This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 20, 2020.
Sernui
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Another Middle-earth river redirect not mentioned anywhere. It's rather a minor plot point, just a name on a map really, so I don't see a reason to really mention it anywhere.
Hog FarmBacon 23:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Neither the target section nor that section's main article has any information about it, so the redirect is pointless. --
Elphion (
talk)
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.
Cementoss
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 is not mentioned in the target or anywhere else in the "My Hero Academia characters" article.
Seventyfiveyears at 23:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. This does appear at target article, it’s apparently the name of a character. No reason to delete.
CycloneYoristalk! 23:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, it's in the target, so I don't see a reason to delete.
Hog FarmBacon 23:31, 20 August 2020 (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.
Draft:Donald trump
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Incorrect use of the draft namespace. There's no page history here, both have always been redirects. This isn't a plausible search term, as nobody's gonna search for a title with the Draft: prefix, unless they're looking for a specific draft.
Hog FarmBacon 22:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. More proper usage of the draft namespace would be to copy paste the article to make potential edits to request later if you aren't extended confirmed.
OcelotCreeper (
talk) 23:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, and I think an edit filter or page creation blacklisting of some sort should be created for the creation of redirects in the "Draft:" namespace that are created and target a non-"Draft:" namespace page.
Steel1943 (
talk) 00:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)reply
...Who may want to consider deleting these redirects per
WP:G7 and
WP:SALT-ing these titles from being created by non-confirmed accounts instead, if I'm understand the reason why these redirects were created? (The creation and deletion logs for these titles are a mess.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 02:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as obvious maintenance. Perhaps salt if log history shows repeated attempts (not admin, can't check that myself). —
JFGtalk 10:17, 21 August 2020 (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.
Lap top
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.
Implausible redirect, most likely because of its space.
Seventyfiveyears at 22:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. Plausible misspelling of this
compound word. (In fact, I'd say most compound words could be plausible incorrectly spelled with a space, but that's a discussion for another time, if ever.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 22:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. I believe this is an extremely common error.
228 pageviews this year. I'm seeing no indication that this is implausible in any way.
Hog FarmBacon 22:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, this spelling variant is even used on wikipedia, currently on 10 pages
[1]. –
Uanfala (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. Almost all compound words started off as two words. An exact-word Google search for "lap top" shows that people are still offering them for sale.
Narky Blert (
talk) 06:14, 21 August 2020 (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. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:57, 28 August 2020 (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.
Saburo YOKOZAWA,
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
User:Stoshmaster blanked, which I restored, but it doesn't seem useful. It has no incoming links, uses non-standard case, and ends with a comma.
Ost (
talk) 20:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete this JUNK, While the capital last name might be forgiven for holding the ⇧ Shift or ⇪ Caps Lock key for much too LONG, the comma I don't see a plausible reason for KEEPING, Regards,
SONIC678 20:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Inconsistent use of CAPS and the comma at the end make this typo to implausible to be useful or helpful.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Capitalising a surname is reasonable (at least as reasonable as {{R from sort name}}s); it's a style used in some published works. However the comma at the end pushes it over the threshold.
59.149.124.29 (
talk) 00:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. The move was done 14 minutes after the initial article creation. Ideally it would have been done without leaving a redirect, but c'est la vie. There's no benefit to keeping this lying around. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 23:22, 27 August 2020 (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 keep. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Come on, do we really need this?!
Hildeoc (
talk) 01:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
With no reliable source, the page seems frivolous or perhaps a Trojan horse for
WP:OR or
WP:SYNTH. I favour speedy deletion of the page.
Chjoaygame (
talk) 19:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Heat source also redirects there.
Hildeoc, would you like to add it to this nomination? --
BDD (
talk) 19:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, I would favour speedy deletion of this too.
Chjoaygame (
talk) 19:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I do not understand the rationale for this RfD. The page is plausible as a search term. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 21:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, I too do not understand the problem here, least of all the advocacy to speedy delete it. If someone wikilinked
Heat source in an article, this seems like the obvious target. There is no particular reason these should exist as separate articles, but it's a reasonable and related phrase that seems to be pointing to an obvious closely-related topic. It seems like a classic and harmless use of a redirect. ~
mazcatalk 21:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or Weak retarget to
Heat transfer, which would likely be a better target, but even that's a stretch. If someone wikilinks one of these, and not "heat" itself, as suggested above, they should be slapped with a wet
trout for putting unrelated verbiage into a link. It's better to leave a red link as a hint that you've linked something vague and as a prompt to put in what's really appropriate. On the other hand, as a search term, this is also too vague to assume that someone's looking for a general high-level article on "Heat" itself. Best to leave it to the search engine. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 21:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per Mazca and LaundryPizza03. Both are perfectly plausible search terms, maybe a bit vague, but harmless enough for keeping.
