Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 19

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Acorn Intentionally Structured as a Criminal Enterprise? → Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This came to my attention due to a PROD tag that was placed on it by Woofboy. PROD isn't the correct deletion protocol, but I agree that this isn't a redirect worth including and that it should be deleted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Should this redirect be deleted? Yes. This is a search engine query which has nothing to do with WP. Narky Blert (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP article titles should avoid using question marks. The only exceptions should be if a question mark is used in the title of a film or a book or something. OcelotCreeper (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-NPOV redirect that serves no legitimate encyclopedic purpose. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-NPOV, and not well structured. Hog Farm (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - reason given above. (Also, sorry for giving the wrong tag! Thanks for considering it still.) --Woofboy (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an {{R with history}} (see here). To counter OcelotCreeper, this is the title of a film or a book or something, as a political report. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 19:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  User:J947, does the article this is redirecting to mention the book or reference it in some way? OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @OcelotCreeper: No—but it probably should, and that's what matters. It's better leaving the redirect as it is than directing readers to this terribly unhelpful search page. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 19:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @J947: If you or someone else finds a way to properly edit the target article to mention the redirect, then I will change mw vote to Keep. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @OcelotCreeper: I cannot find a way to do so, but if a reader is searching up this political report (as they have done), they will almost certainly be looking for information surrounding the report. As such, retarget to History_of_ACORN_in_the_United_States#2008–2009. It's much better than landing readers on this search page. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 20:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't imagine anyone looking this exact term up on here. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 20:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict × 4) People do and it really isn't harmful at all to keep this on here. It's either keep it or condemn readers to this search page. Also, please don't use symbols. Install this script instead. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 20:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We really don't format things this way. And we absolutely shouldn't. Deciding to do so really would open up not a can of worms but a can of stinging vipers, presenting us with a whole host of problems. The number of hot button topics that can described in leading question form is endless: "Is Donald Trump the Worst President in History?", "Is the Who the Greatest Rock Band in History?", "Is the Two-State Solution Right For Israel and Palestine?", "Is the Average Man More Attractive Than the Average Woman?", "Which Ethnicity Has the Least Negative Qualities?", and my God it could just go on. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the title of a political report though, not just some random question. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 18:41, 22 March 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 no consensus. A slim majority of participants voted for deletion, but keep voters' central arguments were not decisively refuted. Even the most recent relist had a 3-2 vote split, so I can't call this a consensus for anything. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reino Unido → United Kingdom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Vereinigtes Königreich → United Kingdom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Verenigd Koninkrijk → United Kingdom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Royaume Uni → United Kingdom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Regno Unito → United Kingdom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Would Reino Unido be an appropriate redirect to United Kingdom? Per WP:RFOREIGN, it says that redirects should be kept if the name is the countries native name. This one is not. I don't see anywhere in this policy where this redirect is appropriate. Would this be a case for WP:IAR? Interstellarity (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. No affinity for the Spanish language. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RFFL. No affinity with the language. Hog Farm (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We also have Regno Unito, Royaume Uni, Verenigd Koninkrijk, Vereinigtes Königreich, and possibly others. I think there may be sufficient connection with the name in major languages - European ones at least - to make an exception to WP:RFFL. Narky Blert (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narky Blert: Is it possible we can nominate those if this closes as delete? Interstellarity (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Interstellarity: Certainly, and they should be bundled. The arguments will be identical. (My keep !vote is weakish.) Narky Blert (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Narky Blert: I have nominated them and put a link to this discussion in the rationale for all of them. Interstellarity (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The bundling has been completed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have argued in the past that the United Kingdom has enough affinity with these languages to merit keeping, and will let that argument stand. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RLOTE and per @Hog Farm, SpicyMilkBoy, and Interstellarity:. In contrast to the Etats-Unis redirects below, we could literally be keeping foreign language redirects for every possible country (or former country) in the Eurozone. In reviewing the previous no consensus discussions, it's not clear why these redirects should be given special treatment. Doug Mehus T·C 17:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it would be a good thing to have redirects from all official EU languages to the United Kingdom. I would argue that there has been (to use the correct tense now) affinity between those languages and the UK due to EU business taking place in all these languages. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I won't opine on the merits of this deletion proposal, but I find it amusing that a notice on the redirect page titled "Vereinigtes Königreich" says: "This is a redirect from a page name in German to a page name in an as yet undetermined language." Michael Hardy (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I've fixed it. Bit of a weird thing; it should probably default to English if the language isn't specified. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 19:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I'm not too sure about this one. However, I find it rather compelling that the United Kingdom as a political entity has (up until Brexit became official) had extensive dealings with a wide variety of institutions using these languages. I also don't see any particular harm in retaining these redirects either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per WP:RLOTE. Wikipedia is not a place for non-english material unless it is very commonly used in english. OcelotCreeper (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per WP:RFOREIGN. Yes, some persons in the UK might speak the languages in which these redirects are cast, but those readers would be on their respective-language wikipedias, not EnWiki. TJRC (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per RFOREIGN. Literally anyone who speaks a given language can live in any country, so the fact that some speakers of a language live in a country is no argument that supersedes RFOREIGN. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per RLOTE. The gist of the supplement is that foreign-language redirects are mostly less than useful. However, that can be countered and it isn't always the case. It's normal for people to not know a country's name in their second language (English), and want to get the information on the best Wikipedia. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 19:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all (changing !vote) per WP:RFFL. My original vote was something of a devil's advocate position, because I didn't want the argument to go by default. We don't have redirects such as যুক্তরাজ্য, यूनाइटेड किंगडम or مملکت متحدہ, from widely-spoken languages (Bengali, Hindi, Urdu) at least as closely associated with UK history as the European-language redirects under discussion and I don't see why we should. Narky Blert (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, more or less per CoffeeWithMarkets. The UK spent much of its modern history in a political and economic union in which these are official languages, which is sufficient "affinity" to justify these redirects. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:43, 27 March 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 no consensus. There appears to be good-faith disagreement over exactly whether this redirect falls foul of WP:RLOTE because of a grey area between transliteration and translation. While it may not be helping many people, it does not appear to be doing any harm, so it will be left alone pending any clearer ideas. ~ mazca ^talk 14:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Çakya-Mouni → Gautama Buddha  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, virtually no pageview history. A Google scholar search suggests that this is a predominantly French spelling of Shakyamuni, which would mean that it qualifies for deletion per WP:RLOTE _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The nom mentioned that it had the 3 of the most important things one should judge when nominating a redirect (pageviews, mentioning in target, and RLOTE). OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I will refrain from making this a !vote because I am not familiar with redirect policies and practices, but here's what I have to say. When I enter "cakya mouni" in the Wikipedia search box, it skips to the redirect without going through the search results page, I am guessing that means it would jump to the article if not for the RFD tag. So, at least the system doesn't care that this is French and not English. White people really had a problem with Nepali (South Asian?) names, so there are a zillion spellings for every word in books old and new. I see google books results for uses of the spelling "Cakya-Mouni". So, I think it does have merits. Should we delete this and create a purely English redirect just because the French couldn't write a "C" without having the ink droop ? I don't see the point. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's no need for this to be mentioned explicitly in the target as it's a straightforward transliteration variant of Shakyamuni (IAST: śākyamuni). Ç has occasionally been used for Sanskrit ś even in English sources, but the use of ou for u makes it exclusively French. However, I don't see that as a reason for deletion, as the extensive scholarly literature on Buddhism in French provides ample affinity (in the sense of WP:RLOTE) between the language and the topic . – Uanfala (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a transliteration from a language tradition that gets particularly muddled in its journey west. Abeg92contribs 04:18, 20 March 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 no consensus - though there's some agreement that the redirect as it stands is reasonable given it's the intended title of the Worm web series's overall franchise. There's reasonable suggestions that this term might require disambiguation given other uses, but