Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 7, 2020.

Insideeus

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 soft delete. Deryck C. 20:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia, an internet search does not suggest that they are significant enough to be a due mention at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 7 June 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.

Community-maintained

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Ambiguous term, doesn't necessarily refer to software development. I would suggest deletion, although a redirect like Community-maintained software would be fine to create. signed, Rosguill talk 21:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete for ambiguity. However, I'm not too keen on this topic. If it isn't that ambiguous, then redirect. -- Diriector_Doc┝ Talk
    Contribs    ━━━┥     02:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete excessively vague. b uidh e 00:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not all open-source software is community-maintained either. A developer can release the source code of their software under an OSI-approved license, maintain it on their own, and not accept patches from others. -- im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 03:37, 9 June 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.

Projekt Gutenberg-DE

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 histmerge and delete. Deryck C. 20:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Nyttend, Wikiacc, and Soumya-8974: Please check my work. Project Gutenberg-DE did not contain any significant content history so I deleted it without moving any page history. Wikipedia:Projekt Gutenberg-DE appears to partly depend on what was at Projekt Gutenberg-DE, so I moved all the pre-2016 page history over there. Deryck C. 20:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Projekt Gutenberg-DE is a project to digitize German public domain works. It has an article on de. What happened here:

  1. 2005: someone creates an article at Projekt Gutenberg-DE
  2. September 2015: the article fails PROD due to notability issues
  3. January 2016: GreenC creates an {{ essay}} about the subject, drawing on the de article. It is initially (seemingly accidentally) located at Projekt Gutenberg-DE
  4. January 2016: GreenC cuts and pastes the essay it into project space (at Wikipedia:Projekt Gutenberg-DE) and creates a cross-namespace redirect

Meanwhile, this redirect has 32 incoming links from mainspace (a few from templates, most not). I don't think articles should be linking directly to a Wikipedia essay. Delete as a non-useful mainspace redirect, unlink the incoming links from mainspace, and retarget the incoming links from templates directly to Wikipedia:Projekt Gutenberg-DE (as {{ PGDA}} does). Wikiacc ( ) 21:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note there should probably not be an interwiki link from the essay to articles in other Wikipedias. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 22:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Good point. Removed. Wikiacc ( ) 23:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • History merge and delete the redirects per nom and WP:HISTMERGE. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Histmerge is already done. Wikiacc ( ) 02:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete carefully. (If I understand correctly, a histmerge will work.) You mustn't delete the history, but as long as it's preserved and accessible and referenced from the later versions of the same content, that's sufficient. If this weren't an issue, I'd say delete away, because this isn't one of those rare redirects that really should exist from mainspace to projectspace. Nyttend ( talk) 11:28, 8 June 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.

Common Sense( Scottish Magazine)

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 Trainwreck/No Consensus. In the purest sense, WP:TRAINWRECK isn't a !vote per se, but rather an outcome from participation. It's clear from participants here that there's no good way to meaningfully participate against such a huge, indiscriminate list, and it's unreasonable to ask it. Each and any of these can be nominated, and small batches with similar ages and constructs or themes works well, but 80+ pages with varying characteristics is too much to ask. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Malformed disambiguation (incorrect bracket typography); almost no pageviews, with the maximum of three over the last months reached by only two of the redirects. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 20:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

