This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 2, 2019.
Black Bridge, Plassey
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.
Keep. Even if unlikely to do so, in the event that someone searches for Plassey's Black Bridge, they will be able to find information on it at the target. --
Tavix(
talk)03:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)reply
But we can’t have a redirect to every distinct item in every article. So is this bridge significant or likely enough to be searched?
SeoR (
talk)
18:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)reply
We can have a redirect for every distinct item that is discussed in an article and someone thinks significant enough to create a redirect for. --
Tavix(
talk)13:55, 23 September 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.
Hypno-Chip
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.
A fairly trivial item in the TV series, only mentioned in one passing sentence at the target article. Only real content ever was added in a single edit thirteen years ago. No incoming links from articles. Delete this.
JIP |
Talk22:07, 2 October 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.
Alfred Hitchcock’s
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. Although I !voted in the previous discussion, this one tackles a different issue that I feel more neutral about. That being said, if anyone feels this closure is biased, feel free to let me know and I will revert and relist. --
Tavix(
talk)18:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's highly unlikely anyone would ever use this exact text as a link or search term, especially as it has a curly apostrophe instead of a regular one.
JIP |
Talk08:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, due to the conflicts with manual of style, this redirect should never be used in links. Because curly apostrophe is less commonly used than the normal apostrophe, and
Alfred Hitchcock's, with normal apostrophe, is already a rather unlikely search term, this is not likely going to help in searching, either.
193.210.235.172 (
talk)
04:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment —
MOS:AT says: Whenever quotation marks or apostrophes appear, add a redirect for the same title but using “curly” quotemarks/apostrophes instead of the usual "straight" ones. So while the usage of curly quotes/apostrophes is discouraged in Wikipedia articles, it is actually recommended to create redirects from curly variants to straight variants. Therefore, either both
Alfred Hitchcock's and
Alfred Hitchcock’s should stay, or they both should go. Personally, I think both should go—why have a possessive form redirect at all? —
UnladenSwallow (
talk)
06:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Are there more of these? This is an implausible search term, especially with the curly apostrophe. I don't see how anyone would search for this.
JIP |
Talk06:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep until it's renominated together with the straight-apostrophe version.
MOS:AT is there for a reason: iPhones and iPads keyboards generally generate a curly apostrophe.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
08:04, 6 October 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.
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. Thanks
User:InvalidOS for explaining the meaning of the redirect title. However, the consensus is that the title has not been mentioned in the target article and so the redirect should be deleted.
Deryck C.11:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: This redirect exists because of
this shirt design which refers to the Creeper enemy from the game as "Creepus Explodus." The Creeper is mentioned in the target article. I did create the redirect, so I'm not going to say keep or delete, because to do so would be a conflict of interest. InvalidOS (
talk)14:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Despite appearing in official merchandise, the term still doesn't appear in the page and is not likely ever going to appear there. We can't have redirects for every single phrase that has at some point appeared in official merchandise if the meaning of the phrase is not explained at the target page.
193.210.225.12 (
talk)
14:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete due to the fact that this is not described in the target. Someone wanting to know what "creepus explodus" means will not be able to find what they are looking for. --
Tavix(
talk)18:36, 14 October 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.
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. Sorry, BDD! I don't think I've seen this lopsided of a discussion before at RfD.
Jif (drink) comes to mind for me, but at least I had someone agree with me! (and yes, I'm still sour about that one...) I do see where you're coming from though, and I would probably !vote to retarget it if a bilateral relations article existed. I think a {{confused}} hatnote would need to be deployed though and I think it would be awkward to place one in the middle of a table (which is where I would choose to retarget it by {{anchor}}ing it to the correct row). That pushes me close enough to neutral to not bother leaving a !vote, but I doubt it would matter anyway... --
Tavix(
talk)15:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is plenty of confusion between Australia and Austria as it is. Wikipedia should not add to that confusion.
JIP |
Talk07:00, 3 October 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.
Transfermarkt.us
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: Not every domain name that a company registers is a plausible candidate for a Wikipedia redirect. One must consider the actual use cases. For example, Microsoft has registered a .sex domain too.
flowing dreams (
talk page)
11:53, 14 October 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.
Donegal Tuesday
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.
Template:Quảng Binh Province
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. This is explicitly not
R3 because it is not recently created. However, I can see an argument for
G6's "unambiguously created in error" since it was a page move error by
AlphaBetaGamma01, who then immediately corrected it by moving the page again after realizing the error. --
Tavix(
talk)18:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:R3, incorrect spelling. The correct spelling for the province name is "Quảng Bình"; however all the templates are using diacriticless form, so I'll agree on that. However, this alternative half diacritic and half diacriticless spelling makes it confusing for editors to add the template.
WP:R3 should still be applicable, since it was created with a wrong spelling for a long time, but no one noticed this. Moreover, it can be clearly seen that this template name is unused. Therefore it should be deleted
Cn5900 (
talk)
02:40, 3 October 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.
Vanzolinius
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.
According to
this paper, Vanzolinius is a proposed new genus for Leptodactylus discodactylus. So, since this promotion of L. discodactylus to Vanzolinius discodactylus does not appear to have been challenged or vetoed, it should either be redirected to Leptodactylidae, and mention of this situation made there, or have the redirect made into its own article.--
Mr Fink (
talk)
17:51, 20 September 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.
