Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 20: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎Template:PCP: Add asterisk
Line 698: Line 698:
Unused. It does not follow standard convention for redirects of wikiproject banners [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 07:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Unused. It does not follow standard convention for redirects of wikiproject banners [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 07:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


'''Keep''' That redirect resulted from a page move when the Pokemon Collaborative Project was renamed to [[WP:POKE|WikiProject Pokemon]]. Even if the transclusions were all updated to the current name, there are still references to the old name linked in several discussions from before the move. [[User:FunPika|<span style="color:blue"><b>Fun</b></span>]][[User_Talk:FunPika|<span style="color:green"><b>Pika</b></span>]] 02:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' That redirect resulted from a page move when the Pokemon Collaborative Project was renamed to [[WP:POKE|WikiProject Pokemon]]. Even if the transclusions were all updated to the current name, there are still references to the old name linked in several discussions from before the move. [[User:FunPika|<span style="color:blue"><b>Fun</b></span>]][[User_Talk:FunPika|<span style="color:green"><b>Pika</b></span>]] 02:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


====Piripicho====
====Piripicho====

Revision as of 02:35, 21 September 2019

September 20

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 20, 2019.

Anisa Moghaddam

Anisa Moghaddam is a co-writer for a song on this album and another Grande album. Not really serving any purpose with the redirect Richhoncho (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eirin! Eirin! Tasukete Eirin!

These are song lyrics. The song in question is mentioned in several articles but there's no actual content to point this to. Even if there was, this should probably still be deleted. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

QWE

Not in use as an actual abbreviation of QWERTY, could easily be an acronym for something else. signed, Rosguill talk 20:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick of this. Why does the same person who looks like an admin but is not have to mess with all of my redirects? Page QWE didn't exist before, so that means that it can only be short for QWERTY. Barracuda41 (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, technically any editor can nominate any redirect for discussion or tag it for speedy deletion (although the latter is then pending review from an admin, and if someone has a habit of bad CSDs it could result in sanctions). But that's not a complete answer, as it doesn't explain why I'm looking at these redirects in the first place; I have new page patrol permissions, which means that I can approve new articles and redirects to be released to search engines for indexing. I would estimate that I do the lion's share of patrolling redirects, as every day I patrol the end of the backlog to make sure nothing gets missed, going through 100-200 redirects per day on average (and sometimes as many as 500+). I haven't taken an exact count, but I would estimate that of the redirects I look at, I nominate maybe 3% for discussion. Believe me, I'm not trying to pick on you, and there's been several times that I actually approved redirects created by you that I probably would have nominated for discussion had someone else created them, simply because I didn't want to start a fight and because the redirects in question were, if not really useful, then at least harmless. Despite this, redirects that you've created probably account for at least 10% of the redirects that I nominate for discussion.
These redirects are neither mine nor yours, they are Wikipedia's, and should serve the purpose of creating a useful encyclopedia that is easy to navigate. The ones that I nominate for discussion or deletion are ones that I think do not fulfill this criterion, usually because they go against either WP:FORRED or because they meet criteria #1 or #8 of WP:R#DELETE. I would suggest thinking carefully about whether a redirect actually meets one of the criteria at WP:RPURPOSE before creating it. I think that this specific redirect is actually a borderline case, and I would appreciate it if other editors would weigh in, even if only to disagree with me––I was going to let it pass but then doubled back and brought it here after deciding that the benefit of this redirect did not outweigh the possibility of confusing someone looking for something that uses this as an acronym or something else (such as QWERTZ or Quechuan languages, which has an ISO code of QWE). The same cannot be said about many of the other redirects that you have created, such as this one. signed, Rosguill talk 22:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Columbiahalle

It does appear to be a concert venue in Berlin, but it's not mentioned at the target, and it's not clear that it's appropriate to add it to the article given its scope. I think that deleting and leaving as a redlink for now is likely the best course of action, unless someone finds a better target. signed, Rosguill talk 20:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More: it was deleted under speedy criterion A2, which suggests it was copied and pasted from dewiki, which is not allowed. Just FYI. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apjak

