This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 17, 2020.
Nidha
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.
Fast food in israel
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.
No need to redirect from the non-capitalised version of every article or list title containing a capitalised placename
PamD21:01, 17 February 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.
Fast food restaurants in israel
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.
No need to redirect from the non-capitalised version of every article or list title containing a capitalised placename.
PamD21:01, 17 February 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.
Andromimesis
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment: my vote remains the same, but just FYI that after researching the term I've significantly updated the definition at Wikitionary.
Old: From andro- + mimesis...(nonstandard, rare) The practice of imitating a man, and thus of being an andromimetic.
New: From andro- + mimesis. Literally “male imitation”. First put forward in a 1984 article by sexologists John Money and Malgorzata Lamacz...(dated, nonstandard, rare) The state of being transmasculine or a trans man.WanderingWanda (
talk)
09:45, 21 February 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.
Dragtop
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.
Most mentions of the term "dragtop" online seem to be software-related, and thus don't apply to the current target. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk21:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The issue right now is that as this term is not used at the target, and I can't find any relevant usage of it online, we don't have any evidence that this is actually a term used to refer to the current target. signed, Rosguilltalk21:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The term is used for laptops that are too large, too heavy, or too power hungry relative to the battery size to be portable. Some of the online usage is here:
[1] ·
Naivecynic ·
21:40, 8 February 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.
Luis Ángel Mendiburu
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 likely created it because it came up as a page with a incoming links when I ran
User:Dispenser's Dabfix on
Mendiburu. I chose the target because those pages referred to him as Frondizi's son-in-law and the murder did not have its own page, though I probably considered one of the incoming link pages as targets, too. If the redirect is seen as unhelpful, I have no complaints against deletion, though a simple edit to Silvio's page could make it mention his son-in-law like the pages linking to it do. —
Ost (
talk)
05:47, 10 February 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.
Foundational medicine
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.
Not mentioned in the target article. Most sources that I came across on Google scholar do not appear to use these terms interchangeably, with the arguably rule-proving exception of this FRINGE-looking blog post
[2] (not sure why Google Scholar indexed it). I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk20:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I agree. The term is incredibly vague, and attempts to use it as a euphemism don't appear to be particular notable. Deletion appears to be the right call.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
05:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. That 2008 blog post by Todd Cameron begins, 'I have coined the term “Foundational Medicine”', which indicates it was then a
WP:NEOLOGISM. The citation found by The RedBurn is to a journal, Foundational Medicine Review, which from its prospectus looks distinctly non-
WP:MEDRS and an attempt to repackage alternative medicine under a name withour negative overtones. I also found
this link by Elizabeth A Wanek, who claims it as an unregistered trademark; the contents of that link speak for themselves. Although we do need to cover
WP:FRINGE topics, this doesn't cut it for me; I would hesitate to include any of those citations in an article.
Narky Blert (
talk)
15:12, 18 February 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.
Headless drummer
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.
Commentheadless drummer could refer to the drummer of
Headless (band), but is that the only band named Headless or are there other contexts for this phrasing? Even if not, do we target
Headless drummer to
Headless (band) or to the biographical article for the drummer of the band? In any case, has the band had more than one drummer? I will have to do further research before deciding.
Doug MehusT·C20:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete. It is hard for me to imagine that people searching for a headless drummer are searching for the particular ghost in Edinburgh Castle instead of any other ghost in any other castle. With that being said, "headless drummer" in the context of "where is the headless drummer" seems more of a Google search rather than a Wikipedia search, but this thought-process stems mostly from the fact that the title is rather ambiguous. Utopes(talk / cont)02:37, 18 February 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.
If you think the redirect
Porcelain throne should exist, feel free to create it. The redirect being discussed is a separate matter, because it was explicitly created by
Gobonobo as a redirect from Porcelain god, NOT "Porcelain throne". It would, therefore, not be accurate to have the redirect moved to a completely different term as if Gobonobo wanted a redirect for "Porcelain throne" instead of the desired "Porcelain god". --
Tavix(
talk)17:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment (was Retarget to
Toilet god per Tavix' find.) In this case, the term porcelain god does not appear to be as widely used as porcelain throne is for the
toilet. Thus, per
WP:R#D2 and
WP:XY, it's confusing. I think Tavix' proposed target is much better.
Doug MehusT·C18:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, don't retarget to
Toilet god - this is a totally different subject, in the West exclusively relating to periods centuries before porcelain existed, and in East Asian cultures porcelain toilets are a very recent introduction. If we had a decent article on
porcelain figure it would be better to send it there, as these often show gods. But we don't.
Johnbod (
talk)
18:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Soft redirect to
porcelain god on Wiktionary per
Tavix' alternate proposal, who knows how to pull at my Wiktionary soft redirect heartstrings. At best, porcelain god is an unencyclopedic term, so article creation is unlikely. In the event someone creates a porcelain god piece of art and it's
notable, then the soft redirect can be converted into an article. But, at present, I think Tavix' alternate proposal is best.
Doug MehusT·C18:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
CommentConsensus is strongly trending toward the soft redirect alternate proposal of Tavix, so I've added the soft redirect to
Wiktionary code below the current target, if that's the outcome. Closer need only to uncomment the substituted longcomment post-close.
Doug MehusT·C17:54, 23 February 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.
File:C I D.jpg
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 is essentially a procedural nomination for
Kailash29792 who had nominated this file redirect at
MfD in
this discussion, and then at
FfD in
this discussion as vague and ambiguous. I personally happen to agree; thus, per
WP:R#D2 and
WP:XY, I'm recommending we delete this useless file redirect. As well, it's unclear whether
File:C I D. (1956 movie poster).jpg will also be nominated by the nominator, but I do note it's tagged as non-qualifying non-free image tagging. So, if that is deleted before this, then this can be speedy deleted per
G8.
Doug MehusT·C15:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment With the greatest of respect to Steel1943, I do note that there's no indication
WP:FILEREDIRECT supercedes
WP:R. Moreover, even if it did, there's no history to preserve, so this can be deleted per
WP:COMMONSENSE, which I note is a suprapolicy in that it is said to be above all other policies and guidelines. This is just housekeeping.
Doug MehusT·C15:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
...
WP:FILEREDIRECT exists for none of the reasons you just stated; it exists to prevent linkrot in external webpages from happening ... which has a rather high potential to happen with this redirect if it is deleted since this redirect has existed for over 7 years.
Steel1943 (
talk)
15:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I think that's a bad policy, to be honest. Other websites don't concern themselves with link rot in Wikipedia articles, so we have to have things like the Internet Archive bot to attempt to rescue such links. Moreover, Google does a very good job of updating the links in search results.
Doug MehusT·C16:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Oh, it looks like Steel1943 already knows Kailash29792, and there's some history here. I do note that Kailash29792 has file mover permissions, so why not just move the file without leaving a redirect? For what it's worth, I do note that a Google site search for the URL returns only 1 URL, and using
this backlink URL checker, the only inlink is from Indian Wikipedia. So, I don't see any linkrotting here. I think we can make an exception here to
WP:FILEREDIRECT, per
WP:COMMONSENSE, since no other websites link to this file. This would solve the ambiguity issue here in the URL.
Doug MehusT·C16:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Off-topic collapsed discussion between
Doug and
Tavix that is only tangentially related
I agree with you there, Tavix, in that the current title is improperly punctuated and not that well named, but my concern is that would this redirect pass our naming conventions for the file? That is, can filenames be ambiguous and it's essentially "first kick at the can"? If so, then I'm wondering if maybe we should't rename the target file back to this file name redirect, suppressing the trailing redirect for the convoluted long filename?
Doug MehusT·C17:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
File naming conventions is not something I care about, and is tangential to deciding whether or not to keep the redirect. I please ask that you at least
attempt to do your required research before firing off a bunch of questions unrelated to the subject at hand and muddying the waters even further. --
Tavix(
talk)18:07, 17 February 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.
Huckapedia
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.
Not mentioned at target article, edit summaries of page history suggest this was a joke mentioned on the Daily Show once that did not get enough coverage to be mentioned at the Huckabee page without failing
WP:UNDUE.
Hog Farm (
talk)
15:33, 17 February 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.
Adhesive Bonding (2)
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 per
Robert McClenon, word for word. Although, it's a good thing
DPL bot doesn't check project namespace otherwise Robert would've gotten botslapped for linking to
dung; else,
Speedy delete as either
G6 per Steel1943 or
G7 since the author has requested deletion and the only other edits have been the CSD and RfD taggings and an edit from a bot fixing a double-redirect. Should qualify under either criterion.
Doug MehusT·C16:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I get that the discussion is archived but I wanted to give a quick thanks to @
Lithopsian:, @
Robert McClenon:, and everybody who took care of this redirect discussion. The CSD (under criterion R3) was justly declined as the redirect was not created "recently", but I failed to PROD or RfD the redirect after the CSD tag was removed. Thanks for picking up the slack, cheers! Utopes(talk / cont)01:54, 18 February 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.
Bitter gourd-shaped passion fruit
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.
Cerro Prieto geotherman field
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.
Cerro Prieto geotherman area
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.
Stop code
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.
Strong keep. "Stop code" is the term of art for Windows crash codes, the Windows equivalent of
Exit status. If the complaint is that it's ambiguous, then that just means that "Stop code" should be turned into a disambiguation page instead with an entry for Blue Screen of Death, which would also be acceptable if there are other encyclopedic uses of the term.
