Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 18, 2020.

Peñis[edit]

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. czar 14:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an implausible typo, given that most English speakers don't have easy access to the eñe. For what it's worth, the word in Spanish is pene. -- Tavix (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible typo. Probably an attempt at a smutty joke. I suppose we're lucky that we don't have redirects from diacritical variants of all five letters; there are over a thousand possibilities. Narky Blert (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should have redirects based on plausible typos, not every possible way we can misspell a word. Hog Farm (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Đệḷệṫé. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Received 10 hits in all of 2019. Useless. Station1 (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one can be deleted, per Tavix' latter part of his or her nomination statement where he or she said, "[f]or what it's worth, the word in Spanish is pene." Thus, an implausible typo and an incorrect spelling. If this were the Spanish word, I would probably be arguing "keep" and add applicable Rcats for alternative spelling, transliteration, and/or diacritics. --Doug Mehus T·C 15:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete implausible and probably joke redirect. Got a good chuckle out of it though. --Lenticel (talk) 01:49, 22 January 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 cray twins[edit]

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. Clear consensus to keep, with thanks to Narky Blert and/or Glades12 for adding the applicable rcat(s) in advance. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 15:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links here. Additionally, the surname is misspelled and not properly capitalized, so it's unlikely it would ever be used. B.Rossow · talk 22:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: Somewhat plausible misspelling considering that cray is a word. It is possible that someone would hear "the Kray twins" in speech and spell the phrase like this. Additionally, redirects from wrong names aren't supposed to have links, so that's not a reason for deletion of this one. Glades12 (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible misspelling (and already tagged as such). Narky Blert (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible misspelling for reasons others have said. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:41, 19 January 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.

Maren-Kessel[edit]

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. czar 14:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is worth a WP:REDLINK per nl:Maren-Kessel, unless someone who is a better translator than I wants to give this a shot. -- Tavix (talk) 22:25, 18 January 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.

Battle of Dale[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Battle of Dale" is a fictional battle from the appendices of The Lord of the Rings. However, the battle is mentioned nowhere on the target page. Aside from a brief mention at Dwarf (Middle-earth) § Third Age, the battle is not covered on Wikipedia. Thus there are no suitable or helpful targets.

The page is marked as a "redirect with history", but it is unclear to me how this history could be useful. The is a version of the page with content, but since the content has not been merged anywhere, the is no licensing requirement to retain the page. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not really mentioned anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:A885:5491:256D:8F44 (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a user added the last version of the article back as a way to "preserve" the history against the consensus from the AFD (and likely in violation of copyright law since they did not attribute the content), and has been warned against doing this in the future. After the AFD closed, the target redirect merged with the more general Lord of the Rings article, and now this current redirect serves no purpose. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mention at Dwarf (Middle-earth) is not of a nature that a user will find helpful. Nothing in the edit history worth saving. Not mentioned in target article. Hog Farm (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think this is a useful {{r to related topic}} and mildly helpful for readers. "Battle of Dale" is something a fan of LotR may search, and while we don't have coverage of the battle specifically, we do have coverage of the location where the battle took place. Sending readers there makes sense, especially since that is the place where coverage of the battle would likely go. I don't see much of a benefit in deleting. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wugapodes: we do have coverage of the location where the battle took place -- at present, I don't think this is true. There is no "Dale" section in the article The Lord of the Rings; the word "Dale" does not even appear in the article. If you can dig up another article that actually discusses the location Dale (I couldn't find one), it might be worth considering a retarget. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dwarf (Middle-earth)#Third Age, where it's discussed. If the discussion there is inadequate for our readers' purposes, then we've failed them and should hang our heads in shame, but it's the best we can do. But there's no reason I can see to believe it would be. WilyD 17:15, 20 January 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.

Victor history[edit]

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. czar 14:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an unlikely search term for the given target. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 14:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it does not redirect to the named subsection/hashtag; rather, it redirects to the article Philosophy of history. When at the article, there is a subsection titled Philosophy of neutrality that contains the phrase "history is written by the victors" that is wikilinked to (drum roll, please)...the article Philosophy of history which also needs to be fixed. Atsme Talk 📧 16:28, 19 January 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.

Lazy S[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 26#Lazy S

Idles[edit]

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. Consensus is clear that an independent dab page is preferable, though it's not immediately clear from the discussion or the subject redirect what the potential dab links would be. So, I'm going to close this discussion, and set up a shell dab page tagged with the dab cleanup tag so that @Shhhnotsoloud, Uanfala, and Crouch, Swale: can proceed to add the dab links and clean it up. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 17:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Idle (disambiguation) per results of discussion at Talk:Idles (band)#Requested move 26 December 2019. Too ambiguous of a search term to point to a small Algerian town over all other possible meanings. Conifer (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Idle (disambiguation) Convert to disambiguation page: ambiguous with Idles (band) and perhaps others. Shhhnotsoloud (talk)
  • Dabify separately from Idle. Apart from an apparently obscure use related to Idle (CPU), the term "Idles" most commonly refers to either the Algerian town or to the band. In neither of these two uses is the term a plural of 'idle', so I don't see a reason for combining into the large dab at Idle. A reader who searches for "idles" is better served by a page that lists the three relevant meanings than by a long dab that contains many entries that they're not looking for. – Uanfala (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fair. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per Uanfala. (Don't even get me started on Clones.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally, this should target Idles (band) as a clear WP:primary topic for the word "Idles". Admittedly, three editors objected at the recent WP:RM there, but the closer specifically left open the possibility of retargeting per a WP:RFD discussion. Second best is either the current redirect to the town, which has a direct hatnote to the band, or a separate dab page (normally not as good, but since the town gets so few views, there's virtually no difference in this case). Oppose a redirect to Idle (disambiguation) as the least beneficial to readers searching for the band or the town. Station1 (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate no clear primary topic (by PT#2 it would probably be the place). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:46, 20 January 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.

PENIS[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 26#PENIS

List of dog breeds recognized by the Canadian Kennel Club[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 26#List of dog breeds recognized by the Canadian Kennel Club

Anarcosocial-communist[edit]

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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An unlikely misspelling of "anarcho-social communist". Not a very active user (talk) 05:58, 18 January 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.

Penis (disambiguation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 27#Penis (disambiguation)

Geto-Dacian[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 26#Geto-Dacian

East Emnet[edit]

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 Rohan (Middle-earth)#Regions. czar 14:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have information about an East Emnet on the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : This was mentioned on List of Middle-earth rivers, but that article has been changed to a redirect. It's still mentioned in Rohan (Middle-earth) and The Lord of the Rings Online: Riders of Rohan, but spelled Eastemnet. Faolin42 (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. Mentioned briefly in Rohan (Middle-earth)#Regions: The centre of Rohan (to the north of the Folde) is mainly a large plain, divided by the Entwash into the Eastemnet and the Westemnet. These regions fell respectively into the East-mark and the West-mark. Given the spelling difference, I can totally see how the nominator missed that mention. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:38, 18 January 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.

Rotten eggs[edit]

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. Since no one advocated keeping the redirects as is, I'm going to go ahead and implement the drafted disambiguation page at Rotten egg and point Rotten eggs there with no prejudice toward further discussion or changes. signed, Rosguill talk 21:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not mention "rotten eggs" anywhere in the article, with the exception of the header at the top of the page. 69.92.186.111 (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added the similar redirect Rotten egg to this nomination. I can't think of an obvious retarget for these, but I think we can disambiguate the singular. I'll create a draft on that page shortly. ComplexRational (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a big fan of that draft disambiguation page. One link is a partial title match and the other is more of a "see also" link. Rotten Egg is a proper name, though. I started a second draft disambiguation page at Draft:Rotten Egg. - Eureka Lott 02:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eureka Lott That indeed looks better, I wasn't aware of half those entries. If we ultimately adopt a dab, feel free to merge and/or overwrite with Draft:Rotten Egg. ComplexRational (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it was added recently, but it seems like the article does not mention rotten eggs.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Egg as food#Storage which discusses spoilage of eggs and immediately following discusses methods of preservation. Seems a {{r to related topic}} would be useful here. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate the singular form per ComplexRational per WP:CRYSTAL and no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; weak retarget the plural to Egg as food#Storage as likely primary topic and per WP:DIFFCAPS or, alternatively, to the new dab page with Rcat from plural form of name. Doug Mehus T·C 17:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FWIW, I've added a reference, with an authoritative citation, to mention rotten egg/rotten eggs in the target article, although it was already mentioned elsewhere in the article and nom said it wasn't. Doug Mehus T·C 17:39, 20 January 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.

West Emnet[edit]

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 Rohan (Middle-earth)#Regions. czar 14:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be mentioned on the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : This was mentioned on List of Middle-earth rivers, but that article has been changed to a redirect. Faolin42 (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's still mentioned in Rohan (Middle-earth) and The Lord of the Rings Online: Riders of Rohan, but spelled Westemnet. Faolin42 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether something is mentioned in Wikipedia or not is not a valid reason for deletion. Hzh (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. Mentioned briefly in Rohan (Middle-earth)#Regions: The centre of Rohan (to the north of the Folde) is mainly a large plain, divided by the Entwash into the Eastemnet and the Westemnet. These regions fell respectively into the East-mark and the West-mark. Given the spelling difference, I can totally see how the nominator missed that mention. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:34, 18 January 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.

Kibil-nala[edit]

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 Moria (Middle-earth)#Geography. Withdrawing nomination in favor of the retarget suggested in the discussion. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure fictional spring mentioned about two or three times on the English Wikipedia and not mentioned at the target article. Very unlikely search term, too Hog Farm (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Whether something being mentioned in English Wikipedia or not is not a valid reason for deletion. It might be a valid reason for deletion if something is very obscure, but since a google search yielded a good number of results, I don't see how it could be that obscure or an unlikely search term. You may however argue according by page view, which is very low, therefore possibly not useful as a search item. However, if there is some page views however low, it might possibly mean that some people do use it. This applies to the others nominated for the same reason. A little bit more information would have been useful. Hzh (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hzh: My point was that for a redirect to be useful, there needs to be applicable content for the redirect to direct the user to. If there's nothing explanatory for the redirect to point to, the redirect is not useful. Hog Farm (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is mentioned in Moria (Middle-earth), then it can be retargeted to that article rather than delete, your point is therefore entirely moot. Hzh (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with the proposed retarget; although the relevant content (the icy-cold springs below the lake he called Kibil-nâla) is brief, it is there. A link to the section Moria (Middle-earth)#Geography might be even more helpful. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with that retarget, too. Since I don't want to waste anybody's time on this, I'll Withdraw in favor of a retarget to Moria (Middle-earth)#Geography. I don't know if WP:NACD allows for a non-admin to close their own nom as a retarget, so will the next admin who comes across this please close the discussion for me as a retarget? Thanks. Hog Farm (talk) 23:14, 20 January 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.

F Line (Los Angeles Metro)[edit]

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 21:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this redirect page. LA Metro has tweaked the letter assignments and will no longer establish the "F Line." RickyCourtney (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If there is coverage of the new line that uses the old name, a redirect might still be warranted - if not this one, then perhaps a similar one. I can't tell from coverage whether that's the case or not, but it should be considered, and redirects are cheap. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:15, 18 January 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.

British National (Overseas) - extra information[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 27#British National (Overseas) - extra information

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_18&oldid=1141905952"