This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 20, 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. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
10:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
Seems completely unrelated to target article.
CycloneYoris
talk!
23:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Sounds like nonsense.
Enjoyer of World
💬
06:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Hunger, as this seems to be more of a plausible meaning of "Hungry". Seventyfiveyears (
talk) 12:49, 21 OCtober 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Not an especially plausible search term. Search results are effectively indistinguishable from searches with one more and one fewer r.
Thryduulf (
talk)
13:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Deleeeeete: implausible and unrelated to target.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
14:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Implausible, and also not very plausible for hungry or hunger either
Joseph
2302 (
talk)
14:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete and do not retarget to hunger since I can’t see how adding 4 extra Rs to hungry could be considered a plausible misspelling.--
76.67.169.43 (
talk)
23:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Nonsense and not a useful redirect.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
18:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Deleeeeete – Implausssssible redirrrrrect. --
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
05:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete not plausible
Devokewater
(talk)
20:13, 26 October 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.
Bootstrapping (corporate finance)
Michi Saagiig Anishinaabe
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 27#Michi Saagiig Anishinaabe
- 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
21:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
These redirects point to sections long since removed, and without a mention a reader is left confused. Furthermore,
hades (imprint) is ambiguous with
Hades Publications. Unless a mention is restored, I suggest delete and remove the hatnote.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
18:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. These three titles are label names for specific book series of the former publisher Harri Deutsch. They are needed to catch these terms, f.e. when they are used in citations, so that the reader gets redirected to the proper article about the publisher. Nothing was removed from the target article, the target anchors for these terms continue to exist in the article and could be expanded (which, however, is not a requirement for the redirects to exist). This is well covered by the purposes and reasons for redirects to exist per
WP:REDIR, and it was deliberately set up for this very purpose (and is not the remnant of some random edit-history that would need to be cleaned up).
- I oppose the OP's proposal to remove the hatnotes because the hatnotes deliberately exist to avoid confusion rather than to create it. We have a publisher named "Hades Publications" and we have an imprint Hades formerly used by the publisher Harri Deutsch, that's why the redirect is named
Hades (imprint) rather then
Hades (publisher). Since an imprint and a publisher are two different things,
Hades (imprint) rightfully points to
Verlag Harri Deutsch. If Hades Publications would publish under the imprint Hades as well (which, according to the article, it does not), we would need additional disambiguation rather than than deletion of already existing disambiguation aids.
- The redirects and hatnotes exist for good purpose, removing them would be counter-productive and create exactly the confusion that the OP seeks to avoid.
- --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
12:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- @
Matthiaspaul: thank you for your explanation: I made an incorrect assumption about removed sections. But the situation is still confusing, with one anchor in external links and 2 right at the top: if I am redirected to an article it needs to be clear why I am there.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
07:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Building up infrastructure and improving article contents are independent of each other and do not necessarily happen at the same time. I checked the ref, and since it also mentiones the hades cliXX and DeskTop labels, I have moved the other two anchors down there as well. At a later stage this could be expanded and moved into the body of the article.
- --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
15:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- At least there is some info about them. The surprise would be much larger for readers if they don't find any information about hades in our encyclopedia at all, or even worse, if
hades (imprint) etc. would be deleted and people would start to mix this up with
hades (publisher)...
-
WP:R#KEEP #2 ("They would aid accidental linking"), #3 ("They would aid searches on certain terms"), #4 ("You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect") and #5 ("Someone finds them useful") all apply pro keeping the redirects.
- Nevertheless, following your proposal, I have now added a paragraph on hades, cliXX and DeskTop to the article body, hopefully solving the issue.
- Sooner or later, this should have happened anyway, but, again, building up infrastructure and improving article contents are independent of each other and do not necessarily happen at the same time (or even by the same people). Therefore, it is counter-productive to nominate redirects for deletion just because these processes are not in sync for some while - in order not to waste efforts and trash useful contributions we have to base such decisions as if viewed from the perspective of the potential end result.
- --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
15:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- I would dispute that those external link listings constituted information about the imprints, but it's moot given your improvements to the article. Thanks for that—changing my vote. --
BDD (
talk)
18:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. In order to address the "surprise" argument, I added a paragraph discussing the hades label and cliXX / DeskTop series now. I hope, this will, in a never ending
continual improvement process, once again raise the quality of the encyclopedia a tiny bit and settle the issue.
- --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
15:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep My concerns have been addressed, and these are now discussed in the target article. Let's keep an eye on the first of these, since the distinction between a publisher and an imprint are not always clear. Since it's redirecting to an anchor, there's no elegant way to hatnote it, so we shouldn't necessarily write off the idea of retargeting it to
Hades (disambiguation). --
BDD (
talk)
18:29, 21 October 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)
16:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
Can't find any evidence that this back-formation is commonly used.
Hog Farm
Bacon
20:21, 20 October 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.
Is or Isn't Entertainment
- 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)
15:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned at target.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
20:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Weak delete because it isn't mentioned so anyone using the search term who doesn't know the history will be confused. If this were mentioned at the target though then AngusWOOF's comments would be a solid reason to keep.
Thryduulf (
talk)
14:49, 15 October 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 October 27#Garage days revisited
List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 28#List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios
- 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)
15:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
A quite obscure pun on the pronunciation of "Caesar" in English. Not mentioned in target.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
18:13, 20 October 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 October 27#Paradife loft.
Santa Rosa de Lima ( Abiquiu, New Mexico)
- 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. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
10:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
This redirect was left over from a page move to make it "consistent with wide practice and U.S. city naming policy," and was part of this
June 7 mass nomination. Plus, it presently gets WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY less pageviews than its correctly formatted target, so I'm not sure if it's really worth keeping Regards,
SONIC
678
17:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Note the space after the first parenthesis. Also, delete for formatting error/spelling.--
intelati
talk
20:47, 20 October 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 October 27#Environmental causes
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 27#Thames foot tunnel