This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 30, 2020.
Charlotte Proudman
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. Note that per
WP:R#DELETE #10, voting to create an article is essentially a vote to delete the redirect. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Meets
deletion reason #3. The original section that the
targeted redirect points to is gone, and now Proudman redirects to
Online shaming, which has no mention of her name, coming off as weirdly malicious / not neutral out of context. Seems to be against
WP:BLP policy since it is unsourced contentious material about a living person.
Although she is known for one event that some would consider "online shaming" and others would consider a "feminist debate", without context, it doesn't seem to be neutral. She was also found to not be notable in
this AfD.
I know deletion discussions usually last at least 7 days, but there is no plausible redirect I can see, the page history does not seem to contain anything worth saving (the original redirect was to "Feminazi"), the redirect is similar to having unsourced contentious material about a
WP:BLP, and there are only 5 wiki articles that mention her name at all: 2 for quote attributions, and 3 that are only in the references section. I'm not seeing how this redirect helps anyone trying to look up "Charlotte Proudman". I would tag for speedy delete
G10, but I assume there are too many points of explanation/discussion needed. -
Whisperjanes (
talk) 23:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Whisperjanes (
talk) 23:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
delete - seems like a straightforward BLP vio, leaving the user uncertain about her role/position w.r.t. online shaming. I agree it should be deleted as speedily as possible. --
Tagishsimon (
talk) 03:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, as not mentioned in the target article, and check whether there are other similar redirects to non-existent mentions which were in the large chunk of "Examplefarm" removed in
this group of edits in April 2020.
PamD 14:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)reply
@
The Vintage Feminist: I don't mind it being written as an article if she passes notability! However, this discussion is mostly for seeing if the redirect should stay, and there is currently no article to "restore" to in the edit history. If you're concerned, deleting the redirect technically has no negative effect on recreating/restoring the article. But until someone takes the time to write a new article, leaving up a redirect that could be potentially harmful to this person or a
BLP violation is concerning, I think. -
Whisperjanes (
talk) 06:33, 6 August 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.
$19.95
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, Rosguilltalk 17:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
This is just a price tag. It does not make sense to have it redirect. There are many other prices that do not have redirects here (like .99), and this one is not unique at all. People looking for psychological pricing are not going to type $19.95 I-82-I|TALK 22:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. This is a common and valid example of psychological pricing, but I can't see any realistic likelihood of anyone searching for it by this method. ~
mazcatalk 20:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom as well. I can't imagine anyone coming to an online encyclopedia to look up "$19.95", but if they did, I don't think "Psychological pricing" is what they would really be looking for. -
Whisperjanes (
talk) 02:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)reply
We can't just redirect every price ending with 90-something, but I am concerned with reader access to this page. This phenomenon is well known, but its name is certainly not (I could not have told you it before today, despite having thought about it quite a bit). Think of Wikipedia like a
reference desk and imagine how many readers would ask "What's psychological pricing?" vs. "Why do so many prices end in 99 cents?" --
BDD (
talk) 14:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
BDD: Helpfully, the disambiguation pages
99 cents—to which
$0.99 and several other terms redirect—and
99p and have entries for
Psychological pricing, although we don't have anything for 95c/95p.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 18:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Ah, good. That probably works. --
BDD (
talk) 13:35, 5 August 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.
$19.99
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, Rosguilltalk 17:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
This is just a price tag. It does not make sense to have it redirect. There are many other prices that do not have redirects here (like .99), and this one is not unique at all. People looking for psychological pricing are not going to type $19.99 I-82-I|TALK 22:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom as above. This is a common and valid example of psychological pricing, but I can't see any realistic likelihood of anyone searching for it by this method. ~
mazcatalk 20:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. I agree that it is unlikely that anyone wanting to find out about psychological pricing would think this was the way to find it.—
Anne Delong (
talk) 00:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)reply
We can't just redirect every price ending with 90-something, but I am concerned with reader access to this page. This phenomenon is well known, but its name is certainly not (I could not have told you it before today, despite having thought about it quite a bit). Think of Wikipedia like a
reference desk and imagine how many readers would ask "What's psychological pricing?" vs. "Why do so many prices end in 99 cents?" --
BDD (
talk) 14:47, 3 August 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.
Persecution of Christians in Nazi Germany
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
Religion in Nazi Germany without prejudice to further discussion of other targets, this one had only slightly more support. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Based on the IP's comments, either a disambiguation page or broad concept article would seem appropriate here.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I think that the relationship between Christian church and Nazi Germany is better covered by a possible "and" type article than under the title "Persecution of Christians in Nazi Germany", which is misleading in implying that people were persecuted simply for being (any type of) Christian. Throughout Nazi Germany the vast majority of citizens were Christians, including Nazi supporters; there were Christian chaplains in the Wehrmacht and so forth. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's article on this titled "The German Churches and the Nazi State"
[1] which is a more NPOV framing. (
t ·
c) buidhe 12:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 22:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: I wouldn't object to a retarget to
Religion in Nazi Germany for now, until we have a dedicated article on the relationship between the Nazi state and the churches. (
t ·
c) buidhe 02:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
That's probably the best target out of the articles that we actually have. I don't object to a retarget to this article, though I continue to object to the possibility of deletion.
50.248.234.77 (
talk) 10:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Religion in Nazi Germany for now, perhaps to section
#National Socialist attitudes towards Christianity. A broad-concept article could well be a good idea, though I echo the concern of painting a picture of Christianity and Nazism as completely opposed, which belies reality. As such, that section gives a good overview of the whole picture. --
BDD (
talk) 14:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Religion in Nazi Germany until a suitable article under the redirect's name is developed. Some of the other targets suggested do not discuss persecution in detail, except for
Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany. "Religion in..." is conceptually broad enough so it would be a reasonable target for now. --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 20:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Two new retarget proposals were presented in the past week, so relisting to solicit more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Deryck C. 22:35, 30 July 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.
Enne
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 disambiguate --
JHunterJ (
talk) 15:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not sure why this exists since I never heard Ñ as Enne
🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (
talk) 10:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete the only connection between ñ and Enne I've found that doesn't originate from Wikipedia is
this trademark but the search term for that would be "ñ enne" and it should lead to information about the trademark or the products it was used on (if either were notable, a 1 minute search suggests they aren't).
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - this is how the letter was presented in a Spanish class I once took. Redirect has 45 hits in the 30 days prior to the nomination: it appears to be useful.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Does the letter name really spelled *enne in your so-called Spanish class? It is always spelled eñe. --
Soumya-8974talkcontribssubpages 06:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 22:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Spanish ñ is usually anglicised n or ny.
Thryduulf (
talk) 09:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I meant that eñe is spelled to seem that the word belongs to a historical epoch long beyond living memory (ie archaized), which isn't.
Old Spanish speakers may called this letter enen or en duplo. --
Soumya-8974talkcontribssubpages 13:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. The Spanish 'Ñ' historically derives from a doubled 'N', so this uncommon spelling of the word "eñe" for the character 'Ñ' is at least plausible even if it's not especially common. Besides, English speakers often don't have an 'Ñ' on their keyboards and will use alternative searches to try and find their desired target. There's no value in making harder, nor in making a reasonable guess fail.
