Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 28

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dispenser (talk | contribs) at 02:52, 1 March 2020 (→‎Whatisthematrix: Keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

February 28

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 28, 2020.

Gambia (The)

Like the earlier Holy See (The), this is useless. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dead letter office (proposal)

Found via a random search of Help Desk archives. The page was a proposal (last revision here) before being redirected in 2004(!) by Michael Snow in this edit. Rcats added in 2017 by Steel1943; notice that in this case, the redirect has history but that history is not needed for attribution of the Help Desk page.

I think the redirect should be undone and the previous revision kept and tagged with {{superseded}} or similar. If it must be redirected, I would say WP:NPP or WP:AFC are closer matches than WP:HD, since the proposal dealt with new articles rather than a general help forum. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This does have some history to it, as a failed or successful proposal. Its utility as a redirect is low, but per WP:ATT, deletion is likely out of the cards. I'd support, and prefer, a history merge to what ultimately became of this proposal, possibly into the current target. Failing that, maybe a rename and possible retarget-ing? Doug Mehus T·C 15:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, one of the problems is how to identify what ultimately became of this proposal. I fail to see how the Help Desk is a successor, even spiritually, of that proposal. "Someone choose to redirect it there at the time" seems particularly flimsy evidence; on the contrary, judging by [1] and a couple of later edits, the Help Desk was a general help forum as soon as it started to exist in March 2004, whereas the proposal at time of redirection was more akin to current-day WP:NPP (a list of potentially problematic articles marked for various issues). OTOH NPP was created in March 2004 too but as patrol log of the new pages feed, so not an exact match either. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert and mark with {{failed proposal}}, though I won't fuss too much about what specific tag we use as long as it clearly communicates that the proposal was unsuccessful. No meaningful connection with the help desk. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpster diving

Redirect to Wiktionary, which normally is okay, but only redirects to a troll entry on Wiktionary created by the same (now-blocked) user who created this. I'm not sure how to nominate an entry on Wiktionary for deletion, but I would do so if I knew how. No point in having this crap clog up here or there. Hog Farm (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Short penis

