This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 25, 2020.
Stephano(Shakespeare)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete. signed,
Rosguill
talk
05:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
WP:UNNATURAL misspelling resulting from a page move in 2020; the page existed under this name for 11 days.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
23:19, 25 December 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.
LA Knight Riders
- 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 consensus here is that, while there have been rumours, there is no reliably sourced information to add a mention of this at the target, making the redirect unhelpful at this time. If that sourced information appears, then the redirect (or indeed an article) is likely to be justified. ~
mazca
talk 18:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC) ~
mazca
talk
18:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
No mention of LA Knight Riders at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Some news articles have mentioned that this will be the name of one of the new teams:
[1]. See also
Draft:Los Angeles Knight Riders.
GreekApple123 (
talk)
20:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete for now per
WP:CRYSTAL, pending an official announcement. Redirects should not be created based off of rumors or speculation. I looked on the official website for Major League Cricket, and there is no Knight Riders team listed. --
Tavix (
talk)
22:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The exception to that is that a redirect can sometimes be useful if there is encyclopaedic coverage of notable rumours or speculation. There is no such coverage in this case though so the redirect should be deleted per the nomination.
Thryduulf (
talk)
04:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:OR
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep.
(non-admin closure)
CycloneYoris
talk!
00:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
{{
Or}} and {{
OR}} should probably redirect to the {{
original research}} template for general tagging or maybe that should be moved. No strong opinion on what should happen but the abbreviated titles should probably point to the same place as the full name. Note that the inline template was moved in 2016 from "OR", see
Template talk:Original research inline#Requested move 3 August 2016 and in 2012 from "
Or". Note that the lower case has
1006 transclusions while the upper case has
301 maybe they could be replaced if they are for the inline template before retargeting. Please edit the redirects to add the template since they are protected.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
18:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Move to Template:ORL. –
Cupper52
Discuss!
18:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. This is for the convenience of editors, similar to how {{
cn}} targets the inline template, not {{
more citations needed}}. -
Eureka Lott
00:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- But the generic template has a longer name while "Citation needed" is the inline one, that isn't the case here. However there was a consensus at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 23#Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF to have it pointing to a different place than
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I'm not sure those concerns apply here since that concern about links was about discussion pages which can't usually be changed while in this case the transclusions could be edited to bypass the redirect.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
19:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. The number of transclusions indicates that any change will be extremely disruptive as people will continue to add them expecting them to work the same way that they have worked for years. The proposed change will not bring any benefits.
Thryduulf (
talk)
00:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I just came across this discussion when I searched for
Template:Or hoping to find a template with the logical "or" function. Wherever this ends up pointing, maybe add a hatnote? {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
18:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - too many transclusions to change anything without causing a lot of collateral damage. Some things that just aren't optimal get forced into something through practice.
Hog Farm
Bacon
21:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Existing transclusions shouldn't be an issue as they can always be replaced by a bot. However, the existing setup is absolutely the right one. {{
Original research}} is a banner, so it's typically used once for an article (so no need to save typing time for editors), and it will typically sit on a line of its own right at the top (so no need to safe space) – a shortcut isn't really needed. {{
Original research inline}}, on the other hand, is used within article text (and therefore needs a shortcut with a very small footprint so that it doesn't clutter the text), and it may often be added several times in each article (so there's more of a case for the existence of a typing aid). Of course, a different, equally small, shortcut can be chosen (that's the {{
orl}} suggestion above), but then we'd need to contend with the fact that {{
or}} is an established shortcut and disruption for readers who are used to it would be an issue. –
Uanfala (talk)
01:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. I agree with Uanfala's detailed analysis, and in particular with the point about inconveniencing editors who use it.
Narky Blert (
talk)
13:53, 26 December 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.
Halo 3 Zune
- 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. --
Tavix (
talk)
17:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned in target article.
Dominicmgm (
talk)
18:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Like
Dominicmgm said, it's no longer mentioned in target article. Additionally, the topic in question is less relevant than it was 10 years ago. As creator of that redirect, I now vote for deletion. --
Eptin (
talk)
21:18, 25 December 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.
Independent kashmir
Azad Mirpur
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 3#Azad Mirpur
Natalie Quinlan
- 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. --
Tavix (
talk)
17:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed,
Rosguill
talk
18:31, 25 December 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.
Alternative spellings of Daman
- 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
Daman. signed,
Rosguill
talk
05:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
Retarget to
Daman as alternative spellings.
Soumya-8974 (he)
talk
contribs
subpages
18:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget per nom; while this generally refers to the Daman in Western India as a result of Portuguese history there, there are multiple potential pages that refer even to that general geographic area. Damaõ seems to be a misspelling, but an easy one to make because it just has the ~ over the wrong letter. ~
mazca
talk
22:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Brucie Kibbutz
- 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 soft delete. --
Tavix (
talk)
17:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned at the target, but is mentioned briefly at a few other articles. Delete in order to allow for uninhibited search results. signed,
Rosguill
talk
18:21, 25 December 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 no consensus. There continues to be no consensus about what to do here. Editors are advised to think carefully about how much more time they want to waste on discussions about redirects from noodle bowl emoji before reopening. signed,
Rosguill
talk
05:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
This is my third discussion on this. It has been 4 months since the last discussion. I really think there should be a redirect to the section in
Ramen. The Wiktionary redirect is resulting in the false statement on the redirect page. Every Wiktionary redirect has the statement "Wikipedia does not currently have an article on <name>, but our sister project Wiktionary does:". But, that statement is false for the Ramen emoji. We should try to redirect pages within Wikipedia, unless Wikipedia lacks adequate information. For example the
🎌 emoji redirects to Wiktionary because it shows crossed Japanese flags which is not described in any Wikipedia article.
Neel.arunabh (
talk)
18:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as is nothing has changed since the last two discussions concluded that
Ramen was not an appropriate target (because that is significantly narrower than the meaning of the emoji ("steaming bowl of food"). The nomination statement is incorrect, Wikipedia does not contain any information about a ramen emoji because there is no ramen emoji, and Wikipedia does not have an article about the generic "steaming bowl of food".
Thryduulf (
talk)
19:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Contra Tavix below, I do not nee the section of the Ramen article to be appropriate as that section is of extremely marginal relevance to the article and so not guaranteed to stay, sending editors to any part of that article will also be misleading - indeed it's currently borderline misleading for readers of the article who haven't arrived via the emoji.
Thryduulf (
talk)
14:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Disambig: the ramen emoji is, strictly speaking, called "STEAMING BOWL", not ramen. See
the actual Unicode website since there seemed to be some doubt about this in the last discussion. IMO it would therefore not be correct to redirect to Ramen. In principle an emoji artist could draw soup or something instead of the ramen. I would put a disambig page like the following.
User:GKFX
talk
20:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- U+1F35C 🍜 STEAMING BOWL is an
emoji commonly referring to ramen.
- I will not agree with the Wiktionary redurect as I mentioned in the last discussion,
The 🥘 emoji is a "shallow pan of food", not Paella. However,
🥘 redirects to the section in
Paella. So, there is no difference between the "🍜" and the "🥘" emojis.
Neel.arunabh (
talk)
23:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Oh, we have a section in ramen for this? Yes, a retarget to
Ramen#Emoji would be fine, so long as it distinguishes the difference there. --
Tavix (
talk)
00:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Hmmm, looks like
Tavix's final suggestions are the most helpful. Remember, my deletion review of
iPhone 9 at
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 3#iPhone_9. There, also it was
Tavix who suggested the
iPhone naming article.
Neel.arunabh (
talk)
02:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy keep – Nothing has changed since the first discussion. This is yet another example of being failed to get to the
WP:POINT. --
Soumya-8974 (he)
talk
contribs
subpages
09:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Ramen#Emoji per
Tavix.
