutely no reason to break links from off-site. Hint: when a reuser links an image as attribution, the citation isn't likely to be updated if we move the image. Nyttend backup (talk) 11:55, 13 May 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.

Senate runoff[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 Two-round system. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As senate is ambiguous, and many countries have runoffs, this is too narrow of a target by far. Hog Farm Talk 16:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Two-round system (where runoff election redirects). Per that article, runoff elections (of various types) are also used for the senates of Australia, Ireland and the Czech Republic at least so the current target is indeed too narrow. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Two-round system per Thryduulf. -- dylx 12:41, 11 May 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.

Affine symmetry[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 Affine group. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Symmetry" is not mentioned in the target article. Meanwhile there are other objects that are made up of affine symmetries (the affine Coxeter groups, the general affine group) or practically have this phrase in their name (the affine symmetric group). If there is a good justification for the current redirect target (this is not clear to me) then perhaps it should be a disambiguation page, but also maybe it should be deleted. JBL (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Affine group, and extend the new target for including the term. Indeed, although "Affine symmetry" may have several meanings, the primary meaning refers clearly to an affine transformation (that is an element of the affine group) that leaves a geometric object invariant. D.Lazard (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be fine by me. --JBL (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per D.Lazard. I agree that the primary meaning is symmetry under affine transformations. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 7 May 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:Direct link[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 03:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A pair of unused template redirects that were created to get around the consensus of a TFD discussion, and who's target is not intended to be used in the manner these redirects suggest. Template:Direct link was originally created by JsfasdF252 as a template that converted internal wikilinks into external links. This template was deleted following a TFD discussion here, basically on the basis that wikilinks should remain as wikilinks. After being deleted per the TFD consensus the template was recreated as a redirect to a template that could be misused to do the same thing, see the creation edit summary of Template:Direct link. Query link is supposed to be used for adding search strings to the end of a link (like &redirect=no or &action=history), but by passing it no parameters it can be used to do the same thing as the deleted Direct link template. I'm somewhat tempted to G4 these as an obvious attempt to get around the discussion at TFD, but I thought it better to bring these here for discussion 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as/nearly as G4 [...] per the original TfD, wikilinks should not be obfuscated like this. I would call it G4 in spirit—although the redirect is not identical at a technical level, it does something that has been decided against quite firmly at TfD. Doesn't actually have to be speedy-deleted though, normal deletion is fine. User:GKFXtalk 16:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC) (edited 19:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC) per below comments on G4.)[reply]
  • Don't G4 as that criterion very obviously does not apply - the pages deleted were templates and these are redirects. The WP:CSD#G4 criterion explicitly excludes pages that are not "substantially identical" to the deleted page, a redirect is not substantially identical to a template, and these redirects have not been previously discussed. There is no provision in the criterion for pages created to circumvent a deletion rationale, although such creations may be disruptive and/or WP:POINT violations those are not speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thryduulf I suppose it depends how you interpret "sufficiently identical" when applied to templates - is it the implementation that matters or the output? I wasn't sure which is why I brought it here. If a template is sent to TFD and consensus is to delete it would a recreation as a LUA module with identical input, functionality and output fall under G4? In this case the actual functionality of the template is the same as the redirect - it converts wikilinks to formatted external links i.e. it changes Foo to Foo. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I imagine a LUA module that was a recreation of a deleted template and had no additional functionality would be a G4 candidate (although it might depend on why the template was deleted). For redirects the consensus is that both the title of the redirect and the target of the redirect need to be almost identical to a redirect discussed at RfD to qualify. A redirect and a template are two very different things, and the question being asked here is not "should a template that does this exist" but "are these redirects to this other template (which presumably does have consensus to exist) useful?". Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The answer to that question is that these redirects suggest that converting wikilinks to external links is an approved thing to do. The title "Querylink" makes it clear that you are only supposed to use it with a query string whereas "direct" and "static" do not imply that restriction. User:GKFXtalk 19:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thryduulf Are they that different though? A thought experiment if you will - a user creates a "Cite Breitbart News" template by slightly modifying a copy of "Cite web", let's say they remove a couple of parameters. The template is sent to TFD where it is deleted on the basis that since Breitbart News is a depreciated source it is inappropriate to have a specialised citation template. The editor then recreates "Cite Breitbart News" as a redirect to cite web. From a functionality perspective the behaviour of the two is identical - they have the same template name, they take the same template parameters and they produce the same output, but one is implemented as a template and one is implemented as a redirect. So does the redirect qualify for G4 deletion? That's basically the situation with this redirect - community consensus was against a template at TFD so they've repurposed another template to do the same thing even though it wasn't intended to be used in that manner. I think it's quite a complex question and the answer is far from obvious.
      In terms of "is this redirect of any use" the answer is no IMO as the name is misleading - query link is designed to be used in a small number of situations where you need to generate a link with specific query parameters appended to the end - it was used extensively before pages like Special:History and Special:Edit were added to mediawiki, when the only way of creating links to edit a page was to manually create the URL with the "&action=edit" added to the end. It is not supposed to be used to mass replace wikilinks as the editor was doing in edits like these [1], [2], [3], [4] as doing this breaks literally everything (e.g. visualeditor, "what links here", database reports, skins, user scripts, bots, custom css ...) and offers no advantages. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      "I think it's quite a complex question and the answer is far from obvious." You've answered your own question here - if something is not obvious then it is not eligible for speedy deletion - per the lead of WP:CSD "Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases."
      As for the general principal, it is very clear that redirects and templates are very different things and so a TfD can not be used to delete a redirect under G4 in any circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the previous TfD (but I agree G4 doesn't apply). * Pppery * it has begun... 17:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since the redirect names don't seem to fit the template, and trout the nominator for a grossly inappropriate G4 suggestion. Nyttend backup (talk) 12:30, 8 May 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.