SnowFire (
talk)
16:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Going to have to agree with the fact that the title of the redirect is a bit ambiguous considering that the Windows STOP code term could also refer to a completely different thing, but I do think it can be turned into a disambiguation page like
SnowFire suggested. Otherwise, like others have stated, I believe that a deletion may be suitable enough. Leaning for a delete. -
pivotman319 (
📫)
13:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Concur with @
Pivotman319 and
SnowFire:, et al., that because it's ambiguous,
blue screen of death, is not the best target for this redirect. I favour disambiguation, obviously, but if there are no suitable targets or a suitable disambiguation page drafted below the current target of
stop code, then delete without prejudice to future recreation as a disambiguation page.
Doug MehusT·C15:17, 18 February 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.
"...Ich tœte mich jedesmal aufs Neue, doch ich bin unsterblich, und ich erstehe wieder auf; in einer Vision der Untergangs..."
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. Counterpoint: I own a car, thus I own a transmission, thus this should really redirect to me. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)22:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as ambiguous. "Transmission" could refer to at least electricity or broadcasting. (Disease, telecommunications or automotive power seem less likely in context.)
Narky Blert (
talk)
08:38, 18 February 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.
*Hosanagar (Vidhana Sabha constituency)
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.
CommentI didn't realise I could CSD any sort of redirect. Twinkle doesn't offer me U-1, but I've just put it up for G-7.
PamD16:57, 19 February 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.
Preliminary measures
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 - wiki is supposed to be a reflection of usage in the external world, such as the press.
Thomson Reuters reports "preliminary measures" to be common usage for
Provisional measure of protection.[1] I added the redirect because of Thomson Reuters. The other people above should not be allowed to delete a redirect based on their "feel" for the language. As a worst case, maybe a disambiguation page could point to
Preliminary measures (ICJ), which would then be a link to
Provisional measure of protection. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Magnovvig (
talk •
contribs) 04:50, February 19, 2020 (UTC)
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.
National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aart Awards
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.
Treegarth
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 Restore
Isengard, retarget back to
Isengard#Literature. A lot of back and forth in the history here, but I think consensus is clear. This restoration should not preclude a good-faith nomination of
Isengard for AfD; if it is deleted, then we can reconsider whether
Treegarth should be deleted or pointed to Rohan. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)22:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)reply
If I remember right, this is what the Ents turned Isengard into, but Isengard no longer has it's own article. Delete unless the entry "Treegarth of Orthanc (Ents)" at
Realms of Arda is considered to be a useful retarget point. (For those users who are confused, this is a forest in the Lord of the Rings).
Hog Farm (
talk)
04:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, we love the Ents dearly, but this really is a very minor detail, and there's nothing on Treegarth anywhere, and I mean in the shelf of academic books on JRRT that I'm looking at while I'm rewriting a whole lot of ME articles. I think we'd best delete this one.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
08:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Hog Farm Are there any other other
Middle-earth articles which mention the Realms of Ards and/or Treegarth? That would be my second retarget option as I see little prospect this title would be used elsewhere, so it's a harmless and
cheap redirect to retain.
Doug MehusT·C14:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Dmehus Typing "*Treegarth" (which should bring up all mentions) into the Wikipedia search bar brings up just this redirect. It's mentioned I think a solid once in LOTR, so I'm not surprised we don't discuss it.
Hog Farm (
talk)
14:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
RestoreIsengard as an article (and retarget
Treegarth back to it).
Isengard was turned into a redirect about a week ago and I think this needs to be reverted: the locality features very prominently e.g. in the films, and the current scattered mentions in
Rohan (Middle-earth) aren't doing much service to readers searching for the topic. –
Uanfala (talk)14:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
RestoreIsengard and retarget per Uanfala. Blanking an 11K article which has been around since 2003 without either opening a discussion on the Talk Page or going through
WP:AFD strikes me as unilateral.
RestoreIsengard as an article per
Uanfala. We have to be very careful with deleting these
Middle-earth redirects. If they were legitimately always just redirects, then deletion is fine. But if they contributed to a merge in some way, we need to preserve them per
WP:ATT.
Doug MehusT·C17:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Hog Farm: I'm going to revert your edit until this places out. This should close as restore by whoever is non-involved, assuming that's the way this unfolds. Though it seems likely, my understanding is the subject and targets shouldn't be altered until closure performed.
Doug MehusT·C17:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Restore Isengard as an article.
Add at least a "Do not confuse" mention at the top of
Orthanc with a link to the restored Isengard (where the Orthanc of Middle-Earth is the most prominent feature but not the only one). (Or else create Orthanc (disambiguation) but I doubt that such a two-way disambiguation page would be useful.)
Retarget Treegarth to the restored Isengard and make sure there is a mention there about the forestry operations done there by Treebeard et al. at the end of Saruman's reign and IIRC afterwards.
P.S. 2bis. Retarget Orthanc (Middle-earth) to the section describing it in the restored Isengard. (The text at The Two Towers#Title, its current target, assumes you already know what it is, which is not encyclopaedic procedure.) —
Tonymec (
talk)
14:19, 18 February 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.
Zero G flight
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.
For one thing, objects in space flight experience less gravitational pull than the target. But it's not a good search term for that either, so I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguilltalk05:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - The term "zero G flight" appears as if it could apply both to flying spacecraft (with a microgravity environment) and regular planes known for high altitude trips (with a weightlessness analogous but different to space travel). I'm not sure. It's possible that the general article '
weightlessness' might work as a retarget?
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
07:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The reason that I created that redirect was not because it is technically correct, but because it is a layman's nickname for the technology. You see the name "zero G flight" or similar pop up in media and elsewhere as a non-technical buzzword, and it's also the name that several providers use. The term even appears in the article many times, including in the references. It's a clearly non-trivial alternative name for the subject.
Gaioa (
TCL)
08:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. As an "enlightened layman", I understand "zero-G flight" as meaning a part of a flight where the aircraft's (or maybe spacecraft's for that matter), well, the craft's trajectory is such that people inside it, if they aren't belted down, experience "free float" relative to the craft. I'm not sure I would think of looking up "reduced-gravity aircraft" to mean the same, even if it is the accepted technical term. —
Tonymec (
talk)
00:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. "Zero G Flying" is another way to describe the type of flying up and down sinusoidally to experience weightlessness, or "zero gs", during the portions of the flight going down. The term "Zero G flight" rarely describes spaceflight, even if you are technically "flying" with "zero gs". Searching for "Zero G flight" somewhat proves the latter point, even if I would like to steer away from addressing google hits. Utopes(talk / cont)03:01, 18 February 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.
Rushdown (Middle-earth)
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 closed without action. There was some discussion between the nominator,
Hog Farm and the other participant,
Tonymec, between potentially adding a section to the current target article. However, neither participant knew what the best course of action would be. Given the length of time this redirect has been in existence and from the discussion, it's clear that there's no harm in keeping this redirect, at least for now, as an {{R to article without mention}} and {{R from fictional location}}, without prejudice to renomination in the future or
boldly retargeting as there was
no consensus, or even agreement really, on whether deletion was either best or even necessary.
(non-admin closure)Doug MehusT·C15:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The target page has recently been made into a redirect to
Moria (Middle-earth)#Geography, which means that the target anchorMisty Mountains#Valleys and Rivers does not exist anymore. IMHO either the latest pre-redirect version of Misty Mountains should be restored, or else an appropriate new section should be written somewhere and made the new target of this redirect. —
Tonymec (
talk)
05:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Tonymec: The bigger question is if creating a section to discuss this would be
WP:UNDUE. This river isn't even important in-universe, just a name on a detailed map and a brief reference or two.
Hog Farm (
talk)
05:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Hog Farm: OK, at this point I don't know what the best course of action would be; what I know is that the current state of affairs, with a redirection to a recently vanished anchor, is not desirable. It mustn't stay that way, something should be done about it. I'm not sure what. —
Tonymec (
talk)
23:49, 17 February 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.
Captain Walker (character)
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.
There seems to be mention of a "character" in the article, but since this is an album with songs (there is a song called "Captain Walker"), is this redirect misleading since there is no visual character to note?
Steel1943 (
talk)
04:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - Captain Walker is the titular protagonist's father and is a notable character in the original album as well as in later material based off of it. I suppose it might make sense to refine things specifically to '
Tommy_(The_Who_album)#Synopsis', where the Captain is described as a character in relation to the other characters.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
07:33, 17 February 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.
Arca di Noè
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 case for a primary topic isn't really for this RfD. Anyway, leave it alone: having no primary topic will result in a pointless disambiguation page with only 2 entries.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
11:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. We commonly redirect from a title without an article, definite or indefinite, to one with an article. I've seen countless examples in languages such as Dutch, English, French, German, Italian and Spanish. (When
Orfeo turns up in
Disambiguation pages with links, as it does from time to time, it almost always means L'Orfeo.)
Narky Blert (
talk)
22:14, 17 February 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.
Al Jilwah
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
A bit ambiguous, as we also have
The Hidden Way as a page. I would imagine the silent film would get primary topic over the fictional alternative name, so retarget there. No point in disambiguating with only two topics, per
WP:ONEOTHER.
Hog Farm (
talk)
02:43, 17 February 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 February 17, 2020.
Nidha
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.
Fast food in israel
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.
No need to redirect from the non-capitalised version of every article or list title containing a capitalised placename
PamD21:01, 17 February 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.
Fast food restaurants in israel
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.
No need to redirect from the non-capitalised version of every article or list title containing a capitalised placename.
PamD21:01, 17 February 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.
Andromimesis
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment: my vote remains the same, but just FYI that after researching the term I've significantly updated the definition at Wikitionary.
Old: From andro- + mimesis...(nonstandard, rare) The practice of imitating a man, and thus of being an andromimetic.
New: From andro- + mimesis. Literally “male imitation”. First put forward in a 1984 article by sexologists John Money and Malgorzata Lamacz...(dated, nonstandard, rare) The state of being transmasculine or a trans man.WanderingWanda (
talk)
09:45, 21 February 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.
Dragtop
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.
Most mentions of the term "dragtop" online seem to be software-related, and thus don't apply to the current target. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk21:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The issue right now is that as this term is not used at the target, and I can't find any relevant usage of it online, we don't have any evidence that this is actually a term used to refer to the current target. signed, Rosguilltalk21:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The term is used for laptops that are too large, too heavy, or too power hungry relative to the battery size to be portable. Some of the online usage is here:
[1] ·
Naivecynic ·
21:40, 8 February 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.
Luis Ángel Mendiburu
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 likely created it because it came up as a page with a incoming links when I ran
User:Dispenser's Dabfix on
Mendiburu. I chose the target because those pages referred to him as Frondizi's son-in-law and the murder did not have its own page, though I probably considered one of the incoming link pages as targets, too. If the redirect is seen as unhelpful, I have no complaints against deletion, though a simple edit to Silvio's page could make it mention his son-in-law like the pages linking to it do. —
Ost (
talk)
05:47, 10 February 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.
Foundational medicine
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.
Not mentioned in the target article. Most sources that I came across on Google scholar do not appear to use these terms interchangeably, with the arguably rule-proving exception of this FRINGE-looking blog post
[2] (not sure why Google Scholar indexed it). I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk20:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I agree. The term is incredibly vague, and attempts to use it as a euphemism don't appear to be particular notable. Deletion appears to be the right call.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
05:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. That 2008 blog post by Todd Cameron begins, 'I have coined the term “Foundational Medicine”', which indicates it was then a
WP:NEOLOGISM. The citation found by The RedBurn is to a journal, Foundational Medicine Review, which from its prospectus looks distinctly non-
WP:MEDRS and an attempt to repackage alternative medicine under a name withour negative overtones. I also found
this link by Elizabeth A Wanek, who claims it as an unregistered trademark; the contents of that link speak for themselves. Although we do need to cover
WP:FRINGE topics, this doesn't cut it for me; I would hesitate to include any of those citations in an article.
Narky Blert (
talk)
15:12, 18 February 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.
Headless drummer
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.
Commentheadless drummer could refer to the drummer of
Headless (band), but is that the only band named Headless or are there other contexts for this phrasing? Even if not, do we target
Headless drummer to
Headless (band) or to the biographical article for the drummer of the band? In any case, has the band had more than one drummer? I will have to do further research before deciding.
Doug MehusT·C20:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete. It is hard for me to imagine that people searching for a headless drummer are searching for the particular ghost in Edinburgh Castle instead of any other ghost in any other castle. With that being said, "headless drummer" in the context of "where is the headless drummer" seems more of a Google search rather than a Wikipedia search, but this thought-process stems mostly from the fact that the title is rather ambiguous. Utopes(talk / cont)02:37, 18 February 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.
If you think the redirect
Porcelain throne should exist, feel free to create it. The redirect being discussed is a separate matter, because it was explicitly created by
Gobonobo as a redirect from Porcelain god, NOT "Porcelain throne". It would, therefore, not be accurate to have the redirect moved to a completely different term as if Gobonobo wanted a redirect for "Porcelain throne" instead of the desired "Porcelain god". --
Tavix(
talk)17:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment (was Retarget to
Toilet god per Tavix' find.) In this case, the term porcelain god does not appear to be as widely used as porcelain throne is for the
toilet. Thus, per
WP:R#D2 and
WP:XY, it's confusing. I think Tavix' proposed target is much better.
Doug MehusT·C18:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, don't retarget to
Toilet god - this is a totally different subject, in the West exclusively relating to periods centuries before porcelain existed, and in East Asian cultures porcelain toilets are a very recent introduction. If we had a decent article on
porcelain figure it would be better to send it there, as these often show gods. But we don't.
Johnbod (
talk)
18:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Soft redirect to
porcelain god on Wiktionary per
Tavix' alternate proposal, who knows how to pull at my Wiktionary soft redirect heartstrings. At best, porcelain god is an unencyclopedic term, so article creation is unlikely. In the event someone creates a porcelain god piece of art and it's
notable, then the soft redirect can be converted into an article. But, at present, I think Tavix' alternate proposal is best.
Doug MehusT·C18:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
CommentConsensus is strongly trending toward the soft redirect alternate proposal of Tavix, so I've added the soft redirect to
Wiktionary code below the current target, if that's the outcome. Closer need only to uncomment the substituted longcomment post-close.
Doug MehusT·C17:54, 23 February 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.
File:C I D.jpg
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 is essentially a procedural nomination for
Kailash29792 who had nominated this file redirect at
MfD in
this discussion, and then at
FfD in
this discussion as vague and ambiguous. I personally happen to agree; thus, per
WP:R#D2 and
WP:XY, I'm recommending we delete this useless file redirect. As well, it's unclear whether
File:C I D. (1956 movie poster).jpg will also be nominated by the nominator, but I do note it's tagged as non-qualifying non-free image tagging. So, if that is deleted before this, then this can be speedy deleted per
G8.
Doug MehusT·C15:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment With the greatest of respect to Steel1943, I do note that there's no indication
WP:FILEREDIRECT supercedes
WP:R. Moreover, even if it did, there's no history to preserve, so this can be deleted per
WP:COMMONSENSE, which I note is a suprapolicy in that it is said to be above all other policies and guidelines. This is just housekeeping.
Doug MehusT·C15:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
...
WP:FILEREDIRECT exists for none of the reasons you just stated; it exists to prevent linkrot in external webpages from happening ... which has a rather high potential to happen with this redirect if it is deleted since this redirect has existed for over 7 years.
Steel1943 (
talk)
15:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I think that's a bad policy, to be honest. Other websites don't concern themselves with link rot in Wikipedia articles, so we have to have things like the Internet Archive bot to attempt to rescue such links. Moreover, Google does a very good job of updating the links in search results.
Doug MehusT·C16:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Oh, it looks like Steel1943 already knows Kailash29792, and there's some history here. I do note that Kailash29792 has file mover permissions, so why not just move the file without leaving a redirect? For what it's worth, I do note that a Google site search for the URL returns only 1 URL, and using
this backlink URL checker, the only inlink is from Indian Wikipedia. So, I don't see any linkrotting here. I think we can make an exception here to
WP:FILEREDIRECT, per
WP:COMMONSENSE, since no other websites link to this file. This would solve the ambiguity issue here in the URL.
Doug MehusT·C16:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Off-topic collapsed discussion between
Doug and
Tavix that is only tangentially related
I agree with you there, Tavix, in that the current title is improperly punctuated and not that well named, but my concern is that would this redirect pass our naming conventions for the file? That is, can filenames be ambiguous and it's essentially "first kick at the can"? If so, then I'm wondering if maybe we should't rename the target file back to this file name redirect, suppressing the trailing redirect for the convoluted long filename?
Doug MehusT·C17:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
File naming conventions is not something I care about, and is tangential to deciding whether or not to keep the redirect. I please ask that you at least
attempt to do your required research before firing off a bunch of questions unrelated to the subject at hand and muddying the waters even further. --
Tavix(
talk)18:07, 17 February 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.
Huckapedia
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.
Not mentioned at target article, edit summaries of page history suggest this was a joke mentioned on the Daily Show once that did not get enough coverage to be mentioned at the Huckabee page without failing
WP:UNDUE.
Hog Farm (
talk)
15:33, 17 February 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.
Adhesive Bonding (2)
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 per
Robert McClenon, word for word. Although, it's a good thing
DPL bot doesn't check project namespace otherwise Robert would've gotten botslapped for linking to
dung; else,
Speedy delete as either
G6 per Steel1943 or
G7 since the author has requested deletion and the only other edits have been the CSD and RfD taggings and an edit from a bot fixing a double-redirect. Should qualify under either criterion.
Doug MehusT·C16:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I get that the discussion is archived but I wanted to give a quick thanks to @
Lithopsian:, @
Robert McClenon:, and everybody who took care of this redirect discussion. The CSD (under criterion R3) was justly declined as the redirect was not created "recently", but I failed to PROD or RfD the redirect after the CSD tag was removed. Thanks for picking up the slack, cheers! Utopes(talk / cont)01:54, 18 February 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.
Bitter gourd-shaped passion fruit
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.
Cerro Prieto geotherman field
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.
Cerro Prieto geotherman area
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.
Stop code
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.
Strong keep. "Stop code" is the term of art for Windows crash codes, the Windows equivalent of
Exit status. If the complaint is that it's ambiguous, then that just means that "Stop code" should be turned into a disambiguation page instead with an entry for Blue Screen of Death, which would also be acceptable if there are other encyclopedic uses of the term.
SnowFire (
talk)
16:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Going to have to agree with the fact that the title of the redirect is a bit ambiguous considering that the Windows STOP code term could also refer to a completely different thing, but I do think it can be turned into a disambiguation page like
SnowFire suggested. Otherwise, like others have stated, I believe that a deletion may be suitable enough. Leaning for a delete. -
pivotman319 (
📫)
13:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Concur with @
Pivotman319 and
SnowFire:, et al., that because it's ambiguous,
blue screen of death, is not the best target for this redirect. I favour disambiguation, obviously, but if there are no suitable targets or a suitable disambiguation page drafted below the current target of
stop code, then delete without prejudice to future recreation as a disambiguation page.
Doug MehusT·C15:17, 18 February 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.
"...Ich tœte mich jedesmal aufs Neue, doch ich bin unsterblich, und ich erstehe wieder auf; in einer Vision der Untergangs..."
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. Counterpoint: I own a car, thus I own a transmission, thus this should really redirect to me. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)22:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as ambiguous. "Transmission" could refer to at least electricity or broadcasting. (Disease, telecommunications or automotive power seem less likely in context.)
Narky Blert (
talk)
08:38, 18 February 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.
*Hosanagar (Vidhana Sabha constituency)
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.
CommentI didn't realise I could CSD any sort of redirect. Twinkle doesn't offer me U-1, but I've just put it up for G-7.
PamD16:57, 19 February 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.
Preliminary measures
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 - wiki is supposed to be a reflection of usage in the external world, such as the press.
Thomson Reuters reports "preliminary measures" to be common usage for
Provisional measure of protection.[1] I added the redirect because of Thomson Reuters. The other people above should not be allowed to delete a redirect based on their "feel" for the language. As a worst case, maybe a disambiguation page could point to
Preliminary measures (ICJ), which would then be a link to
Provisional measure of protection. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Magnovvig (
talk •
contribs) 04:50, February 19, 2020 (UTC)
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.
National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aart Awards
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.
Treegarth
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 Restore
Isengard, retarget back to
Isengard#Literature. A lot of back and forth in the history here, but I think consensus is clear. This restoration should not preclude a good-faith nomination of
Isengard for AfD; if it is deleted, then we can reconsider whether
Treegarth should be deleted or pointed to Rohan. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)22:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)reply
If I remember right, this is what the Ents turned Isengard into, but Isengard no longer has it's own article. Delete unless the entry "Treegarth of Orthanc (Ents)" at
Realms of Arda is considered to be a useful retarget point. (For those users who are confused, this is a forest in the Lord of the Rings).
Hog Farm (
talk)
04:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, we love the Ents dearly, but this really is a very minor detail, and there's nothing on Treegarth anywhere, and I mean in the shelf of academic books on JRRT that I'm looking at while I'm rewriting a whole lot of ME articles. I think we'd best delete this one.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
08:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Hog Farm Are there any other other
Middle-earth articles which mention the Realms of Ards and/or Treegarth? That would be my second retarget option as I see little prospect this title would be used elsewhere, so it's a harmless and
cheap redirect to retain.
Doug MehusT·C14:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Dmehus Typing "*Treegarth" (which should bring up all mentions) into the Wikipedia search bar brings up just this redirect. It's mentioned I think a solid once in LOTR, so I'm not surprised we don't discuss it.
Hog Farm (
talk)
14:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
RestoreIsengard as an article (and retarget
Treegarth back to it).
Isengard was turned into a redirect about a week ago and I think this needs to be reverted: the locality features very prominently e.g. in the films, and the current scattered mentions in
Rohan (Middle-earth) aren't doing much service to readers searching for the topic. –
Uanfala (talk)14:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
RestoreIsengard and retarget per Uanfala. Blanking an 11K article which has been around since 2003 without either opening a discussion on the Talk Page or going through
WP:AFD strikes me as unilateral.
RestoreIsengard as an article per
Uanfala. We have to be very careful with deleting these
Middle-earth redirects. If they were legitimately always just redirects, then deletion is fine. But if they contributed to a merge in some way, we need to preserve them per
WP:ATT.
Doug MehusT·C17:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Hog Farm: I'm going to revert your edit until this places out. This should close as restore by whoever is non-involved, assuming that's the way this unfolds. Though it seems likely, my understanding is the subject and targets shouldn't be altered until closure performed.
Doug MehusT·C17:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Restore Isengard as an article.
Add at least a "Do not confuse" mention at the top of
Orthanc with a link to the restored Isengard (where the Orthanc of Middle-Earth is the most prominent feature but not the only one). (Or else create Orthanc (disambiguation) but I doubt that such a two-way disambiguation page would be useful.)
Retarget Treegarth to the restored Isengard and make sure there is a mention there about the forestry operations done there by Treebeard et al. at the end of Saruman's reign and IIRC afterwards.
P.S. 2bis. Retarget Orthanc (Middle-earth) to the section describing it in the restored Isengard. (The text at The Two Towers#Title, its current target, assumes you already know what it is, which is not encyclopaedic procedure.) —
Tonymec (
talk)
14:19, 18 February 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.
Zero G flight
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.
For one thing, objects in space flight experience less gravitational pull than the target. But it's not a good search term for that either, so I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguilltalk05:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - The term "zero G flight" appears as if it could apply both to flying spacecraft (with a microgravity environment) and regular planes known for high altitude trips (with a weightlessness analogous but different to space travel). I'm not sure. It's possible that the general article '
weightlessness' might work as a retarget?
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
07:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The reason that I created that redirect was not because it is technically correct, but because it is a layman's nickname for the technology. You see the name "zero G flight" or similar pop up in media and elsewhere as a non-technical buzzword, and it's also the name that several providers use. The term even appears in the article many times, including in the references. It's a clearly non-trivial alternative name for the subject.
Gaioa (
TCL)
08:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. As an "enlightened layman", I understand "zero-G flight" as meaning a part of a flight where the aircraft's (or maybe spacecraft's for that matter), well, the craft's trajectory is such that people inside it, if they aren't belted down, experience "free float" relative to the craft. I'm not sure I would think of looking up "reduced-gravity aircraft" to mean the same, even if it is the accepted technical term. —
Tonymec (
talk)
00:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. "Zero G Flying" is another way to describe the type of flying up and down sinusoidally to experience weightlessness, or "zero gs", during the portions of the flight going down. The term "Zero G flight" rarely describes spaceflight, even if you are technically "flying" with "zero gs". Searching for "Zero G flight" somewhat proves the latter point, even if I would like to steer away from addressing google hits. Utopes(talk / cont)03:01, 18 February 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.
Rushdown (Middle-earth)
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 closed without action. There was some discussion between the nominator,
Hog Farm and the other participant,
Tonymec, between potentially adding a section to the current target article. However, neither participant knew what the best course of action would be. Given the length of time this redirect has been in existence and from the discussion, it's clear that there's no harm in keeping this redirect, at least for now, as an {{R to article without mention}} and {{R from fictional location}}, without prejudice to renomination in the future or
boldly retargeting as there was
no consensus, or even agreement really, on whether deletion was either best or even necessary.
(non-admin closure)Doug MehusT·C15:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The target page has recently been made into a redirect to
Moria (Middle-earth)#Geography, which means that the target anchorMisty Mountains#Valleys and Rivers does not exist anymore. IMHO either the latest pre-redirect version of Misty Mountains should be restored, or else an appropriate new section should be written somewhere and made the new target of this redirect. —
Tonymec (
talk)
05:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Tonymec: The bigger question is if creating a section to discuss this would be
WP:UNDUE. This river isn't even important in-universe, just a name on a detailed map and a brief reference or two.
Hog Farm (
talk)
05:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Hog Farm: OK, at this point I don't know what the best course of action would be; what I know is that the current state of affairs, with a redirection to a recently vanished anchor, is not desirable. It mustn't stay that way, something should be done about it. I'm not sure what. —
Tonymec (
talk)
23:49, 17 February 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.
Captain Walker (character)
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.
There seems to be mention of a "character" in the article, but since this is an album with songs (there is a song called "Captain Walker"), is this redirect misleading since there is no visual character to note?
Steel1943 (
talk)
04:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - Captain Walker is the titular protagonist's father and is a notable character in the original album as well as in later material based off of it. I suppose it might make sense to refine things specifically to '
Tommy_(The_Who_album)#Synopsis', where the Captain is described as a character in relation to the other characters.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
07:33, 17 February 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.
Arca di Noè
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 case for a primary topic isn't really for this RfD. Anyway, leave it alone: having no primary topic will result in a pointless disambiguation page with only 2 entries.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
11:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. We commonly redirect from a title without an article, definite or indefinite, to one with an article. I've seen countless examples in languages such as Dutch, English, French, German, Italian and Spanish. (When
Orfeo turns up in
Disambiguation pages with links, as it does from time to time, it almost always means L'Orfeo.)
Narky Blert (
talk)
22:14, 17 February 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.
Al Jilwah
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
A bit ambiguous, as we also have
The Hidden Way as a page. I would imagine the silent film would get primary topic over the fictional alternative name, so retarget there. No point in disambiguating with only two topics, per
WP:ONEOTHER.
Hog Farm (
talk)
02:43, 17 February 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.