108.35.3.18 (
talk)
17:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - I sympathize with the nominator's opinion, but nothing has changed since the last discussion. Given that was only four months ago, the prior consensus is still poignant and valid. —
Godsy (
TALK
CONT)
10:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Ramen#Emoji for 2 reasons: 1) It prevents the need for a cross project redirect when we have content covering the emoji locally and 2) The section at Ramen#Emoji includes information on the date it was proposed, the date it was added and it's unicode code, opposed to the Wiktionary entry which has 6 words describing it as a bowl of ramen or noodles.
86.23.109.101 (
talk)
23:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Ramen#Emoji. While it's a "steaming bowl" rather than "bowl of ramen" in a technical sense, the small section there does give that information. The wiktionary link, while fine, offers no real further information compared to that sentence (and, if anything, confirms that its primary use is in the sense of "ramen"), and it is preferable to avoid a cross-project redirect when we do have broadly equivalent local content. ~
mazca
talk
18:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Ramen almost always satisfies me, but this redirect really doesn't satisfy the criteria at
Template:Wiktionary redirect, nor does it meet the "clear and definite meaning matching an existing topic on Wikipedia" of
WP:REMOJI. --
BDD (
talk)
21:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- I oppose deleting redriects from unicode charaters. I really need a redirect for every unicode character.
Neel.arunabh (
talk)
22:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Algodon, California
- 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 speedy revert to article. Withdrawing to revert to article and then PROD it.
(non-admin closure)
Hog Farm
Bacon
21:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
We don't seem to have content about this supposed place anywhere. User who created this has created literally hundreds of non-notable place stubs, this appears to have been one of them as well.
Hog Farm
Bacon
07:31, 25 December 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.
I'll Be Your 1-Up Girl
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep. This term is mentioned in the song.
(non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (
talk)
16:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned at target. What's this? –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
01:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
The new theme song – officially called Jump Up, Super Star – features two linked halves, dubbed Let’s Do the Odyssey and I’ll Be Your 1-Up Girl.
[2]
The subject of the linked section. (not
watching, please {{
ping}}
)
czar
01:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Don't see how this is "confusing". I don't think it needs to be called out as a sub-element in the article but certainly anyone searching for this phrase sees the content they expect to see and would prefer to see this content over no search results.
czar
15:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
certainly anyone searching for this phrase sees the content they expect to see
unless the reason they're searching is because they don't know what it means in the first place, which is precisely why it should be mentioned at the target.
61.239.39.90 (
talk)
03:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete unless a mention is added. Currently without a mention (anywhere on Wikipedia I can find) this is just confusing to anyone who doesn't already know what Czar quotes above. I have no opinion on whether a mention should be added to the article.
Thryduulf (
talk)
01:59, 18 December 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.
Wikipedia:SPARTA
- 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. While multiple participants seem to have got the reference, nobody seems to be arguing to keep this redirect - despite making some level of sense, it's a somewhat tenuous reference that does not appear to see significant use, and may have better possibilities. ~
mazca
talk
22:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
Implausible redirect which should be deleted.
122.60.185.29 (
talk)
00:02, 18 December 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.
Emergency use authorization
- 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. This is an {{
R from other capitalisation}}.
(non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (
talk)
01:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
Redirect target is about a US-specific drug approval category. The title now has numerous links to it (particularly in relation to COVID-19 vaccines, but probably/potentially other things as well) that are not referring to this, but either talking about approval in a country other than the US or talking about the general, non-country-specific concept (the name of which would not be capitalised). As such, we need something here to describe the concept from a worldwide perspective. —
Smjg (
talk)
11:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - N.b. that deleting this redirect will still result in readers searching for this term landing at the current target, as the search bar will automatically match to the capitalized form. In order to provide a global landing page, a stub would need to be drafted. signed,
Rosguill
talk
18:13, 24 December 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.