The DoD kept the Guantanamo captives' identities a secret, until forced to reveal them by a court order, in early 2006. They published two lists, on 2006-04-20, and 2006-05-15. Literally thousands of news papers republished these lists, in 2006. Most of those instances are 404. Some remain. The redirect is for individuals who come across the name there.
No, the name is not "malformed" in the way 1234qwer1234qwer4 means. There was shocking world-class incompetence at Guantanamo, and this is how the name appears on the official list, missing closing parentheses, and all.
Good faith contributors have made similar challenges to other apparently malformed yet legitimate names from that list, and those all concluded with a keep, which is what I recommend for this one. Geo Swan ( talk) 21:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Geo Swan: Thank you; I struck it. That was the same case as this one, right? 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 21:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all except those individually objected to. Per the reasons given in the nomination and WP:UNNATURAL. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ☖ 22:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Question - Is the nominator requesting to delete this large group of redirects that have nothing in common except the sloppy use of parentheses? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Philip Dukes ( Viola Soloist). The article was created under that name until it was moved about 3 months later. Naturally, there are a number of incoming links. This nomination smells like a WP:TRAINWRECK. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 01:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close – I would !vote to delete if it is not a WP:TRAINWRECK. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 04:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all except those individually objected to, per WP:UNNATURAL. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all except those individually objected to, per WP:UNNATURAL. Johnbod ( talk) 11:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close per Soumya. I'd also like to keep the one that brought me here, Meadow Brook Farm ((Westminster, Maryland)), because it was the result of a pagemove more than ten years ago. The fact that it was created under the wrong title demonstrates that it's plausible, and unless their targets get deleted, we shouldn't delete such old redirects if they don't cause confusion. Nyttend ( talk) 11:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
    • THere was consensus in previous (smaller) RfDs to delete any of such typographic errors in disambiguators (many of the nominated pages were from moves) because there are far too many disambiguators where this could hahappen (i. e., while it may be plausible for one person to accidentally name his article like that, it is not really plausible to search for this and such an error is immediately noticed and corrected by the searcher). This is just clutter; most of these are act from moves. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 11:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I agree about deleting Meadow Brook Farm ((Westminster, Maryland)), even if it's 10 years old: unless there's significant traffic to it (since low-level traffic is likely to be from bots anyway), it's unlikely to be useful to anyone. -- The Anome ( talk) 14:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. No prejudice against renomination in batches of 5-10. Narky Blert ( talk) 15:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all except those individually objected to, per, you guessed it, WP:UNNATURAL. — pythoncoder ( talk |  contribs) 16:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK. As Narky and some others say, this nomination would probably be better off discussing in smaller and more similar groups. Regards, SONIC 678 19:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all without prejudice there are far too many redirects here that need individually examining. Renominate them individually or in small, closely related groups over at least a few days. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close per Sonic678, Narky Blert, Soumya & Nyttend as this is too many nominations at once making it a WP:TRAINWRECK. If these are to be nominated again for deletion, make smaller more divided nominations. Captain Galaxy ( talk) 21:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
These redirects were used.

I checked to see how often these redirects were used. I stopped when I got to the 8th entry Bhagyarekha_(_TV_series), which was used 5,246 times. (This is more than half the number for the target article...)

I suggest none of these should be deleted if they were used. Our current engine for counting usage begins in 2015. We no longer have stats for prior to 2015. The stats are updated once a day, so none of the visits, today, by those weighing in in this discussion got counted. Geo Swan ( talk) 22:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy procedural close per above; TRAINWRECK applies. Some of these should be kept under K4 and other reasons. —  J947 [cont] 22:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy procedural close - It is totally unreasonable to expect me to go through all of these redirects and "individually object" to every single one that might happen to have pageview stats or other reasons for keeping. This is clearly WP:TRAINWRECK territory. Also, some of the redirects have been WP:R3'd anyway. I would suggest the nominator go through the list, figure out which others also qualify for R3 (if any), tag them for CSD, and then come back to RfD with smaller batches that we can look at more reasonably. -- N Y Kevin 19:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural Close - Unload this train and sort and re-route its freight. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:29, 12 June 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.

Slurred speech

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 15#Slurred speech

Template:Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 01:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Template:Infobox UNESCO World Heritage Site does not use Wikidata. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

For background, see Template_talk:Infobox_UNESCO_World_Heritage_Site/Archive_1#RfC:_revert_back_to_non-Wikidata_version?. I'm still bitter about this one, so I'll say no more. Mike Peel ( talk) 21:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Also the talk page of the redirect, Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata, links to a previous deletion discussion: if the redirect were deleted, that link to the deletion discussion would, obviously, also be deleted, which I think would be very undesirable: via that link a non-suspecting user can inform themselves why the template page is a redirect, and not an independent template. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:42, 10 June 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.

