Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 29

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 29, 2020.

Sal Piacente

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 23:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Here's a few people that redirect to List of magic tricks without mention. Presumably they are creators of magic tricks (a cursory search seems to confirm this), but the target doesn't do anything to verify this. -- Tavix ( talk) 23:16, 29 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.

Ramp Walker

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. -- BDD ( talk) 01:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

This is a topic that is not mentioned at the target article, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. Someone looking for specific information about this toy will not find it, and end up disappointed or confused. -- Tavix ( talk) 23:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Comment there are other things, like FOD workers on ramps and aprons, which are not toys -- 65.94.171.6 ( talk) 07:24, 1 March 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.

Spanish Casual Q&A

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 23:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Wrong definition of inquisition... -- Tavix ( talk) 22:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, almost certainly a joke. Hog Farm ( talk) 00:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this Spanish fireside chat. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nobody entering Spanish Casual Q&A into the searchbox would expect the Spanish Inquisition. Narky Blert ( talk) 09:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Narky Blert: Are you saying that no one would expect the Spanish Inquisition? FBDB N0nsensical.system (err0r?) (.log) 12:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, Cardinal Biggles. Narky Blert ( talk) 12:20, 2 March 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.

Future of carla

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 23:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I was not able to figure out whether this is a significant phrase related to the Spanish Inquisition. My search largely yielded results related to Coronation Street. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:59, 29 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.

ConsoleKit

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 23:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Redirects to a system it is not part of. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC). reply
21:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  • So is there some place else for it to redirect, or should it be turned into an article about ConsoleKit? In either case, why not just do it? Guy Harris ( talk) 22:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Hearing no response, I vote for deleting the redirect, and leaving it for somebody to create a page for ConsoleKit if they wish. Guy Harris ( talk) 17:31, 3 March 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.

R.O. Crimea

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 23:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I do not see this abbreviation used in any references. In addition, none of the examples listed at RO mean "Republic of", so proving this redirect as useful cannot be done with that method. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:54, 29 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.

Jon Perrin

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 8#Jon Perrin

Draft:Connected

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 deleted per G6 by Cryptic. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Placeholder redirect created when the draft page for the film The Mitchells vs. the Machines was renamed Connected before becoming a full article. IceWalrus236 ( talk) 20:24, 29 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.

Paquistan

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 mixed. No consensus on whether Paquistan is a sufficiently plausible misspelling. While editors were not unanimously for deleting the other two, there does appear to be a stronger consensus in favor of deletion there. signed, Rosguill talk 21:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

No connection between Pakistan and Portuguese. Delete per WP:FORRED. Soumyabrata ( talk • subpages) 10:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Occitan or Galician ( gl:Paquistán), and whatever the page views, it still falls foul of WP:RFFL. Narky Blert ( talk) 00:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, both WP:RFFL. Narky Blert ( talk) 12:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, that's fine. I suspect the top one had the most usage? So, that one might be a "weak delete," but assuming the other two were all less, then I would say a straight "delete." Doug Mehus T· C 20:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Paquistão and Paquistao were not tagged until today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 20:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, no reason for any of these to be here, per WP:FORRED, and no English speaker is going to hear "Pakistan" and guess that it's spelled "Paquistan" (unless there are people out there pronouncing it "Pak-wi-stan"), so this isn't about helping users around likely errors. Largoplazo ( talk) 20:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
How would they guess parquet was spelled? 94.21.238.148 ( talk) 13:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the first as a misspelling. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:32, 29 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.

Latinoamerican

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, Rosguill talk 21:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

No incoming links, meaning is ambiguous; could refer either to Latinos or Latin Americans (i.e. denizens of Latinoamérica). — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 03:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 20:00, 29 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.

Atmospheric research

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 Atmospheric Research. This is as rough a consensus as we get, but a bare majority preferred the journal, there was no appetite for a TWODABS disambiguation page, and little hope that leaving this open will lead to a clearer consensus. -- BDD ( talk) 01:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I think that this is a case of WP:R#DELETE #10: anyone typing in "atmospheric research" is unlikely to just want our article about the atmosphere (an article that doesn't even mention the word "research"), but the topic is clearly notable (there's even an academic journal with exactly this name). Thus, I would suggest deletion to encourage article creation. signed, Rosguill talk 18:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 14:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Retarget to the journal and hatnote to Atmospheric science AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC) reply
The more I think about it, I'm increasingly more strongly opposed to the idea of retargeting to the broader atmospheric science chiefly because the topic of atmospheric research is not well explained there in that target. That's where I think DIFFCAPS makes sense—that is, where the target sufficiently, and relatively in-depth, covers the named topic. In this case, we don't have that, so it makes sense to retarget to the Atmospheric Research academic journal as an {{ R from miscapitalization}}, which the plurality of participants currently supports, because, ultimately, the reader would be well informed by learning about that highly focused and highly related academic journal where, ultimately, they can connect with related inlinks and external links on how to look up a current or previous issue of the journal. Doug Mehus T· C 14:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Do you consider it appropriate to add a hatnote for Atmospheric science in that case? We can't assume all readers would want to read about (or dig up issues of) a somewhat obscure journal, and science and research are very closely related, to the point where many would see them as the same thing. Glades12 ( talk) 13:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Glades12 I have no objections to a hatnote to the related, broader topic of atmospheric science, absolutely. I would also support a hatnote to the journal at atmospheric science, if required. I'm pretty liberal with hatnotes...as long as they're broadly reasonable and don't take up, say, half the page, I'm fine. ;-) Doug Mehus T· C 18:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Feminist:, WP:TWODABS applies, though. This is one of those cases where we could either close as "no consensus," then retarget to the academic journal boldly since consensus was against keeping it at the current target, or the closer could use their editorial discretion in a non-prejudicial supervote on deciding on the target—this is the only acceptable type of supervote. Doug Mehus T· C 15:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
If editors can't agree on one target, this means they can't agree on one singular WP:PTOPIC, in which case TWODABS doesn't apply and the title can become a disambiguation page. feminist ( talk) 15:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Feminist: That's a good point. Though, I still think we could've closed this at one of the targets and, if it were disputed and ended up at RfD again a short time later, then we'd have to disambiguate per the above. However, I would support, somewhat weak-ishly, dabifying as Atmospheric research now and save this a potential extra trip to RfD—I say potential only because I'm not convinced early editors like Narky Blert would've opposed targeting to the academic journal. Doug Mehus T· C 15:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 19:58, 29 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.