Ms Nina
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: What are the competing topics?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Deryck C.16:54, 2 October 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.
The Kidd Creole (Emcee)
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.
Keep Title is not a typo. The proper stage name is "The Kidd Creole" and the article notes that the extra "d" is actually important for distinguishing the artist from other similarly named artists who only use one "d". The {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} further helps readers know that this is about the rap artist (one of the first to call themselves "MCs" which is often alternately spelled
Emcee) and not the other similarly named artists.
Wug·a·po·des
05:40, 25 September 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.
Wikipedia:WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited
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.
Oh, I just found out something immediately after finishing that comment. @
Tavix: They're from
a merge that took place ages ago. I therefore suggest we Restore
this version (removing the Merge tag of course though) and Mark historical. Then we can Retarget the remaining pages to that one. Would that work? –MJL‐Talk‐☖07:40, 26 August 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.
Teri Meri Kahaani (song)
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 page is about a song. But no details available. Only leaving a redirect. So. it is baseless to keep the redirect. Rather it should be deleted.
Sony R (
talk)
08:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Restore article and take it to AfD. This was a bold redirect of a fairly substantial and sourced article, I don't think its fate should be decided at RfD.
PC78 (
talk)
13:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)reply
One can have copyvios that are "substantial and sourced". One can have myths posed as truths and be "substantial and sourced". And then there is our case of passing mentions and un-encyclopedic trivia that can be "substantial and sourced". §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits}
03:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Article was made into a redirect back in 2016, so this isn't really a case where it needs to be made into a regular article unless there's a chance for independent notability from the film.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
17:13, 2 October 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.
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 nominate the redirect for deletion. This erroneous redirect was likely created by a Russian-speaking editor who didn't know that the English language uses “” quotes. (The Russian language uses «» quotes.) According to
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion § Reasons for deleting, 8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Combining English words with Russian quotes seems obscure. The redirect has no useful page history. There were three pages using this redirect, but I've updated them to point directly to the article. [Sidenote: per
MOS:AT, I have created Only “Old Men” Are Going Into Battle redirect (with curly quotes).]
UnladenSwallow (
talk)
12:46, 1 October 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.
User:SimonTrew/Ivanvector
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.
RfD veterans will likely remember SimonTrew, a banned editor who used to be very active here. At some point, related to some discussion about some thing, he created this redirect to a page in my user space (which he also created) which I have just come across again and asked to be deleted. This will then have no target and should be deleted too.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
14:51, 2 October 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.
Anthropomorph
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.
Retarget somewhere, or lacking that, delete. This is an extremely old redirect (January 2003), but it's always gone to a problematic location. Per OED, an anthropomorph is "A representation of the human form in art", and per our article, anthropomorphism is "the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities." Similar words but severely different meanings, as if the only meaning of "check" were
in hockey and the only meaning of "checkers" was
a board game, but someone redirected checkers to the ice hockey concept. The redirect can cause confusion, e.g. this link can cause the reference to anthropomorphs in the petroglyphs of the
V-Bar-V Heritage Site to sound like someone's ascribed human qualities to the rocks, not that human figures have been carven on it. If someone can find a good replacement target, great, but otherwise we need to delete this confusing redirect.
Nyttend backup (
talk)
15:56, 28 August 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.
Döblin
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.
Retarget to
Doblin. Doeblin should also be redirected. Alternatively Doeblin could be moved to
Döblin but since there's only a couple of name-holders it would be best to keep them in one place. —
Xezbeth (
talk)
05:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Doblin and merge
Doeblin to that page as well. We don't need to have separate
anthroponymy pages for three variations of a name that are only different by a diacritic or ligature: any of the variations are plausible spellings for any of the names, a reader might plausibly expect to find any of the individuals listed under any variation of this surname. Also,
Alfred Döblin is not the only Döblin on Wikipedia, and per pageviews none seem to be primary topics.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
18:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - what are the indications that
Alfred Döblin is the primary topic, over
Wolfgang Döblin or
Hugo Döblin, or any of the individuals who spell this name without the umlaut? Alfred has a small spike in pageviews from being an On This Day feature on Aug 10, otherwise the pageviews for all three articles are pretty similar, none more than a handful a day, except Alfred has an artificial lift of a few hits because this redirect points there. In ghits, "Alfred Döblin -wikipedia" scores 631,000, versus 705,000 for Hugo and 859,000 for Wolfgang. There's no primary topic here.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
15:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, a biography has to be significantly more prominent than the others to justify a primary surname redirect. Someone with the prominence of
Churchill and ubiquitously referred to by their surname alone. None of these people are in that realm of notability. —
Xezbeth (
talk)
20:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Google search results for Döblin almost exclusively refer to Alfred Döblin. I think that's a pretty good indicator. I had to go through eight pages of results before I found a result referring to something else. -
Eureka Lott00:59, 4 September 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.
MOS:CONSISTENCY
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.
