Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 29, 2020.

Chronology of Sony PlayStation games released in Japan[edit]

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 G7 delete per author. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several years ago, this redirect was moved to List of PlayStation games in chronological order (which is worth keeping, being an {{R with history}}, despite only getting 52 pageviews since July 2015 compared with 49 for this) to "revert [a] blocked user." This, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have much of a history, and the chronology isn't exclusively Japanese releases-not sure how useful this is now. Regards, SONIC678 23:15, 29 April 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.

British-Irish Agreement[edit]

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 no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 22:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were plenty of other treaties between the British and the Irish. (Anglo-Irish Treaty, Anglo-Irish Agreement.) TheAwesomeHwyh 19:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless turned into a distinct article of its own, it's currently detailed at Good Friday Agreement#Implementation. The British-Irish Agreement is effectively a supplement to the Good Friday Agreement, it's detailed here. There's more details about the two agreements here, saying that the agreement between the British and Irish governments is hereinafter referred to as “the British-Irish Agreement”, and the Agreement reached in multi-party negotiations on 10 April 1998 (which is the GFA) is hereinafter referred to as the “Multi-Party Agreement”. FDW777 (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - Given that multiple agreements can be called this, creating a disambiguation page seems to be the best option. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't that multiple agreements can be called this (there's already a hatnote at GFA for Anglo-Irish Agreement, I wouldn't object if someone thought the Anglo-Irish Treaty really needed adding). The nomination is apparently based on the flawed assumption that the British-Irish Agreement refers to the GFA, when it doesn't. It refers to a separate agreement on the same day that legislated for the implementation of the GFA, and this agreement's proper name is indeed the British-Irish Agreement. 20:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:42, 29 April 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.

Uber-Local Food[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Uber-Local Food

Swuck[edit]

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. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was created with the justification Cross between swan and duck. I can't find any evidence that this is a term that has been used in reliable sources; internet and Scholar searches returned only unrelated results. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:MADEUP/WP:NEOLOGISM. There isn't even any consistency between the unreliable sources; just a selection of one-off jokes. The practicality of a cross is as near zero as makes no difference: swans and ducks are in different biological families. Narky Blert (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G3. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:30, 30 April 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.

Kairiki Bear[edit]

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created with the justification "Kairiki" means cute in Japanese. Bears are cute, right?. Random adjective-subject pair redirects are not useful, much less a pair where the adjective is a transliteration from another language. Delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Everyone's a joker. Narky Blert (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, adding that there's a music artist with the name. – Uanfala (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above. There's a music producer of the same name so there's also a plausible WP:REDLINK --Lenticel (talk) 01:09, 30 April 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.

Mossberry[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 11#Mossberry

Shaving (sexology)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Shaving (sexology)

2019-2020 coronavirus 2019 pandemic[edit]

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 22:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do coronavirus 2019 really used to mean SARS-CoV-2, aka novel coronavirus? Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don’t think anyone is going to be searching for this redirect. It contains two errors, one “coronavirus 2019” which I’ve never heard anyone use until now. sam1370 (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah, "Coronavirus disease 2019" (COVID-19) is sometimes (erroneously) referred to as "Coronavirus 2019". Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:30, 29 April 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.

Controversies related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak[edit]

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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. The target article does not really discuss such thing. Delete. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:24, 29 April 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.

China pneumonia outbreak[edit]

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. See below. (non-admin closure) Soumyabrata talk contribs subpages 05:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect with a very few amount of page views. Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

China pneumonia outbreak and 2019–20 China pneumonia outbreak are not implausible redirects. Coronavirus disease 2019 is atypical pneumonia, which is subclass of pneumonia. So it is acceptable to say that coronavirus disease 2019 is a type of pneumonia. --Neo-Jay (talk) 18:23, 29 April 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.

Differentiability[edit]

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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just the noun for differentiable, which is a disambiguation page. Suggesting retargeting there. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose. Differentiability is the quality of being differentiable, that is, to have a derivative. This applies to functions, but not to the other items of the dab page, where "differentiable" means differentiability of the functions occuring in the definition of the structure, not differentiability of the structure itself, to which derivative cannot apply. D.Lazard (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, "differentiability" is a concept that is not ambiguous at all, and is related to the non ambiguous concept of differentiable function. It is absurd to redirect a non ambiguous term to a dab page. D.Lazard (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this redirect is linked to from 22 pages in the main space. The proposed change would imply to edit all these pages. Another absurdity. D.Lazard (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Differentiability" is the property of being differentiable, which of the four choices is really only possessed by functions. Not only that, but the current dab page at Differentiable is inappropriate per WP:PTM. I would suggest changing it to a redirect to Differentiable function for the same reason. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Differentiable must be a redirect to Differentiable function. In fact, saying that something is differentiable implies that it is a function (or it is viewed as a function). A differentiable manifold is not a manifold that is differentiable; a differentiable stack is not a stack that is differentiable; a neural computer may be said to be differentiable, if it behaves like a differentiable function, but a neural computer that is differentiable in this sense is not necessarily a "differentiable neural computer" (here "differentiable" is a part of a phrase that cannot be split). So WP:PTM applies undoubtly, and this dab page is inappropriate. D.Lazard (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to DAB page. "Differentiable" and "differentiability" are thoroughly ambiguous words, which mean different things to (among other people) mathematicians and zoologists. Examples from zoology: "two morphologically differentiable taxa", "the number of chromas differentiable by bees", and "differentiable by chromosome number and colour". No discipline has a monopoly on these words. Narky Blert (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because that's what the mathematics editors are saying. Maths may not have a monopoly on words, but it appears to have a monopoly on this particular word as an encyclopedic topic, and it certainly has a full monopoly on the dab page. As far as I can see, in the three zoology-related links above, the word is used in its everyday sense, where "differentiate" simply means "tell apart". – Uanfala (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find D.Lazard's reasoning persuasive: of the four entries at the dab page, differentiable function is the only one that is "an X that is differentiable" (the other ones are things that are named for being related to differentiable functions, rather than for being differentiable themselves) and therefore differentiability as a concept really only makes sense for differentiable functions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is per Uanfala and David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 30 April 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.

