Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 11

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Taxonomy/Hildebrandtia → Template:Taxonomy/Hildebrandtia (frog)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

To be deleted. Misleading, also genus of plants, see Hildebrandtia Estopedist1 (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The template (with its original name) is required by pages such as Hildebrandtia ornatissima, which is now broken and showing a Lua error. Certes (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert template move and ask someone who maintains the Taxonomy templates to move this properly, I assume they must have some way of dealing with multiple genus' with the same name. Since Template:Taxonomy is called in other templates moving this has broken the infoboxes on a couple of articles, and some more updates to the Taxonomy templates will probably be needed to fix everything. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: just add the row: | parent = Hildebrandtia (frog) --Estopedist1 (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that change is one part of the clean-up needed when moving a template like this. Certes (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. SCP-053 (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2021 (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. Hog Farm _Talk 01:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mokick → Scooter (motorcycle)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete completely, not redirect to a different target. German term, possibly slang, has no use or bearing in En Wiki. Created in 2011, there is no accompanying text, only redirect to title. A quick check for several random versions circa 2011/2012 returns no inclusion into the article body. Term is not part of UK culture, unlikely to be in US/Canada, IMO, unsure of Australian but would doubt it. Can't understand why this was created. FYI, a similar term is Kutte, meaning cut-off clothing, again not used and hardly known within En first speakers. Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Appears to refer to a specific type of light motorcycle (in de.wiki, Mokick redirects to Kleinkraftrad, which translates roughly to light motorcycle), but we have no mention of that in the target article on en.wiki. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2021 (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. It seems like editors are gravitating towards creating an article at this title, but there's no consensus to remove the redirect in advance of article creation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Peer-to-peer energy trading → Net_metering#Virtual_net_metering  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Currently peer-to-peer energy trading redirects to a short section on 'Virtual Net Metering' on the 'Net Metering' page. This is justified by a reference to a 2016 conference paper, "The Potential Value of Peer-to-Peer Energy Trading in the Australian National Electricity Market". However, this is not consistent with the literature on peer-to-peer energy trading which has grown substantially since 2016. A better definition is that peer-to-peer energy trading is a market design architecture which enables participants to directly negotiate energy transactions with one another, for which metering is only a component (see e.g. "Peer-to-peer and community-based markets: A comprehensive review" from Renew. Sustain. Energy Reviews doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.036). Virtual net metering is instead related to billing arrangements for off-site distributed generation which assumes there is a utility or supplier acting as an intermediary (see e.g. NREL's definition https://www.nrel.gov/state-local-tribal/basics-net-metering.html). My proposal is that instead of a redirect, a new page on 'Peer-to-Peer Energy Trading' is created, with suitable links to the net metering page where appropriate. Minister of the left (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is nothing to stop an editor creating an article to replace the redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't realise this. How can a new article be created to replace the redirect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minister of the left (talk • contribs) 06:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete That term is very obscure. Don't think anyone would search it. SCP-053 (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's had 544 pageviews in the last 30 days; I doubt that all of those are a result of this discussion. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Shhh. There's no reason for deleting this if an article can be created where this redirect is located. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. I find clear consensus against retargeting. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