Unclear why this redirects here, given that it did not seem that the target ever used this abbreviation/acronym, and APJAK doesn't exist. Might be a made-up WP:NEO. Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled U.S. state names

See also #Misspellings of chemical element names, below. Some of the misspellings for Virginia are also ambiguous with Vagina. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned Ohayo into a disambiguation. I believe Ohaio should redirect there as the Japanese term in all of its variants is used a lot. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KAVEBEAR, I've boldly redirected this one and am striking this from the list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do over per AngusWOOF. While there are several examples in this list that I would vote delete on, I pity the closer trying to make sense of a discussion with a half dozen editors each with a different list of ten names that should be deleted or kept, while others make broad statements about the entire set. signed, Rosguill talk 22:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: None of the pages were tagged, all are now tagged and creators notified at least once. Steel1943 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Sure, some of them are bad (New Hampster?), but this is a huge nomination of disparate topics (they can't all be addressed appropriately in a single discussion), so come back and renominate them individually or in little groups. Please don't renominate Oiho, as it's an easy typo to make. Back in the 1990s and early 2000s, at this intersection in Jackson Center, Ohio, the sign read "Ohio Street" on one side and "Oiho Street" on the other. If someone can put it on a street sign by accident, it's definitely a plausible typo. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, please don't renominate EPnnsylvania, either. The first two pages of Google results include several hits in surprisingly good sources: Epnnsylvania in a federal court opinion from Pennsylvania, EPNNSYLVANIA in Federal Election Commission records, ePnnsylvania in a 19th-century history of a region of Pennsylvania, and ePnnsylvania in the title of a Pennsylvania law. PPS, please don't renominate Pennfylvania. This is a plausible misreading of "Pennſylvania", the state's name written with a long s, as was common for more than a century after it was founded. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanzolinius

Is this correctly targetted (vice Leptodactylidae)? The term isn't mentioned in either article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to this paper, Vanzolinius is a proposed new genus for Leptodactylus discodactylus. So, since this promotion of L. discodactylus to Vanzolinius discodactylus does not appear to have been challenged or vetoed, it should either be redirected to Leptodactylidae, and mention of this situation made there, or have the redirect made into its own article.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kamehameha (weapon)

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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, what we have here is a case of an editor, User:Kaithehedgefox, who has basically spent the last two years vandalizing the project, a large part of that being by creating inappropriate or trolling Redirects, as you can see by their Talk Page. They were recently finally banned for their vandalism, so I started the process of going through their remaining Redirect creations, and decided that, rather than go the process here for every one, it would be more prudent to just nominate them all for deletion at once. Based on the fact that the user has seemingly not made a single good faith edit during their entire tenure here, it seems a safe guess that none of these redirects are appropriate. Just among the ones I did look at, there is a mish-mash of implausible spellings, unnotable fan characters, and made up terms that are not mentioned in the target articles. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2019 (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.

Superlatives galore

Wikipedia is not a search engine. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Essay

Wikipedia is not a publisher of orginal thought. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chlorine is manufactured

Implausible search term. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iridium-77 (element)

There is no 77Ir isotope, which would have no neutrons. Implausible search term either way. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prano Bailey-Bond

irrelevant The Banner talk 14:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fdf.dk

SPAM The Banner talk 14:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine mountain gazelle

The target has nothing to do with this redirect. This gazelle is distributed in the whole Middle East and I didn't find any scholar mention of it as Palestine Gazelle Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is part of the latest disruption by SD to create disruption in articles that have nothing to do with the IP conflict. The mountain gazelle is called the mountain gazelle and there is one article that calls it "Palestine Gazelle" and he is trying to now label that, when IUCN and others don't. We should not be changing articles, and certainly not leads for disruptive purposed. But certainly this is not a redirect that people would use to get to this article. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Palestine mountain gazelle" is a real name for Mountain gazelle (Gazella gazella): The Guardian:[1], The Davidson Institute of Science Education: [2], Antelopes: North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia p 100 :

