Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 20, 2022.

Ocasional superheroine[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 23:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the title of a book which isn't mentioned at target article. I would support keeping if a mention is added, but the fact that the title is also misspelled has brought me to the conclusion that deletion is preferable. CycloneYoris talk! 22:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment According to the infobox it's a pen name, but it is misspelled. pburka (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; receives virtually no pageviews and as such seems an unlikely usage. While redirects are cheap, this one does not seem to serve any purpose. Duonaut (talk | contribs) 23:48, 24 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.

Amit Goswami[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 23:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target (mention was removed in Special:Diff/751386801). * Pppery * it has begun... 16:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are several mentions of "Amit Goswami" on Enwiki but no substantive information. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:31, 20 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.

Barney the DInosaur[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! 11:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely capitalisation and search term. There exists Barney the Dinosaur redirect already. – robertsky (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a typo that is no more likely than any other. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947, old redirect getting use. Clear candidate for deletion if recently created, but this is quite old. Let's not break links. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sudden rise in pageviews likely has to do with this RfD. It doesn't seem (to me at least) to be of the scale indicating sudden actual usage. FAdesdae378's statement indicates that the admins have no problem with this logic, and while it's not exactly a consensus-level policy I don't think it's a bad idea. Checking the "what links here" for this page may be wise, still, if this gets deleted. Duonaut (talk | contribs) 22:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify:
      • The rise I refer to is that of March 2017; given it, I believe an artificial factor to be at play here.
      • The linked discussion is just that. RHARMFUL is of higher status, as a guideline.
      • Link(s) here are likely external – i.e., from outside Wikipedia. As such, it will not show up on the internal WhatLinksHere.
    • — J947 † edits 07:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Makes sense, then. Given the fact that the redirect is cheap and the above I change my vote to keep. Does not seem it would harm anything. Duonaut (talk | contribs) 03:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sttel1943 and J947. This is cheap, not misleading, takes people to exactly the content they are looking for and the page views indicate that it is helping a lot of people (653 between 1 January and the day before this nomination). Combine all this with there being absolutely zero benefits arising from deletion and there is no justification for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What, are we applying WP:NCCAPS to redirects now? Anyway, this redirect is fine, unambiguous, and cheap. Ovinus (talk) 05:38, 27 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.

Template:Userwork[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 19:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was a user template mistakenly created in User space. I have moved it to User:Quinxorin/Templates/Userwork template and fixed all of the transclusions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:49, 20 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.

Reality shift[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Reality shift

Tolyltriazole[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 Moot due to artice creation. If there are any objections to the newly-created stub article, discussion can be reopened. signed, Rosguill talk 19:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tolyltriazole is a distinct substance (see d:Q62062010) and should thus have its own article (or a red link until then). Leyo 11:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A brief mention of tolyltriazole was added to to the end of the article when this redirect was created, but I agree this should be redlinked until a stub or more substantial section can be created on it. Complicating the matter is that "tolyltriazole" does not define the position of the methyl group and therefore does not refer to a specific compound but rather a group of isomers. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adjust.
    • I created [Tolyltriazole] (2022-06-02T19:44:08), minutes before adding mention of it to [Benzotriazole] (2022-06-02T19:58:41). (If I had added mention first, I admit, I might not have created the redirect.)
    • Tolyltriazole, "a distinct substance" used in industry, deserves mention. (Maybe an article, maybe not.)
    • The redirect puts [Tolyltriazole] into Category:Benzotriazoles! (I expected its entry there to be italicized; I wonder why it is not.) A ham-fisted "Delete" would remove [Tolyltriazole] from that category. Keeping it in the category there requires a redirect or a split (cutting the section from [Benzotriazole] and pasting it into [Tolyltriazole]). (See can of worms.)
    • "Complicating the matter is that" someone didn't edit these observations into [Benzotriazole] and/or [Tolyltriazole]. (Handled.) -A876 (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have added more content since my comment above. It makes more sense to create a stub at this title rather than confusingly have a section for it in the article for a different compound, which can happen regardless of the outcome here at Rfd. A simple chembox can easily be included using content distilled from the Wikidata entry. The only reason to have a redirect (and associated entry in the benzotriazoles category) is if wikipedia actually has content on the subject. Now that we do, let's organize it properly. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Delete the redirect; it hardly matters which, because the redirect now has no real history and "should be" promptly replaced with the section from [Benzotriazole] that it points to. (I hope the "next editor" will move the section over the redirect, not challenge the redirect.) I would move the section over the redirect right now, but this discussion is open. Discussion can be closed quickly if the outcome is "move"; moving part of an article could be rationalized as a "move" outcome. (I'm tempted to close it right now.) -A876 (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot. Another 8 days gawn by without no farther clapification or objerctions, so I thinned [Benzotriazole] and made [Tolyltriazole] from a redirect into a stub. (May God have mercy on my soul.®) -A876 (talk) 06:20, 28 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.

Three Guys 1 Hammer[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 29#Three Guys 1 Hammer

Ghantsala[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Ghantsala

K16DO[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#K16DO

2026 Formula One World Championship[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#2026 Formula One World Championship

Saut[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. Editors are in agreement that the redirect is not appropriate, and that the newly-drafted disambiguation is suitable. signed, Rosguill talk 16:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Term is not precisely mentioned in the target article. I have just created Saut (disambiguation), which should be moved to this title. BD2412 T 01:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom --Lenticel (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per nom. It's an ancient Egyptian name for the city, but I'm not sure it's the primary topic for the term. There's other stuff it could refer to, and people might be WP:ASTONISHed to go to one page. Regards, SONIC678 04:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambig per nom -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close. Sorry BD, but this is a move request. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shhhnotsoloud: No, this is a request to delete the existing redirect. The request would be equally valid if there was no disambiguation page to move to the title. BD2412 T 20:16, 25 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.

Catholic law[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Catholic law

Elizabeth II (Cars)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Elizabeth II (Cars)

Mannerbunde[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Mannerbunde

Jeff Brown (author)[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. Editors are evenly divided on whether a redlink is preferable to the current redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 16:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a separate article for the author Jeff Brown, it should not redirect to his book Flat Stanley. Aalhorn (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Brown died in 2003, and his NYT obit is here. A pertinent guideline is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Red_links. This Jeff Brown is listed at the Jeff Brown dab page, so there should be a red link there too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I edited the dab page so as soon as the redirection (its creator ARMcgrath mentioned on his talk page that he had forgotten having created it) is deleted, the entry should turn into a red link. Aalhorn (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a {{r with possibilities}} or overwrite with an article. An article would be preferable, but until then, a redirect pointing to relevant material is more helpful to readers than the redlink or search results would be. - Eureka Lott 13:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to make an article-encouraging red link. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The incoming links mean a redlink would be less helpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:49, 20 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.

Ethereal plane[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 29#Ethereal plane

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_20&oldid=1112981738"