Since this is confusing for editors, I suggest we disentangle this somehow. Given the number of WLH links, easiest would be to adjust the MOS: one. We could change the MOS:-name, and adjust open (=non-archive) pages (incoming links). For example:
I think the actual correct decision to make would be to disambiguate
WP:CONSISTENCY. There are a lot of different things we can be consistent about; having that point only to our page on article titles I think misses the boat. It's also not that great a shortcut given how lengthy it is. I wonder where
WP:Consistency points. --
Izno (
talk)
13:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)reply
There's already
MOS:ARTCON for
MOS:CONSISTENCY (National varieties of English:Consistency within articles), so if you get rid of the latter, I'm not sure that it needs another. If so, I'm not really loving MOS:INNERCONSISTENCY - maybe MOS:SELFCONSISTENT or something? --
IamNotU (
talk)
14:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)reply
As long as we agree that the WP:- and MOS:- difference must be resolved, I'm fine. Then again, multiple shortcuts can exist; helpfullness is the goal not sematical perfection. BTW "ARTCON" is not helpful: is that article title or article itself to be con(sistent)? -
DePiep (
talk)
14:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)reply
I do agree that MOS:CONSISTENCY and WP:CONSISTENCY shouldn't lead to different places. "WP:Consistency" (which is a "see also" at MOS:CONSISTENCY) leads to a third place, the disambiguation page. Not a huge fan of "ARTCON" either, but at least it's short. I'm ok if WP:CONSISTENCY goes to the disambiguation page as well. When I look it up, I'm usually looking for something about the general concept of consistency in articles. That could be spelling or date varieties, article titles, or other things - actually it might be nice if there was a more general write-up about that. --
IamNotU (
talk)
19:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)reply
But since they *are* separate namespaces, there is very little problem. What there is can be addressed by the standard device: {{MOS;Consistency]] redorects here; for
WP:Consistency, see... (I phrase it this way, because the standard template might not work.)
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)reply
This sort of evades the problem. The problem is that two same-named pages in two otherwise same (interchangeable) namespaces lead to two different contants. One cannot see from the outside (by ns name) which one. -
DePiep (
talk)
08:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect
WP:CONSISTENCY to
WP:Consistency – Currently,
WP:CONSISTENCY redirects to a section titled "Deciding on an article title", which already has the perfect shortcut,
WP:TITLECRITERIA. By contrast, "WP:CONSISTENCY" in no way indicates to a reader that the redirect points to a section about article title names. Just because one of the criteria is "consistency" doesn't mean it makes sense as a shortcut, because "consistency" is a criteria for a lot of things, not just article names (hence, the dab). It can be confusing when we have multiple, varying shortcuts that go to the same thing. For example, if I mention
WP:SIGCOV and
WP:GNG, the unsuspecting reader will think those point to two different pages or sections. By contrast,
MOS:CONSISTENCY actually points to a section entitled "Consistency within articles", and it's the only "consistency" section in
WP:MOS, so it makes sense as a shortcut, and should be left alone. –
Levivich22:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Still keeps two different targets for the (otherwise same) pagenames re MOS, so confusion stays. When linking to it (eg, when referring to in in a talk), one cannot know or even remember which one is needed. -
DePiep (
talk)
08:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate, probably by retargeting both to
Wikipedia:Consistency, but I'm open to other solutions. It's not great when existing comments end up pointing at a disambiguation page like this, but I'm more concerned with usage going forward. (And honestly, I'm sure at least some of those previous uses weren't actually going to where the editors expected!) --
BDD (
talk)
19:24, 14 October 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.
Bina Ganguly
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.
Based on a prior revision of this redirect (then an article), Bina Ganguly is Subhashree Ganguly's mother. However, she is not mentioned at the target and there is no indication that this is information that can be verified in a reliable source. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguilltalk18:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Mentioned
here, for example, but it doesn't seem like her mother has any notability so I don't see any valid reason for a redirect. Delete.
PC78 (
talk)
19:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: I
have now added a mention of her from PC78's mentioned source at the target. I doubt the utility of this redirect, but it is no longer problematic enough to justify deletion. If the mention is removed for any reason, I won't object to deleting the redirect as a BLP violation.
Geolodus (
talk)
16:48, 13 September 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.
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.
It's the 10th track on her album I'll Sing with You, and is mentioned at the target page under the hidden tracklist for that album. Note that you made a similar error back in April and withdrew your RfD for another such track called "Leave a Kiss"
[4].—NØ12:43, 2 October 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.
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.
Retarget or delete per
WP:RFOREIGN since there's no indication that its used in English for "Bury". Furthermore Google search and Google Translate seems to indicate that this is actually
Brown bear (but "Бурый" isn't mentioned there) see
Kamchatka brown bear for example where it is mentioned so if this is kept I would support redirecting to an appropriate article since the name is mentioned there. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
11:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete – Бурый is a shade of brown (
ruWiki), and a Russian surname. Russian Wikipedia has two articles for people named Бурый (see
here), one of which has an article on Wikipedia,
Aliaksander Bury. However, on closer examination, as they are Belorussian and Ukrainian respectively, the argument could be made that Бурый is still incorrect, as their native languages spell their names as Буры and Бурий respectively. Altogether, I think an argument could be made for redirecting to
Bury (surname) as an alternative to deletion, although its utility would be limited for the foreseeable future. signed, Rosguilltalk17:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Note that until August last year
Bury was about a town in Greater Manchester but Бурый redirected to
Bury (disambiguation). I agree with Rosguill about deleting or ratargeting to the surname page, whichever others think is best. Its probably implausible but could be remotely useful. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
17:10, 7 October 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.
