Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Unicodesnowman (talk | contribs) at 06:23, 26 February 2020 (→‎Teslarati). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

February 24

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

Teslarati

Teslarati, a fansite, isn't discussed in the target (though it is cited), and I don't see much scope for any such discussion to be added, so the reader who searches this will be left none the wiser as to what it is. I haven't been able to find any other articles that discuss it (though, again, several articles cite it), so there are no obvious alternative targets. If Teslarati is notable then point 10 of WP:RDEL also applies. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, specifically, WP:R#D10. Doug Mehus T·C 23:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as OA of the Redirects, I'm flexible with whatever is decided by WP:CONSENSUS; no problem whatsoever - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think Teslarati is probably a valid news site in the way the online news sites operate these days, albeit with a narrow-ish focus on SpaceX and EVs in general and Tesla etc. I have seen a number of news events covered my Teslatrai reporters first, ahead of other media. Having said that, a redirect to Tesla, Inc. doesn't make much sense as the news site is certainly not something that is operated by or the responsibility of Tesla, Inc. So unless someone creates a valid stub article for Teslarati that meets the general notability criteria with some coverage in other news media, then I'd be fine with the current redirects going away. N2e (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete - current redirects do not make sense. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Acctry3

Useless cross-namespace redirect. The user created this redirect in 2008 as a redirect. User has not edited since 2008, and the user's entire contributions consist of test edits in the userspace, so there should be no issues with deleting this userspace redirect. Hog Farm (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is harmless, Hog Farm. The user is likely choosing to use their user page as a redirect, and may be trying to signify their significance. ;-); alternatively,
Soft redirect to 1, to remove it the subject redirect as a "redirect to this page" in the "Page Information" for "1". This would be an ideal alternative to deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 23:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this user has not contributed to Wikipedia in years other than userspace tests, and this redirect will not make sense. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 02:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Flintstone Units

Not mentioned in the current target. Per my before procedures, I couldn't find any other suitable targets related to The Flintstones television series and film franchise. I tend to think we don't really know, definitively, what a "Fred Flintstone unit" is. It could be, conceivably, an Imperial unit, a Metric unit, the current United States customary unit, or some other measurement (i.e., Fred Flintstone's foot, perhaps?—the length of which we do not know). Without a mention in the target, ideally sourced by some sort of verification (including in primary sources), I think it's an WP:XY and WP:R#D2 thing and deletion is probably best. In terms of usage, it had 28 pageviews in the preceding twelve month period to yesterday, so per WP:R#D8, there's little to no utility or usefulness to this redirect. Thus, I'm recommending delete unless valid alternative option(s) are specified. Doug Mehus T·C 22:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Thanks. That's reasonable, but still, there's the WP:XY issue on where to target. It shouldn't be targeted to United States customary units, I think, but rather either (a) Imperial units (if we add this reliable source mention there, which we could easily) or (b) List of humorous units of measurement (preferably with this reliable source mention). Given the humourous nature, I'm inclined to think the latter suggested by Dondervogel 2 would be better. Doug Mehus T·C 12:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

USCU

Noticed this redirect pointed to United States customary units, but I thought the abbreviation USCU would more commonly refer to a United States-based organization or corporation and, as it turns out, the U.S. Central Credit Union, commonly abbreviated as USCU or USFCU, seem like a more appropriate target so I'm recommending retarget-ing to U.S. Central Credit Union, with a one- or two-way hatnote as applicable. Note that CU is an internationally-recognized abbreviation for Credit Union. In turn, U.S. Central Credit Union was the central back-office credit union, which serviced credit unions regulated by and belonging to the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). Doug Mehus T·C 22:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be likely to accept an argument that U.S. Central Credit Union is WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Narky Blert (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: I suppose I'm not opposed to disambiguation here, as we do have three potential disambiguation page links. That said, though, since the two University of South Carolina articles are related to each other, one would be subordinate to the other, so we really only have two disambiguation links. We also have United States customary units, that's true, but couldn't we take the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT argument for USCU, add hatnotes on the University of South Carolina page(s), and then create a separate UScu redirect for United States customary units per WP:DIFFCAPS? Doug Mehus T·C 18:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom unit