Shuttle-A

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 9#Shuttle-A

Ruby Davis

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 move without leaving a redirect. I chose Ruby Davy (pianist). -- BDD ( talk) 01:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete, the title of the redirect is incorrect. Another editor mistakenly created an article for "Ruby Davis" while not realizing that the Ruby Claudia Davy article already existed. PK T(alk) 13:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Move without leaving behind a redirect to another available title that unambiguously refers to Davy (eg: Ruby Claudia Emily Davy or Ruby Davy (pianist)). The edit history needs to be kept for attribution purposes per WP:MAD since some content was merged to the target article. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Sure - that makes good sense, too. PK T(alk) 17:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment WP:COMMONNAME suggests that Ruby Davy is better and simpler choice than either Ruby Davy (pianist) or Ruby Claudia Emily Davy. Currently Ruby Davy is a redirect to the more complex Ruby Claudia Davy, which is unnecessary as there are no other Ruby Davy articles. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 02:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Move without leaving behind a redirect as per above. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:13, 1 March 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.

Rampur Airport

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 Rampur, Uttar Pradesh#Transport. The mention of nearby airports at the new target solves the ambiguity issue. Thanks to BDD for adding a mention to solve the concerns. ~ mazca talk 14:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

There is no indication that this planned airport would be called "Rampur Airport". Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 12:00, 29 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.

Getz (Breaking Bad)

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 , withdrawn by nominator. signed, Rosguill talk 21:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned at the target page. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I noticed that with thr exception of the infobox mentioning guest stars the character Getz isn’t mentioned anywhere in the seticle. I question whether or not the character is important enough to even be mentioned on the article since the plot summary doesn’t mention him once.-- 69.157.252.96 ( talk) 01:47, 1 March 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.

There are only 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

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 21:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Per WP:R#KEEP, I cannot think of a scenario where this will actually be a useful redirect Polyamorph ( talk) 09:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as implausible. Minimal pageviews. It's a common joke, but there are too many potential variations in phrasing and punctuation for this to be useful. SpicyMilkBoy ( talk) 12:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per reasoning above. If this joke is indeed notable, it can certainly be mentioned or added to a list, but it isn't helpful as a redirect. ComplexRational ( talk) 19:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above, though I just got the joke. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. For this sort of stuff, try Google. (The 10 types of people are in fact those who don't understand ternary, those who do, and those who think it's binary.) Narky Blert ( talk) 21:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • 'Delete per above. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 16:33, 5 March 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.

Tornado Ponzi scam

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 21:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I moved an article from this title to Webwork (Indian web site) (and removed some unsourced article text), as I couldn't find any reliable sources linking Tornado Software to Webwork. The redirect should be removed to avoid suggesting a link which may be erroneous. Lord Belbury ( talk) 09:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as confusing and ambiguous, per nom; I'm quite certain there have been more than one Ponzi scheme in the city of Toronto. Doug Mehus T· C 16:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Toronto? Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 21:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't find anything reliable linking Tornado and Webwork. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 21:14, 2 March 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.

U.S. Representative District 9

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 21:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Ambiguous as there are multiple districts in other states with the same number, 9th congressional district does not exist either. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 07:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Go create the 9+ DAB pages then. The existence of such pages would be an issue for WP:AFD, not for this forum. Narky Blert ( talk) 21:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
After further thought, changing !vote to delete. This title is not phrased correctly, and is useless. Hog Farm ( talk) 00:35, 1 March 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.

Compter componets

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 21:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Multiple typos, not plausible, note that computer components redirects to computer. Compter is an unrelated article. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 06:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, nothing to add. Narky Blert ( talk) 08:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Highly implausible typo; possible CIR issues related to keyboarding or a broken keyboard. Doug Mehus T· C 16:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - While the second word is more likely to be misspelled that way, the misspelling of computer is highly unlikely, and together it's very unlikely. Hog Farm ( talk) 20:18, 29 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.

P-yore

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. -- BDD ( talk) 00:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in target article, not a likely typo, and 10 pageviews in 2019 indicates that few people think it is spelled like this. Delete. Hog Farm ( talk) 05:16, 29 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.