MFx
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.
Fox of Fire
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 Magic of Christmas (Nat King Cole album)
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.
Eastern Catholic Churches not in full communion with Rome
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 as misleading. Nothing remotely looking like the redirect supposed topic is present at the target page. It introduces confusion with the
Eastern Catholic Churches, which are in full communion with Rome. There's no such thing as Eastern Catholic Churches not in full communion with Rome. Redirect page history shows one edit with an essay by a SPA, not worth keeping imho.
Place Clichy (
talk)
09:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I just looked through the original article, from before I replaced it with the redirect, to see, at least, what churches it was referring to—and it doesn't mention any specific churches. I infer from one section of it that the writer of that screed was idiosyncratically referring to the churches (the Orthodox churches, for example) with which the Roman Catholic church is in partial communion as "Catholic". The premise, I see now, is invalid and contradicted by the information in the article I'd redirected the title to. Delete.
Largoplazo (
talk)
10:49, 2 October 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.
🏴
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, default to delete. as none of the proposed targets have majority support, and it has been demonstrated that the "Chiang Rai province flag" meaning of this sequence isn't recognised by the Unicode Consortium.
Deryck C.17:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)reply
This title is not rendering properly in my browser, so it's possible that it creates a relevant emoji character (I just see a black flag followed by two white boxes). That having been said, I'm hard pressed to think of an emoji that could unambiguously refer to the target, and would appreciate having a justification provided for this redirect. signed, Rosguilltalk18:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect to
Flag; the current target doesn't make much sense to me either. At least a few Google search results call this emoji "England flag", but redirecting to England also wouldn't make sense;
Flag seems like the least ambiguous target (if this is kept). As a side note,
User_talk:Error#🏴 might be relevant. –Sonicwavetalk18:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Edit: Also, not opposed to deleting, since it's extremely unlikely that a character combination with no known rendering support will ever be a useful redirect. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
06:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: On Firefox, black flag. On Google Chrome, black flag. In Internet Explorer, black flag unless it is a link, in which case the flag takes on whatever link colors the user has chosen (defaults to blue). On Microsoft Edge, black flag followed by five white boxes (all one really wide character; you can't select just one of the boxes). All browsers latest versions running on a fully updated Windows 10. If anyone need me to I can try it on my Linux box and report the results. Fun fact:
List of black flags. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
13:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)reply
If anyone need me to I can try it on my Linux box and report the results - FWIW I'm on an Ubuntu 18.04 box right now and I get a black flag on Firefox 68.0.2 and a flag with question mark on Chromium 76.0.3809.100. Also might be worth noting: most flag emoji are not "Recommended for General Interchange" by the Unicode Consortium.
59.149.124.29 (
talk)
13:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Because this is specifically "Flag for Chiang Rai"—the flag for
Chiang Rai Province. The rest of the provinces are listed under "see also", where similar emojis, but not this exact one, are listed. --
Tavix(
talk)19:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget per Tavix. I'm running IE, so as Guy Macon noted, it just looked like a really basic dark flag, identical to 🏴. I now see that they have different coding, %F0%9F%8F%B4 versus %F0%9F%8F%B4%F3%A0%81%B4%F3%A0%81%A8%F3%A0%80%B5%F3%A0%80%B7%F3%A0%81%BF, but since I don't pay much attention to emojis, I didn't realise that they have 4 and 24 percent-encoded characters, or I would have known that they were different. Since this has Chiang Rai-specific coding, yes, let's send it there.
Nyttend (
talk)
01:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget per Tavix. I did not notice that the flag should be that of the province , not that of the city. Ideally Wikipedia should have a page for
Flag of Chiang Rai Province and this would redirect there. Even better, we would have pages or redirections for the flags of all the Thai provinces, and the corresponding emoji sequences would point to the page or the target of the redirection. --
Error (
talk)
22:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per Paul_012's observiations. Per
WP:REMOJI, we generally keep single-character emoji redirects only when they render fairly universally in a way which refers to a specific target; when one renders differently in ways that iconify different targets depending on which platform it's viewed on, it's inherently
confusing and should be deleted. From what most editors are saying here it seems that this one doesn't render correctly on any system, so besides being potentially ambiguous it's also patently useless.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
18:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, unless these types of flag emoji redirects follow a pattern already existing on Wikipedia. Else, I don't see how this redirect is useful or helpful. Nothing links to it and it's hardly a common search term. -- Ϫ04:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per Ivanvector, and the IP who noted that this hasn't been endorsed by Unicode. The Emojipedia page further states "Expect limited cross-platform support." We can revisit this if the situation changes. --
BDD (
talk)
19:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm leaning more toward delete now. I don't see this ZWJ sequence becoming supported in the foreseeable future. We should avoid creating these redirects until then. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
12:04, 15 October 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.
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 believe this redirect serves no purpose right now. Considering the fact that the subject has three children who are notable in their own rights, having this redirect makes no sense and it is definitely useless. Keivan.fTalk02:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. There's a weak argument for retargeting to the "Marriage and children" section of that article, but it doesn't seem like a useful search term to me.
PC78 (
talk)
06:52, 2 October 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.