CycloneYoristalk! 00:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: I see these as plausible search terms, so I think this redirect can stay. Aasim 19:30, 20 August 2020 (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.
Ram Lalla
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.
Ram Lalla refers to the deity, which is an infant
Rama
By the page move history, the Redirect was to
Ram Lalla Temple, which then redirected to
Ram Janmabhoomi but now redirects to
Ram Mandir, Ayodhya. A bot fix for double redirect is why it currently redirects to
Ram Janmabhoomi.
Proposing to redirect either to
1.
Rama (as per mythology)
2.
Ram Mandir, Ayodhya (the temple of Ram Lalla)
Option 1 – Ram Lalla is mythologically Shri Ram, and Ram Mandir is the temple of Him. --
Soumya-8974talkcontribssubpages 18:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Option 1: But, the
Rama article nowhere discusses about Ram Lalla even in the "Birth" or "Youth, family and friends" sections. We need some relevant information to be added on Ram Lalla. Option 2 is about the temple dedicated to Ram Lalla and not about him.
Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 19:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Option 1, as a form of the same deity. Redirecting the deity's name to an article about a temple doesn't feel right. Vanamonde (
Talk) 16:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Option 2 Form of the deity associated with a particular temple, is generally redirected to the temple e.g
Vishalakshi.
RedtigerxyzTalk 16:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 19:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: !Votes are evenly split and no one seems to be satisfied with the status quo, so let's try another relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Option 2 Ram Lalla is almost exclusively associated with the temple. Also there's seems to be some content regarding the subject at
Ram Mandir, Ayodhya#Deity. --
Ab207 (
talk) 15:18, 25 August 2020 (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.
INTERIOR/NIGHT
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.
Might be a stylization of the name of the company, but nothing on the target page indicates this.
Onel5969TT me 15:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Onel5969: FWIW, see the infobox on the target page.
Steel1943 (
talk) 15:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Steel1943 - Missed the logo (it's very difficult to see), but now seeing it, withdraw this nom.
Onel5969TT me 15:34, 20 August 2020 (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.
@
Onel5969: Wow, I didn't see the logo either. I was referring to the title of the infobox. A white image with a translucent background ... I'm surprised you saw it ... because I sure didn't until you pointed it out above.
Steel1943 (
talk) 15:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Shafa Malingsu
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
This is a misspelling and unnecessary capitalisation of a bad over-literal translation into Chinese of the term couch potato, created by a user who was blocked for sockpuppetry (though only after this redirect was created, so it doesn't qualify as
WP:CSD#G5). The bad over-literal translation itself (
沙發馬鈴薯) gets about a dozen Google Hits
[2]. Even apart from the
WP:FORRED issues, the existence of this redirect adds zero value to Wikipedia and may mislead unsuspecting readers into assuming it's a correct term.
59.149.124.29 (
talk) 09:52, 20 August 2020 (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.
Malingsu
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:FORRED since the subject of the target article has no affinity to the Chinese language.
Steel1943 (
talk) 08:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator. It's not even a correct spelling of the word in question (
wikt:mǎlíngshǔ).
59.149.124.29 (
talk) 09:24, 20 August 2020 (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.
Super tuber
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection unclear.
Steel1943 (
talk) 08:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete: R3 Aasim 18:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Enwiki has nothing about the subject.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:57, 23 August 2020 (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.
Whine
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 redirects listed here and moveWhine (album) to the base title. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
When someone is whining, frustration is not necessarily the emotion they are experiencing.
Steel1943 (
talk) 08:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Agree that this isn't a suitable target. I can't think of good targets, so either deletion or redirecting to Wiktionary would be fine by me.
Whiney should definitely be deleted though: we shouldn't go that far in cataloguing the English lexicon here.
Whine should either be retargeted to
Whine (album), or, better, deleted to make way for the move of that article back to its pre-2017 title. –
Uanfala (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2020 (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. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in target article, and not clear why it would or should be. Other than that, the redirect is ambiguous with basically any device that could entertain consumers.
Steel1943 (
talk) 07:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Totally ambiguous. This could be even be a
Betamax player or a
phonograph. -
2pou (
talk) 20:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. This term is ambiguous and the redirect may cause confusion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:47, 23 August 2020 (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. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Neither of these are mentioned in the target article, and shouldn't be. If they really are {{R with possibilities}}, then they should be deleted per
WP:REDLINK.