Yeet (slang)

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. I have not overlooked Tavix's desire to have the article restored first, and know that some editors object to this manner of deletion in principle. I do not see another reasonable reading of consensus here, however. -- BDD ( talk) 00:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I PRODded the original version of this for the reason " WP:NOTDICTIONARY". User:Dmehus declined the PROD and redirected it to Yeet, a disambiguation page. I see no value in the redirect since there is nothing there for a user who is looking for the word "yeet" in a context they already know is slang. Dmehus also suggested soft redirection to Wiktionary, but since the term is disambiguated here, I'm not sure I see the value in that either. Largoplazo ( talk) 03:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • @ Dmehus: Your redirection makes no sense since there are no "slang" articles listed at the target. Please restore the article and either restore the PROD tag or nominate the page for WP:AFD. A WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT-ed article that goes to WP:RFD is improper for WP:ATT/ WP:CWW reasons since the article's content (that was rather fresh) as an article is not traditionally taken into consideration for discussion. Thanks. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. None of the entries on the disambiguation page refer to the slang form of yeet, and it frankly isn't necessary to have as a redirect either to Wikipedia or to Wiktionary. Will be posting my opinion here as long as this RfD is still up. Utopes ( talk / cont) 03:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Barring this redirect getting turned back into an article ... Delete per nom. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the underlying article is a WP:NOTDIC page, and wikt:yeet already covers the slang term. The disambiguation page at yeet already contains a link to Wiktionary. -- 65.94.171.6 ( talk) 05:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, as an implausible redirect because of the disambiguation qualifier. In response to Steel1943's comment, I reached out to Utopes to ensure that dePRODding and redirecting to yeet was the correct way to handle this. I even said that RfD should be the correct venue. PROD shouldn't be used to enforce WP:NOTDICTIONARY; if there's no other targets on English Wikipedia, a soft redirect to Wiktionary should be used. In this case, there was a Wiktionary link at yeet, so I retargeted there, and suggested nominating it for RfD. Doug Mehus T· C 14:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • There is no entry for "Yeet (slang)" at Wiktionary, and Yeet already has the Wiktionary link, so there's no reason for this title to continue to exist as a soft redirect to Wiktionary. I think I saw you make that observation somewhere else, maybe to Utopes? But it's always a bad idea to redirect to another page because it contains a link that leads yet somewhere else. We're supposed to be making things easier for readers, not create puzzles for them. Not having Yeet (slang) at all is easier for them than having it and then redirecting them to a page that won't help them unless they think to look at all the links on it. Also, under the guidelines, only disambiguations themselves (disambiguation pages or hatnotes) should link to disambiguation pages. Largoplazo ( talk) 14:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
    Yes, that's why I didn't think that the yeet (slang) was appropriate for a soft redirect, with which Utopes concurred. I disagree, though, that redirecting this redirect to the disambiguation page, where yeet is mentioned in a Wiktionary link is "creating a puzzle." Redirecting this to any other target besides a disambiguation page would've been entirely inappropriate; where the term is ambiguous and has multiple uses, redirecting to a disambiguation page of the same name is entirely correct. We literally do this all the time...one need only look through the past couple months' worth of RfDs whereby redirects for Captain Walker qualified by a parenthetical qualifier have been retargeted to the Captain Walker disambiguation page. At any rate, having this discussion at RfD, where discussions are often more collegial and less BITEy than at AfD, is actually better than PRODding this in that the creator could've otherwise requested undeletion at WP:REFUND (albeit into Draft: namespace) and, if this is recreated within a reasonable timeframe, it will be eligible for speedy deletion (G4). Doug Mehus T· C 15:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Dmehus:, the problem was that Yeet (slang) was originally an article before you turned it into a soft redirect, which is why Steel suggested the discussion be held at AfD instead of RfD. The article was PRODed, and you declined the PROD. Declined PRODs always go to Articles for Deletion (or Files for Deletion) per WP:DEPROD. Utopes ( talk / cont) 15:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
    @ Utopes:, okay, I wasn't aware of WP:DEPROD, but nevertheless, as decliner of the PROD, there's no obligation for me, as decliner of the PROD to take any action. In this case, I boldly redirected what was a dictionary definition and not appropriate for the encyclopedia. So I'm not really seeing how this was inappropriate. Since we're not a bureaucracy and, notionally, have no rules, this seemed like a reasonable approach given the circumstances. We have so many rules, often in conflict with each other, that it's nearly impossible to know all of them or even follow them all the time. I'm not saying we should do this in every case, but I don't see how redirecting an ambiguous term to a page which disambiguates the ambiguous term is improper. Doug Mehus T· C 15:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @ Dmehus: "... I don't see how redirecting an ambiguous term to a page which disambiguates the ambiguous term is improper." That's just the problem ... that's not what happened. You redirected this title to a disambiguation page which contains no examples (must be more than one) of articles for slang terms of "Yeet". I have outlined this in my original comment in this discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 16:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
      @ Steel1943: Trying to understand here, but where does it say the disambiguation page must disambiguate two or more uses of a slang term? The Wiktionary link to yeet is one mention of the ambiguous term; the other bluelinked mentions to Yeet show the ambiguity. What am I missing here? Doug Mehus T· C 16:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
      • @ Dmehus: Wiktionary:yeet is not an article, and "Yeet (slang)" is not an exact title match of the title at Wiktionary, so a Wiktionary redirect would be inappropriate. On Wikipedia, if a redirect is not ambiguous with any other articles, it gets redirected to the only article which it can refer, not a disambiguation page. Since there is no article which this term can refer, there is nowhere to redirect this title. This is why the article should have remained and the article either WP:PROD-ed appropriately or sent to WP:AFD. Again, this is why your WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT was improper: You didn't redirect it to either an article which it can refer or a disambiguation page which lists at least two examples proving why it is ambiguous. Steel1943 ( talk) 16:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
        ( edit conflict) (x3) @ Steel1943:, you've pointed to WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT several times, but that doesn't explain why the redirection was an inappropriate alternative to deletion. I note that even WP:PRODNOM references WP:ATD, so why can't we redirect here? Which policy are you referring that substantiates your rationale? That's what I'm, legitimately, trying to understand here. Doug Mehus T· C 16:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
        • ( edit conflict) @ Dmehus: At this point, you're going to have to figure that out on your own ... because to me, it's razor-sharp common sense. Steel1943 ( talk) 16:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
          @ Steel1943: Okay, I'll try, but I'm not really seeing it. Nevertheless, I support deletion here, as an implausible search term and an unnecessary disambiguation qualifier. This redirect is entirely unnecessary. Maybe AfD would've been better, but I do see RfD as a plausible deletion venue given that I was not obligated to take it to AfD upon dePRODding. I could've also draftified it, if I saw plausible workings of an article, which I didn't. Doug Mehus T· C 16:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
"... I don't see how redirecting an ambiguous term to a page which disambiguates ...": You didn't redirect an ambiguous term. You redirected a term that was already disambiguated in the title. Largoplazo ( talk) 16:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Restore article so it can be taken to AfD, I can see a case for notability so that should be hashed out there. I will also pile on to the trout slap of Dmehus for the improper redirection to a disambiguation that does not contain slang entries. -- Tavix ( talk) 15:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Trouting, I think, isn't necessary because I redirected this, in good-faith, since this term was (a) ambiguous and (b) mentioned on a disambiguation page which disambiguates the ambiguous term in a Wiktionary link, there. Moreover, Utopes even 'thanked' me for the redirect, which provided concurrence that this was a plausible outcome here per alternatives to deletion. Nothing at WP:DEPROD requires any action to be taken; I nevertheless did not feel it was appropriate to keep this dictionary definition by dePRODding it, so I retargeted. Also, restoration of the article would create only needless bureaucracy in that this discussion would have to play out for their to be consensus to restore as an article, and then it would have to be renominated at AfD. There's nearly enough consensus here for deletion, so it can probably be closed early in a day or two. Doug Mehus T· C 16:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
[[Yeet]] is ambiguous. [[Yeet (slang)]] is not. Largoplazo ( talk) 16:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Largoplazo Because of the disambiguation qualifier, yes, but that makes it unnecessary disambiguation, and thus a good candidate for RfD. We've literally redirected half a dozen unnecessary disambiguation redirects to disambiguation pages as alternatives to deletion recently, so how is this different? Doug Mehus T· C 16:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Dmehus: This redirect is not a {{ R from unnecessary disambiguation}} in its current form since the the target is not a page about a slang term, but rather is a disambiguation page. In fact, honestly, I cannot think of a situation where a {{ R from unnecessary disambiguation}} should target a disambiguation page; the only possible exception is when a redirect ending with "(disambiguation)" targets a disambiguation page that does not end with "(disambiguation)", but those redirects use a more precise WP:RCAT template instead: {{ R to disambiguation page}}. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:53, 29 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.

China outbreak

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 21:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Highly ambiguous, suggest deleting. SpicyMilkBoy ( talk) 03:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Yep, the subject of Timeline of the SARS outbreak started in China. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Broad and confusing title. Sleath56 ( talk) 03:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. As OA of the redirect, I'm flexible with whatever is decided by WP:CONSENSUS; no problem whatsoever - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 03:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as overly ambiguous. Utopes ( talk / cont) 03:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Broad and confusing. -- Efly ( talk) 04:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment if there is some list article about disease outbreaks in Chinese history, that could be a viable target -- 65.94.171.6 ( talk) 05:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I considered that, but the closest thing I could find was Health in China, which doesn't have a section about disease outbreaks in general. SpicyMilkBoy ( talk) 05:39, 29 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.

North Congo and South Congo

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 21:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not seeing any sources that refer to these targets as "North Congo" or "South Congo". In fact, they seem to be west and east of the other, respectively. Steel1943 ( talk) 02:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep as somewhat plausible. I somewhat agree that the Republic of the Congo could be considered "North" and the Democratic Republic of the Congo could be considered "South", and I could imagine that these redirects could be potentially useful, even if it very few circumstances, such as a user not remembering which of the Republic of the Congos was the Democratic one or not, so they use the directional qualifiers to specify. Utopes ( talk / cont) 03:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as unclear and confusing. The Democratic Republic of the Congo extends both north and south of the Republic of the Congo. Narky Blert ( talk) 09:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Google searches demonstrate that the terms refer exclusively to the north or south of each country and not to the entire countries. DrKay ( talk) 12:36, 29 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.

Congo.2C Democratic Republic of

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 23:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The ".2C" is a comma in URL speak, but as far is I know, we don't use or encourage URL equivalents in redirects. Steel1943 ( talk) 02:34, 29 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.

Congo (Democratic Rep)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 7#Congo (Democratic Rep)

H-Alba

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 Alba. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 03:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I propose a retarget to Alba as this is an alternative form of that word. This may get deleted ( borderline number of pageviews) but it causes less harm than most redirects with about this amount of pageviews. J 947 ( c), at 01:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Retarget to Alba per J947. Utopes ( talk / cont) 03:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as ambiguous. There's also DAB page Halba. Narky Blert ( talk) 08:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Narky. Doug Mehus T· C 14:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Alba, as I see no ambiguity. (It's unlikely that someone who encountered "halba" without a hyphen would search for it with an arbitrary hyphen after the first letter.) However, I also just added a "see also" to Halba for this. Largoplazo ( talk) 17:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Alba where this form of the word is discussed. Echoing Largoplazo, I don't see how anything else at Halba could be spelled "H-alba". -- Tavix ( talk) 18:21, 29 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_29&oldid=944714671"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 29

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 29, 2020.

Sal Piacente

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 23:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Here's a few people that redirect to List of magic tricks without mention. Presumably they are creators of magic tricks (a cursory search seems to confirm this), but the target doesn't do anything to verify this. -- Tavix ( talk) 23:16, 29 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.

Ramp Walker

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. -- BDD ( talk) 01:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

This is a topic that is not mentioned at the target article, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. Someone looking for specific information about this toy will not find it, and end up disappointed or confused. -- Tavix ( talk) 23:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Comment there are other things, like FOD workers on ramps and aprons, which are not toys -- 65.94.171.6 ( talk) 07:24, 1 March 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.

Spanish Casual Q&A

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 23:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Wrong definition of inquisition... -- Tavix ( talk) 22:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, almost certainly a joke. Hog Farm ( talk) 00:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this Spanish fireside chat. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nobody entering Spanish Casual Q&A into the searchbox would expect the Spanish Inquisition. Narky Blert ( talk) 09:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Narky Blert: Are you saying that no one would expect the Spanish Inquisition? FBDB N0nsensical.system (err0r?) (.log) 12:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, Cardinal Biggles. Narky Blert ( talk) 12:20, 2 March 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.

Future of carla

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 23:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I was not able to figure out whether this is a significant phrase related to the Spanish Inquisition. My search largely yielded results related to Coronation Street. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:59, 29 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.

ConsoleKit

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 23:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Redirects to a system it is not part of. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC). reply
21:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  • So is there some place else for it to redirect, or should it be turned into an article about ConsoleKit? In either case, why not just do it? Guy Harris ( talk) 22:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Hearing no response, I vote for deleting the redirect, and leaving it for somebody to create a page for ConsoleKit if they wish. Guy Harris ( talk) 17:31, 3 March 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.

R.O. Crimea

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 23:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I do not see this abbreviation used in any references. In addition, none of the examples listed at RO mean "Republic of", so proving this redirect as useful cannot be done with that method. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:54, 29 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.

Jon Perrin

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 8#Jon Perrin

Draft:Connected

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 deleted per G6 by Cryptic. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Placeholder redirect created when the draft page for the film The Mitchells vs. the Machines was renamed Connected before becoming a full article. IceWalrus236 ( talk) 20:24, 29 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.

Paquistan

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 mixed. No consensus on whether Paquistan is a sufficiently plausible misspelling. While editors were not unanimously for deleting the other two, there does appear to be a stronger consensus in favor of deletion there. signed, Rosguill talk 21:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

No connection between Pakistan and Portuguese. Delete per WP:FORRED. Soumyabrata ( talk • subpages) 10:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Occitan or Galician ( gl:Paquistán), and whatever the page views, it still falls foul of WP:RFFL. Narky Blert ( talk) 00:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, both WP:RFFL. Narky Blert ( talk) 12:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, that's fine. I suspect the top one had the most usage? So, that one might be a "weak delete," but assuming the other two were all less, then I would say a straight "delete." Doug Mehus T· C 20:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Paquistão and Paquistao were not tagged until today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 20:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, no reason for any of these to be here, per WP:FORRED, and no English speaker is going to hear "Pakistan" and guess that it's spelled "Paquistan" (unless there are people out there pronouncing it "Pak-wi-stan"), so this isn't about helping users around likely errors. Largoplazo ( talk) 20:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
How would they guess parquet was spelled? 94.21.238.148 ( talk) 13:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the first as a misspelling. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:32, 29 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.

Latinoamerican

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, Rosguill talk 21:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

No incoming links, meaning is ambiguous; could refer either to Latinos or Latin Americans (i.e. denizens of Latinoamérica). — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 03:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 20:00, 29 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.

Atmospheric research

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 Atmospheric Research. This is as rough a consensus as we get, but a bare majority preferred the journal, there was no appetite for a TWODABS disambiguation page, and little hope that leaving this open will lead to a clearer consensus. -- BDD ( talk) 01:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I think that this is a case of WP:R#DELETE #10: anyone typing in "atmospheric research" is unlikely to just want our article about the atmosphere (an article that doesn't even mention the word "research"), but the topic is clearly notable (there's even an academic journal with exactly this name). Thus, I would suggest deletion to encourage article creation. signed, Rosguill talk 18:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 14:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Retarget to the journal and hatnote to Atmospheric science AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC) reply
The more I think about it, I'm increasingly more strongly opposed to the idea of retargeting to the broader atmospheric science chiefly because the topic of atmospheric research is not well explained there in that target. That's where I think DIFFCAPS makes sense—that is, where the target sufficiently, and relatively in-depth, covers the named topic. In this case, we don't have that, so it makes sense to retarget to the Atmospheric Research academic journal as an {{ R from miscapitalization}}, which the plurality of participants currently supports, because, ultimately, the reader would be well informed by learning about that highly focused and highly related academic journal where, ultimately, they can connect with related inlinks and external links on how to look up a current or previous issue of the journal. Doug Mehus T· C 14:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Do you consider it appropriate to add a hatnote for Atmospheric science in that case? We can't assume all readers would want to read about (or dig up issues of) a somewhat obscure journal, and science and research are very closely related, to the point where many would see them as the same thing. Glades12 ( talk) 13:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Glades12 I have no objections to a hatnote to the related, broader topic of atmospheric science, absolutely. I would also support a hatnote to the journal at atmospheric science, if required. I'm pretty liberal with hatnotes...as long as they're broadly reasonable and don't take up, say, half the page, I'm fine. ;-) Doug Mehus T· C 18:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Feminist:, WP:TWODABS applies, though. This is one of those cases where we could either close as "no consensus," then retarget to the academic journal boldly since consensus was against keeping it at the current target, or the closer could use their editorial discretion in a non-prejudicial supervote on deciding on the target—this is the only acceptable type of supervote. Doug Mehus T· C 15:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
If editors can't agree on one target, this means they can't agree on one singular WP:PTOPIC, in which case TWODABS doesn't apply and the title can become a disambiguation page. feminist ( talk) 15:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Feminist: That's a good point. Though, I still think we could've closed this at one of the targets and, if it were disputed and ended up at RfD again a short time later, then we'd have to disambiguate per the above. However, I would support, somewhat weak-ishly, dabifying as Atmospheric research now and save this a potential extra trip to RfD—I say potential only because I'm not convinced early editors like Narky Blert would've opposed targeting to the academic journal. Doug Mehus T· C 15:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 19:58, 29 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.