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 2, 2019.
Black Bridge, Plassey
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.
Keep. Even if unlikely to do so, in the event that someone searches for Plassey's Black Bridge, they will be able to find information on it at the target. --
Tavix(
talk)03:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)reply
But we can’t have a redirect to every distinct item in every article. So is this bridge significant or likely enough to be searched?
SeoR (
talk)
18:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)reply
We can have a redirect for every distinct item that is discussed in an article and someone thinks significant enough to create a redirect for. --
Tavix(
talk)13:55, 23 September 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.
Hypno-Chip
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.
A fairly trivial item in the TV series, only mentioned in one passing sentence at the target article. Only real content ever was added in a single edit thirteen years ago. No incoming links from articles. Delete this.
JIP |
Talk22:07, 2 October 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.
Alfred Hitchcock’s
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. Although I !voted in the previous discussion, this one tackles a different issue that I feel more neutral about. That being said, if anyone feels this closure is biased, feel free to let me know and I will revert and relist. --
Tavix(
talk)18:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's highly unlikely anyone would ever use this exact text as a link or search term, especially as it has a curly apostrophe instead of a regular one.
JIP |
Talk08:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, due to the conflicts with manual of style, this redirect should never be used in links. Because curly apostrophe is less commonly used than the normal apostrophe, and
Alfred Hitchcock's, with normal apostrophe, is already a rather unlikely search term, this is not likely going to help in searching, either.
193.210.235.172 (
talk)
04:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment —
MOS:AT says: Whenever quotation marks or apostrophes appear, add a redirect for the same title but using “curly” quotemarks/apostrophes instead of the usual "straight" ones. So while the usage of curly quotes/apostrophes is discouraged in Wikipedia articles, it is actually recommended to create redirects from curly variants to straight variants. Therefore, either both
Alfred Hitchcock's and
Alfred Hitchcock’s should stay, or they both should go. Personally, I think both should go—why have a possessive form redirect at all? —
UnladenSwallow (
talk)
06:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Are there more of these? This is an implausible search term, especially with the curly apostrophe. I don't see how anyone would search for this.
JIP |
Talk06:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep until it's renominated together with the straight-apostrophe version.
MOS:AT is there for a reason: iPhones and iPads keyboards generally generate a curly apostrophe.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
08:04, 6 October 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.
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. Thanks
User:InvalidOS for explaining the meaning of the redirect title. However, the consensus is that the title has not been mentioned in the target article and so the redirect should be deleted.
Deryck C.11:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: This redirect exists because of
this shirt design which refers to the Creeper enemy from the game as "Creepus Explodus." The Creeper is mentioned in the target article. I did create the redirect, so I'm not going to say keep or delete, because to do so would be a conflict of interest. InvalidOS (
talk)14:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Despite appearing in official merchandise, the term still doesn't appear in the page and is not likely ever going to appear there. We can't have redirects for every single phrase that has at some point appeared in official merchandise if the meaning of the phrase is not explained at the target page.
193.210.225.12 (
talk)
14:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete due to the fact that this is not described in the target. Someone wanting to know what "creepus explodus" means will not be able to find what they are looking for. --
Tavix(
talk)18:36, 14 October 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.
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. Sorry, BDD! I don't think I've seen this lopsided of a discussion before at RfD.
Jif (drink) comes to mind for me, but at least I had someone agree with me! (and yes, I'm still sour about that one...) I do see where you're coming from though, and I would probably !vote to retarget it if a bilateral relations article existed. I think a {{confused}} hatnote would need to be deployed though and I think it would be awkward to place one in the middle of a table (which is where I would choose to retarget it by {{anchor}}ing it to the correct row). That pushes me close enough to neutral to not bother leaving a !vote, but I doubt it would matter anyway... --
Tavix(
talk)15:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is plenty of confusion between Australia and Austria as it is. Wikipedia should not add to that confusion.
JIP |
Talk07:00, 3 October 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.
Transfermarkt.us
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: Not every domain name that a company registers is a plausible candidate for a Wikipedia redirect. One must consider the actual use cases. For example, Microsoft has registered a .sex domain too.
flowing dreams (
talk page)
11:53, 14 October 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.
Donegal Tuesday
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.
Template:Quảng Binh Province
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. This is explicitly not
R3 because it is not recently created. However, I can see an argument for
G6's "unambiguously created in error" since it was a page move error by
AlphaBetaGamma01, who then immediately corrected it by moving the page again after realizing the error. --
Tavix(
talk)18:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:R3, incorrect spelling. The correct spelling for the province name is "Quảng Bình"; however all the templates are using diacriticless form, so I'll agree on that. However, this alternative half diacritic and half diacriticless spelling makes it confusing for editors to add the template.
WP:R3 should still be applicable, since it was created with a wrong spelling for a long time, but no one noticed this. Moreover, it can be clearly seen that this template name is unused. Therefore it should be deleted
Cn5900 (
talk)
02:40, 3 October 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.
Vanzolinius
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.
According to
this paper, Vanzolinius is a proposed new genus for Leptodactylus discodactylus. So, since this promotion of L. discodactylus to Vanzolinius discodactylus does not appear to have been challenged or vetoed, it should either be redirected to Leptodactylidae, and mention of this situation made there, or have the redirect made into its own article.--
Mr Fink (
talk)
17:51, 20 September 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.