Stephen 1 of hugary[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 14:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect created by page move from typo, only has 59 pageviews. Hugary, etc do not exist. The only links to the page were automatically created by Twinkle when nominating this. Dudhhr (talk) 07:41, 6 May 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.

SafeRide[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 14:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google search suggests that this term is incredibly ambiguous. Neither Safe ride, Saferide, nor Safe Ride exist at the moment I am writing this, so I don't think there's anywhere better to point this. Hog Farm Talk 06:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This topic might merit its own article, but the current target is not appropriate. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:27, 8 May 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.

Wikipedia:EDITCONCENSUS[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) feminist (+) 12:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

project-space {{R from misspelling}} with 157 pageviews, with an anomalous spike on 1 June 2019. No edits since creation in 2013. Dudhhr (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, common misspelling, been used plenty. Breaking those old links is pointless. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947. Most redirects are not edited after creation (North Pennines AONB has been unedited since creation in 2005 for example), so that part of the nomination is a big "so what?". It's also worth noting that Concensus exists as redirect to Consensus decision making (the same target as Consensus) and is a well-used redirect, further demonstrating the plausibility of this redirect. Finally, the nomination doesn't indicate what benefits will arise from deletion, which is likely because there wont be any. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Mattx8y (talk) 16:45, 6 May 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:R to ca[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 03:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and not particularly useful. Page history says "Ca" is an abbreviation for "common abbreviation", but that's not obvious at all (at least {{r from ab}}, created by the same user, looks similar to "abbreviation"). Pokechu22 (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. When I saw this title in the list I was wondering why we needed to track specifically redirects to Canada or California? A redirect to a Catalan language name/term would be more plausible, but the correct way to do that is {{R to other language|ca}}. Further "common abbreviation" is not a listed use at the CA dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Thryduulf. Mattx8y (talk) 16:47, 6 May 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.

2007 Trolley Square shooting, Salt Lake City[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect, only existed for ~8 minutes as an undiscussed move, so unlikely to have any incoming external links. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I think this one has pretty reasonable natural disambiguation. After reviewing the situation surrounding the rapid page moves by that one editor, I'd understand if these redirects were deleted to discourage that behaviour. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @J947: I don't understand how this is a reasonable natural disambiguation, though. "2007 Trolley Square shooting" is, sure, but adding the ", Salt Lake City" after does not make sense. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It feels pretty reasonable to me. Often such a comma disambiguator is added as an afterthought, even when it isn't needed. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @J947: sure, but the proper way to do this would be "2007 Trolley Square, Salt Lake City shooting" - mixing the location before and after the event doesn't make sense. It's not the "Trolley Square shooting" that just happened to be in Salt Lake City - it's the shooting at "Trolley Square, Salt Lake City". Elli (talk | contribs) 01:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Often such a comma disambiguator is added as a quick afterthought when readers are searching. The comma functions as an in. Sorry if I'm being unclear. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. The target is about a shooting that occurred in Trolley Square, Salt Lake City in 2007 so the redirect is correct, harmless and might help some readers. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, tagged per Thryduulf. It's not a harmful redirect and could conceivably have use, but it's not really something I'd go to bat for. Vaticidalprophet 04:49, 7 May 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.

2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting, Las Vegas[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting, Las Vegas

Glacial retreat[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) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This used to redirect to glacial motion, which is logical - instead of going to a article about a specific geologic period. But Retreat of glaciers since 1850 is a FA and has more on the subject that the old target. On top of that, glacial motion links to Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - so maybe it is better to just go straight there unless/until glacial motion is improved. Another option is to make glacier retreat (disambiguation) the PT, but I'm not sure that is more helpful. The dab also needs to be fixed, because its currently written as if glacial retreat is the PT. MB 01:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another factor to consider is that I initially interpreted the redirect to mean a resort among glaciers. So ambiguous stuff here. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bundled a related redirect. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Glacial motion, and adjust the hatnote there to specify Retreat of glaciers since 1850 as a likely alternative target. BD2412 T 02:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of ambiguity here. Possibly also look at redirect to Glacier mass balance as that explains the process of both glacier retreat and advance.--MONGO (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I changed the redirects. Even though it is a natural phenomenon that has always happened, right now the research focus is the current retreat caused by global warming. It is a similar case to climate change, which refers to the current change. Vpab15 (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created a move request at Talk:Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850#Requested_move_7_May_2021 since I believe the primary topic is the current retreat. Hopefully the discussion there will help determine what is the best target here. Vpab15 (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both, add {{for}}{{about}} hatnote to Glacier retreat (disambiguation) at target, and update dab page. Was about to say move current dab page to one of these pages, but I do think the since 1850 article is the primary topic. Glacial motion, Glacier mass balance, and something about glacier resorts/tourism should be added to the dab, but not sure what links that would involve. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An {{about}} hatnote is probably better here. The dab page should definitely also include Deglaciation. Retargeting to deglaciation could also be considered, with appropriate links/hatnotes there. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep w/ hatnote clearly the site of current public attention, and should be the default link. Sadads (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vpab15. I thought of climate change / warming too. I'm not so concerned with WP:RECENTISM if we're consider a geologic scale (!). --BDD (talk) 18:31, 13 May 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.

Ettan fotboll[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! 01:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really needed since it's so close to the main article. Jonteemil (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 10:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. GiantSnowman 11:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep; look at WP:POFR and look for the word "capital". This kind of situation is explicitly permitted by a high-level guideline. Nyttend backup (talk) 12:33, 8 May 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_May_6&oldid=1046596579"