Covefe

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy retarget to Covfefe. Completely uncontroversial, and clearly intended to direct to the page on "Covfefe". Paintspot Infez ( talk) 00:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

We already have an article about covfefe. Therefore, retarget this and Hashtag Covfefe to covfefe, "despite the constant negative press" coverage. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:31, 7 June 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.

Durchgangslager

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 01:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

"Durchgangslager" (transit camps—such as Drancy transit camp) were not Nazi concentration camps and are not discussed in that article. (The "types of camps" section was deleted as misleading, see talk page.) Should be deleted to encourage article creation. b uidh e 10:27, 7 June 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.

Great Economic Collapse

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 10:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned at the target, internet searches suggest that this term has been used to refer to myriad other economic crashes. I would suggest either deletion or redirection to Depression (economics) signed, Rosguill talk 02:39, 7 June 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.

DWOKV

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) 14:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Unlikely search term. The FCC puts "D" as a prefix in its systems for deleted call signs, or apparently in this case, ahead of a call sign swap. Doesn't need to stick around. Raymie ( t • c) 02:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep - If the "D" really is used for deleted call signs, then the target is exactly the place to find out about stations that used to be called WOKV. It has a nice list of them. -- N Y Kevin 03:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — nothing in the disambiguation page mentions anything about "DWOKV" or what it would conceivably refer to, it is an unlikely search term, and unless Cox Media Group decides to surrender the licenses for the current WOKV (AM) or WOKV-FM, the only station the FCC actually "assigned" this "call sign" (to the extent that this can be said for the "D" prefix for deleted call signs, normally reserved for cancelled licenses) is what's now WBOB (AM) — but that article doesn't mention the "DWOKV" interregnum either. -- WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:00, 7 June 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.

Chinese SSR

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. I'm convinced by the various keep votes, no need to leave this open. signed, Rosguill talk 00:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

The CSR was never referred to as a "Chinese SSR". Delete unless evidence to the contrary can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 02:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and tag {{ R from incorrect name}}. It is inconceviable that a person typing this could want any other subject matter, and the fact that it was a "Soviet Republic" instead of a "Soviet Socialist Republic" is exactly the sort of trivia that a searcher might not know (because they have not read the article). -- N Y Kevin 03:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per NYKevin. Captain Galaxy ( talk) 21:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per NYKevin. This is the sort of thing redirects are for. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:38, 9 June 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.

Corporate city

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

These terms are not synonyms. Company town refers to a specific phenomenon where virtually an entire town is owned and run by a single company. "Corporate city" appears to be used more broadly; a google scholar search for the term shows several papers that seem to apply the label "corporate city" to refer to modern cities dominated by corporate office buildings. I would suggest deletion due to the lack of a suitable target. signed, Rosguill talk 02:27, 7 June 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.

Auxiliary aid

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 15#Auxiliary aid

Bablu Dablu Bhaag Lakkha Bhaag

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 10:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

These appear to be a Hindi transliteration of the show's title. Delete per WP:RLOTE, as there is no particular association between Hindi and the target. signed, Rosguill talk 01:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. If these were made in Hindi, that would be a good reason to have these, but as they were made by a Chinese company, I'm not really sure about that...or the exact percentage of Chinese people who speak Hindi. Regards, SONIC 678 14:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – We are not Hinglish Wikipedia. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Seconded motion for both above reasonings. -- Diriector_Doc┝ Talk
    Contribs    ━━━┥     02:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Captain Galaxy ( talk) 20:42, 13 June 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.

Arthur Chen (politician)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Arthur Chen (disambiguation) which was already done by the redirect's author. (non-admin closure) Pandakekok9 ( talk) 02:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Incoming links suggest Arthur Chen, a KMT legislator, is different from Chen Chi-mai, a DPP member. Jabo-er ( talk) 02:37, 7 June 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_7&oldid=962746226"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 7, 2020.