Khasan Pradesh[edit]

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. Not much discussion, but the nom clearly lays out an argument that the current redirect title is a neologism, which is a solid basis for deletion in the absence of a rebuttal. signed, Rosguill talk 22:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was created by a known POV pusher during a move. Serves no useful purpose, and may be offensive to some groups. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Why is this redirect POV/culturally insensitive? (Not everyone knows Nepali, and Wiktionary doesn't have this word.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi! "Khasan" was, according to some, a small region in the medieval Khas Malla Kingdom, an empire encompassing western Nepal and parts of India and Tibet. Khas are the people associated with the region. Post Maoist insurgency, there was a rise in ethnic nationalism in the country with traditionally oppressed groups demanding autonomous ethnic provinces for each of them. "Khasan" was proposed as one such state for the Khas people who were considered the oppressors, both as a gesture of compromise, and as a way of saying "the country you have dominated does not belong to you, except for maybe that small region that's associated with your tribe". Add "Pradesh" to "Khasan" and it's a neologism that the editor just invented. The "Khasan" province that was proposed and rejected has nothing to do with the "Karnali Pradesh" that exists, except for the fact that the historical "Khasan" region in the Khas Malla Empire lies in the present day Karnali Pradesh. "Khasan" as a modern idea is fringe; "Khasan Pradesh" is a complete hoax; same with equating Karnali Pradesh to "Khasan Pradesh". "Khasan" though might have been a valid redirect to Khas Malla Kingdom if it weren't a DAB already. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:28, 29 April 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.

Tamang or bhotey people[edit]

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 08:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created by a POV-pusher. Lumps Tamang people and Bhotiya people together, which, in my experience, is offensive to those groups. Serves no useful purpose. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:08, 29 April 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.

Category:Media in Naha, Okinawa[edit]

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 update target and rename, both times to "mass media". E.g. retarget the first to Category:Mass media in Naha and move it to the corresponding Category:Mass media in Naha, Okinawa. – Fayenatic London 08:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these and recreate corresponding redirects following current nomenclature per recent CfD. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - with respect to Grand Falls–Windsor, there is already an active Category:Mass media in Grand Falls-Windsor, which should be redirected/resolved accordingly. Dl2000 (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dl2000: Every red link has a corresponding correctly-named category, the broken redirects result from the category moves. Blue links are either already correctly named or currently nominated for speedy renaming. This RfD is for the leftover redirects of the CfD. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's probably easier to update the existing redirects, and move them to "mass media" without leaving a redirect. This would also have the benefit of keeping the page history. I'll do that with the ones that I come across when cleaning up after WP:CFDW. – Fayenatic London 22:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fayenatic london, since you have an idea of what's going on with the categorization, would you be willing to close this one? -- Tavix (talk) 15:55, 11 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.

Ina Ray Hutton Showw[edit]

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 08:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if someone would search "show" with two W's here, which might be why it doesn't seem to get a lot of pageviews compared to its target... Regards, SONIC678 06:06, 29 April 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.

Princess Holiday (only released on the Dreamcast in Japan)[edit]

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 08:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This game...wasn't released solely on the Dreamcast or even originally on there, while it does only list the Japanese release dates. This redirect didn't even get very many pageviews since July 2015, and started out for less than three months as some weird kind of duplicate article before being redirected in 2006. Not sure how useful it is now to keep this sitting around. Regards, SONIC678 04:12, 29 April 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.

S jackson[edit]

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 Jackson (name). Rough consensus to retarget to Jackson (name). The suggested target is actually a redirect that points to it. signed, Rosguill talk 22:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Jackson (surname). I'm not convinced Stonewall, while he is prominent in American culture, is the primary topic for S. Jackson, especially since Stonewall isn't even his real name. Too many S. Jacksons (Samuel L. Jackson for one) to have this as a primary topic. Hog Farm (talk) 02:37, 29 April 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.

Necrotizing pneumonia[edit]

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 08:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Anchor is broken.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Better wait for someone to write an article or a better target. Mikael Häggström (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article or section creation if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 08:39, 29 April 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.

WikiGap Challenge/Results[edit]

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 22:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated for speedy deletion by @Ost316 with the following edit summary:

Only see two incoming links, though justification was to prevent having to fix incoming links, unless it is linked to from other projects. This does not seem like it is useful long-term and if such a link is warranted, it should likely be in WP space.

As a soft redirect, it's not eligible under the WP:CSD, but interwiki links in the mainspace are something we want to avoid. - Eureka Lott 01:30, 29 April 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.

Levolution (Australian Release date August 20th)[edit]

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 08:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This started as a duplicate article about the album, and then was redirected to its page about fifteen minutes later. Since then, it's only gotten 37 pageviews as of July 2015, and I'm not sure if we really need it anymore. Regards, SONIC678 00:50, 29 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_29&oldid=956250224"