One of two genera in this family, no reason to have a redirect - in fact, it's presence makes the creation of an article less likely. Animal lover 666 (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteto inspire article creation. Alternatively retarget to Paralvinella sulfincola.Less Unless (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to existing species article in the genus (Paralvinella sulfincola). Definitely not delete - the aim here is to have a search target that gets the reader to a sensibly related article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Elmidae. Plausible search term, no valid reason for deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose retargeting to the species article. This might suggest that the genus is monotypic and also provides less information than the current target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose retargeting per 1234... The genus contains seven more species besides Paralvinella sulfincola, so retargeting there will be misleading. – Uanfala (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2021 (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 Church and State. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Church-state relations → Separation of church and state  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think this is an ambiguous redirect, and I don't think the current target is equivalent to it's name. There are a load of other articles on topics where there are relations between church and state which could also be valid targets, e.g. state religion and Religion in politics. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As creator of the redirect, I agree the target is not equivalent and happy for it to be redirected to another page like Church and State, for instance. --Caorongjin (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that dab page, retargeting there looks like an ideal solution. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Church and State. (Not sure if I agree with the capitalization there, though, but that's a separate matter.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's a hatnote at Separation of church and state—the target of Church and state—to the disambiguation page Church and State. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to "Church and State" per Caorongjin. There are many pages in that dab which this redirect could refer to. SCP-053 (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2021 (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. The redirect's initial editor and I are in agreement that a newly drafted stub is an appropriate replacement for the redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not mentioned at the target. This term refers to the peasant class of Japan; given that other social classes such as Kazoku, Shizoku, etc. each are independently notable, and that the Heimin class isn't described in depth anywhere, I think that deletion to allow for internal search results and to encourage article creation is appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's agreeable to me, I can probably come up with a stub for it by the end of today. Loafiewa (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2021 (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. ✗plicit 00:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Joe Cell → Perpetual motion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Joe cell → Perpetual motion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These seem to be a non notable perpetual motion device that is not mentioned in the target article or anywhere else in the encyclopaedia. I can't tag these redirects as they were semi-protected due to the repeated recreation of spam, could someone please tag them on my behalf? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tagged. Delete per nom. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all. SCP-053 (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2021 (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 Fédération des sociétés féminines sportives de France#Sports. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Championnat de France de football féminin → Division 1 Féminine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I propose a retarget to Fédération des sociétés féminines sportives de France#Sports (or I can add an anchor to the specific paragraph on the inter-war championship on that page). As far as I can tell, Championnat de France de football féminin has only been used by the inter-war football championship, the most text of which is at the proposed location. Most of the Division 1 Féminine is the current (since 1974) competition, which doesn't seem to have used that name Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 11:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. GiantSnowman 11:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per all. SCP-053 (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2021 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Adio (company) → K2 Sports#Adio  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Adio" is not mentioned at the target. I understand from Google that K2 once owned the brand (but doesn't now) so unless the article is going to mention that I think it's misleading to redirect to the current target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It was merged in 2014, first to Jarden then moved to K2 Sports. It was recently made into a separate article again and removed from K2 Sports but was redirected again because of a copyright problem with the new article's content, and the section of the target page can still be restored and updated. If there is consensus that the mention there shouldn't be restored or it isn't a useful redirect, it would have to be moved somewhere out of the main namespace so there is still attribution for old revisions of the other articles. Peter James (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add info about "Adio (company)" back into "K2 Sports" per Peter James. SCP-053 (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2021 (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 deleted per G6. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Joseph A. Manchin III** → Joe Manchin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It is not obvious what Polbot's rationale for creating this was. Pageviews are not impressive aside from a single day in 2016, and given that the extraneous characters are tailing, it seems unlikely that anyone would add them. I'm willing to withdraw this if a compelling reason for adding ** can be provided. Hog Farm _Talk 03:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No reason why people would be searching for this with ** Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Clearly it's so that we can raise the III to an exponent. Wait till you meet Joe Manchin CCXLIII. Or maybe Polbot had spent too much time writing Python code and was just throwing a **kwargs onto everything that day. Barring a better explanation than those, yes, delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems to have been a bot bug. Looking through their contributions it seems to have made loads of these weird redirects with extra asterisks appended to the end, e.g. Gov. William Grafton Delaney Worthington IV*, Virginia Lyons*, Thomas Campbell*, Thomas Anderson*, Timothy J. Pawlenty*, Thomas J. Miller*, Captain Merrill*, Harry S. Bartlett*, Stanley N. Lundine*, Robert Scott*, Ronald G. Flippo* and hundreds of others. I think there might need to be a bulk deletion nomination here. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This may have been linked in past versions of a page but AFAIK that is very hard to tell. It's odd if it was just a bug especially considering the decent number of pageviews. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Bot errors like this are speedy deletable under G6's unambiguously created in error clause. Can anyone put together a full list of Polbot's redirects created that contain an asterisk? -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may well have been created in error, but I don't think it was unambiguously created in error. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I can say that it was unambiguously created in error. The BRFA was only for "alternate names for politicians", and under no circumstance is a name containing an asterisk like this an alternate name. In the BFRA, Quadell mentioned there were some errors in creating the dataset that required a manual verification step before the redirects were created. As we can see, this manual verification didn't catch everything. Looking at a revision of the dataset, it becomes clear how the asterisks got inputted in the redirects: it has the link to be created, then an asterisk, then a short description. Even with a manual review, you'd have to look very closely to verify whether the asterisk is part of the link (and I doubt it was reviewed that closely to begin with). -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, fair enough (it's on there). Nevertheless, I'm a bit confused about the fairly decent amount of pageviews that this redirect has received. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it's worth trying to make sense of page views for this sort of thing. For example, WP:TOPRED always had bizarre results when it was updating. Arabic pornographic terms were surprisingly popular, but they don't make good redirects. It is important to use common sense to differentiate the signal from the noise. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix Thanks for the ping, here you go: quarry:query/54036. That's surprisingly quite a few. Should I add them to the nomination or are you CSD'ing them? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! I put the full list on the talk page, and I'm going to go ahead and CSD them. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:33, 12 April 2021 (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.