Insideeus

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 soft delete. Deryck C. 20:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia, an internet search does not suggest that they are significant enough to be a due mention at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 7 June 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.

Community-maintained

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Ambiguous term, doesn't necessarily refer to software development. I would suggest deletion, although a redirect like Community-maintained software would be fine to create. signed, Rosguill talk 21:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete for ambiguity. However, I'm not too keen on this topic. If it isn't that ambiguous, then redirect. -- Diriector_Doc┝ Talk
    Contribs    ━━━┥     02:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete excessively vague. b uidh e 00:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not all open-source software is community-maintained either. A developer can release the source code of their software under an OSI-approved license, maintain it on their own, and not accept patches from others. -- im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 03:37, 9 June 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.

Projekt Gutenberg-DE

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 histmerge and delete. Deryck C. 20:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Nyttend, Wikiacc, and Soumya-8974: Please check my work. Project Gutenberg-DE did not contain any significant content history so I deleted it without moving any page history. Wikipedia:Projekt Gutenberg-DE appears to partly depend on what was at Projekt Gutenberg-DE, so I moved all the pre-2016 page history over there. Deryck C. 20:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Projekt Gutenberg-DE is a project to digitize German public domain works. It has an article on de. What happened here:

  1. 2005: someone creates an article at Projekt Gutenberg-DE
  2. September 2015: the article fails PROD due to notability issues
  3. January 2016: GreenC creates an {{ essay}} about the subject, drawing on the de article. It is initially (seemingly accidentally) located at Projekt Gutenberg-DE
  4. January 2016: GreenC cuts and pastes the essay it into project space (at Wikipedia:Projekt Gutenberg-DE) and creates a cross-namespace redirect

Meanwhile, this redirect has 32 incoming links from mainspace (a few from templates, most not). I don't think articles should be linking directly to a Wikipedia essay. Delete as a non-useful mainspace redirect, unlink the incoming links from mainspace, and retarget the incoming links from templates directly to Wikipedia:Projekt Gutenberg-DE (as {{ PGDA}} does). Wikiacc ( ) 21:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note there should probably not be an interwiki link from the essay to articles in other Wikipedias. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 22:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Good point. Removed. Wikiacc ( ) 23:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • History merge and delete the redirects per nom and WP:HISTMERGE. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Histmerge is already done. Wikiacc ( ) 02:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete carefully. (If I understand correctly, a histmerge will work.) You mustn't delete the history, but as long as it's preserved and accessible and referenced from the later versions of the same content, that's sufficient. If this weren't an issue, I'd say delete away, because this isn't one of those rare redirects that really should exist from mainspace to projectspace. Nyttend ( talk) 11:28, 8 June 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.

Common Sense( Scottish Magazine)

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 Trainwreck/No Consensus. In the purest sense, WP:TRAINWRECK isn't a !vote per se, but rather an outcome from participation. It's clear from participants here that there's no good way to meaningfully participate against such a huge, indiscriminate list, and it's unreasonable to ask it. Each and any of these can be nominated, and small batches with similar ages and constructs or themes works well, but 80+ pages with varying characteristics is too much to ask. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Malformed disambiguation (incorrect bracket typography); almost no pageviews, with the maximum of three over the last months reached by only two of the redirects. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 20:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