Steel1943 (
talk) 07:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete to encourage article creation.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:46, 23 August 2020 (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.
Bobrooney
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 --
JHunterJ (
talk) 12:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
List of Running Gags on Married... with Children
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. ~
mazcatalk 16:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, badly capitalised, slang, and no such list.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:45, 23 August 2020 (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.
Zitteriophonic sound
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. Nobody has found any indication this is an actual term in use, appearing to be some kind of old joke. ~
mazcatalk 16:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in the target article, so the connection is unclear.
Steel1943 (
talk) 06:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Is there any credible evidence that the term 'zitteriophonic' exists at all? Presumably it's a joke.
Harumphy (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 07:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Agreed, looks like a bad joke made up 14 years ago and never heard from again. The same editor also created
Zitterio pointing to the same target. Judging from Google, Zitterio is an Italian surname (Wikipedia mentions no one by that name) that has nothing to do with the target.
59.149.124.29 (
talk) 07:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - No evidence this is a thing. Hoax is most likely. ~
Kvng (
talk) 14:03, 23 August 2020 (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. ~
mazcatalk 16:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The target is unclear on what "Regular" is intended to refer. Readers searching this term may not find what they are looking for. So ... delete to allow Wikipedia's search function to do its job.
Steel1943 (
talk) 06:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Only got 11 views over the last year, so shouldn't be
WP:RHARMFUL. -
2pou (
talk) 19:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. "Regular radio" has no specific meaning and Search is better.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:39, 23 August 2020 (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. No participants have found any reason why this redirect is helpful. ~
mazcatalk 16:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete a possibly-notable annual event that is discussed nowhere in Wikipedia besides the pages of two people who happened to perform in it one year. The redirect originally pointed to
Country Music, then the redirect creator went and redirected
Country Music to
Radio for some reason and a bot came along and "fixed" it before that got reverted.
B-93 Birthday Bash got speedied a few years before this redirect was created.
59.149.124.29 (
talk) 07:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Completely implausible. Aasim 19:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Enwiki has no substantive content on this topic.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:37, 23 August 2020 (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.
Wraithlike
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 redirects seemingly did make sense in the past when we had an article at
Wraith, but in the absence of this it is not considered helpful to readers to direct them to a very nonspecific disambiguation page. ~
mazcatalk 16:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
It's not clear how a reader is supposed to find what they are looking for when searching these terms if they are forwarded to a disambiguation page with multiple different, distinct subjects. It would probably be best to delete these redirects so that Wikipedia's search function can do its job.
Steel1943 (
talk) 06:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. They made more sense when
wraith was an actual article, but it was moved to
Ghosts in European folklore, then redirected, with none of the original content remaining. —
Xezbeth (
talk) 06:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, not a dictionary, and
ghostlike etc. don't even exist as redirects to
Ghost. --
JHunterJ (
talk) 12:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Misleading and confusing for readers, would be best to delete these.
CycloneYoristalk! 00:03, 28 August 2020 (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 retarget to
Two-Micron Sky Survey as the option that seemed to have the most support and the least opposition per the discussion below.
(non-admin closure)Steel1943 (
talk) 16:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
IRC +10414 refers to a completely different star, not related to IRC -10414 and not mentioned at
IRC -10414. This redirect is likely to cause confusion and is an unlikely search term for anyone wanting IRC -10414.
Lithopsian (
talk) 20:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Could you start an article on IRC +10414? I don't really know even where to start for this subject field.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)reply
It is most likely not notable; perhaps borderline, but references are thin on the ground. It would certainly be possible to create an article since the data for a starbox exists, but beyond basic data there aren't really any references to say anything about it and it would never get beyond a stub. Might even get tagged for deletion for failing
WP:NASTRO.
Lithopsian (
talk) 20:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)reply
That is what the IRC part means. The question is whether it helps anyone looking for "IRC +10414"? Possibly it would let them know it is a star. Perhaps it should redirect direct to
Two-Micron Sky Survey unless there is some other possible meaning for it.