Shuttle-A

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 9#Shuttle-A

Ruby Davis

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 move without leaving a redirect. I chose Ruby Davy (pianist). -- BDD ( talk) 01:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete, the title of the redirect is incorrect. Another editor mistakenly created an article for "Ruby Davis" while not realizing that the Ruby Claudia Davy article already existed. PK T(alk) 13:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Move without leaving behind a redirect to another available title that unambiguously refers to Davy (eg: Ruby Claudia Emily Davy or Ruby Davy (pianist)). The edit history needs to be kept for attribution purposes per WP:MAD since some content was merged to the target article. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Sure - that makes good sense, too. PK T(alk) 17:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment WP:COMMONNAME suggests that Ruby Davy is better and simpler choice than either Ruby Davy (pianist) or Ruby Claudia Emily Davy. Currently Ruby Davy is a redirect to the more complex Ruby Claudia Davy, which is unnecessary as there are no other Ruby Davy articles. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 02:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Move without leaving behind a redirect as per above. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:13, 1 March 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.

Rampur Airport

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 Rampur, Uttar Pradesh#Transport. The mention of nearby airports at the new target solves the ambiguity issue. Thanks to BDD for adding a mention to solve the concerns. ~ mazca talk 14:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

There is no indication that this planned airport would be called "Rampur Airport". Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 12:00, 29 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.

Getz (Breaking Bad)

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 , withdrawn by nominator. signed, Rosguill talk 21:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned at the target page. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I noticed that with thr exception of the infobox mentioning guest stars the character Getz isn’t mentioned anywhere in the seticle. I question whether or not the character is important enough to even be mentioned on the article since the plot summary doesn’t mention him once.-- 69.157.252.96 ( talk) 01:47, 1 March 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.

There are only 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

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 21:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Per WP:R#KEEP, I cannot think of a scenario where this will actually be a useful redirect Polyamorph ( talk) 09:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as implausible. Minimal pageviews. It's a common joke, but there are too many potential variations in phrasing and punctuation for this to be useful. SpicyMilkBoy ( talk) 12:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per reasoning above. If this joke is indeed notable, it can certainly be mentioned or added to a list, but it isn't helpful as a redirect. ComplexRational ( talk) 19:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above, though I just got the joke. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. For this sort of stuff, try Google. (The 10 types of people are in fact those who don't understand ternary, those who do, and those who think it's binary.) Narky Blert ( talk) 21:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • 'Delete per above. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 16:33, 5 March 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.

Tornado Ponzi scam

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 21:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I moved an article from this title to Webwork (Indian web site) (and removed some unsourced article text), as I couldn't find any reliable sources linking Tornado Software to Webwork. The redirect should be removed to avoid suggesting a link which may be erroneous. Lord Belbury ( talk) 09:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as confusing and ambiguous, per nom; I'm quite certain there have been more than one Ponzi scheme in the city of Toronto. Doug Mehus T· C 16:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Toronto? Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 21:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't find anything reliable linking Tornado and Webwork. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 21:14, 2 March 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.

U.S. Representative District 9

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 21:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Ambiguous as there are multiple districts in other states with the same number, 9th congressional district does not exist either. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 07:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Go create the 9+ DAB pages then. The existence of such pages would be an issue for WP:AFD, not for this forum. Narky Blert ( talk) 21:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
After further thought, changing !vote to delete. This title is not phrased correctly, and is useless. Hog Farm ( talk) 00:35, 1 March 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.

Compter componets

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 21:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Multiple typos, not plausible, note that computer components redirects to computer. Compter is an unrelated article. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 06:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, nothing to add. Narky Blert ( talk) 08:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Highly implausible typo; possible CIR issues related to keyboarding or a broken keyboard. Doug Mehus T· C 16:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - While the second word is more likely to be misspelled that way, the misspelling of computer is highly unlikely, and together it's very unlikely. Hog Farm ( talk) 20:18, 29 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.

P-yore

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. -- BDD ( talk) 00:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in target article, not a likely typo, and 10 pageviews in 2019 indicates that few people think it is spelled like this. Delete. Hog Farm ( talk) 05:16, 29 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.