The DoD kept the Guantanamo captives' identities a secret, until forced to reveal them by a court order, in early 2006. They published two lists, on 2006-04-20, and 2006-05-15. Literally thousands of news papers republished these lists, in 2006. Most of those instances are 404. Some remain. The redirect is for individuals who come across the name there.
No, the name is not "malformed" in the way 1234qwer1234qwer4 means. There was shocking world-class incompetence at Guantanamo, and this is how the name appears on the official list, missing closing parentheses, and all.
Good faith contributors have made similar challenges to other apparently malformed yet legitimate names from that list, and those all concluded with a keep, which is what I recommend for this one. Geo Swan ( talk) 21:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Geo Swan: Thank you; I struck it. That was the same case as this one, right? 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 21:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all except those individually objected to. Per the reasons given in the nomination and WP:UNNATURAL. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ☖ 22:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Question - Is the nominator requesting to delete this large group of redirects that have nothing in common except the sloppy use of parentheses? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Philip Dukes ( Viola Soloist). The article was created under that name until it was moved about 3 months later. Naturally, there are a number of incoming links. This nomination smells like a WP:TRAINWRECK. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 01:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close – I would !vote to delete if it is not a WP:TRAINWRECK. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 04:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all except those individually objected to, per WP:UNNATURAL. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all except those individually objected to, per WP:UNNATURAL. Johnbod ( talk) 11:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close per Soumya. I'd also like to keep the one that brought me here, Meadow Brook Farm ((Westminster, Maryland)), because it was the result of a pagemove more than ten years ago. The fact that it was created under the wrong title demonstrates that it's plausible, and unless their targets get deleted, we shouldn't delete such old redirects if they don't cause confusion. Nyttend ( talk) 11:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
    • THere was consensus in previous (smaller) RfDs to delete any of such typographic errors in disambiguators (many of the nominated pages were from moves) because there are far too many disambiguators where this could hahappen (i. e., while it may be plausible for one person to accidentally name his article like that, it is not really plausible to search for this and such an error is immediately noticed and corrected by the searcher). This is just clutter; most of these are act from moves. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 11:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I agree about deleting Meadow Brook Farm ((Westminster, Maryland)), even if it's 10 years old: unless there's significant traffic to it (since low-level traffic is likely to be from bots anyway), it's unlikely to be useful to anyone. -- The Anome ( talk) 14:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. No prejudice against renomination in batches of 5-10. Narky Blert ( talk) 15:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all except those individually objected to, per, you guessed it, WP:UNNATURAL. — pythoncoder ( talk |  contribs) 16:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK. As Narky and some others say, this nomination would probably be better off discussing in smaller and more similar groups. Regards, SONIC 678 19:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all without prejudice there are far too many redirects here that need individually examining. Renominate them individually or in small, closely related groups over at least a few days. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close per Sonic678, Narky Blert, Soumya & Nyttend as this is too many nominations at once making it a WP:TRAINWRECK. If these are to be nominated again for deletion, make smaller more divided nominations. Captain Galaxy ( talk) 21:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
These redirects were used.

I checked to see how often these redirects were used. I stopped when I got to the 8th entry Bhagyarekha_(_TV_series), which was used 5,246 times. (This is more than half the number for the target article...)

I suggest none of these should be deleted if they were used. Our current engine for counting usage begins in 2015. We no longer have stats for prior to 2015. The stats are updated once a day, so none of the visits, today, by those weighing in in this discussion got counted. Geo Swan ( talk) 22:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy procedural close per above; TRAINWRECK applies. Some of these should be kept under K4 and other reasons. —  J947 [cont] 22:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy procedural close - It is totally unreasonable to expect me to go through all of these redirects and "individually object" to every single one that might happen to have pageview stats or other reasons for keeping. This is clearly WP:TRAINWRECK territory. Also, some of the redirects have been WP:R3'd anyway. I would suggest the nominator go through the list, figure out which others also qualify for R3 (if any), tag them for CSD, and then come back to RfD with smaller batches that we can look at more reasonably. -- N Y Kevin 19:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural Close - Unload this train and sort and re-route its freight. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:29, 12 June 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.

Slurred speech

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 15#Slurred speech

Template:Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 01:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Template:Infobox UNESCO World Heritage Site does not use Wikidata. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

For background, see Template_talk:Infobox_UNESCO_World_Heritage_Site/Archive_1#RfC:_revert_back_to_non-Wikidata_version?. I'm still bitter about this one, so I'll say no more. Mike Peel ( talk) 21:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Also the talk page of the redirect, Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata, links to a previous deletion discussion: if the redirect were deleted, that link to the deletion discussion would, obviously, also be deleted, which I think would be very undesirable: via that link a non-suspecting user can inform themselves why the template page is a redirect, and not an independent template. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:42, 10 June 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.