Last one (of the redirects targeted to micropenis needing discussion and attention anyway!). Similar to the redirects little dick, tiny penis, tiny cock, small cock, and small dick, the latter four of the quintuplets are also on today's log page, this redirect is not mentioned in the current target. Since there are no defined parameters on what constitutes a short penis, this redirect is ambiguous and confusing per WP:R#D2. In terms of assessing its utility per WP:R#K5, or lack thereof per WP:R#D8, it had 47 pageviews in the preceding twelve month period inclusive to yesterday. That's probably exactly borderline, so per WP:R#D2 and WP:K#K5, I am neutral toward retarget-ing to the dab page small penis as {{R from more specific name}} and {{R from related topic}} or to
delete-ing this redirect, and bringing it forth for discussion.
-- Doug Mehus T·C 03:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Retarget to Human penis size. There are a number of things wrong with that disambiguation page, but that's another story. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment RfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. The dab page can be fixed. Nevertheless, we cannot say that the human male has exclusive ownership to all penis size-related redirects. Lots of non-human males have penises. Doug Mehus T·C 20:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're right about "exclusive ownership". Delete: Search is better and will quickly bring up articles the searcher right want. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But the deletion argument fails WP:R#D8 as WP:R#K5 is a clear pass, substantiated by both pageviews and WP:RCHEAP. Doug Mehus T·C 17:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Simply going to 'penis' wouldn't be helpful. Beyond that? Well, what is or isn't 'short' is relative and has no coherent definition as mentioned above. I realize that this is kind of silly to get into, but the fact is also that 'short' isn't the same thing as 'small'. Life exists in three dimensional space (and beyond). Looking at a whole person, of course, it's easy to observe two people and think of one them as being bigger in general even if he or she is genuinely less tall. And, as additionally stated above, there's the fact that... well, it's an awkward topic to talk about, but the penis is something that doesn't just apply to other regular mammals as well as humans. It applies to angels, centaurs, cyborgs, demons, elves, ghosts, goblins, golems, harpies, nagas, necromorphs, orcs, robots, tentacle-coated abominations rising from the depths of the cursed oceans, and many other plausible to implausible creatures thought to maybe prey upon humans in a particular way should you somehow run into one. What they consider to be too 'short'? All bets are off. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can live with deletion of this one; 47 pageviews per year is, as I say, marginally worth keeping. Doug Mehus T·C 21:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as-is; we have disambiguation hatnotes for a reason, e.g. {{about|a medically defined condition|more subjective evaluations|Human penis size}}. As second choice, do it the other way around. By no means should this be deleted, since it's a common phrase and we have somewhere to send it, and redlinking it will obviously inspire (probably multiple) attempts to create non-encyclopedic material at this title.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: Just noticed your reply, can you clarify what you mean by "do it the other way around"? I tend to agree it shouldn't be deleted, but the reason why I'm opposed to retargeting to human penis size is because humans aren't the only mammals with penises, long or short. I also think that, because there's no defined sizes on what constitutes a "short penis," micropenis, a human condition, isn't appropriate. I would weakly support retargeting to penis, which touches, broadly, on the sizing of penises; however, my preference would be to retarget to either of (a) small penis or (b) penis (disambiguation). Note: I have proposed merging the small penis disambiguation page into penis (disambiguation) since this RfD was originally listed. Doug Mehus T·C 00:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    By the other way around, I mean have it go to Human penis size, with a hatnote pointing to the other article, maybe {{redirect|Small penis|the medically defined condition|Micropenis}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SMcCandlish Meh, I don't like that then. Humans aren't the only mammals with penises; thus, there's ambiguity per WP:R#D2 and per WP:XY. Would you support retargeting to penis, possibly with a hatnote, or to the small penis disambiguation page? Doug Mehus T·C 17:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't much care which direction the redir vs. hatnote goes. As for that "little matter", I don't think it's regular English usage (i.e., nothing encyclopedic or even Wiktionarian) for "micropenis" or "small penis" or anything like this to be applied outside a human context, so I'm skeptical that it matters. I think most male mammals have much of their penis as retractile, so the question doesn't really arise. I guess it could in an animal husbandry context (e.g. if a bull or stallion was literally incapable of mating successfully), but I'm unaware of sources using "micropenis" in such a context (even when I search google for keywords like livestock micropenis).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CoffeeWithMarkets. The phrase may be common, but what does that mean? Can we really speak to what a short penis is? For a phrase to be on Wiktionary, it needs to be idiomatic, meaning the phrase has some meaning beyond the meaning of its individual parts. So they have wikt:short end of the stick, for example, but will likely never have "short penis". While this isn't a formal criteria here, it can be helpful when assessing this sort of redirect. And since a short penis is just a "penis" that is "short", by whatever definition, I don't think this is a helpful search term. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still neutral on retarget-ing to a dab page (whether small penis or penis (disambiguation)) or to delete-ing, but per my comments above, if it helps to clarify, I
    oppose retarget-ing to human penis size. @BDD and CoffeeWithMarkets: both make compelling arguments for the "delete" side, so, since there doesn't seem to be support to my idea retargeting toward the disambiguation page, one can safely conclude that there's probably a rough consensus here now to deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 17:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: discussion still ongoing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vagina entry

Weird slang for sexual intercourse, not really used, could also (and more plausibly imo) refer to the vaginal introitus. Suggest deleting or retargeting. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus (Doug Mehus), I would have stated "or redirect." But "vagina entry" is not a word. It's like a grammatically incorrect version of "vaginal entry." I don't see a need to redirect it. We could simply create "vaginal entry" and redirect it instead. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But since this is not a vote, I said, "per you," because your rationale states you oppose keeping at the current target and are supportive of, chiefly, deletion or, alternatively, retargeting. Grammatical correctness doesn't apply to redirects; we have lots of redirects for plausible misspellings. Move-ing this redirect to Vaginal entry is definitely possible, but I think we should just create a new redirect, and target to the same place. Doug Mehus T·C 23:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus (Doug Mehus), again, no need to ping me. I'll check back here for replies. I've pinged you, but that's because I'm not sure if it's best to ping you when I reply here. As for the matter at hand, some editors will state "not a vote" with regard to consensus-building; this is per WP:Consensus. I've also noted that consensus on Wikipedia is not about votes (unless it's something like RfA). But it does seem that in venues such as this one, it pretty much comes down to a vote. Either way, I am aware of WP:Redirects are cheap. And it's because of that cheapness, that they can often be validly deleted. Wikipedia has taken grammatical correctness, including misspellings matters, into consideration times before when it comes to whether or not to retain a redirect. This includes whether or not the misspelling is common enough that we should retain it as a redirect. In this case, you feel that retaining "vagina entry" is beneficial. I don't when "vaginal entry" is considered. Any reader typing in "vagina entry" is looking for "vaginal entry." It's just that "vagina entry" popped up when they typed "vaginal entry." Or they left out the l when typing. There is no need for "vagina entry." We'll just have to agree to disagree. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]
No, I'm firmly for deletion. I read Ivanvector's comment below, and I'm still for deletion. Per what I stated above, I see no need at all to keep this redirect. It is not at all beneficial. "Vaginal entry" should be created instead and this should be deleted. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not we call this a grammatical error, and whether or not the creator intended for it to be this way, I already addressed the fact that a misspelling being common enough to retain it as a redirect is commonly employed. This, however, isn't some case where retaining this odd variation helps the reader if "vaginal entry" is created instead. I wrote most of the Vagina article and had never seen this redirect. If I had, I don't remember it, and I have a very good memory. I should have created "Vaginal entry." Anyway, I won't be broken up about "vagina entry" being retained; it's not something that matters much. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as proposed above. Redirects don't need to be grammatically correct, in fact one of their functions is to capture searches from plausible incorrect forms. A reader attempting a keyword search for "vagina" and "entry" would be well-informed by landing at vagina. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Flyer 22 Frozen. I'm not giving too much weight to the page views there—anything that shows up in the search box when you enter "Penis" or "Vagina" is going to get a lot of use just from juvenile antics. Retargeting to Vagina seems uniquely unhelpful, since a reader searching this will almost certainly know what a vagina is and that they can search for it directly. To the extent this implies something more specific, it's misleading. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TMNT Nickelodeon

Implausible redirects created by undiscussed page move. Being that subsequent Ninja Turtles series have aired on Nickelodeon (as they own the franchise now) these shouldn't point to any one series. The the chances of anyone else looking up these exact titles are nil (the mover/creator is clearly limited in English proficiency and competency). Unneeded. oknazevad (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wedian

Delete or explain. What is "Wedian"? No mention of it in the article and cannot find it in any of the references there. From the reference on the redirect, it seems to be a project codename. If we're going to keep this redirect, we need something in the target article explaining it. — Smjg (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two Watchers

"Two Watchers" are not mentioned in the English Wikipedia. The article was merged, but the page it was merged into has been redirected, so the content is not around in the articlespace. Hog Farm (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless someone's going to write about these statues into the Mordor article, there isn't much to say about it or to keep. The fandom pages can document and preserve such details. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep As long as the content remains on Wikipedia, even only in the Middle-earth article history, attribution requirements of the licenses require that the attributions for that content remain. The only place where the attributions exist is in the Two Watchers redirect history, so the redirect must be kept to maintain that attribution. TJRC (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • History merge the revisions into merger target(s) and then delete this unnecessary redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 13:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:HISTMERGEs can really only be useful for fixing cut-and-paste moves, which is why the shortcut takes you to Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves. If you tried history merging this content, you would get a parallel history problem. -- Tavix (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, Tavix. By "parallel history problem," I assume you mean that the target of the history merge would have revisions that don't necessarily run parallel to each other in terms of their content? I can see this as a relatively minor problem, if looking back through the history for something, but if the goal is just to adhere to the licensing requirements, I think it's relatively minor given the lower likelihood of needing to look through revisions from, say, 10 years ago (other than, say, copyright investigations). Our methods by which we preserve attribution are...complicated. History merges, like you say, can result in problems of histories running parallel to each other whereas talk page history merges can be easily broken or corrupted and merges using redirects can fall through the cracks and be accidentally deleted. Doug Mehus T·C 14:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The page I linked to contains a lot of information about parallel histories. Instead of assuming, please read that link. We're getting off topic now, so I'll leave it at that. -- Tavix (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. --BDD (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't have an opinion, but just want to say that, assuming the above is true, I believe Tavix has the attribution requirements right. At the very least, what he describes has been standard practice at RfD, AfD, and elsewhere for a long time. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix and BDD. I get the arguments now that WhatamIdoing and Wugapodes are making re: link rot, but at the same time, I don't think this keep criterion should be the chief deciding factor against deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 18:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • My argument has nothing to do with link rot. My argument is about the potential for license violations. License violation == copyright violation.
      1. Editor #1 merges Article to Target. (Note: the page history for Article must be kept, per policy.)
      2. Editor #2 removes the content from Target.
      3. Admin #1 deletes Article because "With no merged content in the current version, I never need to worry about attribution for that blanked content again".
      4. Editor #3, not knowing anything at all about the merge or the deletion, reverts Editor #2 – and now we need that attribution back, because what we have is a copyright violation.
        • And if it's not Editor #3, it's a re-user who was pointing to it for their attribution, or a researcher trying to figure out how Wikipedia's content changed, or an editor trying to figure out why this guy claims to have created a hundred articles when only five can be seen in the user's contributions, or what the big deal about this edit war was, etc. There are a lot of uses for Wikipedia's history that aren't about the current version of an article.
    • So on the one hand, we have a redirect that goes to a page whose current version doesn't mention it. The reader might be disappointed but would probably figure out that it's something about Tolkien. On the other hand, we have the possibility of ending up with a copyright violation. The question here is whether it's important enough to you to remove that redirect that you're willing to risk copyvios. My own POV is that the policy says "do not delete", with no exceptions, and not "don't delete, unless you've verified that the content isn't visible in the current version of any article, in which case, it's absolutely safe to assume that nobody will ever restore any of it." What's your POV? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generation V

I notice that there is old history on this page, but it is presently not mentioned in the target, and the topic of the previous article does not appear to be a notable concept, searches predominately come up with results about generation V Pokémon, but I would advise against retargeting there as it might be confusing for people who come across sources such as this, so I suggest deletion if there is no reason to disambiguate. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BDD's proposal would be okay. I'm wondering about Gen IV and some leftovers like that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Al Jilwah (The Black Book of Satan)

Appears to be about a different subject than the Christian Book of Revelation, probably the Yazidi Book of Revelation based on the Arabic name. Not sure enough to boldly retarget there on my own, I'd like some insight from other users on what this is referring to. Hog Farm (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support retarget to Yazidi Book of Revelation per nom. A Google search was full of hits confirming the identity. Narky Blert (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But see Yazidi Black Book. I would strongly urge us to be careful with promulgating the label "Black Book of Satan" for any religious text unless it's a very common name. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Al Jilwah (which also points to the wrong target) to Yazidi Book of Revelation where Kitab al Jilwah is mentioned as an alternative name (where كتاب kitāb means book). Of course, Book of Revelation alone is understood in English-speaking contexts as meaning the Christian Book of Revelation (aka Αποκαλυψις Apokalypsis), which is something different altogether. Not sure about the usefulness of the parenthese. Is that book really widely known under that name which some might call "blasphemous"? I don't know, and I personally don't care this way or that about blaspheming per se, but some other people do, and if that alias isn't widely known, why mention it? — Tonymec (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not about blasphemy for me, an atheist. It's just a recognition that labeling any non-Satanist religion "of Satan" is inflammatory and disrespectful. The only "Black Book of Satan" mentioned on Wikipedia comes from an actual Satanist group (Order of Nine Angles). Note that "Al Jiwah" has already been retargeted in the above discussion (link in case of relisting). --BDD (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the parenthetical. "The Black Book" part of it would seem to refer to Yazidi Black Book, no? Also, like BDD I am wary of using "of Satan" for something that is not satanist. -- Tavix (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Energy-isolation device

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check this link: Lockout/Tagout. If you scroll-down you'll see the section about the energy-isolation device. It's an important part of Lockout/Tagout. It would probably be better to have it's own page, but since it doesn't I made it a redirect page. But please -- don't delete it.

--Noah Tall (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Good find, Noah Tall. The key here, though, is that it's not mentioned in the target article. That said, that's a reasonable primary source for which we could easily add a mention. The question becomes, is this the only possible "energy-isolation device"? If so, then it's probably harmless to keep targeted here. If not, then we need to think about what the other possible uses are and whether retargeting, disambiguating, or deleting is best. I haven't looked into it yet, so have no comment either way, but hopefully this helps. Doug Mehus T·C 21:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Going by my own research, this is the only page to me that we have on Wikipedia to redirect this to. So I don't think we need a disambiguation. I'm not an expert in this field though so you understand, but I haven't been able to find any page that has anything to do with energy-isolating devices aside from this one, and that's why I made the redirect. As I said earlier though, I think it would benefit from a page of its' own more so than as a redirect page. --Noah Tall (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As such, this only looks helpful to readers already familiar with the topic, and is likely to confuse others. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I dunno, it seems like it'd be pretty trivial to mention at the topic? I'm not a LOTO expert, but at least by my read, isn't half the lead/lede dancing around the idea of using a device? Is there any reason we shouldn't just say something to that effect? More to the point, the Procedure section explicitly discusses devices, saying, among other things, Safety equipment manufacturers provide a range of isolation devices specifically designed... and for example, an isolation device does not have to resist a chainsaw.... It seems like the target does refer to energy-isolation devices, but by saying that they are devices that isolate energy. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eboennin

Names for humans in Tolkien's writings not important enough to be mentioned in the target article. None of these have been merged anywhere (I checked), so there is no attribution issues with deletion (No page history either, all created as redirects). Hog Farm (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laying mud

A novel or obscure alternate name for the target, which is one of the reasons why redirects can be deleted. [3] 19 pageviews in 2019. Hog Farm (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatisthematrix

Lack of spaces between any of these words renders this useless and 15 pageviews in 2019 [4], so users don't find it useful, either. Hog Farm (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smirch

Not mentioned at target article, delete unless justification can be provided. Created by User:Neelix, who's redirect-creating prowess led to a temporary CSD specifically for his. Hog Farm (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but, specifically, the part after led to a temporary CSD specifically for his. Feel free to use <ins></ins> to add to your sentence. Doug Mehus T·C 17:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ROFLMAO Now I see what you mean, a temporary CSD category X1 was created and later repealed. Yeah, this probably wouldn't have qualified for that, so best to let RfD play out. But, geez. Doug Mehus T·C 17:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice, to recreation as a Wiktionary soft redirect in the future. Doug Mehus T·C 03:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added the Wiktionary soft redirect below the current target, should that be the outcome. If it closes as "delete," or something else, no worries as that can simply be voided. Doug Mehus T·C 03:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to reveal the search results: there are various fictional entities named "Smirch" that are mentioned in this or that article (conceivably someone might be looking for them), and the wiktionary entry appears prominently at the top of the "Results from sister projects" category in those search results. – Uanfala (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For fictional characters:
* Sylvester Smirch in Beethoven's Christmas Adventure film
* Herman Smirch, a character in the Nintendo Comics System series of comic books
* Ms. Smirch, a character in the film Tassels in the Air starring The Three Stooges
* Mr. Smirch, a character in the episode "Disaster in the High Seas" of the anime show Marine Boy
* Jack Smurch in "The Greatest Man in the World", as listed in List of unnamed fictional presidents of the United States
Those are the ones I found so far. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chirpici

Foreign language redirect of a ordinary term with no particular tie to the language. Some parts of Romania do have a lot of mudbrick construction, but mudbricks are not an inherently Romanian concept. Previously redirected from a merge after discussion, there are now no links to the redirect. oknazevad (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a right mess.
See [5] [6]
Chirpici [ro] is not a 'foreign language term' (with the pejorative lack of importance that implies) but rather a local term for a foreign technique of building with mud bricks. Unsurprisingly (surely this is unsurprising?) there are international and climate-based variations in vernacular building techniques, regarding adobe, cob and mud brick building. However WP has no little collective knowledge of craft building topics, and Talk:Adobe#Suggested merge II was a dreadful idea, failing to understand the distinction between adobe and mud brick. Fortunately Jim Derby does have a bit more understanding and opposed it.
What the nominator hasn't mentioned is that it's a redir in the first place because they were the one who blanked an old stub article on it: [7]
This should be a discussion on whether we restore Chirpici as an article on en:WP, and whether we can find viable English language sources to support it. Having previously worked on a few Anglo-Romanian aerospace topics, this is difficult: Romanian sources are removed as non-English, and we don't have many people with the language skills to translate in detail. Yet it is though clearly a WP:Notable topic: it's one of the few European mud brick techniques which is known across Europe (Chirpici houses have been built in SW England, with the aid of Romanians).
Should it exist as a redirect (if not an article) - of course. Why ever not?
Should it be linked as a redirect from mudbrick? Maybe, if (as is likely) it would be referring to a specific section within that article for the technique, as practised in Romania.
Should it be linked from cob (material)? - certainly. Either as a see also (where it was), or worked into prose. It's close enough to be relevant, far enough to be distinct. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But, and this is the concern I've had for years, and the reason the article got redirected in the first place, is that it is just a "local term" (that's is to say, a non-English term) for a concept that has an English name for which we already have an article. Local techniques which may be borrowed don't rise to a distinct enough concept to warrant a separate article, and what hasn't been shown is that the term has use in English language sources. That's the concern. oknazevad (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the change to a redirect was me just carrying out the consensus of the discussion on Talk:Adobe, a discussion I got involved with because there was a lot of erroneous stuff going on at the time, such as the inappropriate move of compressed earth block which would have erased any distinction of that technology. Fortunately knowledgeable people came along to stop the errors, but it doesn't change that chirpici is just the Romanian language term for mudbrick (and it is that because it's blocks, not loose material), and WP:RFFL states plainly not to create non-English redirects for common terms. oknazevad (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chirpici isn't merely the Romanian term for mud brick, it's the Romanian term for mud brick, as practised as a fairly widespread vernacular building technique in Romania. We do recognise that local variants of a technique can differ, and that they can justify separate, notable articles. As noted, we probably can't source this well enough to make a robust en:WP article on it (although we used to have an adequate stub), but it's certainly enough to justify a redir and a para in mud brick. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Active roster

There are active rosters for leagues other than Major League Baseball, this is an inappropriate target. I propose changing this into a disambiguation page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also developmental roster. Narky Blert (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The traffic

This is just "traffic" with a "the" at the front. Unlikely. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holy See (The)

Unlikely search term. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as clogging; this page is sufficent. J947 (c), at 21:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not how we disambiguate. An article such as "the" only disambiguates in exceptional cases, e.g. The The and The Who, and a parenthetical (The) qualifier verges on beyond useless. Narky Blert (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I respectfully disagree with J947 on the pageviews analysis. 74 pageviews since 2015 doesn't mean a whole lot. It received 20 in 2019 [8], which is below the treshhold I would consider to indicate general usefulness. Hog Farm (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not how we disambiguate, nor is it how we make titles. The fact that the target is a title match minus the "The", this redirect serves no utility other than someone possibly unnecessarily clicking it after typing "Holy See" in the search bar. So, delete as unnecessary search bar clutter. Steel1943 (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hog Farm actually; it's simply unused. J947's pageview analysis shows 74 pageviews, but that's going back to its creation in 2015—that works out to less than 1 pageview per month. This could be due to bots, search engine crawlers, or a single user that has the page bookmarked for some reason. It's hard to know where those pageviews are coming from, but at any rate, it's most likely used not by people but by a single person, if it's used by people at all. I agree with Steel1943 that this is not how we disambiguate at all, but we could still keep redirects with seemingly implausible disambiguators if they had widespread usage. This is not that, so, in this case, it's just cluttering up the search box. Doug Mehus T·C 02:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Galactic Grid

Not mentioned at the target, previously deleted a month ago following an RfD that did not have broad participation, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_27#Standard_Galactic_Grid signed, Rosguill talk 18:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5 Jesus redirects

Searching for Jesus is not that difficult and it makes this a useless redirect. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to mention that all of these redirects came from the same guy who also made other redirects to Jesus that have been deleted including The J Man, The Jezor, G-Zues, and Jezor. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gesus got 97 hits on 75 different days, with one day in May getting 4 hits. Not often, but it does happen so I am willing to say kepp on this one. Gezuz got 24 hits on 18 different days, with two days getting 3 hits in April and October. Jezuz got 20 hits on 15 different days, with one day getting 3 hits in July. Gesuz got 18 hits on 12 different days, with one day getting 4 hits in January. Finally, Gezus got 15 hits on 13 different days, with two days getting two hits in January and May. While I do agree, there can be misspells, all of these other than Gesus get hits so rarely I do not see the point. Edit: I also checked when Jesus got the most hits last year. Most of these redirects did not get that many hits during Easter time and Christmas time, the two moments of the year where everyone searches up Jesus on Wikipedia. 71.34.25.253 (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttle operator