Yeet (slang)

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. I have not overlooked Tavix's desire to have the article restored first, and know that some editors object to this manner of deletion in principle. I do not see another reasonable reading of consensus here, however. -- BDD ( talk) 00:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I PRODded the original version of this for the reason " WP:NOTDICTIONARY". User:Dmehus declined the PROD and redirected it to Yeet, a disambiguation page. I see no value in the redirect since there is nothing there for a user who is looking for the word "yeet" in a context they already know is slang. Dmehus also suggested soft redirection to Wiktionary, but since the term is disambiguated here, I'm not sure I see the value in that either. Largoplazo ( talk) 03:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • @ Dmehus: Your redirection makes no sense since there are no "slang" articles listed at the target. Please restore the article and either restore the PROD tag or nominate the page for WP:AFD. A WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT-ed article that goes to WP:RFD is improper for WP:ATT/ WP:CWW reasons since the article's content (that was rather fresh) as an article is not traditionally taken into consideration for discussion. Thanks. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. None of the entries on the disambiguation page refer to the slang form of yeet, and it frankly isn't necessary to have as a redirect either to Wikipedia or to Wiktionary. Will be posting my opinion here as long as this RfD is still up. Utopes ( talk / cont) 03:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Barring this redirect getting turned back into an article ... Delete per nom. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the underlying article is a WP:NOTDIC page, and wikt:yeet already covers the slang term. The disambiguation page at yeet already contains a link to Wiktionary. -- 65.94.171.6 ( talk) 05:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, as an implausible redirect because of the disambiguation qualifier. In response to Steel1943's comment, I reached out to Utopes to ensure that dePRODding and redirecting to yeet was the correct way to handle this. I even said that RfD should be the correct venue. PROD shouldn't be used to enforce WP:NOTDICTIONARY; if there's no other targets on English Wikipedia, a soft redirect to Wiktionary should be used. In this case, there was a Wiktionary link at yeet, so I retargeted there, and suggested nominating it for RfD. Doug Mehus T· C 14:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • There is no entry for "Yeet (slang)" at Wiktionary, and Yeet already has the Wiktionary link, so there's no reason for this title to continue to exist as a soft redirect to Wiktionary. I think I saw you make that observation somewhere else, maybe to Utopes? But it's always a bad idea to redirect to another page because it contains a link that leads yet somewhere else. We're supposed to be making things easier for readers, not create puzzles for them. Not having Yeet (slang) at all is easier for them than having it and then redirecting them to a page that won't help them unless they think to look at all the links on it. Also, under the guidelines, only disambiguations themselves (disambiguation pages or hatnotes) should link to disambiguation pages. Largoplazo ( talk) 14:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
    Yes, that's why I didn't think that the yeet (slang) was appropriate for a soft redirect, with which Utopes concurred. I disagree, though, that redirecting this redirect to the disambiguation page, where yeet is mentioned in a Wiktionary link is "creating a puzzle." Redirecting this to any other target besides a disambiguation page would've been entirely inappropriate; where the term is ambiguous and has multiple uses, redirecting to a disambiguation page of the same name is entirely correct. We literally do this all the time...one need only look through the past couple months' worth of RfDs whereby redirects for Captain Walker qualified by a parenthetical qualifier have been retargeted to the Captain Walker disambiguation page. At any rate, having this discussion at RfD, where discussions are often more collegial and less BITEy than at AfD, is actually better than PRODding this in that the creator could've otherwise requested undeletion at WP:REFUND (albeit into Draft: namespace) and, if this is recreated within a reasonable timeframe, it will be eligible for speedy deletion (G4). Doug Mehus T· C 15:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Dmehus:, the problem was that Yeet (slang) was originally an article before you turned it into a soft redirect, which is why Steel suggested the discussion be held at AfD instead of RfD. The article was PRODed, and you declined the PROD. Declined PRODs always go to Articles for Deletion (or Files for Deletion) per WP:DEPROD. Utopes ( talk / cont) 15:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
    @ Utopes:, okay, I wasn't aware of WP:DEPROD, but nevertheless, as decliner of the PROD, there's no obligation for me, as decliner of the PROD to take any action. In this case, I boldly redirected what was a dictionary definition and not appropriate for the encyclopedia. So I'm not really seeing how this was inappropriate. Since we're not a bureaucracy and, notionally, have no rules, this seemed like a reasonable approach given the circumstances. We have so many rules, often in conflict with each other, that it's nearly impossible to know all of them or even follow them all the time. I'm not saying we should do this in every case, but I don't see how redirecting an ambiguous term to a page which disambiguates the ambiguous term is improper. Doug Mehus T· C 15:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @ Dmehus: "... I don't see how redirecting an ambiguous term to a page which disambiguates the ambiguous term is improper." That's just the problem ... that's not what happened. You redirected this title to a disambiguation page which contains no examples (must be more than one) of articles for slang terms of "Yeet". I have outlined this in my original comment in this discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 16:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
      @ Steel1943: Trying to understand here, but where does it say the disambiguation page must disambiguate two or more uses of a slang term? The Wiktionary link to yeet is one mention of the ambiguous term; the other bluelinked mentions to Yeet show the ambiguity. What am I missing here? Doug Mehus T· C 16:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
      • @ Dmehus: Wiktionary:yeet is not an article, and "Yeet (slang)" is not an exact title match of the title at Wiktionary, so a Wiktionary redirect would be inappropriate. On Wikipedia, if a redirect is not ambiguous with any other articles, it gets redirected to the only article which it can refer, not a disambiguation page. Since there is no article which this term can refer, there is nowhere to redirect this title. This is why the article should have remained and the article either WP:PROD-ed appropriately or sent to WP:AFD. Again, this is why your WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT was improper: You didn't redirect it to either an article which it can refer or a disambiguation page which lists at least two examples proving why it is ambiguous. Steel1943 ( talk) 16:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
        ( edit conflict) (x3) @ Steel1943:, you've pointed to WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT several times, but that doesn't explain why the redirection was an inappropriate alternative to deletion. I note that even WP:PRODNOM references WP:ATD, so why can't we redirect here? Which policy are you referring that substantiates your rationale? That's what I'm, legitimately, trying to understand here. Doug Mehus T· C 16:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
        • ( edit conflict) @ Dmehus: At this point, you're going to have to figure that out on your own ... because to me, it's razor-sharp common sense. Steel1943 ( talk) 16:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
          @ Steel1943: Okay, I'll try, but I'm not really seeing it. Nevertheless, I support deletion here, as an implausible search term and an unnecessary disambiguation qualifier. This redirect is entirely unnecessary. Maybe AfD would've been better, but I do see RfD as a plausible deletion venue given that I was not obligated to take it to AfD upon dePRODding. I could've also draftified it, if I saw plausible workings of an article, which I didn't. Doug Mehus T· C 16:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
"... I don't see how redirecting an ambiguous term to a page which disambiguates ...": You didn't redirect an ambiguous term. You redirected a term that was already disambiguated in the title. Largoplazo ( talk) 16:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Restore article so it can be taken to AfD, I can see a case for notability so that should be hashed out there. I will also pile on to the trout slap of Dmehus for the improper redirection to a disambiguation that does not contain slang entries. -- Tavix ( talk) 15:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Trouting, I think, isn't necessary because I redirected this, in good-faith, since this term was (a) ambiguous and (b) mentioned on a disambiguation page which disambiguates the ambiguous term in a Wiktionary link, there. Moreover, Utopes even 'thanked' me for the redirect, which provided concurrence that this was a plausible outcome here per alternatives to deletion. Nothing at WP:DEPROD requires any action to be taken; I nevertheless did not feel it was appropriate to keep this dictionary definition by dePRODding it, so I retargeted. Also, restoration of the article would create only needless bureaucracy in that this discussion would have to play out for their to be consensus to restore as an article, and then it would have to be renominated at AfD. There's nearly enough consensus here for deletion, so it can probably be closed early in a day or two. Doug Mehus T· C 16:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
[[Yeet]] is ambiguous. [[Yeet (slang)]] is not. Largoplazo ( talk) 16:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Largoplazo Because of the disambiguation qualifier, yes, but that makes it unnecessary disambiguation, and thus a good candidate for RfD. We've literally redirected half a dozen unnecessary disambiguation redirects to disambiguation pages as alternatives to deletion recently, so how is this different? Doug Mehus T· C 16:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Dmehus: This redirect is not a {{ R from unnecessary disambiguation}} in its current form since the the target is not a page about a slang term, but rather is a disambiguation page. In fact, honestly, I cannot think of a situation where a {{ R from unnecessary disambiguation}} should target a disambiguation page; the only possible exception is when a redirect ending with "(disambiguation)" targets a disambiguation page that does not end with "(disambiguation)", but those redirects use a more precise WP:RCAT template instead: {{ R to disambiguation page}}. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:53, 29 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.

