Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 30

May 30

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 30, 2020.

User:Bureaucrat

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Crazy Boy 826 23:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bureaucrat → Wikipedia:Bureaucrats (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Weird WP:CNR. If anyone creates an account with this name they would be very confused. Crazy Boy 826 22:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A username like this is not allowed per WP:MISLEADNAME and there's a global account behind this too, so the reasons you state aren't actually an issue. We also have a precedent for this kind of CNR with User:Administrator too. If someone is looking for an "administrator" or a "bureaucrat," it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that they might use the "user" prefix, so I think it's not completely out of the blue. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:10, 30 May 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.

General Disarray

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 6#General Disarray

Burlington Cardinals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burlington Cardinals → Northern League (baseball, 1902–71) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect to a page that doesn't mention the subject, or even the city involved. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this link from Baseball-Reference. Appears to have been a collegiate "Northern League" this team was part of, not one of the various Minor League Baseball incarnations named "Northern League". Wrong league, we don't have an article about the right one. Hog Farm (talk) 04:23, 31 May 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.

Rachel Kapelski

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 6#Rachel Kapelski

Wikipedia Foundation

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep per SNOW. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^[cont] 02:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Foundation → Wikimedia Foundation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Wikipedia may be a common mistake for Wikimedia, but people might be looking for information about the organisation of Wikipedia itself rather than Wikimedia. Crazy Boy 826 04:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Retarget to Wikipedia per nom.~~ --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 04:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose retargeting. The Wikimedia Foundation is planning to rebrand themselves to the "Wikipedia Foundation" - see here. And even if they weren't, the term "Wikipedia Foundation" clearly refers to the corporation behind Wikipedia (i.e. WMF), not Wikipedia itself. Spicy (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Spicy. Those making this mistake obviously want to find the corporation behind Wikipedia. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Anyone selecting this redirect clearly wants the Foundation, and not everyone knows the difference between Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Narky Blert (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any retargetting per above. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 15:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as it is per above (especially Spicy). --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at current target per above, the Foundation is clearly the organization behind the Wikipedia projects. Hog Farm (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose retargeting. The redirect is just as valid now as when I created it in 2004. If anyone is indeed looking for information about the organization of Wikipedia, the redirect will take them to an article that has the Wikipedia link in its first paragraph, and they'll be fine. JamesMLane t c 23:48, 1 June 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.

Estimate of the Situation

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Estimate (disambiguation). There's no consensus between redirecting and deletion, but no one argued for keeping the current target so retargeting is more appropriate than the default status quo closure. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Estimate of the Situation → Project Sign (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I don't think we should assume that someone who searches for "Estimate of the Situation" on Wikipedia is looking for an article about ufology. —S Marshall T/C 22:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Estimate (disambiguation).—S Marshall T/C 22:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Agreed. this is too general a term to redirect to one (rather fringe and minor) use of it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This redirect is ambiguous (and badly capitalised) and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per S Marshall and Slatersteven. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shhhnotsoloud. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:56, 30 May 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.

Corona pandemic

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. I didn't realize how much this term was used. (non-admin closure) Crazy Boy 826 01:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corona Pandemic → COVID-19 pandemic (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Corona pandemic → COVID-19 pandemic (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No source I have seen has called COVID-19 'corona'. Crazy Boy 826 01:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (strongly). ...You might wanna do a bit more research – it was definitely a thing (albeit informal). A large portion of people informally referred to (and still refer to) the disease as "corona". (Like, search the word "corona" literally anywhere online). While most major news sources use the full name or official name, even some news sources call it "corona" too (which is kinda crazy, given how informal a term it is, but still). Before the name "COVID-19" caught on, the informal term "corona" (like the virus itself) had already spread like wildfire by March. While from the beginning it was a pet peeve of mine to hear it informally called "corona" (and still grinds my gears), these are helpful redirects. Over 5,000 people have used these redirects in the past 2 months (you can check the pageviews) — there's no harm in people getting more educated about the topic. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:28, 30 May 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.