Lithopsian (
talk) 15:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak retarget to
Two-Micron Sky Survey, or delete (do not keep). It's harmfully confusing as-is (very much like the example given in
WP:RFD#D2, "if 'Adam B. Smith' was redirected to 'Andrew B. Smith'"), however the TMSS page at least describes how the stars are catalogued, which does allow the reader to glean a very minimal amount of information about the star.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, while this was apparently created based on the assumption these two are the same star (so it is not an impossible mistake to make), I'd say the opportunity for confusion by being sent to the wrong star is worse. Not sure we should redirect to
Two-Micron Sky Survey (I might support that if there was an easy way to get a list of all the objects whose designation starts with "IRC"). —Kusma (
t·
c) 20:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
There is a link to just such a list (searchable even!) in the TMSS article's external links.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)reply
As a non-astronomer, I feel a bit intimidated by that page. Where do I need to click to get a list of stars? —Kusma (
t·
c) 19:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)reply
That is the page I feel intimidated by. —Kusma (
t·
c) 19:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Ah, OK. There are 5,612 objects in that catalog. You could list them all by setting the "max" on the left to unlimited and clicking the search button, but that might be even more intimidating. Generally, the easiest way to search these catalogues is just to stick IRC +10414 in the box at the top. Takes you
here. Bit of a stretch for someone who just clicked a redirect, but the information is out there.
Lithopsian (
talk) 20:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I didn't think of searching for an empty string. —Kusma (
t·
c) 20:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 05:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Two-Micron Sky Survey. I suppose a retarget to a sensible target would be more sensible than deletion.
Sam-2727 (
talk) 15:09, 22 August 2020 (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 all except
Pre-1980 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons, which has no consensus. The incoming links have been fixed, leaving these outdated titles as actively misleading and non-useful.
Pre-1980 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons has not reached a consensus due to its high number of incoming links, and the fact that (until halfway through the debate) there was a
Category:Pre-1980 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons, subsequently emptied and
C1'ed. As an editorial action after this closure, I'm going to retarget the redirect to
North Indian Ocean tropical cyclone#Seasons as a decent target that should give readers the actual information they're looking for - if there are issues with this, or if the incoming links are all cleared, it can be individually renominated if anyone wishes to. ~
mazcatalk 16:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Fix all incoming links and delete, or turn into a disambiguation (if this is considered a useful search term).
There are many pages about cyclones (or seasons) between 1900 and 1975, and the redirect is often confusing or wrong (e.g. this is used on
Winston Churchill, where it is about a 1942 cyclone; the reader is not helped at all by this redirect in such a case).
The same applies to some other redirects with the same target:
Comment - The
Pre-1975 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons was a former article, which was eventually moved to
Pre-1900 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons in order to break the
North Indian cyclone seasons down after more information and editors became available/interested in the region. For now they have been split into the pre-1900s, the 1900s, 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960, 1961, 1962 etc, buy will probably be further broken down as information allows. As a result, I am not sure what we should do with the redirect, as i suspect we need to keep it under Wikipedia's terms. Fixing the links as time allows shouldn't be to much of a problem though.
Jason Rees (
talk) 16:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)reply
There is no history that needs to be kept
here, so no, the Wikipedia terms (attribution and the like) don't come into play here.
Fram (
talk) 07:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The four redirects mentioned at the end of the nomination statement (all but the first one in the nomination) were not tagged or officially listed as though they were part of the discussion until this relist. So, relisting now that all the redirects have been tagged to allow editors who may search these redirects time to provide input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 05:14, 20 August 2020 (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 keep. Possibly an obscure and vague synonym in English, but participants generally feel that this is a frequently used abbreviation in Spanish. Given the lack of any other frequent English usages for this abbreviation to cause actual confusion, this is likely to be a net positive. ~
mazcatalk 20:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
A Google search brings up a number of uses besides the target for this string, including a NN vacuum, a model of sneakers, and what appears to be a vague chemistry thing.
Hog FarmBacon 02:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's a Spanish designation for 9/11, and there's sufficient connection between the Spanish language and USA to make this a plausible search term. See
es:Atentados del 11 de septiembre de 2001, boldfaced in first line.
Narky Blert (
talk) 09:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete – Even though it is a Spanish synonym of 911, it could mean practically anything the searcher may think of (cf
C-pandemic). We do not want to send the readers into unexpected articles. --
Soumya-8974talkcontribssubpages 13:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per Narky. Plausible search term, maybe a bit vague for non-Hispanics, but not enough to warrant deletion. It’s also quite historic since it was created back in
late 2003.
CycloneYoristalk! 22:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong keep because it is not only designation of 9/11 in Spanish, but also in other languages that using D/M format even in British English. For example 11-S likely refer as 11 septiembre in Spanish and 11 September in British English, akin to 11-M refer as 11 Marzo in Spanish and 11 March in English outside the US.
182.1.52.138 (
talk) 00:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per above. The "S" in "11-S" stands for "September" and the "11" in that is the date.
Seventyfiveyears at 01:30, 21 August 2020 (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 August 20, 2020.