China outbreak

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 21:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Highly ambiguous, suggest deleting. SpicyMilkBoy ( talk) 03:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Yep, the subject of Timeline of the SARS outbreak started in China. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Broad and confusing title. Sleath56 ( talk) 03:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. As OA of the redirect, I'm flexible with whatever is decided by WP:CONSENSUS; no problem whatsoever - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 03:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as overly ambiguous. Utopes ( talk / cont) 03:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Broad and confusing. -- Efly ( talk) 04:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment if there is some list article about disease outbreaks in Chinese history, that could be a viable target -- 65.94.171.6 ( talk) 05:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I considered that, but the closest thing I could find was Health in China, which doesn't have a section about disease outbreaks in general. SpicyMilkBoy ( talk) 05:39, 29 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.

North Congo and South Congo

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 21:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not seeing any sources that refer to these targets as "North Congo" or "South Congo". In fact, they seem to be west and east of the other, respectively. Steel1943 ( talk) 02:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep as somewhat plausible. I somewhat agree that the Republic of the Congo could be considered "North" and the Democratic Republic of the Congo could be considered "South", and I could imagine that these redirects could be potentially useful, even if it very few circumstances, such as a user not remembering which of the Republic of the Congos was the Democratic one or not, so they use the directional qualifiers to specify. Utopes ( talk / cont) 03:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as unclear and confusing. The Democratic Republic of the Congo extends both north and south of the Republic of the Congo. Narky Blert ( talk) 09:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Google searches demonstrate that the terms refer exclusively to the north or south of each country and not to the entire countries. DrKay ( talk) 12:36, 29 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.

Congo.2C Democratic Republic of

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 23:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The ".2C" is a comma in URL speak, but as far is I know, we don't use or encourage URL equivalents in redirects. Steel1943 ( talk) 02:34, 29 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.

Congo (Democratic Rep)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 7#Congo (Democratic Rep)

H-Alba

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 Alba. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 03:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I propose a retarget to Alba as this is an alternative form of that word. This may get deleted ( borderline number of pageviews) but it causes less harm than most redirects with about this amount of pageviews. J 947 ( c), at 01:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Retarget to Alba per J947. Utopes ( talk / cont) 03:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as ambiguous. There's also DAB page Halba. Narky Blert ( talk) 08:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Narky. Doug Mehus T· C 14:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Alba, as I see no ambiguity. (It's unlikely that someone who encountered "halba" without a hyphen would search for it with an arbitrary hyphen after the first letter.) However, I also just added a "see also" to Halba for this. Largoplazo ( talk) 17:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Alba where this form of the word is discussed. Echoing Largoplazo, I don't see how anything else at Halba could be spelled "H-alba". -- Tavix ( talk) 18:21, 29 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_29&oldid=944714671"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE