This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 24, 2018.
Development and Liberation
- 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. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
14:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
There is not a clear reason why this term is solely associated with the
Amal Movement I think the redirect is unnecessary
Polyamorph (
talk)
19:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Schütz-Werke-Verzeichnisses
- 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.
Deryck
C.
14:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
Nominating for
Gerda Arendt since they do not
know how to do it. The concern in the original speedy deletion nomination was: I don't believe we need a redirect from wrong German
. I am not making any comment myself.
~ GB fan
14:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
see also GB fan's talk, in short:
Schütz-Werke-Verzeichnis is a good redirect, the other is bad German. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
16:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 result of the discussion was retarget to
Matt Groening#Early life. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
21:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
The redirect target makes no sense; subject seems non-notable; a plausible target would be
Matt Groening#Early life, only if there was more information in the article.
� (
talk)
12:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
21:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
No. Found conflicting definitions from unreliable places; could not find a reliable source offhand. —
Godsy (
TALK
CONT)
09:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. The most common use of "bonus hole" does seem to be the vagina, but specifically vaginas of
trans men in the context of gay porn - at most this is a dictionary definition though and not one that is mentioned on Wikipedia that I can find. I'm also doubtful that even if we did have content that this would be the primary topic among other definitions (its used frequently in the context of
crazy golf as well for example).
Thryduulf (
talk)
10:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Without context, there really seems to be no reason to keep this. I agree.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
05:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
File:Skærmbillede 2018-06-18 kl. 18.06.38.png
- 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 Deleted by RHaworth per author's request. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
21:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
I forgot to name file before uploading. This redirect is not used in the article
2013 Eberswalde-Finow Zlin crash, which is why the redirect can just as well be deleted.
Baerentp (
talk)
09:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Agree with the author above that
WP:R3 applies here, recent typo. Author requested file Rename. The redirect is meaningless and unlikely to be used. Unnecessary recent Redirect was created by the file move recently by me since I only have File mover rights and not Page mover rights. I have requested
WP:RFP/PM rights to avoid such situtations in future. --
DBig
Xray
09:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks for clarifying - I should have included that info --
Baerentp (
talk)
10:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - As the upload was recent, there is no need to retain the former name. —
Godsy (
TALK
CONT)
10:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. It was only at this title for about a day and does not appear to have been used in the article when it was, so incoming links (which are less common for images than articles anyway) are exceedingly unlikely and there are no old versions which would be broken.
Thryduulf (
talk)
10:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 result of the discussion was delete. The rough consensus is the current target isn't suitable. Disambiguation may be possible; this is left open to editors.
Deryck
C.
14:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
Is this synonymous and unambiguous? —
Godsy (
TALK
CONT)
08:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget It is a synonym of swasitka, particularly used in German/Germanic or Sanskrit contexts, but not exclusively to the Germanic iron age so
Swastika would be a better target than the present one. Is it the best target though? There are loads of uses that are simply sum-of-parts (crosses that happen to be angled) and search results are polluted by angled cross-members, angled cross-streets, angled cross-sections, angled cross-court shots, etc, etc. so they will just confuse anyone actually searching for the specific usage. So in the absence of any other specific uses I think
Swastika is the best.
Thryduulf (
talk)
10:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete or disambiguate - There's a lot of ambiguity here. To start with, several typographic symbols exist that can be labeled as an "angled cross". See
≠ (the inequality symbol) and
† (the italicized obelisk) in particular. There are also a number of things over the page for
Christian cross variants that apply, such as the
Grapevine cross.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
06:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- delete I found exactly one real reference to an "angled cross" in the middle of a slew of false hits, and that one I couldn't see what it was. Probably six different cross patterns spread over at least two articles could be interpreted as "angled" in some sense. I don't see having this redirect just because the notion of angled might fall into someone's head.
Mangoe (
talk)
16:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete seems to refer to how the ends of the crosses are shaped, like rounded edges or angled edges.
[1]
[2] Could also refer to angled intersections
[3] Or angled cross sections. Or angled crossing shots in association football
[4] Definitely not Swastika, although the article mentions a "4-angled cross", that's not the same as angled cross.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
18:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC) updated 16:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 3#Presidential Medal
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 3#No party preference
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 1#Twitter redirects recently created by R64Q
- 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 speedily deleted per
WP:CSD#R3 by
Anthony Appleyard.
Thryduulf (
talk)
14:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned in the target page plus Google apparently does not know any notable person or character with this name.
Pichpich (
talk)
02:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete taking a closer look the person who created the redirect first created an article for the person playing Ivan Drsgo’s son in
Creed II but initially used Vito instead of the actual name Victor and this was quickly corrected by the same user. Unless I am missing something Vito is a one off mistake by a single editor. I think
WP:R3 would apply here since I doubt anyone else would get Vito and Victor confused.--
76.65.41.59 (
talk)
04:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Agree with the above that
WP:R3 applies here, recent typo.--
DBig
Xray
10:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- I tagged it as such and it has been deleted.--
76.65.41.59 (
talk)
05:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.