Sernui
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Another Middle-earth river redirect not mentioned anywhere. It's rather a minor plot point, just a name on a map really, so I don't see a reason to really mention it anywhere.
Hog FarmBacon 23:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Neither the target section nor that section's main article has any information about it, so the redirect is pointless. --
Elphion (
talk)
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.
Cementoss
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 is not mentioned in the target or anywhere else in the "My Hero Academia characters" article.
Seventyfiveyears at 23:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. This does appear at target article, it’s apparently the name of a character. No reason to delete.
CycloneYoristalk! 23:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, it's in the target, so I don't see a reason to delete.
Hog FarmBacon 23:31, 20 August 2020 (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.
Draft:Donald trump
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Incorrect use of the draft namespace. There's no page history here, both have always been redirects. This isn't a plausible search term, as nobody's gonna search for a title with the Draft: prefix, unless they're looking for a specific draft.
Hog FarmBacon 22:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. More proper usage of the draft namespace would be to copy paste the article to make potential edits to request later if you aren't extended confirmed.
OcelotCreeper (
talk) 23:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, and I think an edit filter or page creation blacklisting of some sort should be created for the creation of redirects in the "Draft:" namespace that are created and target a non-"Draft:" namespace page.
Steel1943 (
talk) 00:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)reply
...Who may want to consider deleting these redirects per
WP:G7 and
WP:SALT-ing these titles from being created by non-confirmed accounts instead, if I'm understand the reason why these redirects were created? (The creation and deletion logs for these titles are a mess.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 02:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as obvious maintenance. Perhaps salt if log history shows repeated attempts (not admin, can't check that myself). —
JFGtalk 10:17, 21 August 2020 (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.
Lap top
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.
Implausible redirect, most likely because of its space.
Seventyfiveyears at 22:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. Plausible misspelling of this
compound word. (In fact, I'd say most compound words could be plausible incorrectly spelled with a space, but that's a discussion for another time, if ever.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 22:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. I believe this is an extremely common error.
228 pageviews this year. I'm seeing no indication that this is implausible in any way.
Hog FarmBacon 22:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, this spelling variant is even used on wikipedia, currently on 10 pages
[1]. –
Uanfala (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. Almost all compound words started off as two words. An exact-word Google search for "lap top" shows that people are still offering them for sale.
Narky Blert (
talk) 06:14, 21 August 2020 (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. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:57, 28 August 2020 (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.
Saburo YOKOZAWA,
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
User:Stoshmaster blanked, which I restored, but it doesn't seem useful. It has no incoming links, uses non-standard case, and ends with a comma.
Ost (
talk) 20:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete this JUNK, While the capital last name might be forgiven for holding the ⇧ Shift or ⇪ Caps Lock key for much too LONG, the comma I don't see a plausible reason for KEEPING, Regards,
SONIC678 20:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Inconsistent use of CAPS and the comma at the end make this typo to implausible to be useful or helpful.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Capitalising a surname is reasonable (at least as reasonable as {{R from sort name}}s); it's a style used in some published works. However the comma at the end pushes it over the threshold.
59.149.124.29 (
talk) 00:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. The move was done 14 minutes after the initial article creation. Ideally it would have been done without leaving a redirect, but c'est la vie. There's no benefit to keeping this lying around. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 23:22, 27 August 2020 (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 keep. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Come on, do we really need this?!
Hildeoc (
talk) 01:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
With no reliable source, the page seems frivolous or perhaps a Trojan horse for
WP:OR or
WP:SYNTH. I favour speedy deletion of the page.
Chjoaygame (
talk) 19:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Heat source also redirects there.
Hildeoc, would you like to add it to this nomination? --
BDD (
talk) 19:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, I would favour speedy deletion of this too.
Chjoaygame (
talk) 19:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I do not understand the rationale for this RfD. The page is plausible as a search term. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 21:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, I too do not understand the problem here, least of all the advocacy to speedy delete it. If someone wikilinked
Heat source in an article, this seems like the obvious target. There is no particular reason these should exist as separate articles, but it's a reasonable and related phrase that seems to be pointing to an obvious closely-related topic. It seems like a classic and harmless use of a redirect. ~
mazcatalk 21:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or Weak retarget to
Heat transfer, which would likely be a better target, but even that's a stretch. If someone wikilinks one of these, and not "heat" itself, as suggested above, they should be slapped with a wet
trout for putting unrelated verbiage into a link. It's better to leave a red link as a hint that you've linked something vague and as a prompt to put in what's really appropriate. On the other hand, as a search term, this is also too vague to assume that someone's looking for a general high-level article on "Heat" itself. Best to leave it to the search engine. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 21:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per Mazca and LaundryPizza03. Both are perfectly plausible search terms, maybe a bit vague, but harmless enough for keeping.
CycloneYoristalk! 00:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: I see these as plausible search terms, so I think this redirect can stay. Aasim 19:30, 20 August 2020 (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.
Ram Lalla
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.
Ram Lalla refers to the deity, which is an infant
Rama
By the page move history, the Redirect was to
Ram Lalla Temple, which then redirected to
Ram Janmabhoomi but now redirects to
Ram Mandir, Ayodhya. A bot fix for double redirect is why it currently redirects to
Ram Janmabhoomi.
Proposing to redirect either to
1.
Rama (as per mythology)
2.
Ram Mandir, Ayodhya (the temple of Ram Lalla)
Option 1 – Ram Lalla is mythologically Shri Ram, and Ram Mandir is the temple of Him. --
Soumya-8974talkcontribssubpages 18:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Option 1: But, the
Rama article nowhere discusses about Ram Lalla even in the "Birth" or "Youth, family and friends" sections. We need some relevant information to be added on Ram Lalla. Option 2 is about the temple dedicated to Ram Lalla and not about him.
Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 19:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Option 1, as a form of the same deity. Redirecting the deity's name to an article about a temple doesn't feel right. Vanamonde (
Talk) 16:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Option 2 Form of the deity associated with a particular temple, is generally redirected to the temple e.g
Vishalakshi.
RedtigerxyzTalk 16:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 19:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: !Votes are evenly split and no one seems to be satisfied with the status quo, so let's try another relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Option 2 Ram Lalla is almost exclusively associated with the temple. Also there's seems to be some content regarding the subject at
Ram Mandir, Ayodhya#Deity. --
Ab207 (
talk) 15:18, 25 August 2020 (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.
INTERIOR/NIGHT
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.
Might be a stylization of the name of the company, but nothing on the target page indicates this.
Onel5969TT me 15:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Onel5969: FWIW, see the infobox on the target page.
Steel1943 (
talk) 15:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Steel1943 - Missed the logo (it's very difficult to see), but now seeing it, withdraw this nom.
Onel5969TT me 15:34, 20 August 2020 (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.
@
Onel5969: Wow, I didn't see the logo either. I was referring to the title of the infobox. A white image with a translucent background ... I'm surprised you saw it ... because I sure didn't until you pointed it out above.
Steel1943 (
talk) 15:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Shafa Malingsu
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
This is a misspelling and unnecessary capitalisation of a bad over-literal translation into Chinese of the term couch potato, created by a user who was blocked for sockpuppetry (though only after this redirect was created, so it doesn't qualify as
WP:CSD#G5). The bad over-literal translation itself (
沙發馬鈴薯) gets about a dozen Google Hits
[2]. Even apart from the
WP:FORRED issues, the existence of this redirect adds zero value to Wikipedia and may mislead unsuspecting readers into assuming it's a correct term.
59.149.124.29 (
talk) 09:52, 20 August 2020 (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.
Malingsu
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:FORRED since the subject of the target article has no affinity to the Chinese language.
Steel1943 (
talk) 08:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator. It's not even a correct spelling of the word in question (
wikt:mǎlíngshǔ).
59.149.124.29 (
talk) 09:24, 20 August 2020 (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.
Super tuber
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection unclear.
Steel1943 (
talk) 08:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete: R3 Aasim 18:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Enwiki has nothing about the subject.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:57, 23 August 2020 (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.
Whine
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 redirects listed here and moveWhine (album) to the base title. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
When someone is whining, frustration is not necessarily the emotion they are experiencing.
Steel1943 (
talk) 08:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Agree that this isn't a suitable target. I can't think of good targets, so either deletion or redirecting to Wiktionary would be fine by me.
Whiney should definitely be deleted though: we shouldn't go that far in cataloguing the English lexicon here.
Whine should either be retargeted to
Whine (album), or, better, deleted to make way for the move of that article back to its pre-2017 title. –
Uanfala (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2020 (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. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in target article, and not clear why it would or should be. Other than that, the redirect is ambiguous with basically any device that could entertain consumers.
Steel1943 (
talk) 07:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Totally ambiguous. This could be even be a
Betamax player or a
phonograph. -
2pou (
talk) 20:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. This term is ambiguous and the redirect may cause confusion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:47, 23 August 2020 (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. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Neither of these are mentioned in the target article, and shouldn't be. If they really are {{R with possibilities}}, then they should be deleted per
WP:REDLINK.
