Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 10, 2022.

William Keith, 1st Earl Marischal[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. Jay 💬 05:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should rather become an article of its own, cf. Earl Marischal#Earls Marischal of Scotland (c. 1458). Hildeoc (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. William Keith is mentioned in the lead of the current target, and since there are incoming links this is more helpful than a redlink. There is nothing to stop editors overwriting the redirect with a new article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. If anyone wants to create an article, they can simply overwrite the redirect. No need for deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 22:53, 17 September 2022 (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.

E.R. II[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 ER2. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No indication this is used to refer specifically to Elizabeth II. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 18:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well the E is for Elizabeth, and the II is for the 2nd - so think it's definitely her https://www.postalmuseum.org/blog/royal-cypher-appearances/ 91.125.195.227 (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pretty sure the R stands for regina "queen". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - appears more like a re-direct to a boat/ship, named after Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As I mentioned at the related discussion, there is some text at ER2 related to this: "ER2, ER-2, etc. may refer to: Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and other realms, from the Latin ER II (Elizabeth Regina II) inscribed on coins, etc." The results for this were slightly worse than the ER II version, presumably due to the extra periods. This one might be better off deleted rather than redirecting it. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In theory someone with no knowledge of Elizabeth II, many years from now, might see her royal cypher on a British pillar box and want to look up what "ER II" means (although that person might read it as EIIR instead). A redirect to ER2 would help that person; alternatively, ER § People has the same information and covers other monarchs, which gives further context. Not sure which is the better redirect target, as ER2 is more specific but royal cyphers of hers with the Arabic numeral are very rare (but not unheard of). Ham II (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to ER2, which now offers the royal cypher of Elizabeth II rather than the queen herself and explains the Latin. Facts707 (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to ER2, where the royal cypher is listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to ER2 per above. A7V2 (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2022 (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.

ER II[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 ER2. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No indication this is used to refer specifically to Elizabeth II. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 18:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close Please bundle this with the E.R. II nomination, since it's being nominated for the same reason. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mellohi!: Next time, just WP:BOLDly bundle them yourself by merging them, like I or other RFD regulars would do. At this point though, since it is now the next day in UTC and the discussions have separate comments, I personally wouldn't do it at this point. Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It looks like a redirect for a boat or a hospital. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to our text at the disambiguation page, ER2, "ER2, ER-2, etc. may refer to: Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and other realms, from the Latin ER II (Elizabeth Regina II) inscribed on coins, etc." However, a Google search only shows lukewarm results with 13 out of 30 results referring to the Queen directly or indirectly. (With about a third being results from Pinterest or shopping websites, which are not reliable sources.) This might be better off as a redirect to ER2 than to point to the Elizabeth II article. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2022 (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.

William H. Brooks[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 17#William H. Brooks

God Save the King / God Save the Queen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 17#God Save the King / God Save the Queen

Network Effect[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 Network effect. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Network effect is currently a huge topic in the computing and business fields and NGRAMS shows that the term "Network Effect" (treating this as a proper noun) is greater in frequency than the capitalization "Network effect" (treating this as a common noun at the start of a sentence). The NGRAMS timing indicates that the surge in user well predates the publication of the 2020 book to whose plot summary in a broader article this redirect currently points. As such, I think that this should be retargeted to Network effect, which seems to be the WP:PTOPIC for this capitalization. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:24, 10 September 2022 (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.

Arupa[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 17#Arupa

Jonathan Lipow[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. Jay 💬 08:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing redirect that appears to be from a voice actor to an article listing one fictional character he has voiced. He's not mentioned in the article and I don't know of any reason why he should be associated with that character more than any of his other work. Unless anyone can think of a better target, seems like it should be deleted. MClay1 (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete he is mentioned in several articles as the voice actor for various characters, the most prominent seems to be Monsieur Mallah where he is mentioned in the lead, so if this is going to redirect anywhere that is where it should be. However, searching google I'm getting the impression that he might be notable (the first page is mainly detailed coverage in unreliable sources, but I've not looked at what their sources are and some potentially useful coverage appears from page 2). Note there is also a professor with this name, who may or may not also be notable (again a 1 minute google just tells me that it's not obvious either way), but we have no coverage of him at all so disambig is not a viable option. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. Haven't found a suitable target and seems likely a real article is possible. Skynxnex (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2022 (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.

UP Halcyon[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! 06:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of the subject was closed as delete last 7 September 2022, re-created as redirect as of today. What reason for this to be re-created as redirect, nobody on the AfD voted to redirect it. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. UP Halcyon is mentioned at the target and it is unambiguous. An AfD closure as delete does not preclude the title being redirected unless there is explicit consensus against that in the discussion, which there wasn't - indeed the only two people to mention a redirect both explicitly supported it as an option (one as an alternative to deletion, one as an acceptable course of action after deletion). Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I voted redirect in the first AfD. The org, which was proven to be non-notable twice, is mentioned in the article. Besides, a redirect won't hurt at all. SBKSPP (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2022 (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/2022_September_10&oldid=1110882765"