none of the other uses, at this time, seem to have sufficient on-wiki coverage to actually make a useful disambiguation page. It seems most prudent, therefore, to leave the redirect as it is, but expressly encourage the creation of a disambiguation page in future by any interested party if there are enough targets to warrant it. ~ mazca ^talk 14:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Parahumans → Worm (web serial)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Parahuman → Worm (web serial)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While parahumans are a plot device in Worm, the term seems to be equally prominent in a handful of other articles, such as Transhuman Space, Marvelman, [[Law (comics) ]], Gary Tomlinson. In some cases "parahuman" appears to be a canonical name used in a fictional series, whereas in others it just seems to be used as a way to refer to not-quite-human individuals. Given that none of these articles have parahumans as a primary topic, I think that deletion and letting search results take care of it is probably the best option. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Well, I do believe Parahumans is the title of the overall franchise as provided by its creator, including Worm and its follow-up Ward. Perhaps a new disambiguation page could be made instead linking to the pages named, with Parahumans (franchise) included as a redirect to Worm? MacCready (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I guess if it's actually the name of the series then it is primary and the redirect can stay? It's not clear from the article or that this is the case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rectified. MacCready (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the least-unlikely target for the redirect. There was previously an OR essay at this title. Worm is the one where "parahuman" is literally the term used - those others seem to be about the concept, not the specific word - David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this could refer to the Parahumans series, but it has also been used in Marvel and DC https://www.themarysue.com/avengers-age-of-ultron-easter-eggs/ Creating a disambiguation, however, would require that these terms be mentioned in articles. Then you have random sci-fi references like https://books.google.com/books?id=8aaSDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT3336 or posthuman evolution https://books.google.com/books?id=H1zOAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA248 AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. So from what I understand from the discussion above Parahumans is the name of the franchise that the web serial Worm takes place in. I'm assuming that aside from Worm, there's not much information on the franchise as a whole? Perhaps it can be disambiguated into Parahumans (franchise), worked on until it becomes a start-class article, then link to Worm (web serial) from there? --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 20:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does article quality have to do with anything? Also, disambigs are disambigs, they don't use the article classification system. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 20:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant disambiguate Parahumans to include a link to Parahumans (franchise), and link Worm (web serial) at that page. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - 'Transhuman' and 'human-animal hybrid' both exist and complicate things even more. Also, 'para-human' doesn't exist. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:45, 22 March 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. Negative name unmentioned at the target article: while there's some sparse evidence of casual use, the rough consensus here suggests it's not an appropriate redirect. ~ mazca ^talk 14:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Killa City → Kansas City, Missouri  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Alternate name not mentioned in target article, could possibly be used to refer to multiple cities. Hog Farm (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I see the term used this way in some less than reliable sources like [1] and Urban Dictionary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not an Urban Dictionary. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not sure anyone knows the city as "Killa City" over "Kansas City, Missouri". --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 20:26, 20 March 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Germania (argot) → Germanía  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Germania (cant) → Germanía  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No need to add new redirects with disambiguation parenthetical; not a result of page move. TJRC (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. These are useful for users who lack í on their keyboards (to skip the disambig page), and have no potential to cause confusion or other problems. (Although the target is an argot, argots are a subtype of cants linguistically.) I largely disagree with the creator's recent activity surrounding redirects, but these are an exception. Glades12 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. Useful search terms/disambiguators for English speakers who may not realize this term has an accent on the "i"; there are multiple meanings of the term without accent. Past history of moves is not the primary reason to disambiguate; need to distinguish between similar terms is. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my comment "not a result of page move" is not about a primary reason to disambiguate; it's to document that these are not leftover remnants from a page move that some external site may be pointing to. TJRC (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. Deletion would create a situation where a user would be 2 pages away from what they wanted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:48, 21 March 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 00:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

More WP:RFFL from same editor. TJRC (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from nom. I see its cousin Wikipediæ is also up for RFD: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_10#Wikipediæ. TJRC (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as implæusiblæ as its cousin. Cabayi (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as just plain silly. No-one has a keyboard with an æ key. This is WP:MADEUP. Narky Blert (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narky Blert: How so? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is enwiki. The fact that I've edited iswiki doesn't mean that I have a keyboard with Icelandic characters. Narky Blert (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unlikely search term. This is also a close recreation of this redirect, which was deleted. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 02:19, 24 March 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. While I did make a flippant comment in the discussion, I did not express a vote and am thus still uninvolved. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Timoþy → Timothy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Yet another recent redirect contrary to WP:RFFL. TJRC (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - just a thorn in the side of Wikipedia. Cabayi (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Narky Blert (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That actually made me chuckle. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a point for making such a sharp pun. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 20:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The story goes that around the turn of the 20th century, Lillie Langtry (actress, mistress of (among others) the future King Edward VIII) and an unspecified CofE bishop were guests at an English country house party (think Downton Abbey). On the Sunday morning, the guests took a stroll in and admired the Rose Garden; but a thorn on one of the plants unluckily inflicted a nasty wound upon the bishop's thumb.

At luncheon, she turned to her neighbour and asked solicitously, "Tell me, Your Grace, how is your prick?"

"Throbbing, Miss Langtry!"

The butler dropped the potatoes. Narky Blert (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:MADEUP. Narky Blert (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete almost Neelix-level silly. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If we ever bring þ back I might reconsider þis, but I þink þat'll be unlikely to happen. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 20:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pretty sure you'd only want to consider ðis and ðat _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:49, 20 March 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 00:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pooholes → Asshole  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. We don't need redirects for every obscure slang term that someone can think of. Also, the page this redirects to is specifically about the word "asshole"/"arsehole" and does not mention "poohole". SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm mildly surprised this wasn't a redirect to Albert Pujols via Pujols. For what it's worth, Albert Pooholes was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 23#Albert Pooholes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said on that RfD, "poohole = asshole". --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 14:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apart from the pointlessness of the redirect, there is ambiguity one where it ought point if it were kept. Tavix points out Albert Pujols, but Shithole would be another possibility. TJRC (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, we don't need to create an index of euphemisms or dysphemisms. Hog Farm (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And also not of cacophemisms. Narky Blert (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as ambiguous. Could also refer to squat toilet. Narky Blert (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree with above "delete" comments. --Woofboy (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom: we don't need redirects for every slang term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:50, 21 March 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 00:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Preservance (rover) → Perseverance (rover)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Preseverance (rover) → Perseverance (rover)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete recently-created redirects. Although "Preservance" and "Preseverance " are plausible misspellings of "perseverance", such redirects are not necessary with the "(rover)" disambiguation text. "Preservance (rover)" is not a plausible typo for "perseverance (rover)", because users are unlikely to search with the parenthetical attached. The rationale for the plausible misspellings is for people searching; the disambiguation suffix is primarily used for linking. TJRC (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible, especially with the qualifier. See also WP:ANI#User:Soumya-8974 and redirects, a thread about the creator. Narky Blert (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not particularly plausible; even if someone does type them in the search bar, I would assume that the bar would direct them to the right page anyway. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:08, 19 March 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 00:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobel corona → Novel coronavirus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no connection between title and redirection Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete R3. Implausible misspelling. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:R3. Implausible, and very recent. Hog Farm (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:R3. Using a b instead of a v makes it sounds like the creator is praising the virus for existing or something. OcelotCreeper (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Precedent has been set with "Noble corona" in an earlier nomination. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - R3 declined by @Liz: because a discussion was ongoing, pinging her over here to see if the clear consensus that this should be speedied is enough for R3 to be made. Hog Farm (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer that one of the regular closers at RfD close this discussion. Looks like a speedy delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete as vague. I don't see issues with the misspelling: it might sound like a silly pun to a western audience, but it's not at all implausible in Indian English, and is in fact well attested (over 100 results on the web so far). I've therefore created the corresponding unambiguous redirect Nobel coronavirus. – Uanfala (talk) 00:38, 23 March 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 Speedy delete by User:Lee Vilenski per WP:R3.. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Noble corona → Novel coronavirus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no connection with the redirection to the title Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete R3. Implausible misspelling. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:R3. Even more implausible than the Nobel corona listed above. Hog Farm (talk) 16:30, 19 March 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 00:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bell Bottom (2021 film) → Akshay Kumar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target; WP:TOOSOON. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete under WP:TOOSOON. Eventually, even before the film is notable, it may be mentioned on article pages for the director, writer or actor, and it may be worth creating a redirect to one of those (interestingly, the director Ranjit Tiwari has no article).