Not mentioned at the target, and I wasn't able to figure out if/how the terms are related from searching Google Scholar. Delete unless a justification provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blood grouping and crossmatching

Blood grouping and crossmatching are different things. Blood grouping (which I'm currently working on a draft for, because we somehow don't have an article on it!?!) refers to determining a person's blood type, i.e., type A negative and so on. Crossmatching refers to testing a patient's blood sample against donor blood to determine if it is compatible. Blood grouping is usually done before a crossmatch, and is part of electronic crossmatching, but it's not the same thing. The article does discuss blood grouping briefly, but only as an alternative to crossmatching in emergency situations. TL;DR: Suggest deleting per WP:XY. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabre corp

Retarget to Sabre Corporation. While the fictional company is mentioned in the target article, I don't see why a fictional company in a TV show should have priority over a corporation publicly traded on a stock index (NASDAQ in the US). Hatnote to Dunder Mifflin if deemed necessary. Hog Farm (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup yup yup

Has other uses beyond that in The Land Before Time, delete as ambiguous. Hog Farm (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (was Keep) Yes, it's got potential other users, but any extant to English Wikipedia? Even still, it's one of the most memorable lines in the film, not unlike, "life's like a box of chocolates...you never know what yer gonna get," is to Forrest Gump, so I think it's potentially at least a weak-ish primary topic here. If not, I'm willing to invoke WP:IAR here. Doug Mehus T·C 02:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem seems to be that the phrase isn't even worthy of a sourced mentioned, let alone discussion in the current article. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really care about sourcing for redirects, though, as long as it's plausible and there are no other targets extant to existing English Wikipedia articles. I can confirm there are offline sources which do confirm this line from the film, but equally important, the primary source (i.e., the film) is just as valid and can be used, per WP:VERIFIABILITY. Doug Mehus T·C 14:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can, with certainty, say that offline reliable sources do exist for this phrasing. Moreover, we have primary reliable sources, which confirm this phrasing. I would support a retargeting there, but given that it's mentioned in the first film, I think refining the existing target to where Ducky is mentioned is better. We could add {{R from misspelling}} and then create a second redirect for Yep yep yep for the correct spelling. Or, alternatively, retarget yup yup yup to the suggested target by the IP editor, and yep yep yep to either of the two targets. Doug Mehus T·C 14:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
59.149.124.29 Okay, thank you for clarifying that. Doug Mehus T·C 02:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at its current location (2nd choice) with rcats {{R to article without mention}}, {{R from catchphrase}}, {{R from alternative spelling}}, and {{R from fictional element}}. No real reason for deletion here. Doug Mehus T·C 00:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I am an IP currently, I would like to say Delete because people who have watched the film are the only people who would get the reference and even then, they are very very unlikely to search up The Land Before Time this way. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1/9 (number)

The redirect does not make sense. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1/6 (number)

The redirect does not make sense. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Be a man (Failed guideline proposal)

Used only twice on the whole encyclopedia, unnecessary disambiguation. TheAwesomeHwyh 06:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calona

Unclear why this redirect redirects to the current page of a fictional character from a television series. This, arguably, should be the primary redirect for Calona Wines, which has been the subject of book-length local history books and a fair bit of reliable source mass media press coverage; however, Calona Wines is currently awaiting article creation. So, I'm proposing to either (a) delete per WP:R#D10 or (b) to weak disambiguate for now, if possible though partial title matches may apply here, until an article for Calona Wines is created then it could be boldly retargeted there as the primary redirect. I would oppose retarget-ing to Herb Capozzi or W. A. C. Bennett because Calona Wines is only tangentially mentioned in either article and it becomes an XY thing. Similarly, Calona has never been a variant spelling for Kelowna; it's always been the name of Calona Wines, Calona Vineyards, and related for-profit private enterprises, as a play on the spelling of the name Kelowna. I would weak support retarget-ing to Okanagan Valley (wine region), if that's possible here, even though it's not the full company name, until such time as Calona Wines has a published article, then this should target there as {{R from short name}}. Doug Mehus T·C 00:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_28&oldid=943301505"