Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 17

September 17

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 17, 2019.

USS Amanda (1856)

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) 02:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

USS Amanda (1856) → USS Amanda (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. This is a redirect from pagemove; the article was created at this title in 2011 and stayed there until being moved to the current location five months ago. Problem is, it doesn't apply (and has never applied) to the subject of the article: the existence of an (1856) redirect suggests that something important happened to this vessel in that year, but USS Amanda was built in 1858, so the existence of an (1856) redirect is potentially confusing. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing. This is odd... the article does not mention 1856 even once, and all of the reliable sources I found (e.g. this one reference 1858. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:43, 22 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.

LISETTE MORELOS

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) 02:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LISETTE MORELOS → Lisette Morelos (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

LISA R. FREDENTHAL-LEE → Lisa R. Fredenthal-Lee (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete per WP:RCAPS. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and not a particular stylization. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no need for either all-caps redirect. PC78 (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:19, 18 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.

Anthropomorph

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 2#Anthropomorph

Döblin

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 2#Döblin

Template:AutoProject

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AutoProject → Template:WikiProject Automobiles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unused. It does not follow the standard wikiproject redirects convention. Magioladitis (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak neutral. The original template predated WP 1.0 assessment and was later redirected to the current project banner after the latter was created. I couldn't find a "standard WikiProject redirects convention", but regardless, this would be an odd way of getting to the WikiProject Automobiles template so I don't see much use in keeping it; but by the same token, I see no real benefit in deleting it either. --Sable232 (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as an unused (no significant links, virtually no pageviews), non-standard project banner redirect. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:37, 22 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.

MOS:CONSISTENCY

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 2#MOS:CONSISTENCY

Queen Daughter

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) 02:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Daughter → Elizabeth II (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There are loads of daughters of queens. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Superflouous Wikipedia invention. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Never heard of this term before. GoodDay (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Made up term. MilborneOne (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If this is indeed an actual term, then it could go to Princess. Other options are Queen's Daughters organization. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe this was intended to distinguish her from the Queen Mother (her own mother, called Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother at Wikipedia). But I don't think anybody ever used this term for Queen Elizabeth II. I certainly couldn't find any usages in a search. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not useful. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 19 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.

Elisabeth I of Scotland

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) 02:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth I of Scotland → Elizabeth II (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Made-up name. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as she's Elizabeth II over Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one of those attempted President of Puerto Rico or President of Guam extensions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to what's said above, the name is spelled differently (why eliSabeth versus eliZabeth?), and also it risks confusion with our article on Elizabeth of Scotland, 1596-1662. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Made up name. As far as I know the title "Elizabeth I of Scotland" has never existed. She's Elizabeth II both in England and in Scotland. This only causes confusion with Elizabeth I of England and Elizabeth of Scotland, who were altogether different people. Frankly, I'm amazed this redirect has survived for thirteen years without anyone noticing. JIP | Talk 14:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is full of nonsense redirects, and the only way to notice them is presumably to type them in. On that principle, I'm quite impressed this one, and Queen Daughter above, were ever noticed. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen makes good points but if the title does not exist as a matter of record than we should delete to not cause confusion Dartslilly (talk) 15:14, 21 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.