Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 2

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GTBacchus (talk | contribs) at 11:12, 2 June 2020 (→‎Characters of Blood+ (other characters): del). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

June 2

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 2, 2020.

Steiermark Grand Prix

These redirects were created as placeholders when the new 2020 F1 season calendar was announced per convention. However, the name has since been corrected to Styrian GP rather than Steiermark GP so these redirects are no longer necessary. No articles point to them.
5225C (talk • contributions) 10:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goidelic (Gaelic) languages

Unnecessary disambiguation. See this and this. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This formatting does have some usage. Some examples for attestation purposes include: [1][2][3][4]. For what it's worth, this was suggested to be the title of the article back in 2005. -- Tavix (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C0r0na

I'm pretty sure this redirect is unnecessary, I don't believe that anyone writes "C0r0na". TheImaCow (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unusual mis-spelling therefore not in scope for redirect. The target is also too specific for a vague misspelling. If one wanted to make the case to keep the redirect, it should probably point to Corona.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk
  • Speedy delete R3. Pointless and was just created a couple minutes ago. Spicy (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Corona. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 11:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howard–Englewood–Jackson Park Line (CTA)

Previously used only in a template, this redirect is no longer used, and not useful. Punctuation (dashes) is right but unlikely to be used; case is wrong (Line is never capped in this context in sources); unnecessary disambiguator (CTA) would never be used in a link. Might as well remove the temptation. Dicklyon (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howard-Englewood-Jackson Park Line (CTA)

Previously used only in a template, this redirect is no longer used, and not useful. Punctuation is wrong (hyphens should be dashes); case is wrong (Line is never capped in this context in sources); unnecessary disambiguator (CTA) would never be used in a link. Might as well remove the temptation. Dicklyon (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Negima (other characters)

These redirects don't specify what characters are meant to be excluded (there is a section about other antagonists, but I'm not sure about refining there), and could potentially confuse readers. Regards, SONIC678 04:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any useful purpose in the existence of this redirect. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Blood+ (other characters)

Last year in February, this redirect's "Other characters" sister was deleted, and this one's section...doesn't seem to exist, at least anymore. Like the other one, it's still unclear what "other" characters it's meant to exclude. Regards, SONIC678 04:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any useful purpose in the existence of this redirect. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smash the House redirects

Not mentioned in the target. No reasonable target can be found that describes these artists. More abandoned redirects by Zawl, and were formerly listed here but removed by Alexf per WP:NLIST. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless some information about the subject of the redirect, with at least one reliable source, can be added to the target. I did a Google search for Dave Till, and didn't find such a source connecting him to Smash the House.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Democrats (Norway)

There is no indication in the target article that this party was known by this title, which is ambiguous (see National Democrats (Norway, 1991)) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation. The first revision of the redirect says this was another party that formed in 2006 and in 2007 merged with the one that the target article centers on. I did find a copy of the article on enacademic.com, which lists some sources. If it can't plausibly be expanded into an article, merge any relevant history if it's deleted. Regards, SONIC678 14:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revert from redirect to article. When a redirect was made, an article about a political party was deleted. Such a deletion should be conducted after an AFD discussion, or not at all. Geschichte (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon Communications

The article does not mention why this redirects here, and there is no mention of "Beacon Communications" at [5]. The term is ambiguous with Beacon Communications Corporation and Beacon Communications (publisher). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page for the filmmaker was originally at Beacon Communications because that was the company's former name (see, e.g., the IMDB page for Air Force One -- scroll down to "Company Credits". I created this redirect more than a decade ago when working on articles about newspapers because even with the name change, I figured more people would know "Beacon Communications" as the producer of blockbuster films than would know about a couple very small publishers of local newspapers. Some connection to the filmmaking company should be kept -- perhaps this should be a dab page with links to all three articles. ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 23:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create Disambiguation page It seems to me that there is no primary topic, so a disambiguation page might be the best bet, as suggested by t b w i l l i e. --Bejnar (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digital content creation tools

Way too vague, could refer to dozens of things besides 3d graphics. Suggest deleting. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, as too amorphous for DAB, no good target hence no navigational value. --Bejnar (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sharktooth Hill

This term is not mentioned in the target article except in a reference. Is it the same as Sharktooth Peak, also in California? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

note STH is a fairly well known fossil site in the Temblor of Kern County, CA. References to the site can be found in both scholarly journals and general online searches. It is distinct from Sharktooth Peak. Ryan shell (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps Ryan shell would be willing to use some of those reliable sources to add to the target an appropriate paragraph (or sentence) on significant outcrops of the Temblor Formation. --Bejnar (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a line in the intro referencing STH as a significant outcrop within the formation; I can reinforce that with a few academic refs Ryan shell (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Butt stuff

Not mentioned at target article and could also technically mean Poop. Not sure what to do with this one. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anial sex

The "i" is far from the "n" and "a" on the QWERTY keyboard making this look like an unlikely search term. Delete unless a justification can be proven. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, probably a misspelling. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 22:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misspelt and ambiguous: could also be a typo for animal sex. Narky Blert (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a misspelling (and should be tagged as such), but based on 106 page views last year and no shortage of google hits for the exact term it appears to be a common one. While "animal sex" might seem equally plausible, the google results show it is not used in that sense. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A misspelling from which? One too many letters or one too few? Narky Blert (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, a misspelling from "Anal sex" is the only one that actually sees usage. This might be because "anal sex" is a much more frequently used term than "animal sex" but it doesn't matter why one is used and the other not, only that in practice this isn't ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you know? Narky Blert (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because in 100% of the uses I found in searches the meaning was very clearly anal sex not animal sex - as I said initially. If you can find significant use to mean "animal sex" then I will reconsider, but as it stands the evidence is clear. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Public Service (TV series)

Virtually no page history in the last year. It is mentioned in the Conception section of the article so either retarget to there or delete. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_2&oldid=960335106"