This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 29, 2020.
- 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.
- 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
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete. signed,
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.
- 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)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete. signed,
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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 8#Jon Perrin
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep. signed,
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
- Keep These look like typos of
Latino American, which is a also a redirect to
Hispanic and Latino Americans. Alternatively, bundle "Latino American" with this nomination and have them all decided together.—
Bagumba (
talk)
03:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
Retarget all and
Latino Americans to
Latin Americans per
WP:FORRED. --
Soumyabrata (
talk •
subpages)
07:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- FORRED does not apply as this is not a foreign language. Not sure if this is
WP:ENGVAR, but Latino American is at least valid American English.—
Bagumba (
talk)
09:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- I concur with Bagumba here; Latino American(s) seems more likely to refer to
Hispanic and Latino Americans. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
10:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
Retarget
Latinoamerican to
Latin Americans per
WP:FORRED. The lack of space suggests this is Spanish-language rather than English-language. I have improved the hatnotes on both
Latin Americans and
Hispanic and Latino Americans for clarity so this could go either way. Delete
Latinoamericans as grammatically incorrect in both languages (the Spanish version should either be "latinoamericanas" or "latinoamericanos").
feminist (
talk)
04:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- This being English Wikipedia, it's more likely the lack of space is a typo of the English term "
Latino American", as opposed to Spanish users looking for the Spanish term on en.wp. In any event, the corect Spanish would be latinoamericano (male) or latinoamericana (female). As for the plural, "Latino Americans" is perfect (American) English. Per
WP:RFD#KEEP No. 2, misspellings (e.g. lack of space) are not deleted.—
Bagumba (
talk)
16:08, 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.
- 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
- Retarget to
atmospheric science.
Narky Blert (
talk)
19:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to Atmospheric science. This topic is actually covered there, so an article created at this title (that is not about the journal) would largely be a duplicate.
Glades12 (
talk)
19:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Question I tend to concur with Rosguill here. In what context do the inlinks to
atmospheric research apply? That is, are the referring articles talking about atmospheric research or science? That should give us our answer on whether retargeting or deleting per
WP:R#D10 is best.
Doug Mehus
T·
C
20:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I think the article atmospheric science is a more likely to be useful to more readers than the name of an academic journal.
Senator2029
“Talk”
05:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Nom comment
I don't know how I missed
Atmospheric science, we should redirect to there. Make that a vote for
Atmospheric Research then. signed,
Rosguill
talk
06:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
-
Rosguill, really? I was leaning towards
Atmospheric Research as a miscapitalization? I'm not sure we need to apply
WP:DIFFCAPS here, since it's not mentioned in more than a tangential way, no?
Doug Mehus
T·
C
13:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Looks like I missed that one too...not my day. signed,
Rosguill
talk
03:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
-
Rosguill No worries, but in fairness, you did notice the academic journal in your nomination statement. ;-)
Doug Mehus
T·
C
03:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Atmospheric Research with {{
R from miscapitalization}}; Weak retarget to
Atmospheric science with {{
R from related topic}} and {{
R without mention}}. Closer can decide on the target. It's not mentioned in the latter, hence why it's weak, but it's related; or, Weak delete per nom to encourage article creation per
WP:R#D10, though this is very weak considering Glades12 only identified one inlink.
Doug Mehus
T·
C
13:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Atmospheric Research as {{
R from miscaps}}
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
16:47, 15 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
- 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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 9#Shuttle-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 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
- 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
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was retarget to
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.
- 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.
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. --
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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 7#Congo (Democratic Rep)