Similar to the the RfD discussion, this redirect seems to be a silly neologism with no reliable, independent source verification. In terms of common usage, it doesn't seem to have common usage outside of online message boards like Stack Exchange. I didn't want to interrupt the existing RfD discussion and have to ping everyone for approval to add this one, so am starting a separate discussion. While we don't necessarily have to have reliable, independent source verification of information for redirects, this redirect is still problematic per WP:XY and WP:R#D2 in that it's vague, ambiguous, and confusing, and could potentially refer to multiple potential things/targets. Per WP:R#D8, it's only got 40 pageviews for the twelve months to yesterday (the day before it was nominated). So, that's showing only the most marginal level of utility and usefulness. Delete, unless valid justification is provided or alternatives suggested. Amended Doug Mehus T·C 22:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI
 – Please see the related RfD discussion for the plural version. I did not want to interrupt that discussion by requesting to combine them, so felt fyi pointers were more helpful.
@Narky Blert: How come not "per nom" as well? Is my rationale per WP:R#D2/WP:XY not the same thing? As for your latter point, I completely agree! I hadn't thought of freedom fighters. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 23:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But that would be "freedom fighter units" or "fight units". I couldn't find "freedom unit" being used as a synonym for this, only for "US customary units". --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, as Narky Blert explained, a freedom unit could refer, potentially, to unit of freedom fighters just as freedom units could refer to multiple units of freedom fighters. Doug Mehus T·C 23:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being an advocate of the metric system I find the term just as "stupid" and "backwards" as others, however, we are not here to judge if a term is "proper" or not. It is out there and actively being used by some (with Google I can find it being used in numerous net outlets within minutes, f.e. [1][2][3][4]). Therefore we, as an encyclopedia, have the very duty to educate our readers about it. This starts by helping those who run into the term somewhere and redirect them to the proper term and article about "US customary units" in order to give them a chance to leave their information bubble and start to use the proper terminology. In order to not give the term undue weight, I don't think we should discuss it at the target page, but this is not a requirement for redirects. I don't see WP:R#D2 and WP:R#D8 applying, it is not vague, ambiguous, or confusing, but specifically refers to US customary units, and it is not in the way to another article or redirect. 40 hits? Well, so the redirect already helped about 40 people. If it is of concern that the term shows up in the index, we might add {{R from misnomer}} to it, so that noone in WP will start linking to it and it remains unprintworthy. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthiaspaul: I get the desire to keep this redirect and, while it's true we don't need to have reliable source coverage to "keep" redirects in place, we need to have some sourcing which indicates (a) it's got fairly common usage and that (b) it doesn't ambiguously refer to two or more potential things (b being the more important of the two things). Unless you can provide sourcing, beyond a few online message boards threads, that this is a misnomer, as you suggest, to refer to United States customary units and not, say, Imperial units (since the U.S. also uses the Imperial system), it becomes an WP:XY thing in that it could refer to multiple potential targets. Similarly, because of the above potential colloquial reference to U.S. freedom fighters, it's also ambiguous and potentially confusing per WP:R#D2. Disambiguation would be an option, if we had multiple English Wikipedia articles which referenced this term. I'm not seeing that, so can't support retaining this redirect, unfortunately. Sorry. :-( Doug Mehus T·C 23:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mean acceleration of the Earth

I can see exactly three hits on google books for this phrase: one indeed appears to be referring to gravity, but the other two refer to the acceleration due to the Earth's rotation instead. Given the ambiguity and the fact that this is a rarely used descriptive phrase, WP:XY applies. – Uanfala (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1.000

I'm not quite sure what is the intended context of 1'000, but it seems to be a possible string in Quote notation, where it doesn't represent the number one thousand. As for 1.000, it may represent 1000, but not in the English notation. – Uanfala (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lingwa

As far as I can see, the target isn't know simply as Lingwa: the term here is only part of the name, as it is also part of other names, like Lingwa Maltija. – Uanfala (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Dhar. It's an inhabited place, mentioned there. I've removed the bad link. Narky Blert (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lingawa (I don't know if Lingwa is a valid alternative spelling or a typo) is only one of several hundred villages in Dhar www.census2011.co.in/data/subdistrict/3536-kukshi-dhar-madhya-pradesh.html, and I see no reason why this should remain mentioned in that messy text at Dhar (at the very least, the village is in the district of Dhar, not the city that the article is about). There is another village, this time properly called Lingwa, in another part of the same state www.census2011.co.in/data/village/478357-lingwa-madhya-pradesh.html, but unsurprisingly, it's not mentioned in the article about the administrative unit it's part of. – Uanfala (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Latinish

Latinish, a rare word, means 'Latin-like' ('of the nature of Latin' according to the OED, but there are current uses where the Latin is that of Latino). This is an obscure ambiguous term whose meaning is not defined anywhere on wikipedia and whose meaning should be transparent to English speakers anyway. – Uanfala (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nautical units

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 List of nautical units. No need for bureaucracy here; consensus is unanimous. (non-admin closure) J947 (c), at 23:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nautical mile is not the only nautical unit: there's for example the fathom and the knot). Surprisingly, I haven't been able to find a place on wikipedia that discusses the units of measurement used in navigation, but hopefully somebody else might. Failing that, I'd go for deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dondervogel 2: Circumstances have changed, and PamD has kindly created a list article instead of disambiguating, so I'm replying to you to consider your earlier !vote in view of recent events. Doug Mehus T·C 15:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see a redirect to a list as one of several forms of disambiguation, and quite possibly the most appropriate form in this case. Please treat my !vote as including that possibility. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dondervogel 2: Thank you for clarifying! Doug Mehus T·C 18:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to list of nautical units. Narky Blert (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: It didn't exist when we !voted. PamD just created it. While we all prognosticated on whether a disambiguation page, list, or article were better, PamD got to work and made a list. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 01:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Uanfala. That's what I thought you would say as your argument indeed suggested you would be fond of this solution. That sounds reasonable, but since Rosguill is non-involved, Rosguill, would you mind closing early per WP:SNOW? Doug Mehus T·C 21:23, 25 February 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.

Shabbat (disambiguation)

The target is not a disambiguation page, it is a list of topics about Shabbat. For disambiguation, there is a hatnote at Shabbat. Speedy was declined on the basis that it's "disambiguation-like", which I claim it isn't: it is not a list of articles that might otherwise be called "Shabbat". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rome II Conference

Not mentioned at target article, delete unless connection to IBS can be provided. Hog Farm (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: These articles may be of interest:
    • "Visit by Jean-Yves Le Drian to Rome - Rome II conference and UNRWA ministerial conference (15 March 2018)". Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs.
    • "Rome II Conference to Be Held on March 15". Asharq Al-Awsat. 13 February 2018.

Glades12 (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the plausibility of retargeting to the Rome II disambiguation page highlighted by Shhhnotsoloud and expanded on by BDD. It would be useful for @Hog Farm, Glades12, and Jrfw51:, as previous participants, to revisit their comments in light of the added comments. In turn, another week will help to develop a more thorough consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 21:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sony's Marvel Unviverse

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Unlikely misspelling. (Also, please note that in the previous discussion, this redirect had a different since its current target was a redirect during the previous discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and I agree this target is a better target. Doug Mehus T·C 20:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (was Keep) Per WP:R#K5 as {{R from misspelling}} as it has 68 pageviews from the preceding twelve months, to yesterday (before its nomination). We've kept similar redirects with quite a bit less pageviews. Sony used to have the film licensing rights for the Marvel franchise, and still shares with Disney some rights to some of the franchises, so "Sony's Marvel Universe" is a very plausible search term. Unviverse, too, is an equally plausible misspelling. In short, it's harmless and at least a bit useful. Doug Mehus T·C 20:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Nope, Unviverse doesn't exist and shouldn't. (If it was such a likely misspelling, it would have been created at some point during Wikipedia's existence of almost two decades.) Having redirects such as the nominated redirect where one random part of the phrase is misspelled whereas the rest is spelled properly is WP:COSTLY. And the page views are most likely someone clicking this redirect on the search bar because it appeared when they started typing "Sony's Marvel"; this redirect unnecessarily clutters the Wikipedia search bar. All and all, it's more problematic that it is helpful, especially considering than its target is the properly-spelled version, letter-for-letter. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree that it "clutters the Wikipedia search bar." The search bar is separated into two parts: in the first part, it is a list of bolded article titles (including redirects) that match the string entered; in the second part, it is a "contains query" part, which searches the full text of Wikipedia articles. It is very easy to search within the latter part. If it were the case that redirects were just cluttering up the search bar, we wouldn't have most redirects, I'd argue. Doug Mehus T·C 20:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      ...Well, if you care to start listing off some of those redirects, I'll happily nominate them for deletion for the same reason I'm nominating this one. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Most should be listed under the category from {{R from misspelling}}, among others. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 20:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Also, "clicking a misspelling in a search bar" does not equal "usefulness", especially if the correctly spelled version appears as well. It just proves that it was clicked for the reason alone that it exists. Seriously, I wager that if this redirect was deleted, the page views would disappear. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Steel1943: Sure, I'll take that bet, but let's keep it a friendly bet. If this redirect is deleted and in a year, it still has at least 50% of the pageviews as before, you will invoke WP:IAR (technically, not needed as there are no enforced rules regarding the service awards) and award me Grandmaster Editor (or Grand High Togneme Vicarus) earlier than the edit requirement. If, however, the pageviews fall to less than, say, whatever's reasonable, I will do whatever you wish of me. Doug Mehus T·C 20:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      FTR you can't view pageviews of pages that don't exist. J947 (c), at 23:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @J947: You're right about that. But you know ... I think the page view tool showed page views for nonexistent pages before the update a few years back ... which may be what I was basing my previous comment on. (IMO, the previous version of the page view tool was a lot more helpful.) Either way though, I'm sure the princess process for viewing the page view statistics for nonexistent titles could be acquired somehow. Steel1943 (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Steel1943 Interesting points on the previous version of the pageviews tool, but sorry, can you clarify what you mean by princess? That's got me confused. Doug Mehus T·C 02:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dmehus: Autocorrect fail. Steel1943 (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. Figured it had to be something like that, but couldn't figure out what word(s) were supposed to be there. Much more sense now. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 02:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible misspelling. I don't care how many views it has had, it's still an implausible misspelling. We don't need to (and should not) have redirects for every possible typo someone might come up with. Narky Blert (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narky Blert: And how do you objectively assess what is a plausible or implausible misspelling? The term is notoriously vague and can mean different things. To my view, the only way to assess plausibility is on pageviews. Doug Mehus T·C 21:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have the redirects unviverse, unviversal or unviversality, and quite right too. This is useless junk. Narky Blert (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, fair enough. I see that we don't have any redirect misspellings beginning with -unvi, so that may be true. I'm going to wait to see what J947 says, though, if he or she says anything. Meantime, I'll change to a comment. Doug Mehus T·C 23:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm male BTW. J947 (c), at 18:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    J947, I thought so, but didn't want to make assumptions as I've been incorrect in the past. Thanks for clarifying! I try and use they whenever possible. Doug Mehus T·C 19:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RHARMFUL, which says: Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones. My opinion on plausibility in RfDs is that it is all relative to the number of pageviews a redirect receives. Redirects are here to help the readers; and what the readers want is most adequately represented by pageviews. With the search-bar argument, I could argue an equally potent argument by saying that this redirect is helpful because it gives more space in the search results for Sony's Marvel Universe (which is what you're going to be searching for if "Sony's M" is what you have typed). It's completely harmless and demonstrably helpful. J947 (c), at 18:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947 and my initial gut instinct (described above). Doug Mehus T·C 19:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, worthless redirect that should have been deleted the day it was created. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think the above illustrates why page views should not be used to determine the usefulness of redirects. Page views do not tell you that x people were helped by a redirect, simply that it was viewed x times (and potentially not all of those views may be human). And page views should certainly not be used to try to obtain service awards that have not been "earned". -- Tavix (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My citing of RHARMFUL is still yet to be refuted. What is to be gained by deleting this redirect? J947 (c), at 23:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bertie Scott

Not mentioned at the target; recently removed as a primary sourced single appearance on the label. Previously redirected to Bert Scott, but there's no mention there either and no source referring to the footballer under the nickname. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:RFL

Noticed this shortcut, with less than a handful of inlinks, which could easily be updated or piped, but I think this shortcut is woefully ambiguous per WP:R#D2, potentially confusing, and also an WP:XY thing. It could, potentially, refer to, but not limited to, {{reflist}} (whose RFL and Rfl shortcuts closed as "delete" on similar grounds), or to WP:RFFL/WP:RLOTE. Similar to WP:FORRED, I am recommending delete-ing this shortcut, updating the ~4-5 inlinks, and nipping this in the bud (or is it butt?) before it becomes too wildly used and we can't delete or retarget. Doug Mehus T·C 14:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's even fewer than first thought. Excluding the bot-created pages for tracking this RfD, there's only two, maybe three, instances of this shortcut. The other two or three are just wikitables that track whether a shortcut is in use as a page, as a redirect, or not in use. So those wouldn't need to be updated. In short, it's simply unused, and we should delete it, possibly with Sysop brand salt so as to ensure consensus is used to establish where best to target it. Doug Mehus T·C 14:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SALT is only used for things that are repeatedly recreated. Your salting suggestion would be a blatant misuse of that function. -- Tavix (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, WP:RFFL, which was just renamed, by the way, following consensus to do so, and it already has three official shortcuts and one deprecated one. It doesn't need another one. But it would be the most logical target. But, it, too, is still ambiguous; hence why I thought salt protection could be useful. Doug Mehus T·C 19:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's short for REFILL. Shortcuts are usually ambiguous because they are meant to be, well, short—if we delete shortcuts for being ambiguous we would not have many shortcuts remaining. -- Tavix (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true, to a certain extent, but for a user script, it's woefully being under-utilized for a three-letter shortcut. It would be better to establish community consensus more broadly on where this shortcut could be used. Since it's not being used outside of one or two userpages/user talk pages, it seems appropriate to repurpose it before it becomes more broadly used. Doug Mehus T·C 23:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I disagree that it should be repurposed. If the redirect becomes more broadly used, then the shortcut is doing its job. -- Tavix (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and I agree with you and Tavix that salt protection should normally only be used for repeatedly recreated pages, but my thinking was that since we have no rules, we could form consensus on an exception basis to use salt protection in order to decide how best to use the redirect, as part of a larger community process. Nevertheless, while my preferred option is deletion per the above, I can support your disambiguation proposal as an alternate option, if that's what others prefer. Thank you. Doug Mehus T·C 13:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BOLD, that's not how consensus works... For what it's worth, I oppose disambiguation, because then it would cease to be useful as a shortcut. -- Tavix (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding disambiguation, though, we have 152 disambiguation pages for Wikipedia project namespace shortcuts at Category:Wikipedia disambiguation pages. Many are two- and three-letter shortcuts just like WP:RFL, including, but by no means limited to, WP:WPL. Doug Mehus T·C 02:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Retarget. If the ReFill script is not worth this shortcut, then send it to WP:Reflist or WP:RFFL. We can always add hatnotes to the tops of the articles to make it clear in case somebody typed in the shortcut expecting to go somewhere else. There are definite possibilities for where this redirect could go. I also oppose disambiguation per Tavix, for that would cause the redirect's function as a shortcut to be negated. I see no problems with this being a shortcut to the ReFill tool, though. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or weak disambiguate. Either keep because this is a shortcut redirect with incoming links in the "Wikipedia:" namespace (so thus deletion is harmful since it breaks incoming links), or disambiguate if there really is a proven need to disambiguate (which I currently don't see.) Either way ... "strong oppose deletion". Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P:b

Not mentioned at the target, and a Scholar search turned up nothing. It's also a not-implausible search term for P/B ratio, although I think that deleting it is preferable to redirection. signed, Rosguill talk 04:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tavix. When I suggested that, I wasn't really that serious about that. It would've been a stretch. I hadn't yet noticed the disambiguation page PB. Doug Mehus T·C 03:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it's a good idea to do your research before you post. -- Tavix (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To add to what I asked above, and ping Rosguill in case they don't make it back to this log page for a few days, perhaps, depending on the usage, retargeting to PB is better? I note there's a number of variant capitalizations and punctuations of PB as redirects targeted there. Even to peanut butter, it's an WP:XY thing, so it's ambiguous per WP:R#D2. Doug Mehus T·C 13:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Targeting PB seems reasonable. signed, Rosguill talk 03:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I think that's the best approach. Doug Mehus T·C 03:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nindu Masasulu

Created as the result of a spelling mistake. No incoming links. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Customs and Immigration

No action recommended, just looking for feedback about the redirect. Prisencolin (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts for this redirect were that "Customs and Immigration", especially in that order, is most likely to refer to the process at airports. Customs, a related topic, is another possibility, with government agencies being a less likely intended search target. as far as I can tell, the only government agency with an article on Wikipedia that includes "Customs and Immigration" in their names in that order is States of Jersey Customs and Immigration Service. Confusingly, the previous target for this redirect, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), doesn't actually conduct customs checks at borders, a task left to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. ICE is mostly known for carrying out deportations. signed, Rosguill talk 01:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Narky Blert, Dmehus, how would you feel about Customs as a potential target? signed, Rosguill talk 21:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill Glancing at the sections of the article, it does focus on immigration enforcement and customs, import tariffs, and so forth, but it's actually not that great. I'd actually prefer to see Customs move to Customs and immigration, with Customs continuing as a redirect to the section on Customs. Or, instead of a redirect, Customs would then become a dab page for border-related "Customs" and topics related to social and political customs and traditions. Or, alternatively, if editors want to have a separate article on more immigration-related topics, then dab-ifying Customs and immigration. As to the order of the title, in Canada, as well as the United States, "customs" usually comes first and, alphabetically, this seems to make sense. Doug Mehus T·C 21:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill: two separate things, so WP:XY. We may be lacking an article which describes even in general terms what can be involved in crossing a frontier, with or without goods. I can remember both currency controls on leaving and duty-free goods on reentering UK. (That redirect is very poor. All purchases made outside UK were subject to customs duty, up to a personal limit of something like 200 cigs and a bottle of booze. At one time, there was even a limit on the amount of money you could bring into UK on returning.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is history, even recent history, in this. Immigration and customs aren't always about just routinely showing your papers to and opening your suitcase for a couple of bored officials. (1) In 1959, we went on a family holiday to northern Spain. The second or third day there, my father was up early in the morning with a pair of binoculars, birdwatching, when he encountered a policeman. To avoid possible trouble, he volunteered in broken Spanish an explanation of what he was doing; but the policeman just smiled, and said, We know. (2) In 1964, I went on a school trip to Russia. One of my friends had an orange, and the customs officer made him peel it. Why? So that he couldn't sell it on the black market. (3) In 1968, my parents were in Czechoslovakia when the Soviets invaded. They were advised to, and did, leave in a hurry. Neither the Czechoslovak nor the Austrian border guards had the slightest interest in their papers or in what they might be carrying; nor in those of anyone else crossing in the same direction. Narky Blert (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd support a WP:BCA, which need only be very short; effectively, an annotated list of targets. I would not support a DAB, because there are no full title matches. Narky Blert (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Narky Blert Yeah, I concur with your arguments re: the partial title matches. Any idea what one might look like? If you get a chance to draft it below the target, we can work on it. I think we should relist this to suss this idea out. Doug Mehus T·C 20:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist to further evaluate a brief broad-concept article as an alternative to deletion or, as was desired as an alternative by most of the participants in the discussion, to take no action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 20:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist to discuss the retarget option identified by feminist, which discusses both customs and immigration broadly speaking. Pinging the previous participants via {{ping}} @Prisencolin, Rosguill, Narky Blert, Shhhnotsoloud, Steel1943, and Nabla: in order to update them on the potential target identified by feminist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 17:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Louder Sound

