Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 28, 2020.

"Charleston College"

[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 18:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term due to the quotations that do not serve to make any specific portion of the title stand out. The version without the quotations marks, Charleston College, exists and is a redirect targeting the same location as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2020 (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.

Beirut thunderclap

[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 18:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A thunderclap by definition means either the literal weather occurrence thunder and lightning, or something that is unexpected. Can we say that about the explosions at Beirut? CaptainGalaxy 22:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete what matters is not whether this is literally correct, but whether this is a term that is used for this target (or a different one). Currently Google finds exactly one hit for this exact phrase, which is an automatically scraped list of Wikipedia article titles. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created it because I thought people might search for this term by allusion to the "Delft Thunderclap", another notable accidental explosion. Considering the lack of use, it can be deleted. Passengerpigeon (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A quick google search turned up only one result with no meaningful content. Nobody is calling it this. It "Delft Thunderclap" is likely only known by that name because it occurred before the word "explosion" came into its present meaning. It doesn't apply to any modern explosion. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see that this term is likely to be used and it seems like it isn't at the moment. It's doing no harm by being there - there's no competing target for the serach phrase - but it can be deleted just out of a sense of tidiness. › Mortee talk 04:07, 29 August 2020 (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.

Dr w

[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 18:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems too vague to just be linked to doctor who. From what i can tell many other Doctors beginning with w as well as a Dragon Ball character with the same name appears before Doctor Who when searching the term up. CaptainGalaxy 20:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Dr. Wily. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. There are a lot of Doctor W's. Seventyfiveyears at 21:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Search results would be preferable since next-to-none of such people/characters are known simply as "Dr. W". That, and such a disambiguation page would include some roads named "W" or going west. (Oh hmm ... is there a retargeting option somewhere?) Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I've been looking around on Wikipedia for a bit for a concept in an article which could explain how some countries use a naming convention such as "(ROAD NAME) (ROAD TYPE [or road type abbreviation]) (DIRECTION DESIGNATION)" where the "... (ROAD TYPE [or road type abbreviation]) (DIRECTION DESIGNATION)" could be "DR W", but I can't find any such information at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Type "dr w" into the search box and a number of notable doctors are listed in the popup list. We don't know which one the reader wanted, so we shouldn't force them to Doctor Who. But if they really were looking for Dr Who then it appears within the first few entries of the popup list. So, this redirect has some bad side affects and isn't needed anyway.  Stepho  talk  23:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This redirect was probably created because in the Doctor Who story The Underwater Menace the Doctor signs his name "Dr. W" so it's a plausible search term even if doesn't exactly match. P-K3 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t believe the term being used once in 1967 is enough to keep this.--67.68.208.64 (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What harm is it doing? This is an alias the character used in the show, so the redirect is plausible. P-K3 (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2020 (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.

Krazyfest

[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 18:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Seems as though this redirect should target the content formerly at Krazy Fest, which was deleted via WP:PROD in 2017. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2020 (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:Usemdydates

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 5#Template:Usemdydates

PO P

[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 18:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering retargeting this to Pop, a disambiguation page, but I don't see the combination of a lack of a space between two potential capitalized acronym letters, and then a space between the next set of letters, to be plausible as a search term. Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2020 (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.

Tiffin School Scott House

[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 18:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection between the target and the redirect unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2020 (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.

Izalio

[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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem as though this is an alternative name for the target. I've been looking around third party search engines for a bit, and it looks as though two major results appear for this term: 1) a fictional character in Eternal (video game), and 2) possibly a site that mirrors Wikipedia with a probable claim this term refers to the subject at Izalco (volcano). Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2020 (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.

Nintendo 604

[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 18:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get what this means, it's trying to be a literal 64. However, this is not a helpful redirect. CaptainGalaxy 19:25, 28 August 2020 (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.

Rokuyon

[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 Six Four. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can can gather, this is Japanese for Sixty Four, however since this doesn't have Nintendo at the front, it would have barely any connection to the console. CaptainGalaxy 18:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure that per WP:FORRED that the redirect is needed since I doubt that a native English speaker looking up this number would use the Japanese term. It is a better choice than the current target though.--67.68.208.64 (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the target based on the the comment below. -2pou (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me since due to Rokuyon being the actual Japanese title it’s the most plausible target.--67.68.208.64 (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good find! Updated my !vote above to match. Not as "fun" but better for the encyclopedia. -2pou (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2020 (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.

Nintendo 63

[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 18:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything involving the title 63 anywhere. I'm pretty sure this just meant to be a joke. CaptainGalaxy 18:49, 28 August 2020 (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.

Coinhive

[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! 07:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this redirect should be deleted since the specified paragraph of the page that it references is now gone. 77.139.59.160 (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Bacon 18:23, 28 August 2020 (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.

Network (upcoming film)

[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 18:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer upcoming, and no links from the article namespace to any of these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2020 (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.

Cerevisaphilia

[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 17:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirects and the target article unclear. The definition of these words seems to be "love/lover of beer", but that's not what the target is about, and this concept is not exclusive to the target as Beer includes subtopics that are not "Craft brewery and microbrewery"-related. Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2020 (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.

Kienspan

[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a case of WP:RLOTE, this variety of wood is found all over the world; searching Google Scholar for this term only returned German results, suggesting that it's not used as a loanword in English. signed, Rosguill talk 15:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Used in one of Neal Stephenson's books, which are written in English. MarkMLl (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 22:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting a facts-based contribution to an article in the middle of the ongoing discussions and even accusing the contributor of original research in the face of MarkMLl's explanation of the word's usage in the English language looks like you are trying to suppress evidence. I therefore consider your reversion at this particular point in time as disruptive.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkMLl already gave evidence of the term's usage further above in the discussion (and I stated this in the article, reverted by you, so you obviously are aware of it). In my judgement, the redirect is warranted per the relevant guideline WP:REDIR. The usage seems to be rare, but that does not matter much. What matters in a RfD are guidelines - and applying good common sense. The cited essay (WP:RLOTE aka WP:RFFL aka WP:FORRED) does not reflect community consensus, thus is of little relevance to this discussion. If anything, WP:RDELETE #8 ("if the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful") could be a valid reason for deletion depending on interpretation, but it is countered by WP:RKEEP #3 ("They aid searches on certain terms") and #5 ("Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.") Checking the purposes for why redirects are created (see guideline WP:RPURPOSE), points #1 ("Alternative names redirect to the most appropriate article title") and #8 ("Alternate forms of a name as found in reliable sources and common databases") apply to some extent. I consider an English book which is actually using the term as top-class evidence in regard to the term's usage in the English language. As the usage nevertheless is rare, the arguments need to be weighted and good common sense applied. But in the end the guideline-based Keep-argument "Someone finds them useful" is difficult to overturn unless an argument could be found for the entry to be harmful (like being in the way of another article, which it, however, is not). A book reader actually might want to know what "Kienspan" is, so the search engine should redirect to the relevant article. Therefore: Keep.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:RFFL is sound; it prevents generating literally countless links that have no place in en WP. A single author of a single book using this is far from sufficient; there's probably tons of English books using tons of foreign terms for their own obscure (or mistaken) reasons. If the bar were that low we'd be back to countless foreign links, wasting our attention and time to repeatedly wonder about what they mean and why they exist every time some editor comes across them. This is why we don't keep any and all redirects anyone creates. --A D Monroe III(talk) 01:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a red herring as we are not talking about tons of foreign terms, but a specific one. From your argumentation above it appears as if you prioritize easier maintenance over good user experience. While it is good if both can be had at the same time (f.e. by leaving a good edit summary on a redirect's purpose), the priority should always be on the best-possible user experience in querying an encyclopedia (because that's why we are here).
In most cases there are sound reasons for the existence of redirects, but at the minimum they exist because someone found them useful (which typically involves some suboptimal situation this user ran into earlier which triggered him or her to add the redirect to make the experience less unpleasant for others -- the cited "hint" further above might be eye-opening). Of course, sometimes an editor is confused or mistaken and the redirect needs to be taken care of in some form, but this redirect is not one of them. It is not only useful as it is, it is actually desirable as a redirect from a loanword per the relevant guideline. It might be rarely used, but it is not obscure (per the evidence above).
We even keep redirects from typos (something I personally do not endorse unless it is for very common ones), so the threshold for inclusion is actually very low (also per WP:CHEAP). Basically, for redirects which are not misleading or total junk, the threshold is about where it would get in the way of something more useful. But getting redirected to the proper place is desirable, and not getting a hit in the search engine is the opposite of good user experience and not helpful to our target audience at all.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like this would've been deleted uncontroversially if not for one novelist's usage. Since those novels are set in historical Europe, claiming such usage has introduced the term into modern English as a loanword seems rather premature and speculative. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with historical or modern English? The novelist in question is still alive and the books are modern works, even if set in a historical context. But even if the term would be used only historically, the fact that Kienspan is used as an English word satisfies the definition of loanword already. The only thing that is debatable is if it is in frequent use, and certainly it is not. But does this really matter? The redirect is useful per the criteria given in our guideline on redirects (outlined and referred to in details above already), and it is not in the way of another page, so why delete it? Even if it only helps a few people / readers of the books, still it does. Deleting it does not help anyone. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, frequency of usage very much matters. See WP:RFD#DELETE #8 ("novel or obscure synonym"). WP:NEO is a similar policy, if not specifically about redirects. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I mentioned WP:RDELETE #8 as well already, but I see it being more than neutralized by WP:RKEEP #3 and #5, and also backed up by WP:RPURPOSE #1 and #8. Wikipedia would be a pale shadow of itself if we would only cover mainstream topics - in fact, the less common topics are the most interesting ones (for as long as they are properly sourced, of course). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2020 (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.