Ms Nina
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: What are the competing topics?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Deryck C.16:54, 2 October 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.
The Kidd Creole (Emcee)
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.
Keep Title is not a typo. The proper stage name is "The Kidd Creole" and the article notes that the extra "d" is actually important for distinguishing the artist from other similarly named artists who only use one "d". The {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} further helps readers know that this is about the rap artist (one of the first to call themselves "MCs" which is often alternately spelled
Emcee) and not the other similarly named artists.
Wug·a·po·des
05:40, 25 September 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.
Wikipedia:WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited
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.
Oh, I just found out something immediately after finishing that comment. @
Tavix: They're from
a merge that took place ages ago. I therefore suggest we Restore
this version (removing the Merge tag of course though) and Mark historical. Then we can Retarget the remaining pages to that one. Would that work? –MJL‐Talk‐☖07:40, 26 August 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.
Teri Meri Kahaani (song)
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 page is about a song. But no details available. Only leaving a redirect. So. it is baseless to keep the redirect. Rather it should be deleted.
Sony R (
talk)
08:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Restore article and take it to AfD. This was a bold redirect of a fairly substantial and sourced article, I don't think its fate should be decided at RfD.
PC78 (
talk)
13:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)reply
One can have copyvios that are "substantial and sourced". One can have myths posed as truths and be "substantial and sourced". And then there is our case of passing mentions and un-encyclopedic trivia that can be "substantial and sourced". §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits}
03:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Article was made into a redirect back in 2016, so this isn't really a case where it needs to be made into a regular article unless there's a chance for independent notability from the film.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
17:13, 2 October 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.
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 nominate the redirect for deletion. This erroneous redirect was likely created by a Russian-speaking editor who didn't know that the English language uses “” quotes. (The Russian language uses «» quotes.) According to
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion § Reasons for deleting, 8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Combining English words with Russian quotes seems obscure. The redirect has no useful page history. There were three pages using this redirect, but I've updated them to point directly to the article. [Sidenote: per
MOS:AT, I have created Only “Old Men” Are Going Into Battle redirect (with curly quotes).]
UnladenSwallow (
talk)
12:46, 1 October 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.
User:SimonTrew/Ivanvector
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.
RfD veterans will likely remember SimonTrew, a banned editor who used to be very active here. At some point, related to some discussion about some thing, he created this redirect to a page in my user space (which he also created) which I have just come across again and asked to be deleted. This will then have no target and should be deleted too.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
14:51, 2 October 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.
Anthropomorph
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.
Retarget somewhere, or lacking that, delete. This is an extremely old redirect (January 2003), but it's always gone to a problematic location. Per OED, an anthropomorph is "A representation of the human form in art", and per our article, anthropomorphism is "the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities." Similar words but severely different meanings, as if the only meaning of "check" were
in hockey and the only meaning of "checkers" was
a board game, but someone redirected checkers to the ice hockey concept. The redirect can cause confusion, e.g. this link can cause the reference to anthropomorphs in the petroglyphs of the
V-Bar-V Heritage Site to sound like someone's ascribed human qualities to the rocks, not that human figures have been carven on it. If someone can find a good replacement target, great, but otherwise we need to delete this confusing redirect.
Nyttend backup (
talk)
15:56, 28 August 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.
Döblin
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.
Retarget to
Doblin. Doeblin should also be redirected. Alternatively Doeblin could be moved to
Döblin but since there's only a couple of name-holders it would be best to keep them in one place. —
Xezbeth (
talk)
05:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Doblin and merge
Doeblin to that page as well. We don't need to have separate
anthroponymy pages for three variations of a name that are only different by a diacritic or ligature: any of the variations are plausible spellings for any of the names, a reader might plausibly expect to find any of the individuals listed under any variation of this surname. Also,
Alfred Döblin is not the only Döblin on Wikipedia, and per pageviews none seem to be primary topics.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
18:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - what are the indications that
Alfred Döblin is the primary topic, over
Wolfgang Döblin or
Hugo Döblin, or any of the individuals who spell this name without the umlaut? Alfred has a small spike in pageviews from being an On This Day feature on Aug 10, otherwise the pageviews for all three articles are pretty similar, none more than a handful a day, except Alfred has an artificial lift of a few hits because this redirect points there. In ghits, "Alfred Döblin -wikipedia" scores 631,000, versus 705,000 for Hugo and 859,000 for Wolfgang. There's no primary topic here.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
15:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, a biography has to be significantly more prominent than the others to justify a primary surname redirect. Someone with the prominence of
Churchill and ubiquitously referred to by their surname alone. None of these people are in that realm of notability. —
Xezbeth (
talk)
20:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Google search results for Döblin almost exclusively refer to Alfred Döblin. I think that's a pretty good indicator. I had to go through eight pages of results before I found a result referring to something else. -
Eureka Lott00:59, 4 September 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.
MOS:CONSISTENCY
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.