Covefe

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy retarget to Covfefe. Completely uncontroversial, and clearly intended to direct to the page on "Covfefe". Paintspot Infez ( talk) 00:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply

We already have an article about covfefe. Therefore, retarget this and Hashtag Covfefe to covfefe, "despite the constant negative press" coverage. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:31, 7 June 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.

Durchgangslager

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 01:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

"Durchgangslager" (transit camps—such as Drancy transit camp) were not Nazi concentration camps and are not discussed in that article. (The "types of camps" section was deleted as misleading, see talk page.) Should be deleted to encourage article creation. b uidh e 10:27, 7 June 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.

Great Economic Collapse

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 10:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned at the target, internet searches suggest that this term has been used to refer to myriad other economic crashes. I would suggest either deletion or redirection to Depression (economics) signed, Rosguill talk 02:39, 7 June 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.

DWOKV

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) 14:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Unlikely search term. The FCC puts "D" as a prefix in its systems for deleted call signs, or apparently in this case, ahead of a call sign swap. Doesn't need to stick around. Raymie ( t • c) 02:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep - If the "D" really is used for deleted call signs, then the target is exactly the place to find out about stations that used to be called WOKV. It has a nice list of them. -- N Y Kevin 03:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — nothing in the disambiguation page mentions anything about "DWOKV" or what it would conceivably refer to, it is an unlikely search term, and unless Cox Media Group decides to surrender the licenses for the current WOKV (AM) or WOKV-FM, the only station the FCC actually "assigned" this "call sign" (to the extent that this can be said for the "D" prefix for deleted call signs, normally reserved for cancelled licenses) is what's now WBOB (AM) — but that article doesn't mention the "DWOKV" interregnum either. -- WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:00, 7 June 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.

Chinese SSR

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. I'm convinced by the various keep votes, no need to leave this open. signed, Rosguill talk 00:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

The CSR was never referred to as a "Chinese SSR". Delete unless evidence to the contrary can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 02:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and tag {{ R from incorrect name}}. It is inconceviable that a person typing this could want any other subject matter, and the fact that it was a "Soviet Republic" instead of a "Soviet Socialist Republic" is exactly the sort of trivia that a searcher might not know (because they have not read the article). -- N Y Kevin 03:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per NYKevin. Captain Galaxy ( talk) 21:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per NYKevin. This is the sort of thing redirects are for. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:38, 9 June 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.

Corporate city

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

These terms are not synonyms. Company town refers to a specific phenomenon where virtually an entire town is owned and run by a single company. "Corporate city" appears to be used more broadly; a google scholar search for the term shows several papers that seem to apply the label "corporate city" to refer to modern cities dominated by corporate office buildings. I would suggest deletion due to the lack of a suitable target. signed, Rosguill talk 02:27, 7 June 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.

Auxiliary aid

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 15#Auxiliary aid

Bablu Dablu Bhaag Lakkha Bhaag

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 10:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

These appear to be a Hindi transliteration of the show's title. Delete per WP:RLOTE, as there is no particular association between Hindi and the target. signed, Rosguill talk 01:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. If these were made in Hindi, that would be a good reason to have these, but as they were made by a Chinese company, I'm not really sure about that...or the exact percentage of Chinese people who speak Hindi. Regards, SONIC 678 14:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – We are not Hinglish Wikipedia. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Seconded motion for both above reasonings. -- Diriector_Doc┝ Talk
    Contribs    ━━━┥     02:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Captain Galaxy ( talk) 20:42, 13 June 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.

Arthur Chen (politician)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Arthur Chen (disambiguation) which was already done by the redirect's author. (non-admin closure) Pandakekok9 ( talk) 02:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Incoming links suggest Arthur Chen, a KMT legislator, is different from Chen Chi-mai, a DPP member. Jabo-er ( talk) 02:37, 7 June 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_7&oldid=962746226"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE