This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 15, 2020.
Lotsham and Sharchop language
- 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
20:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
This started out as an unsourced 2-sentence-long stub in 2017
[1], but was then quickly redirected. I'm not sure what to make of it, the
Lhotshampa indeed speak Nepali, but the
Sharchop language language is a completely different entity. –
Uanfala (talk)
21:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was Delete all except for the {{
R from book}} identified by Steel1943. signed,
Rosguill
talk
20:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
Delete More "how to", Quora-type redirects that we have regularly deleted at other discussions. The one that is a cross namespace redirect does not meet the high bar we have for those.
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
21:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was no consensus. signed,
Rosguill
talk
20:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
Implausible typo.
Hog Farm (
talk)
19:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete unlikely search term and obvious typo.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
20:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as implausible typo.
Narky Blert (
talk)
18:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Kkeep - plausible typo, unambiguously directs readers to the content they're looking for.
Wily
D
15:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep per
WilyD. It's a less likely typo, and I'm hesitant to keep every possible typo, but it's doing no harm. So, I think this gets a
WP:RCHEAP pass. Let's re-evaluate it in a year's time. If, in a year, it gets less than 3 visits per month, then we can probably safely delete it.
Doug Mehus
T·
C
16:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete it does not appear to be a common typo since it doesn’t fit visibly or phonically. I also don’t see any reason to wait year to see if it averages less than three views a month since the redirect was created in 2010 meaning I can’t think of any valid reason as to why this would suddenly become more significantly searched in 2020 because as mentioned this didn’t meet that threshold in 2019.--
69.157.252.96 (
talk)
04:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete No different than
ciigarette or
cigaarette or
cigareette.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
05:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep (
edit conflict); there's no point in deleting it, nothing on
WP:RfD#DELETE supports a deletion here. It causes no harm and has a fair amount of benefit.
J
947 (
c), at
05:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, too implausible. Also delete
Cciggarete which is even more implausible. —
Xezbeth (
talk)
12:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Comment To add my two cents, I'm not sure how adding an additional initial letter is an "implausible typo." In my view,
WilyD and
J947 have the strongest arguments here—it very much is a plausible typo and, as such, there's really been no valid reason, whether policy- or evidence-based, for deletion here.
Doug Mehus
T·
C
16:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Ddelete both, as duplicate letters are generally implausible typos and can leave a lot of useless redirects lying around while impeding searches, especially when nothing is properly spelled using such patterns (e.g. nothing I know of begins with Cc).
ComplexRational (
talk)
17:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
-
ComplexRational True...I guess this is a case where both sides make an equally compelling argument based on the same rationale. I do like how both you and
WilyD intentionally added a duplicate initial character to your !votes.
Doug Mehus
T·
C
17:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- I sort of gather that the "delete" !votes are confusing "tpyos" with "mispellings", certainly 69.X.Y.Z is very explicitly doing that.
Wily
D
17:35, 22 January 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.
SNOW-fall
consensus was very clear that keeping this redirect for
Ron Jeremy in inverted name is helpful; however, the R from sortname rcat should be added to make its purpose crystal clear.
(non-admin closure)
Doug Mehus
T·
C
15:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
Not a plausible search term. If one would know the first and last names spelt correctly of the target, then they wouldn't place them in this order.
Willbb234
Talk (please {{
ping}} me in replies)
18:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as a plausible search term and consistent with zillions of others like this. Nb I corrected the error in the nomination by replacing
[[:{{{target}}}]]
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- @
Shhhnotsoloud: please give examples/a guideline as I wasn't able to find any evidence myself. Thanks,
Willbb234
Talk (please {{
ping}} me in replies)
23:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
-
Lee, Robert is one. This is a fairly common, but not universal redirect convention.
Hog Farm (
talk)
04:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Hello @
Willbb234: hopefully Steel's comment below helps.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
14:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. {{
R from sort name}}. See
Category:Redirects from sort names.
Steel1943 (
talk)
02:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per
User:Steel1943.
Hog Farm (
talk)
04:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - highly plausible search term. Arranging names in this form is a common English-language convention.
Wily
D
15:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as per convention.
J
947 (
c), at
05:30, 21 January 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
Carnen Ua Cadhla. There is
consensus here, thanks to the nominator, that this subject redirect is a fairly insignificant fictional river in
Middle-earth context—insignificant in that it isn't discussed anywhere on Wikipedia. Editor
Narky Blert concurred with nominator
Hog Farm's assessment such that there was no basis for deletion and, equally so, for keeping.
(non-admin closure)
Doug Mehus
T·
C
16:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
Proposing Retarget to
Carnen Ua Cadhla. This context is a Middle-earth river, but this river is not discussed in any Middle-earth context on Wikipedia. We have an article about an ancient Irish ruler named Carnen Ua Cadhla, but I'm not familiar enough with Irish naming customs to know if this is a good retarget point.
Hog Farm (
talk)
16:49, 15 January 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.
Amaravati Anantapur Expressway
- 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 keep. Technical close. Sorry that my comment at
Talk:Agra Lucknow Expressway#Requested move 11 January 2020 led to this proposal. My point was that you don't move redirects; you move articles. So don't propose moving a redirect. And, when an article is moved; all redirects to that article normally follow the move and are automatically retargeted to the new title. This venue is for proposing that redirects get retargeted to a different place, or get deleted, or converted to a disambiguation. None of those possibilites are being proposed here.
wbm1058 (
talk)
22:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
Per
MOS:ENDASH, the parallel discussion at
Talk:Agra Lucknow Expressway#Requested move 11 January 2020, and per
wbm1058's instruction to list the existing redirects at
RfD. At
Vatsmaxed's request, I'm listing the eleven redirects at
RfD. Seems quite non-controversial, given the guidelines at
MOS:ENDASH, so potentially could speedy retarget here. I'd say suppress the redirect, but the existing redirect could be helpful for preventing unilateral page moves. The biggest debate, if any, may be on what Rcats to add to the redirect and target pages
Doug Mehus
T·
C
16:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Okay, I'm kind of confused now because I'm not quite sure what
Vatsmaxed wants done with these redirects, as the target pages are all using en dashes per
MOS:ENDASH. I'm inclined to !vote keep to all of these, which could be a speedy keep/nomination withdrawn as the nominator of these redirects, as I think they could all be plausible misspellings. I'll wait to here back from
Vatsmaxed, but as I say, until I hear back, I'd say it's a keep/speedy keep.
Doug Mehus
T·
C
17:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Eh? Of course pages moved from a title with a dash to a title with a dash should leave a redirect behind. I don't really understand why this is here.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
20:47, 15 January 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
Listan Prieto. signed,
Rosguill
talk
20:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
This redirect from Listán Prieto to Listán negro is incorrect. It should go to page Listán Prieto, but that page has been called 'Listan Prieto'.
So, the redirect needs to go, and then the page 'Listan Prieto' needs to be renamed Listán Prieto.
Fpr155 (
talk)
16:20, 15 January 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 January 24#Halo 7
Physical Review Letters 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
20:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
We don't have information about this weapon at the target page (or anywhere else), and there's no history to save in this redirect, so I don't see this redirect being useful.
Hog Farm (
talk)
02:33, 15 January 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.