Since this is confusing for editors, I suggest we disentangle this somehow. Given the number of WLH links, easiest would be to adjust the MOS: one. We could change the MOS:-name, and adjust open (=non-archive) pages (incoming links). For example:
I think the actual correct decision to make would be to disambiguate
WP:CONSISTENCY. There are a lot of different things we can be consistent about; having that point only to our page on article titles I think misses the boat. It's also not that great a shortcut given how lengthy it is. I wonder where
WP:Consistency points. --
Izno (
talk)
13:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)reply
There's already
MOS:ARTCON for
MOS:CONSISTENCY (National varieties of English:Consistency within articles), so if you get rid of the latter, I'm not sure that it needs another. If so, I'm not really loving MOS:INNERCONSISTENCY - maybe MOS:SELFCONSISTENT or something? --
IamNotU (
talk)
14:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)reply
As long as we agree that the WP:- and MOS:- difference must be resolved, I'm fine. Then again, multiple shortcuts can exist; helpfullness is the goal not sematical perfection. BTW "ARTCON" is not helpful: is that article title or article itself to be con(sistent)? -
DePiep (
talk)
14:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)reply
I do agree that MOS:CONSISTENCY and WP:CONSISTENCY shouldn't lead to different places. "WP:Consistency" (which is a "see also" at MOS:CONSISTENCY) leads to a third place, the disambiguation page. Not a huge fan of "ARTCON" either, but at least it's short. I'm ok if WP:CONSISTENCY goes to the disambiguation page as well. When I look it up, I'm usually looking for something about the general concept of consistency in articles. That could be spelling or date varieties, article titles, or other things - actually it might be nice if there was a more general write-up about that. --
IamNotU (
talk)
19:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)reply
But since they *are* separate namespaces, there is very little problem. What there is can be addressed by the standard device: {{MOS;Consistency]] redorects here; for
WP:Consistency, see... (I phrase it this way, because the standard template might not work.)
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)reply
This sort of evades the problem. The problem is that two same-named pages in two otherwise same (interchangeable) namespaces lead to two different contants. One cannot see from the outside (by ns name) which one. -
DePiep (
talk)
08:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect
WP:CONSISTENCY to
WP:Consistency – Currently,
WP:CONSISTENCY redirects to a section titled "Deciding on an article title", which already has the perfect shortcut,
WP:TITLECRITERIA. By contrast, "WP:CONSISTENCY" in no way indicates to a reader that the redirect points to a section about article title names. Just because one of the criteria is "consistency" doesn't mean it makes sense as a shortcut, because "consistency" is a criteria for a lot of things, not just article names (hence, the dab). It can be confusing when we have multiple, varying shortcuts that go to the same thing. For example, if I mention
WP:SIGCOV and
WP:GNG, the unsuspecting reader will think those point to two different pages or sections. By contrast,
MOS:CONSISTENCY actually points to a section entitled "Consistency within articles", and it's the only "consistency" section in
WP:MOS, so it makes sense as a shortcut, and should be left alone. –
Levivich22:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Still keeps two different targets for the (otherwise same) pagenames re MOS, so confusion stays. When linking to it (eg, when referring to in in a talk), one cannot know or even remember which one is needed. -
DePiep (
talk)
08:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate, probably by retargeting both to
Wikipedia:Consistency, but I'm open to other solutions. It's not great when existing comments end up pointing at a disambiguation page like this, but I'm more concerned with usage going forward. (And honestly, I'm sure at least some of those previous uses weren't actually going to where the editors expected!) --
BDD (
talk)
19:24, 14 October 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.
Bina Ganguly
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.
Based on a prior revision of this redirect (then an article), Bina Ganguly is Subhashree Ganguly's mother. However, she is not mentioned at the target and there is no indication that this is information that can be verified in a reliable source. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguilltalk18:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Mentioned
here, for example, but it doesn't seem like her mother has any notability so I don't see any valid reason for a redirect. Delete.
PC78 (
talk)
19:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: I
have now added a mention of her from PC78's mentioned source at the target. I doubt the utility of this redirect, but it is no longer problematic enough to justify deletion. If the mention is removed for any reason, I won't object to deleting the redirect as a BLP violation.
Geolodus (
talk)
16:48, 13 September 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.
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.
It's the 10th track on her album I'll Sing with You, and is mentioned at the target page under the hidden tracklist for that album. Note that you made a similar error back in April and withdrew your RfD for another such track called "Leave a Kiss"
[4].—NØ12:43, 2 October 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.
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.
Retarget or delete per
WP:RFOREIGN since there's no indication that its used in English for "Bury". Furthermore Google search and Google Translate seems to indicate that this is actually
Brown bear (but "Бурый" isn't mentioned there) see
Kamchatka brown bear for example where it is mentioned so if this is kept I would support redirecting to an appropriate article since the name is mentioned there. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
11:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete – Бурый is a shade of brown (
ruWiki), and a Russian surname. Russian Wikipedia has two articles for people named Бурый (see
here), one of which has an article on Wikipedia,
Aliaksander Bury. However, on closer examination, as they are Belorussian and Ukrainian respectively, the argument could be made that Бурый is still incorrect, as their native languages spell their names as Буры and Бурий respectively. Altogether, I think an argument could be made for redirecting to
Bury (surname) as an alternative to deletion, although its utility would be limited for the foreseeable future. signed, Rosguilltalk17:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Note that until August last year
Bury was about a town in Greater Manchester but Бурый redirected to
Bury (disambiguation). I agree with Rosguill about deleting or ratargeting to the surname page, whichever others think is best. Its probably implausible but could be remotely useful. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
17:10, 7 October 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.