Steel1943 (
talk) 07:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete to encourage article creation.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:46, 23 August 2020 (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.
Bobrooney
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 --
JHunterJ (
talk) 12:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
List of Running Gags on Married... with Children
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. ~
mazcatalk 16:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, badly capitalised, slang, and no such list.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:45, 23 August 2020 (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.
Zitteriophonic sound
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. Nobody has found any indication this is an actual term in use, appearing to be some kind of old joke. ~
mazcatalk 16:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in the target article, so the connection is unclear.
Steel1943 (
talk) 06:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Is there any credible evidence that the term 'zitteriophonic' exists at all? Presumably it's a joke.
Harumphy (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 07:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Agreed, looks like a bad joke made up 14 years ago and never heard from again. The same editor also created
Zitterio pointing to the same target. Judging from Google, Zitterio is an Italian surname (Wikipedia mentions no one by that name) that has nothing to do with the target.
59.149.124.29 (
talk) 07:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - No evidence this is a thing. Hoax is most likely. ~
Kvng (
talk) 14:03, 23 August 2020 (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. ~
mazcatalk 16:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The target is unclear on what "Regular" is intended to refer. Readers searching this term may not find what they are looking for. So ... delete to allow Wikipedia's search function to do its job.
Steel1943 (
talk) 06:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Only got 11 views over the last year, so shouldn't be
WP:RHARMFUL. -
2pou (
talk) 19:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. "Regular radio" has no specific meaning and Search is better.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:39, 23 August 2020 (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. No participants have found any reason why this redirect is helpful. ~
mazcatalk 16:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete a possibly-notable annual event that is discussed nowhere in Wikipedia besides the pages of two people who happened to perform in it one year. The redirect originally pointed to
Country Music, then the redirect creator went and redirected
Country Music to
Radio for some reason and a bot came along and "fixed" it before that got reverted.
B-93 Birthday Bash got speedied a few years before this redirect was created.
59.149.124.29 (
talk) 07:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Completely implausible. Aasim 19:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Enwiki has no substantive content on this topic.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:37, 23 August 2020 (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.
Wraithlike
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 redirects seemingly did make sense in the past when we had an article at
Wraith, but in the absence of this it is not considered helpful to readers to direct them to a very nonspecific disambiguation page. ~
mazcatalk 16:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
It's not clear how a reader is supposed to find what they are looking for when searching these terms if they are forwarded to a disambiguation page with multiple different, distinct subjects. It would probably be best to delete these redirects so that Wikipedia's search function can do its job.
Steel1943 (
talk) 06:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. They made more sense when
wraith was an actual article, but it was moved to
Ghosts in European folklore, then redirected, with none of the original content remaining. —
Xezbeth (
talk) 06:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, not a dictionary, and
ghostlike etc. don't even exist as redirects to
Ghost. --
JHunterJ (
talk) 12:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Misleading and confusing for readers, would be best to delete these.
CycloneYoristalk! 00:03, 28 August 2020 (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 retarget to
Two-Micron Sky Survey as the option that seemed to have the most support and the least opposition per the discussion below.
(non-admin closure)Steel1943 (
talk) 16:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
IRC +10414 refers to a completely different star, not related to IRC -10414 and not mentioned at
IRC -10414. This redirect is likely to cause confusion and is an unlikely search term for anyone wanting IRC -10414.
Lithopsian (
talk) 20:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Could you start an article on IRC +10414? I don't really know even where to start for this subject field.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)reply
It is most likely not notable; perhaps borderline, but references are thin on the ground. It would certainly be possible to create an article since the data for a starbox exists, but beyond basic data there aren't really any references to say anything about it and it would never get beyond a stub. Might even get tagged for deletion for failing
WP:NASTRO.
Lithopsian (
talk) 20:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)reply
That is what the IRC part means. The question is whether it helps anyone looking for "IRC +10414"? Possibly it would let them know it is a star. Perhaps it should redirect direct to
Two-Micron Sky Survey unless there is some other possible meaning for it.
