Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 12

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 18:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dammit chloe → List of 24 characters#Chloe O'Brian  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article. ""Chloe is crankier than ever; the dammit count is pretty high" is mentioned at Chloe O'Brian, but I don't see that as a good justification to target it there. Probably best to delete. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Unless it's mentioned at reception or fandom, it doesn't seem to be a catchphrase like "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a ..." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Devokewater @ 17:09, 15 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 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. Deryck C. 02:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• MTX Group → Contact tracing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, redirect was created by an editor later blocked as NOTHERE. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not currently mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia other than this redirect and my very brief investigation gives no indication that a mention is justified at the current target. A mention might be merited at COVID-19 pandemic in Texas, or perhaps one dealing with contact tracing in the United States during the current pandemic (if one exists, I've not looked) but nothing higher level than that and unless and until such a mention is added somewhere a redirect is unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Enwiki has nothing about MTX Group. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:48, 13 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 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. Deryck C. 02:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Popular.Reviews → Review site  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, seems like an SEO attempt. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Searches for this term are hampered by both google and the internal search engine ignoring the punctuation, even in quotes and even (in google's case) when I told it I wanted verbatim results only, but it is not mentioned at the target and I can find nothing to indicate it should be. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:48, 13 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 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) 22:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 1619 riots → George Floyd protests  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target, doesn't appear to have been used to refer to the target in any reliable sources. I'm guessing the intent behind this phrase is to connect the George Floyd protests to the 1619 Project, but I'm not seeing a real reason to do so. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This apparently stems from an op-ed in the New York Post arguing for them to be called the "1619 riots", but despite coverage of this op-ed and the 1619 Project's founder's brief comment on it, it doesn't appear to have got any traction. As far as I have been able to tell there were no notable riots in the year 1619 which would be the only other plausible target. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely originates from the Op-Ed, but doesn't seem to have really caught on anywhere. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – If there was a riot related to the Georgius Floydius in 1619, the redirect would be converted into an article. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 11:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: if a New York Post op-ed calls it the "1619 riots" and there's no possible confusion with another topic then I don't see the issue. Redirects are cheap. If you search 1619 riots then you know what you mean by it and otherwise you won't come across the redirect (unless you're an editor), so it's not going to cause anyone a problem. — Bilorv (talk) 12:50, 20 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 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 18:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Blair's Law → Tim Blair#Blair's Law  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the article (t · c) buidhe 17:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Looking at the (very messy) talk page, it appears that this topic, along with seemingly most of the content of this article, was (ultimately) removed following controversy in 2018 due to lack of proper sourcing. The remarks on the talk page indicated that the intent was for the removed content to be re-added with proper sourcing if possible, but at that point everyone involved seemingly got tired of it and left. Maybe someone needs to make this page a project briefly as there was apparently a lot of relevant content in prior revisions that could be reintroduced with good sources. (Not sure if "Blair's Law" itself would be included in this, or if there is reliable sourcing for that particular term). BlackholeWA (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This term is ambiguous ([1]) and without a mention in the article, this redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ambiguous --Devokewater (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Shhhnotsoloud, found it relating to a law in Kansas City, Missouri, US. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:44, 14 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 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 18:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• EngvarA spelling → Template:Use American English  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• EngvarB spelling → Template:EngvarB  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• EngvarC spelling → Template:Use Canadian English  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• EngvarO spelling → Template:Use Oxford spelling  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Bad XNRs. --Trialpears (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I've correct the nomination (the targets for the C and O templates had been transposed). Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not valid cross namespace redirects. --Gonnym (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even if it were necessary to have these cross-namespace redirects, the targets should be consistent with the redirect which 3 of them aren't. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the name mismatch is at all significant here, given that e.g. Canadian spelling is a subset of Canadian English. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. XNRs from article to template space can be OK in some situations, but almost exclusively when the templates are reader-facing (e.g. navboxes). These templates are not reader-facing and indeed produce no visible output, and I can't see any other justification for them. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. XNRs to templates that produce no output the reader would see. Not valid XNRs. All of the links appear to be related to this discussion, so no cleanup needed there. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to American and British English spelling differences. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 11:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, "Engvar" has no meaning in the real world. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @King of Hearts: That's not strictly true - it's a given name that appears to be of Norwegian origin (e.g. [2]). That's not relevant to these templates, as the word has no real-world meaning in this context and nobody with the name appears to be notable enough for an article, but the pedant in me will not let your statement go unchallenged. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 15 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 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rhine league → Robber baron (feudalism)#Great Interregnum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is this truly the primary subject for this title? It seems like League of the Rhine or Confederation of the Rhine are more likely potential targets for people looking for "Rhine league," especially capitalized like that?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to League of the Rhine as {{R from modification}}. The only two operative words are identical. Narky Blert (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig. The relevant google results I'm seeing are about equally split between the League of the Rhine and Confederation of the Rhine with some sports leagues and something related to League of Legends that probably isn't notable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig, seem to be multiple valid topics that come under this name BlackholeWA (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate (changing !vote) per others. Narky Blert (talk) 09:33, 12 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 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 Administrator. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Adminship → Wikipedia administrators  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Shouldn't this redirect to Administrator as ambiguous? I don't think this is controversial, but I'm taking this here anyway, as the redirect was changed from a target of Administrator to the current target by IntoThinAir, so I guess this would be a controversial retargeting. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. BlackholeWA (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom.

  Optionally, add a hatnote {{redirect|Adminship|requesting adminship on Wikipedia|Wikipedia:Requests for adminship}} or similar to Adminstrator; on the grounds that adminship more often refers to the process rather than the function. Narky Blert (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As a link to Wikipedia space, the hatnote should use {{selfref}} rather than {{redirect}} but other than that I agree with adding it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom and add hatnote per Narky Blert. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I did retarget this redirect from Administrator to Wikipedia administrators back in 2014. I understand that some editors think that the word "adminship" is ambiguous enough that it doesn't necessarily refer to administrators on Wikipedia specifically, and from a Google search I just did, it looks like the word "adminship" is only ever used when discussing administrators on Wikipedia or other wikis (though most results seem to be about Wikipedia). I don't exactly remember the reason I retargeted this redirect but I think it was because I felt that "adminship" was a Wikipedia-specific term. So I would be fine with a retarget insofar as it doesn't exclusively apply to Wikipedia. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to disambiguation page Administrator. I don't agree with a selfref hatnote: there's one there already and another would be even more navel-gazing clutter. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Wikipedia administrators is the cleary primary topic, this term is hardly used outside of wikis. (Wiki administrator would be an even better target, but we don't have such an article.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Citation needed on that. I've never understood the word "adminship" to be wiki-specific; maybe mostly specific to IT contexts, but I would describe anybody in an admin position to possess "adminship". Granted, wiki contexts appear high in search engines, but that is because they're popular sites which use a common template that includes this less-common word. Doesn't mean that the word should be seen as being "wiki only". Regardless, the "Administrator" page contains multiple links to wikipedia-specific pages already, so anyone looking for that would not be unduly inconvenienced. BlackholeWA (talk) 13:19, 16 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.