50.248.234.77 (
talk) 10:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm all for keeping reasonable attempts to find articles, but I have been unable to find any evidence whatsoever that people are using "enne" as a search term for "Ñ" (or indeed anything in particular). Those few English speakers who know that "ñ" is historically derived from "nn" will already know about how to find the character (and even if they didn't, "
nn" would be a more logical search term), and those that don't won't think to try it - they'll use "
n~", "n with accent" or things like that.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate The ñ connection is, IMO, reasonable but tenuous. We have articles on topics that are appropriately called Enne, however. I've drafted the disambiguation page below the redirect. --
BDD (
talk) 19:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate per BDD's draft. The keep/delete argument as to whether its a used alternative spelling of "eñe" seems literally academic given there actually are other relevant pages involving the word Enne itself. Many of these including "ñ" seem like reasonable search terms if someone's looking up
Enne. ~
mazcatalk 21:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To allow further discussion of the disambiguation proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Deryck C. 22:33, 30 July 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.
Monkey Massacre Productions
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. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at target. Similar redirects by the same user,
Duc4Wikmedia, have been deleted in the past:
1,
2.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 22:22, 30 July 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.
Sneaky Shark
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. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at target. Similar redirects by the same user,
Duc4Wikmedia, have been deleted in the past:
1,
2.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 22:20, 30 July 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 Manhattan Project (production company)
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. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at target. Similar redirects by the same user,
Duc4Wikmedia, have been deleted in the past:
1,
2.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 22:20, 30 July 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.
Blue Tulip Productions
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. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at target. Similar redirects by the same user,
Duc4Wikmedia, have been deleted in the past:
1,
2.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 22:19, 30 July 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.
Compari 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. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at target. Similar redirects by the same user,
Duc4Wikmedia, have been deleted in the past:
1,
2.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 22:18, 30 July 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.
Wikipedia:RW
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
Wikipedia:RedWarn. Retarget has the majority in votes, and concerns that this will cause undo havoc with old links were addressed by editors arguing that 1) there aren't that many links and 2) a hatnote will clear up the confusion. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Consider changing to
WP:REDWARN; (Context: Redwarn is a fairly new counter-vandalism tool; initial discussion over this redirect came from
a discussion over changing the edit summary to use something like RW to be less intimidating and more in line with Twinkle (TW) and Huggle (HG).) Pageviews look to be about 100 monthly with Researching Wikipedia, vs. closer to 2100 with Redwarn. None of the other pages linked in the hatnote right now look to be close enough and popular enough to justify the redirect.
LittlePuppers (
talk) 02:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
As the creator of RW redirect I have no objection to retargetting to a more popular page, just make sure there is a see also hatnote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Support. Checking what
currently links to WP:RW, there are 43 pages that use this redirect. Of these 43, 1 out of 3 article talk pages are archived and 4 out of 15 pages are in the Wikipedia namespace and its associated talkspace are archives. The rest are in userspace. Retargeting to RedWarn shouldn't cause too much trouble, and
WP:Researching Wikipedia could be given a new redirect like WP:RESEARCHWP. —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 ) 03:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Alternatively, keep the redirect as is and use another shortcut for RedWarn, like WP:REDW. —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 ) 15:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep as is; changing established shortcuts is harmful. Since the creation of
WP:RedWarn the
pageviews haven't changed altogether too much, indicating that RedWarn's existence isn't enough to use this shortcut. —
J947 ‡ message ⁓
edits 04:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. We should always be very conservative when changing shortcut redirects as breaking old links and old references can be very harmful. In this case the shortcut has pointed to its current target since 2007, has a not insignificant number of links and a consistently large number of page views that haven't noticeably changed since creation of RedWarn. The small benefit of a slightly shorter shortcut will not outweigh the breaking of existing links and confusion added to old discussions.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per Thryduulf. There's already a hatnote at the current target linking to RedWarn. Please don't break links in old discussions. --
pandakekok9 (
talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 11:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Dab, as there are two popular topics. --
◊PRAHLADbalaji (
M•T•A•
C) This message was left at 17:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget per nom, who makes a convincing case. I don't see the issue with retargeting so long as there is a hatnote in place. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
No issue apart from breaking links and introducing confusion and ambiguity to discussions (old and going forwards) where none currently exists you mean? I firmly disagree that the nominator has made a convincing case that any benefits from retargetting will outweigh all the harm it will cause.
Thryduulf (
talk) 19:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, it's a good thing we have context...and hatnotes! I find it much more valuable as a convenient shortcut for a popular page over preserving a scattering of links for potential wiki-archeologists on an obscure topic (with thanks to LittlePuppers for demonstrating that). --
Tavix(
talk) 23:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Out of curiosity I just did a spot check of half a dozen random user and article talk pages - one was a link here, one was a link to Researching Wikipedia, and two each were typos to
WP:EW and
WP:RS. I can't say for sure that that's representative (although it could be, with the keys next to each other and 20 and 500k links to EW and RS, respectively), just thought I'd bring it up.
LittlePuppers (
talk) 20:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Going through in more detail (mostly to satisfy my own curiosity, and because there really aren't that many):
9 to Researching Wikipedia (~5 from Piotrus above)
Actually, changing to Keep as it is for now until RedWarn becomes more popular.
◊PRAHLADbalaji (
M•T•A•
C) This message was left at 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Half-strong keep I would like this to be redirected as it is, but it can have a high-medium chance of having some pages, articles, and companies with the same stuff. --
StaleGuy22 (
talk) 05:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: RedWarn isn't popular enough to justify retargeting an already established shortcut. If at any point RedWarn eclipses the current target, then it should be retargeted. Regards,
User:TheDragonFire300. (
Contact me |
Contributions). This message was left at 00:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget RW is a much more handy shortcut for the new tool than REDW or anything else. The edit summaries roaring "RedWarn" even for such edits like welcoming new users isn't a good thing for the community at large (not just for the tool or its users). The number of incoming links in archived discussions are quite few and can be fixed.
SD0001 (
talk) 09:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Links in archived discussions generally should not be changed, links in edit summaries (which do not appear in "what links here") cannot be changed. If "RedWarn" is not appropriate to appear in edit summaries then the name of the tool should be changed.
Thryduulf (
talk) 10:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Links in archived discussions generally should not be changed Is there any actual reason (apart from bureaucracy) why they shouldn't be changed? We're talking about just
16 links so changing them shouldn't be a big deal. links in edit summaries We have all of 40 links in pages. I would be greatly surprised if there were more than 3-4 such links in edit summaries. Again, not a big deal.
SD0001 (
talk) 14:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget with hatnotes per Tavix. (I know, I'm sorry that I keep changing my !vote.)
◊PRAHLADbalaji (
M•T•A•
C) This message was left at 02:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 19:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Vote support - this is a much better target than "Researching Wikipedia". Aasim 04:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Perhaps adding a hatnote would be useful. — Yours,
Berrely •
Talk∕
Contribs 19:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
This discussion is clearly at no consensus now, though I suspect if I closed it as such, this would just come up again in a few months with a clear consensus to retarget. I don't know where that leaves us. If the concern is how "RedWarn" looks in edit summaries, though, couldn't it just be piped as RW? --
BDD (
talk) 19:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't think that a clear consensus to retarget will be automatic in a few months - my !vote certainly won't change unless there is an explosion of people actually using
WP:RW clearly intending RedWarn. If the name of the tool is inappropriate or suboptimal then the correct solution is to rename the tool as there is no guarantee that people wont use the full name.
Thryduulf (
talk) 10:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)reply
At a glance, it seems like a very useful tool, but I had not heard of it before. My hunch that we'd have clear consensus in the future is based on the assumption that it will enjoy further uptake. Perhaps it won't. There's also probably a cart-and-horse problem here, in that I should hope there isn't an explosion of people using the redirect for RedWarn if that's not where it redirects. I agree with you that the editors who run this tool should consider changing a name if there's such a concern. --
BDD (
talk) 18:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget, while there's a good theoretical argument that old links shouldn't be broken without good reason, there just aren't that many links. Researching Wikipedia, by this shortcut, just doesn't seem to be used very much at all, and the increasing popularity of RedWarn just generally seems to make it a much more efficient use of a two-letter project shortcut, particularly as it's one that is far more likely to be used in edit summaries and other space-limited environments. ~
mazcatalk 21:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Week 2-3 was trending in a different direction from Week 1, so it's worth asking for more editors' input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Deryck C. 22:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Covert into a disambiguation page, which is usually the de facto "no consensus" result for "Wikipedia:"-namespace titles.
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget. Given Twinkle's similar popularity with RedWarn it seems that the long-term benefits of being able to write
WP:RW for RedWarn outweighs the effects of breaking links.
Eumat114 (
Message) 07:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget long term benefits are higher than the costs, given the low number of incoming links. (
t ·
c) buidhe 04:29, 2 August 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 --
JHunterJ (
talk) 11:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Nothing at the target named "Rincoln", doesn't seem like a particularly likely misspelling. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Completely nonsensical term, no reason for keeping this.
CycloneYoristalk! 06:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as ambiguous and hardly searched (generally for
Lincoln). —
J947 ‡ message ⁓
edits 06:21, 31 July 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.
2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Maine
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 withdrawn. Yep, my eyes deceived me: The target is different.
(non-admin closure)Steel1943 (
talk) 17:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, the difference between now and earlier is that now the redirect is pointing at a 2022 election article, rather than the article for
Maine. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:36, 30 July 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.
L'Amérique
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
Amérique which now disambiguates this term. signed, Rosguilltalk 16:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
This is a really weird one, because the current target relates to a French hit song - so is most likely to be used by French readers - but isn't the primary usage of "L'Amérique" in French. The French Wikipedia
does have a brief article on the song, but it's very much a stub.
fr:Amérique itself is about the continents (compare to our
America, which redirects to the USA), while the primary usage of it with the L' -
fr:L'Amérique - is, strangely enough, actually the French translation of Kafka's
Amerika (novel). Their disambiguation page
fr:Amérique (homonymie) lists a variety of translations of "America" that wouldn't be appropriate here per
WP:FORRED, but also a ship and several creative works by various people, some that do have mentions here on en-wiki. My feeling is that redirecting this to a small disambiguation page at
Amérique covering the uses of these that we do have any mentions of, plus links to the most obvious translation, is probably the best outcome. ~
mazcatalk 16:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I've now created a disambiguation page at
Amérique that covers most of these uses discussed here, I'd say these two should therefore be retargeted to
Amérique and disambiguated there. ~
mazcatalk 14:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)reply
As nominator I support creating a disambiguation at
Amérique per Mazca, listing the uses of "Amérique" and "L'Amérique" in English, incorporating entries suggested by Mazca and the IP. --
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
King of Hearts: As there's general agreement so far, I've created that disambiguation page now. ~
mazcatalk 14:25, 5 August 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, Rosguilltalk 16:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure this meets the requirements of
WP:FORRED. While Buddhism is the religion with which a majority of Sinhalese identify, Sinhalese is one of many languages associated with peoples who practice Buddhism. It isn't the sort of very specific connection I think would be required to satisfy
WP:FORRED.
Largoplazo (
talk) 12:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree that it doesn't meet requirements for
WP:FORRED. No evidence it is in use, and an unlikely search/link target. --
Spasemunki (
talk) 23:17, 30 July 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.
Least-valued currency unit
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, Rosguilltalk 16:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
There was originally an article about the most and least valued currency units, but
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highest-valued currency unit closed with consensus to merge to
List of circulating currencies. However the consensus of editors at that article was against indlucding that information so no merge ever happened and there is no information related to relative currency value at the target, nor have I found it anywhere else -
Hyperinflation exists and is sort of relevant to the least valued currency unit but that is not the only posisble reason for a low-value currency and so would not make a good target.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
If these were to go anywhere, they should go to
Exchange rate or something similar. However, I wouldn't be opposed to deletion as trivia magnets.
CMD (
talk) 12:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I wondered about
Exchange rate, but there is nothing there that talks about which currencies are strong or weak.
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Agreed,
Exchange rate seems to be the best home for these redirects (if not themselves deleted). The original content of these articles was removed already as a part of the earlier re-direct discussion and not included in the target article, so there is no benefit to retaining a target of
List of circulating currencies over
Exchange rate. -
Wiz9999 (
talk) 08:12, 31 July 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.
BROTTR
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. Mojo Hand(
talk) 16:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
...And in response, I have tagged the nominated redirect with {{
Db-g7}} since you are its creator.
Steel1943 (
talk) 15:46, 1 August 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, Rosguilltalk 16:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not in the article given. "undecilion" is also a misspelling.
IceWelder [
✉] 09:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Looking online it appears to be the maximum speed the truck you control in the game can go when it reverses due a glitch. I’m don’t believe it’s needed since the article doesn’t mention this particular factoid.--
69.157.254.92 (
talk) 04:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, it's not mentioned in the article, misspelled, an unlikely search term, and probably
WP:OR. I don't even think the number is right, as floating-point numbers' maximum and minimum are very different in C++.
IceWelder [
✉] 18:25, 1 August 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.
Duzy Rigs: Ponad W Road Racing
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, Rosguilltalk 16:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Highly unlikely typo, probably an 11-year-old joke.
IceWelder [
✉] 09:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete not even remotely a plausible misspelling.--
69.157.254.92 (
talk) 19:00, 30 July 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.
Sen:esepera
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, Rosguilltalk 16:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
It's a derivative of Esperantido, removed without explanation by the redirect creator in 2009 (
Special:Diff/269485970) after being removed without explanation by another editor (
Special:Diff/269012497). Make of that what you will, but I note that it is the nominator's job to provide this information to clarify the discussion for all participants – please undertake basic research into the subject before nominating it here. —
J947 ‡ message ⁓
edits 08:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Aye, the inclusionist J947 appeared to hamper any RfD operations! However, there is no point on keeping this redirect, is it? --
Soumya-8974talkcontribssubpages 12:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Soumya-8974: there is no need to personalise the discussion -
Comment on content, not the contributor. You should be doing research about the redirects before you nominate them (
WP:BEFORE) and before you comment on nominations by others. Providing backgroudn information is not "hampering RfD operations" in any way shape or form.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I know, but I was just sick with the user's inclusionist philosophy too much. Anyway, it does not need much research to nominate this redirect for deletion. Is this Esperantido mentioned on the article. If so, then quote me and I will happily withdraw the nomination. --
Soumya-8974talkcontribssubpages 18:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
My comment serves solely to provide background information. I am not opining any option, merely saving time for future contributors to this discussion. —
J947 ‡ message ⁓
edits 22:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Soumya-8974,
J947 is a valuable participant at RfD and your snipes at them are not appreciated. signed, Rosguilltalk 16:49, 7 August 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.
2019 global food crisis
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, Rosguilltalk 16:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Confusing (
WP:R#DELETE) - linked article doesn't describe a global food crisis in 2019 (only locust-related famines in some regions).
HaeB (
talk) 07:32, 30 July 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.
"Illegal" Rezident
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, Rosguilltalk 16:42, 7 August 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 do note that there has been some use of this term, but the use appears to be primarily polemical, rather than people seriously using this as their go-to name for the George Floyd protests signed, Rosguilltalk 16:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
...I don't get it, and I don't think any other readers would either. A lot more happened in America in spring 2020 than the target subject, and apparently, per the wording of the redirect, the target subject will be the primary/only event in all springs in America from 2020 to practically the end of time.
Steel1943 (
talk) 06:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment – Just wanted to mention that "Spring" in this sense is likely intended in more of a sense akin to the
Arab Spring, although as far as I know, it isn't a commonly-used term anywhere.
Master of Time (
talk) 09:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete; I can see the reference to the Arab Spring, but it doesn't actually seem to be a term that's been widely used, or necessarily be a particularly accurate comparison. ~
mazcatalk 16:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I have not heard this term yet. While the
George Floyd Protests article seems to be expanding to include other items, I think it's fine for now and can go through the process of changing its name later.
Fred (
talk) 23:59, 30 July 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.
Hong kong spring
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, Rosguilltalk 16:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
For one, "spring" is not mentioned in the target article. Also, more happens in spring in Hong Kong than the protests of 2019–20.
Steel1943 (
talk) 06:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: I think the intention of this redirect was to compare it to
Arab Spring, but I have never seen anyone call it like that.
OceanHok (
talk) 07:01, 30 July 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.
Crisis in America
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, Rosguilltalk 16:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm pretty sure that crises in America are not exclusive to the time frame of the target, nor is the target only about a crisis.
Steel1943 (
talk) 06:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete in lack of a good target per nom, heh. —
J947 ‡ message ⁓
edits 06:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. There were occurrences in USA that could be described as crises in at least 1860-1861 and 1929, and there is more to America than USA.
Narky Blert (
talk) 06:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
...Yeah true, but alas,
America targets where it targets...
Steel1943 (
talk) 07:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete could just as easily refer to the Civil War or Civil Rights Movement.--
69.157.254.92 (
talk) 19:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Which crisis are we talking about? Regards,
SONIC678 05:23, 31 July 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.
Flight 93 election
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.
Huh? This term is mentioned no where in the target article. The number "93" isn't anywhere in the target article either (other than reference number [93].)
Steel1943 (
talk) 05:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete to encourage article creation. The term was coined by "Publius Decius Mus" in 2016 the Claremont Review of Books -
link. That essay was commented on by several RS, including
1The Atlantic,
2Washington Post,
3Vox.com, and
3New York Times. IMO there's enough for an article on the essay and its reception, and no justification for the current redirect.
Narky Blert (
talk) 07:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Michael Anton, the essay's author. I agree that the essay could have its own article, but in the meantime, there's good information there. --
BDD (
talk) 14:50, 3 August 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.
Martial law in germany
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, Rosguilltalk 16:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Misleading redirect (not the only period of history where martial-law-like regulations existed in Germany). By the author of the "Trump of..." redirects already being discussed on this page.
HaeB (
talk) 03:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as thoroughly misleading. Until almost the very end of the Nazi period, law in Germany was administered by civilian courts (including the notorious
People's Court (Germany)). As the Russians entered Berlin, law broke down completely; but summary executions by death squads are not martial law. The Allies effectively imposed martial law after the capitulation of the Nazi regime until civil order was reestablished.
Narky Blert (
talk) 06:45, 30 July 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.
Right-wing communism
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, Rosguilltalk 16:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned on the linked page, does not appear to be used as a synonym. By the author of the "Trump of..." redirects already being discussed on this page.
HaeB (
talk) 03:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete this thing-while some people might call communism "
left-wing fascism," that seems to apply to a different topic, as described in its article. We have
Left communism but not
Right communism, one of the only plausible targets I could think of. Besides...have there been cases of stuff in right-wing politics that could be described as communist tendencies? Regards,
SONIC678 04:21, 30 July 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.
Negative list
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, Rosguilltalk 16:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
There are other meanings for Negative list. This This meaning is not mentioned on the linked page, does not appear to be used as a synonym.
Wolfch (
talk) 03:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. The target page is not the base page or list of "negative lists".
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:39, 31 July 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.
Trump of Baseball
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, Rosguilltalk 16:37, 7 August 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.
L is real 2041
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, Rosguilltalk 16:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Misspelled redirect from an unlikely search term. Anyone searching for this (given the recent news) is likely to know that it's 2401, not 2041. O.N.R.(talk) 03:05, 30 July 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.
Simur and Mandel
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, Rosguilltalk 16:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
PRODed by
Srnec, I contested on procedural grounds, but agree with their reasoning: There is no reason to link these two terms.Danski454 (
talk) 02:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete this redirect has no reason to exist now, but for the record when I created the redirect it was mentioned by name in it's target, see
Sesea (old revision). L293D (
☎ •
✎) 02:55, 30 July 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.
Money printer go brrr
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, Rosguilltalk 16:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not seeing how this is a likely search term. Do money printers freeze and get cold when they are printing a lot of money? I'd think it would be the opposite.
Steel1943 (
talk) 00:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment This is an Internet meme (Google the title). I don't know the implications for redirect status, so I won't comment on that. —
Goszei (
talk) 02:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia go brrr delete; pointless redirect without anything talking about the context of the phrase. brrrrrr –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 03:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as redirect (not mentioned on the linked page), but it may be worth a standalone article. Regards,
HaeB (
talk) 03:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Perhaps @
J4lambert: can provide insight as to the meaning (rationale) of the redirect?-
UCO2009bluejay (
talk) 04:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or, as a second choice, redirect to "
National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic" or similar. Most uses of this meme are positive: they're celebrating the idea that governments need to throw money at helping people and fixing the economy right now and
explicitly mocking libertarians,
gold bugs and Austrian economics-types who say it's going to cause hyperinflation. Having the link go to hyperinflation is a political statement which doesn't seem justified.
Blythwood (
talk) 07:46, 7 August 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, Rosguilltalk 16:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not finding any sources that term the target subject as so.
Steel1943 (
talk) 00:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete highly ambiguous name, not used to refer to target subject. (
t ·
c) buidhe 02:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Ambiguous, not s particularly logical search term. A scan of this user's talk page suggests they have a problem with creating bad redirects.
Hog FarmBacon 04:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, this term is ambiguous, it can refer to just about any famine in any time. Regards,
SONIC678 13:22, 30 July 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.
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 30, 2020.
Charlotte Proudman
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. Note that per
WP:R#DELETE #10, voting to create an article is essentially a vote to delete the redirect. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Meets
deletion reason #3. The original section that the
targeted redirect points to is gone, and now Proudman redirects to
Online shaming, which has no mention of her name, coming off as weirdly malicious / not neutral out of context. Seems to be against
WP:BLP policy since it is unsourced contentious material about a living person.
Although she is known for one event that some would consider "online shaming" and others would consider a "feminist debate", without context, it doesn't seem to be neutral. She was also found to not be notable in
this AfD.
I know deletion discussions usually last at least 7 days, but there is no plausible redirect I can see, the page history does not seem to contain anything worth saving (the original redirect was to "Feminazi"), the redirect is similar to having unsourced contentious material about a
WP:BLP, and there are only 5 wiki articles that mention her name at all: 2 for quote attributions, and 3 that are only in the references section. I'm not seeing how this redirect helps anyone trying to look up "Charlotte Proudman". I would tag for speedy delete
G10, but I assume there are too many points of explanation/discussion needed. -
Whisperjanes (
talk) 23:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Whisperjanes (
talk) 23:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
delete - seems like a straightforward BLP vio, leaving the user uncertain about her role/position w.r.t. online shaming. I agree it should be deleted as speedily as possible. --
Tagishsimon (
talk) 03:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, as not mentioned in the target article, and check whether there are other similar redirects to non-existent mentions which were in the large chunk of "Examplefarm" removed in
this group of edits in April 2020.
PamD 14:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)reply
@
The Vintage Feminist: I don't mind it being written as an article if she passes notability! However, this discussion is mostly for seeing if the redirect should stay, and there is currently no article to "restore" to in the edit history. If you're concerned, deleting the redirect technically has no negative effect on recreating/restoring the article. But until someone takes the time to write a new article, leaving up a redirect that could be potentially harmful to this person or a
BLP violation is concerning, I think. -
Whisperjanes (
talk) 06:33, 6 August 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.
$19.95
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, Rosguilltalk 17:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
This is just a price tag. It does not make sense to have it redirect. There are many other prices that do not have redirects here (like .99), and this one is not unique at all. People looking for psychological pricing are not going to type $19.95 I-82-I|TALK 22:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. This is a common and valid example of psychological pricing, but I can't see any realistic likelihood of anyone searching for it by this method. ~
mazcatalk 20:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom as well. I can't imagine anyone coming to an online encyclopedia to look up "$19.95", but if they did, I don't think "Psychological pricing" is what they would really be looking for. -
Whisperjanes (
talk) 02:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)reply
We can't just redirect every price ending with 90-something, but I am concerned with reader access to this page. This phenomenon is well known, but its name is certainly not (I could not have told you it before today, despite having thought about it quite a bit). Think of Wikipedia like a
reference desk and imagine how many readers would ask "What's psychological pricing?" vs. "Why do so many prices end in 99 cents?" --
BDD (
talk) 14:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
BDD: Helpfully, the disambiguation pages
99 cents—to which
$0.99 and several other terms redirect—and
99p and have entries for
Psychological pricing, although we don't have anything for 95c/95p.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 18:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Ah, good. That probably works. --
BDD (
talk) 13:35, 5 August 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.
$19.99
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, Rosguilltalk 17:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
This is just a price tag. It does not make sense to have it redirect. There are many other prices that do not have redirects here (like .99), and this one is not unique at all. People looking for psychological pricing are not going to type $19.99 I-82-I|TALK 22:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom as above. This is a common and valid example of psychological pricing, but I can't see any realistic likelihood of anyone searching for it by this method. ~
mazcatalk 20:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. I agree that it is unlikely that anyone wanting to find out about psychological pricing would think this was the way to find it.—
Anne Delong (
talk) 00:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)reply
We can't just redirect every price ending with 90-something, but I am concerned with reader access to this page. This phenomenon is well known, but its name is certainly not (I could not have told you it before today, despite having thought about it quite a bit). Think of Wikipedia like a
reference desk and imagine how many readers would ask "What's psychological pricing?" vs. "Why do so many prices end in 99 cents?" --
BDD (
talk) 14:47, 3 August 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.
Persecution of Christians in Nazi Germany
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
Religion in Nazi Germany without prejudice to further discussion of other targets, this one had only slightly more support. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Based on the IP's comments, either a disambiguation page or broad concept article would seem appropriate here.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I think that the relationship between Christian church and Nazi Germany is better covered by a possible "and" type article than under the title "Persecution of Christians in Nazi Germany", which is misleading in implying that people were persecuted simply for being (any type of) Christian. Throughout Nazi Germany the vast majority of citizens were Christians, including Nazi supporters; there were Christian chaplains in the Wehrmacht and so forth. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's article on this titled "The German Churches and the Nazi State"
[1] which is a more NPOV framing. (
t ·
c) buidhe 12:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 22:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: I wouldn't object to a retarget to
Religion in Nazi Germany for now, until we have a dedicated article on the relationship between the Nazi state and the churches. (
t ·
c) buidhe 02:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
That's probably the best target out of the articles that we actually have. I don't object to a retarget to this article, though I continue to object to the possibility of deletion.
50.248.234.77 (
talk) 10:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Religion in Nazi Germany for now, perhaps to section
#National Socialist attitudes towards Christianity. A broad-concept article could well be a good idea, though I echo the concern of painting a picture of Christianity and Nazism as completely opposed, which belies reality. As such, that section gives a good overview of the whole picture. --
BDD (
talk) 14:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Religion in Nazi Germany until a suitable article under the redirect's name is developed. Some of the other targets suggested do not discuss persecution in detail, except for
Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany. "Religion in..." is conceptually broad enough so it would be a reasonable target for now. --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 20:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Two new retarget proposals were presented in the past week, so relisting to solicit more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Deryck C. 22:35, 30 July 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.
Enne
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 disambiguate --
JHunterJ (
talk) 15:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not sure why this exists since I never heard Ñ as Enne
🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (
talk) 10:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete the only connection between ñ and Enne I've found that doesn't originate from Wikipedia is
this trademark but the search term for that would be "ñ enne" and it should lead to information about the trademark or the products it was used on (if either were notable, a 1 minute search suggests they aren't).
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - this is how the letter was presented in a Spanish class I once took. Redirect has 45 hits in the 30 days prior to the nomination: it appears to be useful.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Does the letter name really spelled *enne in your so-called Spanish class? It is always spelled eñe. --
Soumya-8974talkcontribssubpages 06:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 22:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Spanish ñ is usually anglicised n or ny.
Thryduulf (
talk) 09:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I meant that eñe is spelled to seem that the word belongs to a historical epoch long beyond living memory (ie archaized), which isn't.
Old Spanish speakers may called this letter enen or en duplo. --
Soumya-8974talkcontribssubpages 13:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. The Spanish 'Ñ' historically derives from a doubled 'N', so this uncommon spelling of the word "eñe" for the character 'Ñ' is at least plausible even if it's not especially common. Besides, English speakers often don't have an 'Ñ' on their keyboards and will use alternative searches to try and find their desired target. There's no value in making harder, nor in making a reasonable guess fail.
50.248.234.77 (
talk) 10:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm all for keeping reasonable attempts to find articles, but I have been unable to find any evidence whatsoever that people are using "enne" as a search term for "Ñ" (or indeed anything in particular). Those few English speakers who know that "ñ" is historically derived from "nn" will already know about how to find the character (and even if they didn't, "
nn" would be a more logical search term), and those that don't won't think to try it - they'll use "
n~", "n with accent" or things like that.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate The ñ connection is, IMO, reasonable but tenuous. We have articles on topics that are appropriately called Enne, however. I've drafted the disambiguation page below the redirect. --
BDD (
talk) 19:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate per BDD's draft. The keep/delete argument as to whether its a used alternative spelling of "eñe" seems literally academic given there actually are other relevant pages involving the word Enne itself. Many of these including "ñ" seem like reasonable search terms if someone's looking up
Enne. ~
mazcatalk 21:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To allow further discussion of the disambiguation proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Deryck C. 22:33, 30 July 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.
Monkey Massacre Productions
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. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at target. Similar redirects by the same user,
Duc4Wikmedia, have been deleted in the past:
1,
2.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 22:22, 30 July 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.
Sneaky Shark
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. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at target. Similar redirects by the same user,
Duc4Wikmedia, have been deleted in the past:
1,
2.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 22:20, 30 July 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 Manhattan Project (production company)
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. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at target. Similar redirects by the same user,
Duc4Wikmedia, have been deleted in the past:
1,
2.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 22:20, 30 July 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.
Blue Tulip Productions
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. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at target. Similar redirects by the same user,
Duc4Wikmedia, have been deleted in the past:
1,
2.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 22:19, 30 July 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.
Compari 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. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at target. Similar redirects by the same user,
Duc4Wikmedia, have been deleted in the past:
1,
2.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 22:18, 30 July 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.
Wikipedia:RW
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
Wikipedia:RedWarn. Retarget has the majority in votes, and concerns that this will cause undo havoc with old links were addressed by editors arguing that 1) there aren't that many links and 2) a hatnote will clear up the confusion. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Consider changing to
WP:REDWARN; (Context: Redwarn is a fairly new counter-vandalism tool; initial discussion over this redirect came from
a discussion over changing the edit summary to use something like RW to be less intimidating and more in line with Twinkle (TW) and Huggle (HG).) Pageviews look to be about 100 monthly with Researching Wikipedia, vs. closer to 2100 with Redwarn. None of the other pages linked in the hatnote right now look to be close enough and popular enough to justify the redirect.
LittlePuppers (
talk) 02:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
As the creator of RW redirect I have no objection to retargetting to a more popular page, just make sure there is a see also hatnote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Support. Checking what
currently links to WP:RW, there are 43 pages that use this redirect. Of these 43, 1 out of 3 article talk pages are archived and 4 out of 15 pages are in the Wikipedia namespace and its associated talkspace are archives. The rest are in userspace. Retargeting to RedWarn shouldn't cause too much trouble, and
WP:Researching Wikipedia could be given a new redirect like WP:RESEARCHWP. —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 ) 03:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Alternatively, keep the redirect as is and use another shortcut for RedWarn, like WP:REDW. —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 ) 15:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep as is; changing established shortcuts is harmful. Since the creation of
WP:RedWarn the
pageviews haven't changed altogether too much, indicating that RedWarn's existence isn't enough to use this shortcut. —
J947 ‡ message ⁓
edits 04:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. We should always be very conservative when changing shortcut redirects as breaking old links and old references can be very harmful. In this case the shortcut has pointed to its current target since 2007, has a not insignificant number of links and a consistently large number of page views that haven't noticeably changed since creation of RedWarn. The small benefit of a slightly shorter shortcut will not outweigh the breaking of existing links and confusion added to old discussions.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per Thryduulf. There's already a hatnote at the current target linking to RedWarn. Please don't break links in old discussions. --
pandakekok9 (
talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 11:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Dab, as there are two popular topics. --
◊PRAHLADbalaji (
M•T•A•
C) This message was left at 17:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget per nom, who makes a convincing case. I don't see the issue with retargeting so long as there is a hatnote in place. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
No issue apart from breaking links and introducing confusion and ambiguity to discussions (old and going forwards) where none currently exists you mean? I firmly disagree that the nominator has made a convincing case that any benefits from retargetting will outweigh all the harm it will cause.
Thryduulf (
talk) 19:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, it's a good thing we have context...and hatnotes! I find it much more valuable as a convenient shortcut for a popular page over preserving a scattering of links for potential wiki-archeologists on an obscure topic (with thanks to LittlePuppers for demonstrating that). --
Tavix(
talk) 23:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Out of curiosity I just did a spot check of half a dozen random user and article talk pages - one was a link here, one was a link to Researching Wikipedia, and two each were typos to
WP:EW and
WP:RS. I can't say for sure that that's representative (although it could be, with the keys next to each other and 20 and 500k links to EW and RS, respectively), just thought I'd bring it up.
LittlePuppers (
talk) 20:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Going through in more detail (mostly to satisfy my own curiosity, and because there really aren't that many):
9 to Researching Wikipedia (~5 from Piotrus above)
Actually, changing to Keep as it is for now until RedWarn becomes more popular.
◊PRAHLADbalaji (
M•T•A•
C) This message was left at 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Half-strong keep I would like this to be redirected as it is, but it can have a high-medium chance of having some pages, articles, and companies with the same stuff. --
StaleGuy22 (
talk) 05:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: RedWarn isn't popular enough to justify retargeting an already established shortcut. If at any point RedWarn eclipses the current target, then it should be retargeted. Regards,
User:TheDragonFire300. (
Contact me |
Contributions). This message was left at 00:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget RW is a much more handy shortcut for the new tool than REDW or anything else. The edit summaries roaring "RedWarn" even for such edits like welcoming new users isn't a good thing for the community at large (not just for the tool or its users). The number of incoming links in archived discussions are quite few and can be fixed.
SD0001 (
talk) 09:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Links in archived discussions generally should not be changed, links in edit summaries (which do not appear in "what links here") cannot be changed. If "RedWarn" is not appropriate to appear in edit summaries then the name of the tool should be changed.
Thryduulf (
talk) 10:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Links in archived discussions generally should not be changed Is there any actual reason (apart from bureaucracy) why they shouldn't be changed? We're talking about just
16 links so changing them shouldn't be a big deal. links in edit summaries We have all of 40 links in pages. I would be greatly surprised if there were more than 3-4 such links in edit summaries. Again, not a big deal.
SD0001 (
talk) 14:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget with hatnotes per Tavix. (I know, I'm sorry that I keep changing my !vote.)
◊PRAHLADbalaji (
M•T•A•
C) This message was left at 02:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 19:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Vote support - this is a much better target than "Researching Wikipedia". Aasim 04:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Perhaps adding a hatnote would be useful. — Yours,
Berrely •
Talk∕
Contribs 19:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
This discussion is clearly at no consensus now, though I suspect if I closed it as such, this would just come up again in a few months with a clear consensus to retarget. I don't know where that leaves us. If the concern is how "RedWarn" looks in edit summaries, though, couldn't it just be piped as RW? --
BDD (
talk) 19:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't think that a clear consensus to retarget will be automatic in a few months - my !vote certainly won't change unless there is an explosion of people actually using
WP:RW clearly intending RedWarn. If the name of the tool is inappropriate or suboptimal then the correct solution is to rename the tool as there is no guarantee that people wont use the full name.
Thryduulf (
talk) 10:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)reply
At a glance, it seems like a very useful tool, but I had not heard of it before. My hunch that we'd have clear consensus in the future is based on the assumption that it will enjoy further uptake. Perhaps it won't. There's also probably a cart-and-horse problem here, in that I should hope there isn't an explosion of people using the redirect for RedWarn if that's not where it redirects. I agree with you that the editors who run this tool should consider changing a name if there's such a concern. --
BDD (
talk) 18:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget, while there's a good theoretical argument that old links shouldn't be broken without good reason, there just aren't that many links. Researching Wikipedia, by this shortcut, just doesn't seem to be used very much at all, and the increasing popularity of RedWarn just generally seems to make it a much more efficient use of a two-letter project shortcut, particularly as it's one that is far more likely to be used in edit summaries and other space-limited environments. ~
mazcatalk 21:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Week 2-3 was trending in a different direction from Week 1, so it's worth asking for more editors' input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Deryck C. 22:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Covert into a disambiguation page, which is usually the de facto "no consensus" result for "Wikipedia:"-namespace titles.
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget. Given Twinkle's similar popularity with RedWarn it seems that the long-term benefits of being able to write
WP:RW for RedWarn outweighs the effects of breaking links.
Eumat114 (
Message) 07:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget long term benefits are higher than the costs, given the low number of incoming links. (
t ·
c) buidhe 04:29, 2 August 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 --
JHunterJ (
talk) 11:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Nothing at the target named "Rincoln", doesn't seem like a particularly likely misspelling. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Completely nonsensical term, no reason for keeping this.
CycloneYoristalk! 06:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as ambiguous and hardly searched (generally for
Lincoln). —
J947 ‡ message ⁓
edits 06:21, 31 July 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.
2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Maine
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 withdrawn. Yep, my eyes deceived me: The target is different.
(non-admin closure)Steel1943 (
talk) 17:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, the difference between now and earlier is that now the redirect is pointing at a 2022 election article, rather than the article for
Maine. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:36, 30 July 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.
L'Amérique
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
Amérique which now disambiguates this term. signed, Rosguilltalk 16:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
This is a really weird one, because the current target relates to a French hit song - so is most likely to be used by French readers - but isn't the primary usage of "L'Amérique" in French. The French Wikipedia
does have a brief article on the song, but it's very much a stub.
fr:Amérique itself is about the continents (compare to our
America, which redirects to the USA), while the primary usage of it with the L' -
fr:L'Amérique - is, strangely enough, actually the French translation of Kafka's
Amerika (novel). Their disambiguation page
fr:Amérique (homonymie) lists a variety of translations of "America" that wouldn't be appropriate here per
WP:FORRED, but also a ship and several creative works by various people, some that do have mentions here on en-wiki. My feeling is that redirecting this to a small disambiguation page at
Amérique covering the uses of these that we do have any mentions of, plus links to the most obvious translation, is probably the best outcome. ~
mazcatalk 16:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I've now created a disambiguation page at
Amérique that covers most of these uses discussed here, I'd say these two should therefore be retargeted to
Amérique and disambiguated there. ~
mazcatalk 14:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)reply
As nominator I support creating a disambiguation at
Amérique per Mazca, listing the uses of "Amérique" and "L'Amérique" in English, incorporating entries suggested by Mazca and the IP. --
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
King of Hearts: As there's general agreement so far, I've created that disambiguation page now. ~
mazcatalk 14:25, 5 August 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, Rosguilltalk 16:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure this meets the requirements of
WP:FORRED. While Buddhism is the religion with which a majority of Sinhalese identify, Sinhalese is one of many languages associated with peoples who practice Buddhism. It isn't the sort of very specific connection I think would be required to satisfy
WP:FORRED.
Largoplazo (
talk) 12:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree that it doesn't meet requirements for
WP:FORRED. No evidence it is in use, and an unlikely search/link target. --
Spasemunki (
talk) 23:17, 30 July 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.
Least-valued currency unit
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, Rosguilltalk 16:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
There was originally an article about the most and least valued currency units, but
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highest-valued currency unit closed with consensus to merge to
List of circulating currencies. However the consensus of editors at that article was against indlucding that information so no merge ever happened and there is no information related to relative currency value at the target, nor have I found it anywhere else -
Hyperinflation exists and is sort of relevant to the least valued currency unit but that is not the only posisble reason for a low-value currency and so would not make a good target.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
If these were to go anywhere, they should go to
Exchange rate or something similar. However, I wouldn't be opposed to deletion as trivia magnets.
CMD (
talk) 12:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I wondered about
Exchange rate, but there is nothing there that talks about which currencies are strong or weak.
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Agreed,
Exchange rate seems to be the best home for these redirects (if not themselves deleted). The original content of these articles was removed already as a part of the earlier re-direct discussion and not included in the target article, so there is no benefit to retaining a target of
List of circulating currencies over
Exchange rate. -
Wiz9999 (
talk) 08:12, 31 July 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.
BROTTR
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. Mojo Hand(
talk) 16:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
...And in response, I have tagged the nominated redirect with {{
Db-g7}} since you are its creator.
Steel1943 (
talk) 15:46, 1 August 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, Rosguilltalk 16:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not in the article given. "undecilion" is also a misspelling.
IceWelder [
✉] 09:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Looking online it appears to be the maximum speed the truck you control in the game can go when it reverses due a glitch. I’m don’t believe it’s needed since the article doesn’t mention this particular factoid.--
69.157.254.92 (
talk) 04:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, it's not mentioned in the article, misspelled, an unlikely search term, and probably
WP:OR. I don't even think the number is right, as floating-point numbers' maximum and minimum are very different in C++.
IceWelder [
✉] 18:25, 1 August 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.
Duzy Rigs: Ponad W Road Racing
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, Rosguilltalk 16:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Highly unlikely typo, probably an 11-year-old joke.
IceWelder [
✉] 09:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete not even remotely a plausible misspelling.--
69.157.254.92 (
talk) 19:00, 30 July 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.
Sen:esepera
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, Rosguilltalk 16:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
It's a derivative of Esperantido, removed without explanation by the redirect creator in 2009 (
Special:Diff/269485970) after being removed without explanation by another editor (
Special:Diff/269012497). Make of that what you will, but I note that it is the nominator's job to provide this information to clarify the discussion for all participants – please undertake basic research into the subject before nominating it here. —
J947 ‡ message ⁓
edits 08:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Aye, the inclusionist J947 appeared to hamper any RfD operations! However, there is no point on keeping this redirect, is it? --
Soumya-8974talkcontribssubpages 12:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Soumya-8974: there is no need to personalise the discussion -
Comment on content, not the contributor. You should be doing research about the redirects before you nominate them (
WP:BEFORE) and before you comment on nominations by others. Providing backgroudn information is not "hampering RfD operations" in any way shape or form.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I know, but I was just sick with the user's inclusionist philosophy too much. Anyway, it does not need much research to nominate this redirect for deletion. Is this Esperantido mentioned on the article. If so, then quote me and I will happily withdraw the nomination. --
Soumya-8974talkcontribssubpages 18:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
My comment serves solely to provide background information. I am not opining any option, merely saving time for future contributors to this discussion. —
J947 ‡ message ⁓
edits 22:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Soumya-8974,
J947 is a valuable participant at RfD and your snipes at them are not appreciated. signed, Rosguilltalk 16:49, 7 August 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.
2019 global food crisis
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, Rosguilltalk 16:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Confusing (
WP:R#DELETE) - linked article doesn't describe a global food crisis in 2019 (only locust-related famines in some regions).
HaeB (
talk) 07:32, 30 July 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.
"Illegal" Rezident
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, Rosguilltalk 16:42, 7 August 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 do note that there has been some use of this term, but the use appears to be primarily polemical, rather than people seriously using this as their go-to name for the George Floyd protests signed, Rosguilltalk 16:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
...I don't get it, and I don't think any other readers would either. A lot more happened in America in spring 2020 than the target subject, and apparently, per the wording of the redirect, the target subject will be the primary/only event in all springs in America from 2020 to practically the end of time.
Steel1943 (
talk) 06:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment – Just wanted to mention that "Spring" in this sense is likely intended in more of a sense akin to the
Arab Spring, although as far as I know, it isn't a commonly-used term anywhere.
Master of Time (
talk) 09:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete; I can see the reference to the Arab Spring, but it doesn't actually seem to be a term that's been widely used, or necessarily be a particularly accurate comparison. ~
mazcatalk 16:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I have not heard this term yet. While the
George Floyd Protests article seems to be expanding to include other items, I think it's fine for now and can go through the process of changing its name later.
Fred (
talk) 23:59, 30 July 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.
Hong kong spring
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, Rosguilltalk 16:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
For one, "spring" is not mentioned in the target article. Also, more happens in spring in Hong Kong than the protests of 2019–20.
Steel1943 (
talk) 06:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: I think the intention of this redirect was to compare it to
Arab Spring, but I have never seen anyone call it like that.
OceanHok (
talk) 07:01, 30 July 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.
Crisis in America
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, Rosguilltalk 16:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm pretty sure that crises in America are not exclusive to the time frame of the target, nor is the target only about a crisis.
Steel1943 (
talk) 06:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete in lack of a good target per nom, heh. —
J947 ‡ message ⁓
edits 06:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. There were occurrences in USA that could be described as crises in at least 1860-1861 and 1929, and there is more to America than USA.
Narky Blert (
talk) 06:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
...Yeah true, but alas,
America targets where it targets...
Steel1943 (
talk) 07:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete could just as easily refer to the Civil War or Civil Rights Movement.--
69.157.254.92 (
talk) 19:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Which crisis are we talking about? Regards,
SONIC678 05:23, 31 July 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.
Flight 93 election
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.
Huh? This term is mentioned no where in the target article. The number "93" isn't anywhere in the target article either (other than reference number [93].)
Steel1943 (
talk) 05:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete to encourage article creation. The term was coined by "Publius Decius Mus" in 2016 the Claremont Review of Books -
link. That essay was commented on by several RS, including
1The Atlantic,
2Washington Post,
3Vox.com, and
3New York Times. IMO there's enough for an article on the essay and its reception, and no justification for the current redirect.
Narky Blert (
talk) 07:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Michael Anton, the essay's author. I agree that the essay could have its own article, but in the meantime, there's good information there. --
BDD (
talk) 14:50, 3 August 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.
Martial law in germany
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, Rosguilltalk 16:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Misleading redirect (not the only period of history where martial-law-like regulations existed in Germany). By the author of the "Trump of..." redirects already being discussed on this page.
HaeB (
talk) 03:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as thoroughly misleading. Until almost the very end of the Nazi period, law in Germany was administered by civilian courts (including the notorious
People's Court (Germany)). As the Russians entered Berlin, law broke down completely; but summary executions by death squads are not martial law. The Allies effectively imposed martial law after the capitulation of the Nazi regime until civil order was reestablished.
Narky Blert (
talk) 06:45, 30 July 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.
Right-wing communism
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, Rosguilltalk 16:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned on the linked page, does not appear to be used as a synonym. By the author of the "Trump of..." redirects already being discussed on this page.
HaeB (
talk) 03:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete this thing-while some people might call communism "
left-wing fascism," that seems to apply to a different topic, as described in its article. We have
Left communism but not
Right communism, one of the only plausible targets I could think of. Besides...have there been cases of stuff in right-wing politics that could be described as communist tendencies? Regards,
SONIC678 04:21, 30 July 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.
Negative list
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, Rosguilltalk 16:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
There are other meanings for Negative list. This This meaning is not mentioned on the linked page, does not appear to be used as a synonym.
Wolfch (
talk) 03:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. The target page is not the base page or list of "negative lists".
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:39, 31 July 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.
Trump of Baseball
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, Rosguilltalk 16:37, 7 August 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.
L is real 2041
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, Rosguilltalk 16:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Misspelled redirect from an unlikely search term. Anyone searching for this (given the recent news) is likely to know that it's 2401, not 2041. O.N.R.(talk) 03:05, 30 July 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.
Simur and Mandel
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, Rosguilltalk 16:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
PRODed by
Srnec, I contested on procedural grounds, but agree with their reasoning: There is no reason to link these two terms.Danski454 (
talk) 02:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete this redirect has no reason to exist now, but for the record when I created the redirect it was mentioned by name in it's target, see
Sesea (old revision). L293D (
☎ •
✎) 02:55, 30 July 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.
Money printer go brrr
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, Rosguilltalk 16:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not seeing how this is a likely search term. Do money printers freeze and get cold when they are printing a lot of money? I'd think it would be the opposite.
Steel1943 (
talk) 00:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment This is an Internet meme (Google the title). I don't know the implications for redirect status, so I won't comment on that. —
Goszei (
talk) 02:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia go brrr delete; pointless redirect without anything talking about the context of the phrase. brrrrrr –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 03:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as redirect (not mentioned on the linked page), but it may be worth a standalone article. Regards,
HaeB (
talk) 03:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Perhaps @
J4lambert: can provide insight as to the meaning (rationale) of the redirect?-
UCO2009bluejay (
talk) 04:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or, as a second choice, redirect to "
National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic" or similar. Most uses of this meme are positive: they're celebrating the idea that governments need to throw money at helping people and fixing the economy right now and
explicitly mocking libertarians,
gold bugs and Austrian economics-types who say it's going to cause hyperinflation. Having the link go to hyperinflation is a political statement which doesn't seem justified.
Blythwood (
talk) 07:46, 7 August 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, Rosguilltalk 16:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not finding any sources that term the target subject as so.
Steel1943 (
talk) 00:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete highly ambiguous name, not used to refer to target subject. (
t ·
c) buidhe 02:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Ambiguous, not s particularly logical search term. A scan of this user's talk page suggests they have a problem with creating bad redirects.
Hog FarmBacon 04:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, this term is ambiguous, it can refer to just about any famine in any time. Regards,
SONIC678 13:22, 30 July 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.