[3], Ramat Handaiv: [4], Bovids of the World p 129 [5]. This shows that the name is well established and used in a long list of reliable sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep without commenting on whether it's an appropriate inclusion in the target's lead, if this is a name that has been used in RS to refer to the animal then a redirect is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 03:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rosguill. It is unclear from the sources whether this is simply an alternate common name for the mountain gazelle or a subspecies (or the two possibilities are being conflated), but in either case a redirect to mountain gazelle is appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One-party participatory democracy

This redirect is not very helpful. Many people will be looking for one-party state, so it should be deleted to give search results instead. Zerach (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to decide whether this phrase is outright contradictory or not. There's only a single passing mention of any political party at Participatory democracy, surprisingly. If it's a contradiction, by all means, retarget to Zambia as a quirk specific to that country. If not, perhaps deletion, but simply retargeting to One-party state could also be appropriate. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caña (Chilean slang)

WP:R#DELETE #8, the word "caña" is never used in the article Hangover. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 22:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq and Syria

Not a helpful redirect. I'd suggest either redirecting to Iraq–Syria relations or deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinions on calmly saying to retarget instead of delete like a 1-IQ person. I would turn the redirect into a disambiguation page, something like this:
Iraq and Syria may refer to:
* Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
* Iraq-Syria relations
What do you think of that idea? Barracuda41 (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sakuga

Per Wiktionary, sakuga is: In Japanese animation (anime), a sequence of noticeably higher quality, used to highlight a particularly important scene. It's not mentioned at the target or at Anime, nor is it likely appropriate to add mention of it to either of the articles. It's possible that the term is notable enough to merit its own article, but as a redirect it is not helpful and I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Animated Feature Film

Pointless unused redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just a note, I read those who said "move" as thought they were saying "delete" when I was assessing consensus, so thus, I did not yet see consensus when I performed this relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of south guangxi

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 keep. Remember that not everyone searches in the search bar. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a redirect that is useless for linking as well as searching (absent the redirect, the search engine would automatically direct the search to the article). The redirect has no incoming links (except links related to this RfD) and no useful page history. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2019 (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.

Template:Soviet

Unused for many years. It does not follow the standard naming convention for redirects of wikiproject banners. Magioladitis (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Althorp

Retarget to Earl Spencer (peerage) or Disambiguate. No evidence that this is the primary topic, in fact by pageviews, the current target page is one of the least visited articles: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=John_Spencer,_8th_Earl_Spencer%7CJohn_Spencer,_5th_Earl_Spencer%7CJohn_Spencer,_3rd_Earl_Spencer%7CCharles_Spencer,_9th_Earl_Spencer%7CGeorge_Spencer,_2nd_Earl_Spencer%7CCharles_Spencer,_6th_Earl_Spencer DrKay (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd Earl was a very prominent politician *during his time as Lord Althorp* - leader of the House of Commons who pushed through the Reform Act, etc. This is not true of any of the other people who were known as "Lord Althorp," as far as I'm aware. (The 6th Earl to a much much lesser extent.) The 8th and 9th Earls are better know *as Earl Spencer*, but nobody much calls them Lord Althorp. Do I need to explain how courtesy titles work? john k (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Square Enix Ultimate Hits

Not mentioned at the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Orlando

Redirect from a non-notable person to an associated organization whose article completely fails to mention her name at all. I get that she is associated with it, that checks out in sources, but if her involvement isn't important enough to actually get her named in the article body then there's no need for a redirect. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Hits (Square Enix)

Not mentioned at the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misspellings of chemical element names