Procedural move from an RfC discussion at a talk page in which editor Bait30 asked the following question, "Should this redirect target (a) Metal Hammer, (b) Classic Rock (magazine), or (c) neither? (same goes for LouderSound and Loudersound.com)"? For what it's worth, I am officially neutral until I've taken a position, if I take a position. Doug Mehus T·C 17:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created a couple of the redirects. I don’t really care where they target - they’re all interconnected - I’m only against outright deletion. Here’s the About Us page for consideration. Sergecross73 msg me 00:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still decidedly neutral, but some observations, and I thank the creator Sergecross73 for the URL and insight...it seems that Louder is the publisher of these two magazines, so the question becames, to where do we target these, that is, to which magazine? In the case of loudersound.com, that can probably be kept as {{R from domain name}}, assuming we have a suitable target. In terms of the others, since neither is an actual name for this publisher and because the term is somewhat ambiguous, I'm personally uncertain on what is best here. Doug Mehus T·C 00:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it’s actually Future Publishing that does the publishing. LouderSound is more like...the umbrella term for their music topic areas. It’s all kind of confusing though, especially because they keep changing, rebranding, and renaming things too, due to financial issues. Team Rock was another one in the mix, which I think was the prior name for Louder. Sergecross73 msg me 00:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, if that's the case, I'd be more inclined to target to the parent publisher then as there's an WP:XY thing between these two publishers. The remaining question becomes whether there are other "Louder Sound"(s), at least in that capitalization. I tend to think not, though Louder sound would be a candidate for targeting to either Loudness or Louder probably per WP:DIFFCAPS. Doug Mehus T·C 14:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm the one who did the original RfC. I'm also against outright deletion. But I feel like all three of those redirects should target the same article. The question really is just which one.  Bait30  Talk? 04:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After a week of comments and little idea on what should be done with these redirects, let alone what that action should be for each, relisting seems prudent. The nominator, Bait30, who favours anything except outright deletion, has produced a good and challenging RfD in that the limited participants are stumped. There seems to be the prevailing view that these redirects should target the same place, assuming they're kept, given that Metal Hammer and Classic Rock (magazine) are two separate magazines under the "Louder Sound" umbrella banner.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 16:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American classicists

Redirect to category, created with puzzling edit summary about one particular scholar. PamD 13:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superconti

No mention of this term in target article PamD 13:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Two

Not mentioned in target article PamD 12:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surith

Not mentioned in target article. PamD 12:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almuerzo

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. By Fastily per G7. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 23:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish term with a fleeting mention in article ("In Mexico, lunch (almuerzo) is usually .."), but we don't really need to provide redirects from every language version of our titles. PamD 11:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a term with a clear translation in English. I see no reason to delete the redirect. Interstellarity (talk) 13:26, 24 February 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.

Desayuno

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. By Fastily per G7. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 23:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish term not mentioned in article PamD 11:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a term with a clear translation in English. I see no reason to delete the redirect. Interstellarity (talk) 13:26, 24 February 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.

Bebida

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. By Fastily per G7. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 23:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish term not mentioned in article PamD 11:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a term with a clear translation in English. I see no reason to delete the redirect. Interstellarity (talk) 13:27, 24 February 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.

Comida

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. By Fastily per G7. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 23:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish term not mentioned in article PamD 11:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a term with a clear translation in English. I see no reason to delete the redirect. Interstellarity (talk) 13:27, 24 February 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.

Suegra

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. By Fastily per G7. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 23:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish term not mentioned in article PamD 11:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a term with a clear translation in English. I see no reason to delete the redirect. Interstellarity (talk) 13:27, 24 February 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.

Suegro

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. By Fastily per G7. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 23:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish term not mentioned in article PamD 11:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a term with a clear translation in English. I see no reason to delete the redirect. Interstellarity (talk) 13:27, 24 February 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.

Padrastro

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. by Fastily per G7 (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish term not mentioned in article PamD 11:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a term with a clear translation in English. I see no reason to delete the redirect. Interstellarity (talk) 13:27, 24 February 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.

Madrastra

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. by Fastily per G7 (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish term, not mentioned in article. PamD 11:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a term with a clear translation in English. I see no reason to delete the redirect. Interstellarity (talk) 13:28, 24 February 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.

Tarea

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 disambiguate as unanimous. Don't see that result often. :) (non-admin closure) J947 (c), at 18:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish word for homework, but no mention in the target article and we do not provide redirects for all translations of titles. PamD 11:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate - Agree with others as page creator. Interstellarity (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a term with a clear translation in English — it has multiple possible translations, as in es:Fuerza de Tarea Conjunta de Paraguay (which does not mean "Joint Homework Force of Paraguay"). This was a reply to an earlier version of the above comment 59.149.124.29 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 15:28, 24 February 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.

Crich Cualann

No mention of "crich" in target article. No WP article on Crich (apart from Derbyshire village) which would show why this is a likely search term (eg if it was a term for a kind of territory). PamD 11:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - see below. PamD 19:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Crích is an old Irish term for border or borderlands, or a territory in general. Oxford Reference Sheila1988 (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Rathdown Castle, where it's mentioned (and remove the link in that article). Narky Blert (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an {{R from alternative name}} per Sheila1988 and the fact that the term is well attested (as evident by a search on google books). My assumption is that Crich Cualann is not a different entity from Cualu. Rathdown Castle is by no means a suitable target: the fact that this happens to be the only article currently mentioning this precise form of the name is entirely incidental (and the Crich Cualann referred to there is the same one as the topic of Cualu). – Uanfala (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sheila1988: Could you please either add a note somewhere in the article referring to this term, or maybe create Crich (Irish term) or something like that, to explain it, for the sake of non-Irish-speakers unfamiliar with it? Thanks. PamD 18:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've now created Crich (disambiguation): had I found it, with the link to Wiktionary, I probably wouldn't have nominated this for RfD. I think all the entries are just-about justifiable, so it's a valid little dab page. So happy now to Withdraw the nomination. (But my request to @Sheila1988: stands: as you've got that nice little source for it as an alternative name, please add it to the article. Thanks.) PamD 19:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-involved Comment Pinging @Narky Blert, Uanfala, and Sheila1988:, can all of you see PamD's added request? It seems she has created a disambiguation page, though it's unclear whether this request would be withdrawn as "speedy keep" or as "speedy retarget" to the new disambiguation page. Nevertheless, this can't be done whilst conflicting !votes are outstanding. This is not to suggest your !votes in any way need to change, but rather to encourage you to consider the new developments. Thanks. Doug Mehus T·C 21:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hurry. This RFD was posted less than 12 hours ago. I can see no reason for truncating the usual 168 hours (7 days). Narky Blert (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: Nevertheless, I thought it was important for you to consider the updated comments, particularly Uanfala's response to you on retargeting. Doug Mehus T·C 23:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon Eggs (Ariana Grande song)

No bacon in target article. PamD 11:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom units

FYI
 – PamD, Dondervogel 2, Jc3s5h, erkinalp9035, Shhhnotsoloud, Narky Blert, please see the related RfD discussion for the singular version. I did not want to interrupt this discussion by requesting to combine them, so felt fyi pointers were more helpful.

No mention in target article. Edit summary on creation of redirect asserts "freedom units is a common alternative name for US measurement system". Googling suggests it does exist as a US meme, but there's no point redirecting to nonexistent content. Add the info, with a reliable source, and then create the redirect. PamD 11:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've only ever heard this term used on Wikipedia. Sounds like a joke. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dondervogel 2. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep as per https://english.stackexchange.com/a/378090/247311 (I wanted proper citations to be added to this answer in order to be usable as a reliable source). Erkin Alp Güney 19:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had added those humorous referrals, but someone deleted those citations. Erkin Alp Güney 19:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yellow snow? Narky Blert (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Q/A sites' reliability change based on answer. A well-written, well-researched, properly-cited Q/A answer may be more usable than a poorly-written refereed article in occasions. Erkin Alp Güney 19:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XVIXII

This is not the Roman numeral representing 1613, but a concatenation of the numerals for 16 and 12. I initially tagged it for speedy deletion, but made a typo in the criterion used (WP:R2 instead of WP:R3). – Uanfala (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J947: I declined it, and administrators often don't seem to like second attempts at speedy deletions, so letting it play out seems best. If, however, in a couple days, we're at 9+ "deletes," then I'll request early deletion per WP:SNOW. Doug Mehus T·C 22:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_24&oldid=942690458"