This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 27, 2018.
Wikipedia:Cthulhu Mythos reference codes and bibliography
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.
Err, what? If it weren't projectspace, it'd be main->main, which is clearly not an R2. This may be a cross-namespace redirect, but not one that really matters. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)11:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)reply
There's a more complex history here that isn't acknowledged above. This was
merged at AfD, which happened but was kept(?) before being moved in 2016 to projectspace (as allowed for(ish) in the AfD close) and just recently the bibliography/references removed from the target article. There is a long history in this, and it's not clear to me that no content is being used, so I'd keep it as a harmless place for historical attribution. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)11:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)reply
I would be opposed to this. The target has no mention of "reference codes" so a mainspace redirect of this nature seems a bit misleading to me. --
Tavix(
talk)01:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Tavix: I suggested that title "on the fly" since it is the title without the "Wikipedia:" prefix. I’d be opposed to sending this to MfD with the content restored since the content was apparently article material, nor project namespace material. If this is to remain in the article namespace, do you have another title in mind?
Steel1943 (
talk)
17:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)reply
There are a lot of sources that have been compiled and I would hate for all that research to go to waste. It makes sense to me as a WikiProject-like reference point that would have a meta-purpose for editors editing Cthulhu-related articles. --
Tavix(
talk)17:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Re: implausible — This is currently a redirect from Wikipedia space to Mainspace, so plausibility really has little to do with it. Additionally, as I noted above, there's history here that may need to be kept for attribution. Deletion is implausible. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)17:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Iskandarouna
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.
Comment: This should be kept if the concern is if the target exists, because it does. Is the nominator stating that the redirect should be deleted because the redirect represents a separate subject, and is advocating
WP:REDLINK deletion of this redirect?
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Wikipedia:Reliable sources
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move back to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Reasonable arguments have been made, and there has been no opposition. As a matter of procedure, it's going to take me a minute to get everything cleaned up and moved, so please let me deal with it to avoid edit/move conflicts.(done)
Primefac (
talk)
14:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)reply
After about 9 years after the page formerly at this title was moved to
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, I think it is time to discuss this redirect. The issue with this redirect is that it has several subpages that are not directly related to the content at its target:
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and
its subpages, most archives. The reason the current setup is a bit problematic is for navigational purposes. Subpages have a functionality where if its parent page exists, a link to its parent page(s) will appear in the corner of the screen. Well, if a reader starts at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and clicks on the link for
Wikipedia:Reliable sources, they get forwarded to its current target with no clean way to click on a link to return to where they came from. Another issue that has the potential to arise is if somehow the content at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources (regardless of what is there, redirect or a page) gets moved with its subpages, then there might be some sort of mismatch. I had considered moving
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and its subpages back to
Wikipedia:Reliable sourcesWP:BOLD-ly to remove the unprecedented oddness and technical problems for such a prominent page (
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) to have a parent page that is a redirect, but then besides
Wikipedia:Reliable sources being move-protected (I’m a non-admin, so this prevents me from performing a "round-robin move of the pages), after giving it some thought, performing such a move is definitely controversial. So, here are my thoughts on options of what can be done with the redirect to resolve these technical oddities:
Move all of the
subpages of "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" to subpages of "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources" to fix parent page/subpage break (least preferred option since it has the potential to break a lot)
Move
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The move fundamentally doesn't make sense either, the article serves as a full overview of reliable sources and how they work on enwiki, not just the tutorial for identifying them that the current title implies. And, while we're at it, any stragglers under other titles should be moved under the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/* hierarchy, since that's what consensus is currently using elsewhere.
Nathan2055talk -
contribs08:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have removed the RFD notice from the redirect as it is ruining the redirect. You will need to have the conversation without affecting functionality. —
billinghurstsDrewth02:32, 30 December 2018 (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.
Blériot XIV
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.
This redirect should be deleted--the Blériot XIV, unlike the Blériot XXIV, had no relationship with the XIII. Eventually the Blériot XIV deserves a proper article, but until then a redlink would be preferable to a misleading redirect.
Colin Douglas Howell (
talk)
18:16, 27 December 2018 (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.
London Shitland
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.
Delete doesn't meet the
WP:RNEUTRAL threshold of an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources ... should be kept even if non-neutral - eight Google hits and a few uses on Twitter per year.
59.149.124.29 (
talk)
10:34, 28 December 2018 (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.
Negro slaves
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.
Unnecessary use of pejorative language for people of colour. It's extremely unlikely that anyone will search for this term, and that's reflected in the fact that this title was first created in only this week by an editor just banned for racist activism on Wikipedia. The fact that it's since been retargeted is not an argument in favour of keeping it. Guy (
Help!)
10:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't think it's necessarily an implausible term, even though it's dated language which may be seen as offensive now, simply because someone might see the phrase in some historical book and not know what it means. However we don't have a clear target to point the reader to, as there isn't a general article about slavery of people of African origin.
Atlantic slave trade covers the transport of slaves from Africa to the Americas, but what happened to them and their descendants afterwards is out of scope.
Slavery in the United States is only about the use of African slaves in one particular region, it doesn't cover the Caribbean, South America, etc. I can't see any obviously better target except maybe
Slavery, and that seems a bit unnecessary for a redirect. Hut 8.520:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree with
Hut 8.5 that there are several plausible subjects one could direct this title to and given the baggage of this term, it's better to delete it. And please no one cry censorship! There is no way we would have pejorative redirects using slang for women, ethnic minorities and Jewish people. This is an English Wikipedia and so we have to be conscientious of how the word is used in English, not Spanish and Portuguese. In present day, people only use "Negro" if they are trying to be archaic or offensive since the common terms are "black" or "African-American", not "Negro". LizRead!Talk!05:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)reply
There is no way we would have pejorative redirects using slang for women, ethnic minorities and Jewish people. Completely wrong I'm afraid - we have articles and redirects for many such terms
Slut,
Pikey,
Kike,
Nigger,
Yid,
Paki (slur), etc, etc. If the words are likely search terms we do and should have redirects to the content we have about them - see
WP:RNEUTRAL. People look things up on Wikipedia that they read in old documents, etc, not just what they hear in contemporary usage. Indeed if a term has fallen out of use then it is even more likely people will look it up to understand what was meant.
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as
WP:XY. It can mean this, it can mean that. While the redirect
black slave should obviously exist, "negro slave" is a pleonasm and can't be logically redirected to
Negro or
Atlantic slave trade, especially because of the equally appropriate target
Slavery in the United States. I don't like the argument that the redirect's existence is "offensive", because (1) the phrase is used in scholarly research, albeit to mean many different things, and (2) there are no BLP concerns;
WP:NOTCENSORED applies. I don't care if this leaves a red link on a racist editor's talk page. wumbolo^^^09:52, 28 December 2018 (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.
중국
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.
Delete unneeded redirect from korean text to chinese topic. If it were 中国 ("China") then I would say keep, but I doubt many people come to the english wikipedia looking for an article on china and type in the korean name --
DannyS712 (
talk)
04:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Laces
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 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.
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 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.
Mrs. Keane
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 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.
Mojo-jojo
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 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.
Blossom (powerpuff girls)
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 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.
Him (powerpuff girls)
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.
Comment I don't care what you do with it, I made the redirect a long time ago. Besides this website isn't the right place to find information about that character anyway. The powerpuff girls wiki is, so it's best that they find that place instead.
Blaze The Movie Fan (
talk)
22:12, 27 December 2018 (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.
Bubbles - PowerPuff Girl
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.
Redirect is in a really peculiar format that doesn't fit. Very unlikely misspelling due to the hyphenated content of the name. Unnecessary redirect.
Paper LuigiT •
C03:45, 27 December 2018 (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.
Blossum (Powerpuff Girls)
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. Clearly, there should be a STEM-focused episode with a character named
BLOSUM ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)17:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Powerpuff Girls wiki
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.
I want to say...redundant wikilink? The Powerpuff Girls wiki is on Wikipedia. There are other fan-based wikis, but this wikilink does not even have worthy edit history to justify its existence.
Paper LuigiT •
C03:33, 27 December 2018 (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.
The Powerpuff Boys
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 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.
Powerpuff Girlz
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.
Unnecessary redirect. The series was never promoted with a "z" instead of the letter "s". I can't find any sources that merit this as a worthy redirect.
Paper LuigiT •
C03:19, 27 December 2018 (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.
Powderpuff Girls
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.
Unnecessary redirect. "Powderpuff" is a term used with regards to female American football in school. Though the series has alluded to this, the title has never been "Powderpuff Girls".
Paper LuigiT •
C03:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. The similarity between the names means that people have probably mistaken the name of the TV show, thinking that it's "Powderpuff".
Powderpuff (sports) is not a good target, since anyone aware of powderpuff will know it's a girls' game: no reason to type girls at the end. Someone who types the full phrase, therefore, is likely looking for the TV show and merely mistyped or misremembered the name of the show.
Nyttend (
talk)
05:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per Nyttend. If the company is actually notable (a two-minute google suggests they are not immediately obviously so) then the redirect can be overwritten by an article with a hatnote.
Thryduulf (
talk)
14:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Insect Inside (Powderpuff Girls episode)
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 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 a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 27, 2018.
Wikipedia:Cthulhu Mythos reference codes and bibliography
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.
Err, what? If it weren't projectspace, it'd be main->main, which is clearly not an R2. This may be a cross-namespace redirect, but not one that really matters. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)11:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)reply
There's a more complex history here that isn't acknowledged above. This was
merged at AfD, which happened but was kept(?) before being moved in 2016 to projectspace (as allowed for(ish) in the AfD close) and just recently the bibliography/references removed from the target article. There is a long history in this, and it's not clear to me that no content is being used, so I'd keep it as a harmless place for historical attribution. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)11:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)reply
I would be opposed to this. The target has no mention of "reference codes" so a mainspace redirect of this nature seems a bit misleading to me. --
Tavix(
talk)01:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Tavix: I suggested that title "on the fly" since it is the title without the "Wikipedia:" prefix. I’d be opposed to sending this to MfD with the content restored since the content was apparently article material, nor project namespace material. If this is to remain in the article namespace, do you have another title in mind?
Steel1943 (
talk)
17:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)reply
There are a lot of sources that have been compiled and I would hate for all that research to go to waste. It makes sense to me as a WikiProject-like reference point that would have a meta-purpose for editors editing Cthulhu-related articles. --
Tavix(
talk)17:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Re: implausible — This is currently a redirect from Wikipedia space to Mainspace, so plausibility really has little to do with it. Additionally, as I noted above, there's history here that may need to be kept for attribution. Deletion is implausible. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)17:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Iskandarouna
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.
Comment: This should be kept if the concern is if the target exists, because it does. Is the nominator stating that the redirect should be deleted because the redirect represents a separate subject, and is advocating
WP:REDLINK deletion of this redirect?
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Wikipedia:Reliable sources
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move back to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Reasonable arguments have been made, and there has been no opposition. As a matter of procedure, it's going to take me a minute to get everything cleaned up and moved, so please let me deal with it to avoid edit/move conflicts.(done)
Primefac (
talk)
14:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)reply
After about 9 years after the page formerly at this title was moved to
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, I think it is time to discuss this redirect. The issue with this redirect is that it has several subpages that are not directly related to the content at its target:
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and
its subpages, most archives. The reason the current setup is a bit problematic is for navigational purposes. Subpages have a functionality where if its parent page exists, a link to its parent page(s) will appear in the corner of the screen. Well, if a reader starts at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and clicks on the link for
Wikipedia:Reliable sources, they get forwarded to its current target with no clean way to click on a link to return to where they came from. Another issue that has the potential to arise is if somehow the content at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources (regardless of what is there, redirect or a page) gets moved with its subpages, then there might be some sort of mismatch. I had considered moving
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and its subpages back to
Wikipedia:Reliable sourcesWP:BOLD-ly to remove the unprecedented oddness and technical problems for such a prominent page (
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) to have a parent page that is a redirect, but then besides
Wikipedia:Reliable sources being move-protected (I’m a non-admin, so this prevents me from performing a "round-robin move of the pages), after giving it some thought, performing such a move is definitely controversial. So, here are my thoughts on options of what can be done with the redirect to resolve these technical oddities:
Move all of the
subpages of "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" to subpages of "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources" to fix parent page/subpage break (least preferred option since it has the potential to break a lot)
Move
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The move fundamentally doesn't make sense either, the article serves as a full overview of reliable sources and how they work on enwiki, not just the tutorial for identifying them that the current title implies. And, while we're at it, any stragglers under other titles should be moved under the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/* hierarchy, since that's what consensus is currently using elsewhere.
Nathan2055talk -
contribs08:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have removed the RFD notice from the redirect as it is ruining the redirect. You will need to have the conversation without affecting functionality. —
billinghurstsDrewth02:32, 30 December 2018 (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.
Blériot XIV
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.
This redirect should be deleted--the Blériot XIV, unlike the Blériot XXIV, had no relationship with the XIII. Eventually the Blériot XIV deserves a proper article, but until then a redlink would be preferable to a misleading redirect.
Colin Douglas Howell (
talk)
18:16, 27 December 2018 (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.
London Shitland
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.
Delete doesn't meet the
WP:RNEUTRAL threshold of an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources ... should be kept even if non-neutral - eight Google hits and a few uses on Twitter per year.
59.149.124.29 (
talk)
10:34, 28 December 2018 (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.
Negro slaves
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.
Unnecessary use of pejorative language for people of colour. It's extremely unlikely that anyone will search for this term, and that's reflected in the fact that this title was first created in only this week by an editor just banned for racist activism on Wikipedia. The fact that it's since been retargeted is not an argument in favour of keeping it. Guy (
Help!)
10:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't think it's necessarily an implausible term, even though it's dated language which may be seen as offensive now, simply because someone might see the phrase in some historical book and not know what it means. However we don't have a clear target to point the reader to, as there isn't a general article about slavery of people of African origin.
Atlantic slave trade covers the transport of slaves from Africa to the Americas, but what happened to them and their descendants afterwards is out of scope.
Slavery in the United States is only about the use of African slaves in one particular region, it doesn't cover the Caribbean, South America, etc. I can't see any obviously better target except maybe
Slavery, and that seems a bit unnecessary for a redirect. Hut 8.520:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree with
Hut 8.5 that there are several plausible subjects one could direct this title to and given the baggage of this term, it's better to delete it. And please no one cry censorship! There is no way we would have pejorative redirects using slang for women, ethnic minorities and Jewish people. This is an English Wikipedia and so we have to be conscientious of how the word is used in English, not Spanish and Portuguese. In present day, people only use "Negro" if they are trying to be archaic or offensive since the common terms are "black" or "African-American", not "Negro". LizRead!Talk!05:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)reply
There is no way we would have pejorative redirects using slang for women, ethnic minorities and Jewish people. Completely wrong I'm afraid - we have articles and redirects for many such terms
Slut,
Pikey,
Kike,
Nigger,
Yid,
Paki (slur), etc, etc. If the words are likely search terms we do and should have redirects to the content we have about them - see
WP:RNEUTRAL. People look things up on Wikipedia that they read in old documents, etc, not just what they hear in contemporary usage. Indeed if a term has fallen out of use then it is even more likely people will look it up to understand what was meant.
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as
WP:XY. It can mean this, it can mean that. While the redirect
black slave should obviously exist, "negro slave" is a pleonasm and can't be logically redirected to
Negro or
Atlantic slave trade, especially because of the equally appropriate target
Slavery in the United States. I don't like the argument that the redirect's existence is "offensive", because (1) the phrase is used in scholarly research, albeit to mean many different things, and (2) there are no BLP concerns;
WP:NOTCENSORED applies. I don't care if this leaves a red link on a racist editor's talk page. wumbolo^^^09:52, 28 December 2018 (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.
중국
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.
Delete unneeded redirect from korean text to chinese topic. If it were 中国 ("China") then I would say keep, but I doubt many people come to the english wikipedia looking for an article on china and type in the korean name --
DannyS712 (
talk)
04:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Laces
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 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.
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 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.
Mrs. Keane
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 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.
Mojo-jojo
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 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.
Blossom (powerpuff girls)
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 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.
Him (powerpuff girls)
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.
Comment I don't care what you do with it, I made the redirect a long time ago. Besides this website isn't the right place to find information about that character anyway. The powerpuff girls wiki is, so it's best that they find that place instead.
Blaze The Movie Fan (
talk)
22:12, 27 December 2018 (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.
Bubbles - PowerPuff Girl
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.
Redirect is in a really peculiar format that doesn't fit. Very unlikely misspelling due to the hyphenated content of the name. Unnecessary redirect.
Paper LuigiT •
C03:45, 27 December 2018 (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.
Blossum (Powerpuff Girls)
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. Clearly, there should be a STEM-focused episode with a character named
BLOSUM ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)17:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Powerpuff Girls wiki
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.
I want to say...redundant wikilink? The Powerpuff Girls wiki is on Wikipedia. There are other fan-based wikis, but this wikilink does not even have worthy edit history to justify its existence.
Paper LuigiT •
C03:33, 27 December 2018 (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.
The Powerpuff Boys
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 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.
Powerpuff Girlz
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.
Unnecessary redirect. The series was never promoted with a "z" instead of the letter "s". I can't find any sources that merit this as a worthy redirect.
Paper LuigiT •
C03:19, 27 December 2018 (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.
Powderpuff Girls
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.
Unnecessary redirect. "Powderpuff" is a term used with regards to female American football in school. Though the series has alluded to this, the title has never been "Powderpuff Girls".
Paper LuigiT •
C03:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. The similarity between the names means that people have probably mistaken the name of the TV show, thinking that it's "Powderpuff".
Powderpuff (sports) is not a good target, since anyone aware of powderpuff will know it's a girls' game: no reason to type girls at the end. Someone who types the full phrase, therefore, is likely looking for the TV show and merely mistyped or misremembered the name of the show.
Nyttend (
talk)
05:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per Nyttend. If the company is actually notable (a two-minute google suggests they are not immediately obviously so) then the redirect can be overwritten by an article with a hatnote.
Thryduulf (
talk)
14:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Insect Inside (Powderpuff Girls episode)
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 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.