Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 24

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

September 24

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 24, 2020.

(UK Single Market / Internal Market)

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. This would have been a G8 when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Single Market closed if not for a confused double redirect bot. -- Tavix (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect with an obscure name (yes, that's really brackets!). Apparently part of a series of moves for a now deleted article, most redirects in this chain were deleted/suppressed, other than this one apparently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:33, 24 September 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.

Plot armor

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 17:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Plot armour → Plot device#Plot armor.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:05, 1 October 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.

Lakshmi Menon(model)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 2#Lakshmi Menon(model)

Incorrect (disambiguation)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 17:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per G14, This disambiguation page does not mention any title that associates with the title "Incorrect". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:26, 24 September 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.

Tallest redirects

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 19:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non encyclopedic. Александр Мотин (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible moose cow. --T*U (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Sutro Library and Wikipedia:Sutro library

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 19:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article was erroneously created in the Wikipedia namespace in good faith by new editor, first at Wikipedia:Sutro library ; then moved to Wikipedia:Sutro Library; then moved to article namespace as Sutro Library : a branch of the California State Library, then finally moved to draft as indicated above. The WP: space redirects are still hanging around. They don't seem to qualify for a Speedy (WP:R2 applies only to redirects out of article space), so I'm listing them. TJRC (talk) 18:28, 24 September 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.

Malaria Party

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 19:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enwiki has no content about "Malaria Party." Hog Farm Bacon 17:02, 24 September 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.

Old Kurdish language

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) 12:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the target article, nor Kurdish language mention "old Kurdish" in any capacity. Searching on Google Scholar, the only relevant match I could find for "Old Kurdish language" was an article naming Avestan as such [1]. This seems dubious, however, as Kurdish is classified as a Western Iranian language, whereas Avestan is described as being in a totally separate subdivision of the Iranian branch. In the absence of more conclusive literature, I would lean towards deletion, although redirecting to Kurdish language may also be a workable option. signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should be indeed deleted. Kurdish didn't even exist at that time. There has been too much ethno-nationalistic editing recently trying to force the Medes and Kurds into one ethnic group. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:07, 24 September 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.

Lucius Licinius Murena (praetor 88 BC)

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 19:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The specific date, 88 BC, is not securely attested, and this redirect isn't used anywhere, so a deletion will cause no disruptions. I already reached a consensus with the creator of this redirect in his talk page not to use "praetor 88 BC". Avis11 (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion is not related to to the subject under discussion—or even the article under discussion. All articles on Roman gentes use a standard format: chronological by stirpes. Disambiguation page formatting would eliminate nearly all of the information included, and make the articles useless for one of their primary purposes: following the history of a gens through its members. P Aculeius (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'm prepping a set index / disambiguation page for the Lucius Licinius Murena name in general. Sample of that in my sandbox. [2] AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not particularly useful as an alias by the interested parties. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: Thanks for the support but there's no need to create an extra disambiguation page. You basically copied what is already said in the Licinia gens#Licinii Murenae section, which already shows everything that needs to be shown. Avis11 (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Triumphator" isn't a particularly familiar term in English, and feels like hypercorrection. Would be better to say "(triumphed 81 BC)", or else simply indicate uncertainty about the date, i.e. "(praetor circa 88 BC)", assuming this is the most important thing about him. I note that this only comes up because the article was moved from the perfectly reasonable "Lucius Licinius Murena (propraetor in Asia)". And is this discussion even relevant, since the page was moved to the proposed title before anybody could respond? P Aculeius (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was previously labeled as '(Second Mithridatic War)', but on 23 September I myself changed it to 'Lucius Licinius Murena (propraetor in Asia)'. T8612 immediately moved it to 'Lucius Licinius Murena (praetor 88 BC)', citing his wish for a date to be displayed. Since I pointed out that the year (88 BC) is likely inaccurate, he suggested "triumphator 81 BC" as a compromise. I myself still prefer 'propraetor in Asia'. But this discussion isn't about that, it's just to delete this particular redirect, 'praetor 88 BC', since the precise year is not established. You'll have to take up the matter with T8612 separately. Avis11 (talk) 03:05, 26 September 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.

Agile methodology 2

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 with the old history merged back to Agile methodology. This is a good example of why moving redirects is rarely useful. -- Tavix (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created accidentally. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:07, 24 September 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.

Net zero

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 1#Net zero

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_24&oldid=982008760"