These misspellings are rather implausible. There are some particularly funny ones, too, like "Buryum", "LEad", and "Alliminuim". I don't have enough time to tag these... –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uthium. It bears no resemblance to the target, I can't discern that it should refer to lithium.
  • Kloreen as highly implausible; it almost looks like a phonetic joke and is too dissimilar from the targets to be a plausible {{R from misspelling}}.
  • Calium per WP:XY; it could also be a misspelling of kalium (potassium).
  • Kalcium, only one typo but seems less plausible than the others because it's the first letter.
  • Buryum, same rationale as for kloreen.
  • LEad; I know that we sometimes hold the shift key too long, but it should be autocorrected in the search bar and has no use in linking.
  • Alliminuim, more than two misspellings make this highly implausible as well.
  • Weak delete:
  • Asstatine. While possibly plausible, I'm not sure if this could be considered a joke or vandalism; also note that its creator was indeffed for creating abusive redirects (maybe an admin can review this).
  • Uninunium. Although this has only one typo, the structure is fairly predictable, so misspelling this particular "un" seems rather unlikely. It's also less likely that this will be searched since the element was renamed to roentgenium.
  • Unonoctium, same rationale as for uninunium.
  • Weak retarget:
  • Dubnadium to oganesson; I'm finding several sources suggesting that it was once a proposed name for element 118, but it was not as widely discussed and could also be deleted (it is not a plausible misspelling of dubnium).
  • I don't see harm in keeping most of the others with only one reasonable typo or missing letter, especially those targeting sometimes difficult-to-spell names such as praseodymium and hydrargyrum. ComplexRational (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Asstatine - clearly deliberate vandalism by an editor shortly thereafter blocked for "creating highly abusive redirects". If it's useful someone will recreate it. Neutral on the rest per Tavix more or less. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Organesson - I misread the correct name for something like six months before my brain realised there was no "r" there, so I think this is a likely misspelling. I don't at all agree with the idea that we should preserve every possible typo as a redirect, which seems to be the rationale for keeping some "misspelling" redirects, so I will be happy to see most of these deleted. Mirokado (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Some of these are plausible redirects, asstatine isn't, and overall this is far too big of a group to handle all at once. Please come back and nominate them individually, so that each one can be addressed separately without causing a good deal of confusion. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thai redirects to Gautama Buddha

Not needed per WP:FORRED, articles are not specifically about Thailand. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly delete: พุทธประวัติ; the word "พุทธประวัติ" means "history of Buddha", not Buddha as human.
Thanks. --Garam (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aniti-advergame

Implausible typo for "Anti-advergame". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antitritium

Not mentioned in the target, possibly due to lack of significance. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third industrial revolution

The target of this has been changed several times. Current target is not mentioned in the article, but is related and plausible. But the book The Third Industrial Revolution is a closer match with the actual wording. I think we need a discussion to avoid moving this back and forth. I recommend the book. MB 03:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waymarking.com

Not mentioned in target. Waymarking.com is a specific website; there is no information in this article and I find the redirect confusing. Recommend delete. MB 03:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too find this confusing. Delete Waymarking.com. Rwood128 (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Waymarking.com, a website for Waymarking, I can see the redirect was intended to provide info on the concept, for lack of a page for that website. For those with an inkling of what is Waymarking, which I gained just now(!), it may be helpful. For that I say keep. DadaNeem (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Waymarking.com is more closely related to Geocaching than Trail blazing. The website was created by Groundspeak Inc. (the dominate geocaching company) as an alternative to creating more virtual caches. If the redirect is to exist, it should point to something on the geocaching article, not trail blazing. –Sparkgap (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi (Buddhism)

These redirects have misleading disambiguators, as Lakshmi and Saraswati already have significant amounts of content about their observance in the Buddhist tradition. Kisshoten and Benzaiten specifically covers the deities' adoption in Japanese religious traditions. I would suggest deleting this redirect, and perhaps creating Lakshmi (Japan), Lakshmi (Japanese religion), Lakshmi (Shinto), etc, although it's not clear to me that readers are likely to search for these subjects this way. signed, Rosguill talk 17:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue seems to be standardization of article names. Kisshoten and Benzaiten are simply Japanese language translations for these deities that feature in Mahayana Buddhist texts. Several Asian-language Wikipedias treat them this way as well. Another option could be to keep the names of the current articles as those that focus on Japanese-specific Buddhism and extended traditions (Shinto, Shugendo, etc). In this case, Saraswati (Buddhism) and Lakshmi (Buddhism) may serve as their own articles to distinguish between larger overarching traditions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism; similar to how Yama breaks into Yama (Hinduism) and Yama (Buddhism). Keep for now as they are still extensions of Buddhist tradition. --Invokingvajrastalk 18:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit to minimal knowledge of Buddhism, but these do look problematic. Lakshmi touches on Buddhism in a few places, liking to Kisshoten in the Japan section but also to Palden Lhamo under Tibet and Nepal. The situation with Saraswati is similar. It's probably better to either retarget to the main articles or delete. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No additional comments after first relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close. Best to take this to a relevant wikiproject or the Reference Desk and get input from those who are more knowledgeable about Buddhism. Once they've offered comments, come back here and create a new nomination with links to, or text copied from, the comments in question. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having re-read Invokingvajras comment here, as well as having consulted some friends of mine that are more familiar with the subject matter, I am not seeing a clear argument for why to keep these redirects. Yes, these are concepts that have importance in Buddhist, Hindu, and Shinto traditions. I am not opposed creating articles for Lakshmi (Buddhism), Lakshmi (Hinduism) etc. following the model set by the articles about Yama. However, if we see that as being the optimal long-term solution, then we should delete these redirects to encourage article creation. Moreover, in my opinion the core problem with the current redirects is that they suggest that the current target articles about these religious figures in Japanese traditions comprise the entirety of these deities in the Buddhist tradition, something which seems to be trivially false. I admit to being out of my depth when it comes to deciding how information about these subjects should be split across multiple articles, but for as long as the current division of content is maintained across the relevant articles, I think that these redirects are actively misleading and should either be deleted or redirected back to Saraswati and Lakshmi respectively. signed, Rosguill talk 01:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Returning citizens

Delete per principle of least astonishment. This term has many more uses than referring to special category under Israeli tax law. Zerach (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I find that this term is used in several reliable sources to refer to people recently released from prison back into society, and this usage dominates the first few pages of Google search results. I'm not sure if an article on this exists or is the primary topic, so possibly retarget if it exists, or delete per WP:REDLINK if not. ComplexRational (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anty Matter

Implausible typo. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seetee

[A] word sometimes used in science-fiction, according to the creator. But it is not mentioned at the target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Project Florida template

Unused and useless. It does not follow the standard convention for redirects Wikiproject banners. Magioladitis (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Project Florida category

Unused and useless. It does not follow the standard convention for redirects Wikiproject banners. Magioladitis (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PCP

Unused. It does not follow standard convention for redirects of wikiproject banners Magioladitis (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep That redirect resulted from a page move when the Pokemon Collaborative Project was renamed to WikiProject Pokemon. Even if the transclusions were all updated to the current name, there are still references to the old name linked in several discussions from before the move. FunPika 02:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piripicho

Per WP:FORRED, these 3 redirects all appear to be foreign language words or phrases and I'm suggesting deletion. "Piripicho" appears to be Spanish and might be slang. I can't tell what language even that "Ŝot Brot" is supposed to be. The 3 redirects combined have only 8 total pageviews in the last 90 days. Chris857 (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all (I added yet another variation of "sot brot" to the nomination). "Piripicho" is Venezuelan Spanish slang meaning "penis", not used for a USB drive as far as I know. There's a mention of it in our Venezuelan Spanish article, but it's hardly worth having the redirect. I cannot find any explanation for "sot brot" that doesn't circle back to Wikipedia. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Space navigator

Generic sci-fi term that does not appear within the target, a line of devices for viewing 3D models. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lps04

Again, this redirect page has no obvious connection to its target article. ―Susmuffin Talk 01:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pp2013

"Pp2013" has no clear relation to the article that it redirects to. Yes, it could be a shortened version of "PAW Patrol 2013", but that would not be obvious to the average reader. ―Susmuffin Talk 01:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_20&oldid=916870165"