Lithopsian (
talk) 15:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak retarget to
Two-Micron Sky Survey, or delete (do not keep). It's harmfully confusing as-is (very much like the example given in
WP:RFD#D2, "if 'Adam B. Smith' was redirected to 'Andrew B. Smith'"), however the TMSS page at least describes how the stars are catalogued, which does allow the reader to glean a very minimal amount of information about the star.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, while this was apparently created based on the assumption these two are the same star (so it is not an impossible mistake to make), I'd say the opportunity for confusion by being sent to the wrong star is worse. Not sure we should redirect to
Two-Micron Sky Survey (I might support that if there was an easy way to get a list of all the objects whose designation starts with "IRC"). —Kusma (
t·
c) 20:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
There is a link to just such a list (searchable even!) in the TMSS article's external links.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)reply
As a non-astronomer, I feel a bit intimidated by that page. Where do I need to click to get a list of stars? —Kusma (
t·
c) 19:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)reply
That is the page I feel intimidated by. —Kusma (
t·
c) 19:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Ah, OK. There are 5,612 objects in that catalog. You could list them all by setting the "max" on the left to unlimited and clicking the search button, but that might be even more intimidating. Generally, the easiest way to search these catalogues is just to stick IRC +10414 in the box at the top. Takes you
here. Bit of a stretch for someone who just clicked a redirect, but the information is out there.
Lithopsian (
talk) 20:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I didn't think of searching for an empty string. —Kusma (
t·
c) 20:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 05:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Two-Micron Sky Survey. I suppose a retarget to a sensible target would be more sensible than deletion.
Sam-2727 (
talk) 15:09, 22 August 2020 (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 all except
Pre-1980 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons, which has no consensus. The incoming links have been fixed, leaving these outdated titles as actively misleading and non-useful.
Pre-1980 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons has not reached a consensus due to its high number of incoming links, and the fact that (until halfway through the debate) there was a
Category:Pre-1980 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons, subsequently emptied and
C1'ed. As an editorial action after this closure, I'm going to retarget the redirect to
North Indian Ocean tropical cyclone#Seasons as a decent target that should give readers the actual information they're looking for - if there are issues with this, or if the incoming links are all cleared, it can be individually renominated if anyone wishes to. ~
mazcatalk 16:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Fix all incoming links and delete, or turn into a disambiguation (if this is considered a useful search term).
There are many pages about cyclones (or seasons) between 1900 and 1975, and the redirect is often confusing or wrong (e.g. this is used on
Winston Churchill, where it is about a 1942 cyclone; the reader is not helped at all by this redirect in such a case).
The same applies to some other redirects with the same target:
Comment - The
Pre-1975 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons was a former article, which was eventually moved to
Pre-1900 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons in order to break the
North Indian cyclone seasons down after more information and editors became available/interested in the region. For now they have been split into the pre-1900s, the 1900s, 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960, 1961, 1962 etc, buy will probably be further broken down as information allows. As a result, I am not sure what we should do with the redirect, as i suspect we need to keep it under Wikipedia's terms. Fixing the links as time allows shouldn't be to much of a problem though.
Jason Rees (
talk) 16:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)reply
There is no history that needs to be kept
here, so no, the Wikipedia terms (attribution and the like) don't come into play here.
Fram (
talk) 07:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The four redirects mentioned at the end of the nomination statement (all but the first one in the nomination) were not tagged or officially listed as though they were part of the discussion until this relist. So, relisting now that all the redirects have been tagged to allow editors who may search these redirects time to provide input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 05:14, 20 August 2020 (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 keep. Possibly an obscure and vague synonym in English, but participants generally feel that this is a frequently used abbreviation in Spanish. Given the lack of any other frequent English usages for this abbreviation to cause actual confusion, this is likely to be a net positive. ~
mazcatalk 20:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
A Google search brings up a number of uses besides the target for this string, including a NN vacuum, a model of sneakers, and what appears to be a vague chemistry thing.
Hog FarmBacon 02:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's a Spanish designation for 9/11, and there's sufficient connection between the Spanish language and USA to make this a plausible search term. See
es:Atentados del 11 de septiembre de 2001, boldfaced in first line.
Narky Blert (
talk) 09:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete – Even though it is a Spanish synonym of 911, it could mean practically anything the searcher may think of (cf
C-pandemic). We do not want to send the readers into unexpected articles. --
Soumya-8974talkcontribssubpages 13:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per Narky. Plausible search term, maybe a bit vague for non-Hispanics, but not enough to warrant deletion. It’s also quite historic since it was created back in
late 2003.
CycloneYoristalk! 22:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong keep because it is not only designation of 9/11 in Spanish, but also in other languages that using D/M format even in British English. For example 11-S likely refer as 11 septiembre in Spanish and 11 September in British English, akin to 11-M refer as 11 Marzo in Spanish and 11 March in English outside the US.
182.1.52.138 (
talk) 00:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per above. The "S" in "11-S" stands for "September" and the "11" in that is the date.
Seventyfiveyears at 01:30, 21 August 2020 (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.