MFx
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.
Fox of Fire
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 Magic of Christmas (Nat King Cole album)
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.
Eastern Catholic Churches not in full communion with Rome
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 as misleading. Nothing remotely looking like the redirect supposed topic is present at the target page. It introduces confusion with the
Eastern Catholic Churches, which are in full communion with Rome. There's no such thing as Eastern Catholic Churches not in full communion with Rome. Redirect page history shows one edit with an essay by a SPA, not worth keeping imho.
Place Clichy (
talk)
09:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I just looked through the original article, from before I replaced it with the redirect, to see, at least, what churches it was referring to—and it doesn't mention any specific churches. I infer from one section of it that the writer of that screed was idiosyncratically referring to the churches (the Orthodox churches, for example) with which the Roman Catholic church is in partial communion as "Catholic". The premise, I see now, is invalid and contradicted by the information in the article I'd redirected the title to. Delete.
Largoplazo (
talk)
10:49, 2 October 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.
🏴
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, default to delete. as none of the proposed targets have majority support, and it has been demonstrated that the "Chiang Rai province flag" meaning of this sequence isn't recognised by the Unicode Consortium.
Deryck C.17:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)reply
This title is not rendering properly in my browser, so it's possible that it creates a relevant emoji character (I just see a black flag followed by two white boxes). That having been said, I'm hard pressed to think of an emoji that could unambiguously refer to the target, and would appreciate having a justification provided for this redirect. signed, Rosguilltalk18:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect to
Flag; the current target doesn't make much sense to me either. At least a few Google search results call this emoji "England flag", but redirecting to England also wouldn't make sense;
Flag seems like the least ambiguous target (if this is kept). As a side note,
User_talk:Error#🏴 might be relevant. –Sonicwavetalk18:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Edit: Also, not opposed to deleting, since it's extremely unlikely that a character combination with no known rendering support will ever be a useful redirect. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
06:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: On Firefox, black flag. On Google Chrome, black flag. In Internet Explorer, black flag unless it is a link, in which case the flag takes on whatever link colors the user has chosen (defaults to blue). On Microsoft Edge, black flag followed by five white boxes (all one really wide character; you can't select just one of the boxes). All browsers latest versions running on a fully updated Windows 10. If anyone need me to I can try it on my Linux box and report the results. Fun fact:
List of black flags. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
13:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)reply
If anyone need me to I can try it on my Linux box and report the results - FWIW I'm on an Ubuntu 18.04 box right now and I get a black flag on Firefox 68.0.2 and a flag with question mark on Chromium 76.0.3809.100. Also might be worth noting: most flag emoji are not "Recommended for General Interchange" by the Unicode Consortium.
59.149.124.29 (
talk)
13:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Because this is specifically "Flag for Chiang Rai"—the flag for
Chiang Rai Province. The rest of the provinces are listed under "see also", where similar emojis, but not this exact one, are listed. --
Tavix(
talk)19:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget per Tavix. I'm running IE, so as Guy Macon noted, it just looked like a really basic dark flag, identical to 🏴. I now see that they have different coding, %F0%9F%8F%B4 versus %F0%9F%8F%B4%F3%A0%81%B4%F3%A0%81%A8%F3%A0%80%B5%F3%A0%80%B7%F3%A0%81%BF, but since I don't pay much attention to emojis, I didn't realise that they have 4 and 24 percent-encoded characters, or I would have known that they were different. Since this has Chiang Rai-specific coding, yes, let's send it there.
Nyttend (
talk)
01:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget per Tavix. I did not notice that the flag should be that of the province , not that of the city. Ideally Wikipedia should have a page for
Flag of Chiang Rai Province and this would redirect there. Even better, we would have pages or redirections for the flags of all the Thai provinces, and the corresponding emoji sequences would point to the page or the target of the redirection. --
Error (
talk)
22:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per Paul_012's observiations. Per
WP:REMOJI, we generally keep single-character emoji redirects only when they render fairly universally in a way which refers to a specific target; when one renders differently in ways that iconify different targets depending on which platform it's viewed on, it's inherently
confusing and should be deleted. From what most editors are saying here it seems that this one doesn't render correctly on any system, so besides being potentially ambiguous it's also patently useless.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
18:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, unless these types of flag emoji redirects follow a pattern already existing on Wikipedia. Else, I don't see how this redirect is useful or helpful. Nothing links to it and it's hardly a common search term. -- Ϫ04:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per Ivanvector, and the IP who noted that this hasn't been endorsed by Unicode. The Emojipedia page further states "Expect limited cross-platform support." We can revisit this if the situation changes. --
BDD (
talk)
19:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm leaning more toward delete now. I don't see this ZWJ sequence becoming supported in the foreseeable future. We should avoid creating these redirects until then. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
12:04, 15 October 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.
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 believe this redirect serves no purpose right now. Considering the fact that the subject has three children who are notable in their own rights, having this redirect makes no sense and it is definitely useless. Keivan.fTalk02:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. There's a weak argument for retargeting to the "Marriage and children" section of that article, but it doesn't seem like a useful search term to me.
PC78 (
talk)
06:52, 2 October 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.