This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 15, 2021.
- 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. Nominator removed the RfD template with other participants being unanimously in favour of keeping it. ~
mazca
talk
19:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
Duplicate redirect.
🪐Kepler-1229b |
talk |
contribs🪐
23:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Do you mean a duplicate of
40 Eridani Ab? That would be OK, no harm in having both correct and incorrect (typo, spelling, etc.) redirects to help people out. On a procedural point, since you are the creator of the redirect and the only substantive editor of it, you could blank the page and ask for a speedy deletion. Not saying you should, but you could.
Lithopsian (
talk)
15:22, 17 January 2021 (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. Nominator removed the RfD template with other participants being unanimously in favour of keeping it. ~
mazca
talk
19:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
No pages link here.
🪐Kepler-1229b |
talk |
contribs🪐
21:45, 15 January 2021 (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/2021 January 22#Allma
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 23#Drive pulley
- 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. There is good faith disagreement over where the line is drawn regarding plausibility. In this case consensus leans towards this not being a useful redirect on balance. ~
mazca
talk
11:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
This redirect was created from a page move for a reason that while creating the page a typo occured in title which was corrected by moving the page to current title.
[4]
USaamo (
t@lk)
17:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Normally I would close this sort of !vote split as delete, but given that a very similar redirect has less of a consensus I think that this should be given a relist as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
18:47, 15 January 2021 (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. There is good faith disagreement over where the line is drawn regarding plausibility. In this case consensus leans towards this not being a useful redirect on balance. ~
mazca
talk
11:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
Mistakenly created double redirect, not a plausible typo either. Afridi is a well known family name. Afradi in Roman Urdu is plural word which means individuals and its quite irrelevant to here.
USaamo (
t@lk)
17:55, 8 January 2021 (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.
Moral Government Theology
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 22#Moral Government Theology
Isabel Guzman (politician)
- 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
Isabel Guzman to bypass the double redirect created by the technical consensus here, which is keep. "Politician" may not be an entirely accurate descriptor, but participants are happy that it's within the bounds of reasonableness - and not derogatory or otherwise problematic. ~
mazca
talk
18:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
Delete. While "Isabel Guzman" is a likely search term for
Isabel Casillas Guzman, "Isabel Guzman (politician)" is not. This individual is not a politician or political candidate and this redirect is misleading.
KidAd
talk
03:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Administrator of the Small Business Administration is not an elected position, but there are many people who have held such unelected positions in government that most people would agree are politicians, such as
Colin Powell, who has never held an elected position.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk)
07:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per
Oiyarbepsy. Redirects are not bound by the same strict naming standards as articles. ―
Tartan357
Talk
04:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep it is a political appointment, not a bureaucratic promotion position --
70.31.205.108 (
talk)
09:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Conditional delete. If Guzman is not described as politician in the target article, the redirect does not adhere to
BLP policy, which applies to all pages. All BLP material should strictly adhere to
NOR. A redirect such as
Isabel Guzman (official) would be supported by target content, though that would be an example of unnecessary disambiguation. If Guzman is (with proper sourcing) described as politician in the target, it would be possible to use "politician" redirect, in which case the redirect should be tagged with {{
R from unnecessary disambiguation}}.Many nominations in the US go through political process, yet the persons do not become politicians until described as such in reliable sources. E.g. judges obviously do not become politicians through nomination. I am not even sure why Colin Powell is called politician in our article.
Politrukki (
talk)
22:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note:
Isabel Casillas Guzman was
moved to
Isabel Guzman in the middle of this discussion, so obviously those who wish to "keep" the redirect mean retargeting to
Isabel Guzman.
Politrukki (
talk)
22:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Oiyarbepsy (i.e. retarget per Politrukki). There are no BLP concerns here, regardless of whether she is described as a politician in the target or not as at worst this is a {{
R from incorrect disambiguation}} and is a plausible search term.
Thryduulf (
talk)
16:03, 23 January 2021 (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 speedy delete. Whether we call these G6, R2, or just "no one is ever going to use these to search", there's no reason to keep them around.
Primefac (
talk)
13:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
The redirect titles have typos in the Wikipedia (project) namespace, but all the redirects are in the main (article) namespace. They don't seem very necessary, useful, or helpful for a cross-namespace redirect, as they have less than 100 pageviews. Therefore, delete unless justification can be provided. Seventyfiveyears (
talk)
18:36, 15 January 2021 (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.