Jay Kaye

[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. Early close since the "Jay Kaye" mentioning is now restored. Closing discussion as well since the keep votes seem obvious and specific enough. (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why this page redirects to the Mary Kaye" article. Besides, it's not even mentioned in that page. Seventyfiveyears at 16:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Googling for Jay Kaye finds his websire where (according to the google snippet) he states that he is Mary Kaye's son. The website isn't presently working for me, but the Internet Archive version does back that up. This was mentioned in the article, albeit unsourced, until "jay+kaye" this edit by jpgordon in May this year. The edit summary ("tightened") does not make it clear whether the removal was solely due to it being unsourced or some other concern and there is no relevant discussion on the talk page. If a sentence mentioning him is readded to the destination article then this would be a perfectly normal redirect from a family member to the article about their notable relation as it doesn't appear he is notable in his own right. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - jpgordon removed (without explanation) information on her son, Jay Kaye. I re-added the info and added citations. He does not deserve his own Wikipedia page, but anyone searching Wikipedia for Jay Kaye or Suddenly One Summer ‎ should redirect to Mary Kaye. Kingturtle = (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now a notable mention is restored. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2020 (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.

Coronaves

[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not mentioned anywhere in the "Neoaves" article. So obviously, the redirect is misleading and confusing. Seventyfiveyears at 13:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Obvious delete - and I realize we're encouraged to come here, but this could easily be a g6. Atsme Talk 📧 14:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget to Neognathae, and I'm not sure which one. (This redirect has existed since 2012, so its creation has nothing to do with current events.) Third party search engines are showing this to be some sort of clade described by someone named "John H. Boyd" (I don't think they have a Wikipedia article), but I'm not sure if the lowest-level parent topic is the current target or Neognathae, where this redirect is linked and mentioned. However, the section which mentions this redirect, Neognathae#Taxonomy and systematics, states this redirect is essentially a subtopic of the current target. So, either way, deletion helps no one. (On a related note, I'm going to ping Plantdrew who has been quite helpful in the past figuring this stuff out.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Coronaves was described by Fain & Houde in 2004, but Boyd's website is what is bringing it visibility. It represents a hypothesis that is not compatible with any of the classifications currently presented in Neoaves (Coronaves includes the three orders mentioned as "orphaned", among other differences). Without digging into it especially deeply, I get the sense that the Coronaves hypothesis has been abandoned. Neoaves references a 2019 paper by Houde makes no mention of Coronaves (if Houde wanted to continue to recognize it, he could have presented a new circumscription). Neoaves is the narrowest clade with an article that includes all the taxa that were included in Coronaves, so if kept, I'd be inclined to redirect there rather than the broader Neognathae. I'm not sure how much Neoaves should be cluttered up with obsolete classifications though (it's one thing to present a classification that stood for 100 years and was overturned by molecular phylogeny; it's another thing to include a churn of molecular phylogenetic results that are abandoned after 15 years or less). I think the best solution would be creating an article, with deletion as next best (Metaves has an article and was also proposed by Fain & Houde in 2004). Plantdrew (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We usually don't delete redirects for obsolete terms, I don't know what the harm is in keeping this one? As long as someone searching for it will get to an article that approximately covers the same ground. FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:06, 28 August 2020 (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.

HDTV quality DVD Player

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 5#HDTV quality DVD Player

Auto driver

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 4#Auto driver

"Wood science"

[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 17:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quotations make this redirect unlikely and WP:COSTLY. The version of this redirect without quotations, Wood science, exists. Steel1943 (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2020 (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:WPJ

[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 per SNOW. (non-admin closure) J947messageedits 21:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could also be an acronym of WikiProJect. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:34, 28 August 2020 (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.

J-Zay

[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 17:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect, barely close to its target name. Seventyfiveyears at 14:12, 28 August 2020 (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.

Bagyong redirects

[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. signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bagyong is a Filipino word for "Typhoon", but we don't have other redirects like Bagyong Sepat, Bagyong Etau, Bagyong Malakas, etc. So these are the only mentions of "Bagyong" in enwiki. Seventyfiveyears at 12:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll agree to that. CaptainGalaxy 18:37, 28 August 2020 (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.

McDonald's redirects

[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 both per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirects. "Mc" is pronounced "MICK", while "Mac" is pronounced "MACK". Seventyfiveyears at 12:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example [1]. CaptainGalaxy 12:39, 28 August 2020 (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.

Perverted-Justice.com/MediaRevision

[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 move to Perverted Justice (website) without leaving a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per the history of this page, seems this title was used as sort of a draft/sandbox for a couple of week in 2006. As a search term though, it's confusing and unclear. If the edit history needs to be preserved, then at the minimum, this redirect should be moved to a plausible search term for its target. Steel1943 (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CaptainGalaxy 11:53, 28 August 2020 (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.

GameCube 2

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 17:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything stating the Wii was ever called the Gamecube 2 not even when it was Project Revolution. I'd say this is quite misleading. CaptainGalaxy 11:43, 28 August 2020 (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.

Draft:2020 Alaska Earthquake

[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 2020 Alaska earthquake. signed, Rosguill talk 17:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There already is an article which is found on the page about the 2020 Alaska Peninsula earthquake. CaptainGalaxy 11:27, 28 August 2020 (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.

Hero (upcoming film)

[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 17:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not upcoming. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2020 (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.

Hero (Luther Vandross album)

[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 Luther Vandross discography#Soundtracks. signed, Rosguill talk 18:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Luther Vandross does not mention an album Hero', and Luther Vandross discography refers only to Hero (1992 film) which does not mention a soundtrack or Vandross. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2020 (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.

TOoS

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 5#TOoS

Origin of the species

[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. signed, Rosguill talk 17:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem like the alternative name of Darwin's enlightening book. Therefore, retarget to an article about the origin of species in general. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:07, 28 August 2020 (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.

Hero (Greek mythology)

[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 Hero (disambiguation)#Mythology. signed, Rosguill talk 17:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is ambiguous because it may refer to Greek hero cult, or to Hero generally, or to the character in Hero and Leander, or to Hero (mythology). The best solution may be retarget to Hero (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2020 (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.

Hero (2014 film)

[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 17:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article says this film was released in Sep 2015. Note that "Hero (20xx film) is highly ambiguous: see Hero (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2020 (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.

Kir(Case Closed)

[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 17:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed title; Kir (Case Closed) already exists as a redirect. Slashme (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2020 (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.

Sprache

[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. signed, Rosguill talk 17:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could also mean other stuff called "Sprache". Therefore, dabify. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:57, 28 August 2020 (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.

Hadzuki Fujiwara

[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! 06:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Character does not exist, Hadzuki is a typo, replacement redirect page Hazuki Fujiwara also exists Rctgamer3 (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2020 (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.

Definitions of North America and Northern America

[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 retarget to Americas (terminology). which was the stable target for fourteen years before it was adjusted recently with no visible justification. Participants are unanimous that the change was not helpful. ~ mazca talk 19:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The United States isn't the only country in North America. Maka, the Two Star Meister! (talk·) 02:49, 28 August 2020 (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.