Alternatively, redirect to List of Bollywood films of 2021, without prejudice to creating a real article if/when it meets notability standards. TJRC (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It would be one thing if the film was coming out very soon or if there was a ton of information about its creation slash production process. However, as things stands, deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:48, 22 March 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 Speedy delete by User:GB fan per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• How to survive COVID-19 → Coronavirus disease 2019  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a very clear violation of WP:NOMEDICALADVICE. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy per author. I missed the disclaimer. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:34, 19 March 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 00:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Silly Jeans → Bell-bottoms  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

You might think they're silly, but the article doesn't mention it, I can't find a reliable source that refers to bell-bottoms that way, and the redirect may be miscapitalised. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The term crops up in various non-RS sources in a conversational way, including this FB post about jeans with one bellbottom and one skinny leg - so the current target is wrong. "Silly Jeans" is also a distinctly-NN-looking song by Dutch band nl:HSSLHFF on an album with no article in Dutch WP. (I thought "Weird Al" Yankovic might have recorded a song of that name, but apparently not.) Narky Blert (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm a bit surprised that no notable song, album, or band has used this title, but... oh, well. As stated above, deletion seems to clearly be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:12, 22 March 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. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Xinjie → Ejin Horo Banner  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't see any mention of "Xinjie" at the target, and internal search results suggest that there are multiple people and locations that are known by this name. I would suggest disambiguation or deletion, but would also just appreciate a sanity check on the redirect's current status, as it is quite old and only came to my attention because someone blanked the redirect and self-reverted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sanity check: the Mausoleum of Genghis Khan is in Xinjie, Ejin Horo Banner. I can't find an article on the place in the non-English WPs.

Disambiguate? A search turned up two people, Ji Xinjie and Li Xinjie, and what looks like a couple of dozen places in China and Taiwan, none with more than a bare mention in English WP. Narky Blert (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The village in Inner Mongolia (新街村) has a very generic name, but as far as I can tell it only gets a bare mention on Chinese Wikipedia, on the page of the township zh:札薩克鎮 (not sure how it's transliterated – Zasag Township?) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate offers me both Zhasak and Zasak - but the Chinese article includes the Cyrillic name засаг, which is unambiguously Zasag. Except when it's transliterated as Jasagh (redirects from Zasag and Zhasake) or Yassa.

I cannot be the only one to have found phantom interwiki links to enwiki, often but not only from zhwiki (I'm looking at you, eswiki), really annoying. Narky Blert (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per Narky Blert. Started a draft below the redirect (not very complete yet). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 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 speedy retarget to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Editors make a strong case for ignoring the usual week-long waiting period for RfD due to the ongoing high traffic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Coronavirus outbreak → Coronavirus#Outbreaks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect has seen over 17,000 hits in the last 30 days, the vast majority of which were undoubtedly intended to reach 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. None of the other outbreaks listed at the current target were/are known by "coronavirus outbreak," but rather "SARS outbreak" etc. The target should be changed to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Sharper {talk} 00:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While it might make sense to have this redirect target the 2019-20 pandemic to make it easier for searchers who are most likely searching for the current event, it would be disingenuous to say that the only "coronavirus outbreak" that people are searching for is the current one. There are several coronavirus outbreaks that have happened in recent times, but only one pandemic. Therefore, I would suggest that the redirect stay at the current target, where the ongoing pandemic is one click away. However, if these times call for WP:IAR, I wouldn't mind temporarily having the target at the pandemic for easy reference. The problem is that I can only think of temporary reasons to have the redirect be at the current pandemic, because in the end, there have been many coronavirus outbreaks, so the title of "coronavirus outbreak" is already ambiguous and would need disambiguating in any other circumstance. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  But were any of the others widely known as "coronavirus outbreak" in the media, even if they were caused by other strains of coronaviruses? ComplexRational (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong retarget per nom. We want MOAR people to know about the current epidemic than ever before!^[1]

--Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Nom, can you list Corona outbreak to your nomination? --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as creator of the redirect. When I created it, the outbreak was still comparable with previous ones, but now it's "THE coronavirus outbreak". Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy retarget. It is clear that readers are looking for what is happening right now. I propose a WP:IAR speedy retarget - ASAP, rather than waiting the usual seven days, during which it could easily get 10,000 hits. Narky Blert (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as a clear primary topic for the time being, and because the other outbreaks caused by coronaviruses were not known as the "coronavirus outbreak" and the disease was not "coronavirus disease" or anything to that liking. ComplexRational (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy retarget per Narky (retarget Corona outbreak too), and hatnote to the previous target. This should be a permanent retarget due to the scale of the current outbreak, but many people will be searching for previous outbreaks when they type this into the search engine in a few years' time—as such, add a hatnote. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 04:53, 20 March 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.