Shawshank (disambiguation)
- 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
20:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
The target does not disambiguate "Shawshank" (because "Shawshank" is not ambiguous).
Shawshank redirects to
Shawshank State Prison, the only use of "Shawshank". Delete.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
15:49, 15 January 2021 (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.
Incitement of insurrection
- 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
Sedition.
Consensus is clear. --
Tavix (
talk)
20:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
Retarget to
sedition. This search term is not specific to the
second impeachment of Donald Trump. ―
Tartan357
Talk
04:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Support Retarget to
sedition, per nominator's reasoning.
Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (
talk)
04:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Support retarget
Lembit Staan (
talk)
05:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget per nom. Generic terms like this should not target a specific instance.
Thryduulf (
talk)
11:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Support retarget: agreed that it's an unhelpful redirect, as is. —
WingedSerif (
talk)
22:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Support retarget per nom.
Vikram Vincent
15:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Remark: RSs pertaining to the impeachment, e.g.
[5], are treating the charge and sedition as separate concepts, so seems potentially misleading to conflate them via this redirect.
AnonQuixote (
talk)
03:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
AnonQuixote: the point of this discussion is that "incitement of insurrection" as a term is not specific to whatever is or isn't happening with regards to one person. As a general term out of context readers will be most helped by being taken to the general article on sedition. If the term is being used differently in a specific circumstance (and consensus doesn't seem to agree with you that it is) then that is something which, if
WP:DUE, should be mentioned in the target article or other appropriate location.
Thryduulf (
talk)
13:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Yes I agree, however I still think it's worth pointing out as, if this redirect is changed to point to sedition, it will likely be used primarily in articles dealing with Trump's recent impeachment, which could be misleading. I vote to Delete per
WP:R#DELETE point 2 /
WP:RNEUTRAL.
AnonQuixote (
talk)
18:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Any redirect can be used in a misleading manner, that's only reason to delete the redirect if it is itself misleading and cannot be retargeted to avoid that. In this case if someone links to the redirect intending a target specific to Donald Trump then the correct course of action is just to change the link to point to whatever the correct target is. As for RNEUTRAL - the violation of that would be to imply that Donald Trump is the only person to have incited insurrection (whether he has or hasn't it is unarguable that other people have done so on other occasions). If the redirect is used in a non-neutral manner in an article then fix the article, deleting the redirect will not resolve the issue and will just make it harder for people looking for general content (and possibly break any other uses).
Thryduulf (
talk)
21:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
|
- Please stop with the ad-hominem attacks and stay on topic. Your attempt to get me banned for disagreeing with you is not relevant to this discussion.
AnonQuixote (
talk)
18:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
AnonQuixote, there is no ad hominem attacks here that I am able to immediately identify. That said,
Tartan357, AnonQuixote is not only entitled to argue against consensus, they are encouraged to do so if they feel it to be in the interest of the project. Trying to censor their view is a bad look, IMO.
El_C
20:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
El C: I'm definitely not trying to censor their view, but we have a consensus on this issue and they know it. As you have said, their next step is to
WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. What do you believe I have done that amounts to censorship? ―
Tartan357
Talk
20:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
Tartan357, because you are making it incumbent upon them to connect the consensus as seen in that BLPN close with this RfD. But that is not, in fact, their cross to bear. They can say whatever they wish about the content, despite whatever expectation you or whoever may feel they ought to otherwise exhibit. They are not required to tow the line or even acknowledge it.
El_C
20:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
El_C, It is an
ad-hominem argument because it seeks to invalidate my argument by casting aspersions on my conduct rather than addressing the substance of my point.
Tartan357, I politely request that you edit your comment to simply state your point and refrain from making accusations against me. For example: "The consensus of a BLP/N discussion was that it is acceptable to equate these terms per the dictionary definition." Then I think we can remove the rest of this "thread" as off-topic to the RfD discussion.
AnonQuixote (
talk)
02:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
-
AnonQuixote, again, there is absolutely nothing that is ad hominem in Tartan357's statement. Your conduct is very much subject to comment and review — that it was in error is besides the point.
El_C
02:46, 18 January 2021 (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.