Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 18, 2020.

Controls (computing)[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 Control#Systems engineering, computing and technology. There is some consensus here among two of the discussion's three participants who expressed an opinion that retargeting to a specific section of Controls (computing)#Systems engineering, computing and technology would provide readers/patrons/editors with information on which they're seeking in a manner that was unambiguous. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 00:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

requesting deletion per G6 technical deletion, the article was moved to an appropriate article title , and the extremely ambiguous former title creates clutter in the article namespace and confusion while searching for articles on the concepts of controls and control systems in information systems and computing Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 21:45, 18 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.

Santísimo Nombre de Jesús[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. Clear consensus. The redirect hatnote suggested by Narky Blert will be added following the close, in addition to the rcats being reviewed and updated as needed. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 00:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While Ciudad del Santísimo Nombre de Jesús was the name of Cebu City at one point, Santísimo Nombre de Jesús has also been a name applied to many other locations, as an internal search will confirm. It may be possible to disambiguate, but given the number of possible alternatives and the fact that it's generally a partial match, as these names are invariably X del Santísimo Nombre..., I think that deletion is an appropriate suggestion at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Emperork (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I've been unable to find any evidence that this particular name was used in any other context. Dropping the "City of..." bit is typical, everyday usage. Cebu City's first official Spanish name was Villa de San Miguel. It was changed to Ciudad del Santísimo Nombre de Jesús in 1594. This remained its name for the next several centuries. It is totally appropriate for Wikipedia to have a redirect from the former name of the city to the article about that city, especially since it is the only city in the world that has this exact name. Looking at the search results, the two (not "many") other locations that use the words del Santísimo Nombre somewhere in their names appear to be two different regional areas named by Catholic monks. (I gather that they're rather like Catholic dioceses, but called "provinces".) This deletion argument boils down to "Let's not have a redirect from the official name of this city for several centuries, because some Spanish-speaking monks in other countries named two administrative provinces after Jesus, too". I am unconvinced that deletion helps anything. If just leaving it alone doesn't suit, a disambiguation page that points to Cebú City, Holy Name of Jesus, and those two regional groups would be reasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm partially swayed by your argument and would advocate for disambiguation. I would also note that it appears that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cebu is still known by this name in Spanish, and thus may be a primary topic. signed, Rosguill talk 03:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Catholic religious orders (not only of monks) are often organised into provinces, which are wholly distinct from and are usually larger than dioceses; they can be whole countries. For example, the Society of Jesus is organised into 83 provinces. Provincial and diocesan borders may or may not coincide; a potential source of centuries-long enjoyable rivalry and feuding. Narky Blert (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with the hatnote {{redirect|Santísimo Nombre de Jesús||Holy Name of Jesus}}.
es:Santísimo Nombre de Jesús (título cardenalicio) is the Spanish version of it:Santissimo Nome di Gesù (diaconia). That personal office is centered on Latin: Templum Sanctissimi Nominis Iesu, Italian: chiesa del Santissimo Nome di Gesù, Spanish: iglesia del Santo Nombre de Jesús, English: Church of the Gesù; among which only the official Italian name corresponds exactly to the Latin original. I really dislike unofficial translations of names, they're often WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 05:20, 13 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​ 22:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Whatamidoing's argument to split the deadlock. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:36, 20 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.

Tadger[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 disambiguate. It's a rough consensus, but there's no case for keeping or deleting, and no consensus for choosing a single target. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed this bizarre redirect to human penis, a term which I'd not heard. There's a mention to "tadger" at prick (slang), but from these English Wikipedia search results, I'm seeing at least 4-5 bluelinked dab links. In terms of usefulness and utility per WP:R#K5, or lack thereof per WP:R#D8, it's got 50 pageviews in the preceding twelve months, inclusive to yesterday, so it's worth retaining. However, it's ambiguous per WP:R#D2, so I'm proposing to disambiguate. Potential dab page below the target. Doug Mehus T·C 06:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Narky. It's not technically a double redirect due to the RfD discuss tags atop the page, which makes it akin to a soft redirect. If it closes as anything other than dabify, we can speedy delete the dab redirect I created (per G7 or G8). Doug Mehus T·C 07:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly shouldn't be retargeted to a bio of someone who's been dead for over 60 y, whom most people have never heard of. Tadger & todger are fairly common British jocular colloquialisms for the penis. For example, in I'm Alan Partridge, the protagonist says that a 'female' character in The Crying Game has a tadger. The other uses must be far less common. Jim Michael (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Michael I figured todger meant the same thing as tadger as Narky Blert added the see also reference to the dab page. It doesn't make sense to retarget what would be a common surname to a single deceased individual and we have a lot of surname dab pages. Doug Mehus T·C 18:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that Tadger is a common surname?! Jim Michael (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no reason to suspect it isn't. We have a dab page for Mehus, if you can believe it. Doug Mehus T·C 20:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it were a common surname, there would be notable people who have it. We have 2 articles about people who have it as a nickname, but I've never heard of it as a surname & we have no articles about anyone called John Tadger, David Tadger etc. Jim Michael (talk) 21:26, 11 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​ 22:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two editors have supported disambiguation here, and the third has made neutral to at least mildly supportive comments towards disambiguation. Doug Mehus T·C 17:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One editor wants to retarget the redirect to an article of a man most people haven't heard of, who died over 60 y ago. Jim Michael (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Jim Michael. I wouldn't support that retargeting. I should've noted that editor's position in my comment. Thank you for pointing that out. Doug Mehus T·C 20:08, 23 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.

Short penis[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 28#Short penis

Next Irish general election[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 Elections in the Republic of Ireland as there is not consensus to delete. I have a feeling this won't remain the set-up for long because it sounds like an article on the next general election will soon be written. -- Tavix (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 Irish General Election has happened. Therefore WP:RFD#DELETE criterion #2 (potentially confusing) and #5 (makes no sense) apply. Criterion #10 (could be made into article and target contains no info on subject) could also apply.
SSSB (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as housekeeping, now that it's just taken place. Narky Blert (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: coverage of the aftermath of the recent election has pointed out the possibility that there'll be another election before too long (Guardian: "One plausible outcome: deadlock, and another election"; New Statesman: "Ireland is set for what could be months of coalition negotiations and quite possibly another election before the year is out"). This seems like the sort of thing that might be worth mentioning in 2020 Irish general election#Government formation, and if it were mentioned there I think that would be a sensible target, at least until such time as it's clear whether there'll be another election soon. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to make way for new article. One of the regular contributors to the former article will restart it soon, starting off with material on when the next election must take place by, by law, and adding in opinion polls as and when they become available. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elections in the Republic of Ireland, and then keep redirecting as the need arises. schetm (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; ambiguous and confusing per WP:R#D2. We'll always have to be retargeting it to the next Irish general election article, but, presumably, it's an WP:XY thing since, equally plausibly, this could be referring to Irish sub-national or municipal elections. Doug Mehus T·C 01:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Elections in the Republic of Ireland as someone will no doubt write an article about the next election sooner or later. I'm surprised it hasn't already been done to be honest. This is Paul (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Elections in the Republic of Ireland. That would be the best holding place for sourced information about the next election (whenever it might be) until that election is called, and a precise name (which will be xxxx Irish general election) is known. Narky Blert (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Retargeting to Elections in the Republic of Ireland is appealing—I thought perhaps we could retarget there and not worry about maintaining it in the future—but the topic is not discussed there. If we can't be reasonably confident that the article will always have something about the next election, we're just prolonging the inherent maintenance headache that comes with "next" and "upcoming" and "untitled" redirects. --BDD (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not overly familiar with Irish elections, but the 2020 article was started in 2016, as the latest-possible date was known; it even survived an AfD! Is that information not going to be available this time around? I get that it just happened, but aren't we better off keeping this, retargeting it to the full list, then expanding once the future latest-by date is known, as was done previously? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:17, 27 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.

Lkjhgfdsa[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. --BDD (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Middle row of the standard QWERTY-style keyboard except backwards. Not sure how this is helpful. Hog Farm (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as beyond useless (or should that be sselesu dnoyeb?). Narky Blert (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the page view analysis and per WP:R#K5. It averages ~3-5 views per day, believe it or not, in each of the past 365 days, inclusive of day (total, 1010). The target is not the greatest, but it's reasonable in that it explains unexplained typing flubs. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We also have 48 other redirects to that page–all checked for their viability, including Zxcvbnm, which, I think, is a user on English Wikipedia. Moreover, it is mentioned in the target–albeit in reverse order. --Doug Mehus T·C 01:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this is an old redirect, and WP:RFD#HARMFUL says that it's harmful to delete old redirects (e.g., due to incoming links from other websites, and links that may be present in previous versions of articles). (If you are surprised to hear that years-old redirects aren't normally supposed to get deleted, then you may want to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Links that have existed for a significant length of time.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an opaque reference to the target at best; search engine results are either nonsense or irrelevant. -- Tavix (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the redirect is not helpful, has no incoming links, and is rarely viewed. This rationale is provided to combat Whatamidoing's vote, as the redirect being over a year old does not make it harmful to delete, and there is no reason for an article to link to this redirect in the first place. (WP:IAR as long as it makes sense to do so.) Mainly, the existence of this redirect sets a precedent that any redirect created by sliding a finger along a keyboard is a suitable redirect to QWERTY, which is my biggest gripe with it. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Utopes I thought that as well, until I saw this redirect was generating 3-5 pageviews per day. That's more than some articles on English Wikipedia. Also, did you check out the ~50 redirects pointing to QWERTY? We have various redirects akin to sliding one's finger along the keyboard, in various casings, and including some typographical errors as well. Since lkjhgfdsa is literally the middle row backwards, and we also have asdfghjkl, it seems reasonable to have both target here. I agree with you, to a point, on the precedent it may set, but note these discussions aren't binding or precedent setting. We just deleted an implausible typo that had only a few pageviews per year. As such, implausible letter combinations would almost certainly be deleted. This is not that, in my view. Doug Mehus T·C 00:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but none of the redirects have any of the keyboard lines backwards. My vote remains. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Utopes Hrm, I thought they did, but I guess I never looked that hard. Could be because the "home row" is more common (i.e., asdfghjkl)? But, having said that, the page is titled QWERTY, so we should at least have YTREWQ and poiuytrewq. Doug Mehus T·C 01:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not helpful. The backwards letter entry is not a common enough word. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: How so? The daily pageviews strongly suggest otherwise. We have articles that get less daily pageviews than this redirect. It's harmless, useful, and is a clear WP:R#K5 and WP:RCHEAP pass. Doug Mehus T·C 16:33, 22 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.

Your Dad[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. --BDD (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a maternal insult per se, and "Your Dad" jokes are not discussed at the target article. Hog Farm (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Agreed, but it should actually be pretty easy to add a "==Paternal variant==" section with a source or two. Just enough to point at that section (and redirect Paternal insult there). I've run out of juice for the day.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it's accompanied by "insult" or "joke". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose keep or retarget as ambiguous and confusing; conditionally support dab-ifying if potential targets emerge. @Hog Farm, SMcCandlish, and AngusWOOF:, can you guys see potential dabification here?
Delete otherwise per above. Doug Mehus T·C 05:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:11, 18 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.

Phenome-wide association study[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 keep/nomination withdrawn. By PamD, per this request. Closing for her. If @PamD and Thjarkur: could add applicable rcats post-close, that'd be great. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 00:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this alternative - or of the word "phenome" at all - in target article. PamD 19:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw: Apologies: I usually check the history before nominating a redirect for discussion, but seem to have missed that step in this case. This is not a simple "redirect from unlikely alternative version of name" as I had assumed, but is an attempt to delete an article after a prolonged edit war. Clearly not appropriate for RfD, as pointed out by @Thjarkur: below. PamD 08:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I vote not keep the redirect and restore content on the page. In contrast to GWAS, many groups are now doing both PheWAS and GWAS studies. [1] Bio.grunt.poke (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I vote not keep the redirect and restore content on the page. `PheWAS` has its own page on OHSU's wiki for informatics [2]. The article also cites the primary studies that I included on the page. Bio.grunt.poke (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per the user's talkpage, the usage of exclusively primary studies was heavily discouraged. It may not be wise to bring that redirect back to it's original content without first fixing the sources to comply with WP:MEDRS. --—moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per my talkpage, I cited exceptions to the rule when citing primary sources. The reviews from a wide range of groups all cite the seminal primary research paper. These papers are also cited in large NIH initiative, President Obama's Precision Medicine Initiative with the support of many U.S. scientific leaders.[3] Bio.grunt.poke (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend checking the edit history of the article in question before making statements like "the usage of exclusively primary studies was heavily discouraged". If you look at the history of edits, I included highly cited reviews from a group different from the team responsible for the seminal paper.[4] Bio.grunt.poke (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://blog.23andme.com/23andme-research/new-phenome-wide-association-study-offers-insight-pathways-autoimmune-infectious-diseases/
  2. ^ https://clinfowiki.org/wiki/index.php/PheWAS
  3. ^ https://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/research-training/initiatives/pmi/pmi-working-group-report-20150917-2.pdf
  4. ^ https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2015.36
  • Speedy close and restore article, subject is notable and undiscussed articles are not deleted at RfD. Article does not contain medical information, it describes a study methodology, WP:MEDRS only marginally applies. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: Withdraw Apologies, I clearly forgot to check the history, which I usually do, before proposing this for RfD. I had assumed it was a "Redirect from unlikely and unexplained alternative title": in fact it seems to be an attempt to delete as the tail end of an edit war, and not appropriate for RfD. PamD 08:48, 20 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.

Umineko no Naku Koro ni Saku: Nekobako to Musou no Koukyoukyoku[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. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this extended title in target article PamD 19:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest we keep it. There could be insert for a Switch release in the lead paragraph for the game. Redirects like these ultimately need to be kept until a page is created by another user. I demand this and any other redirects be kept. Why? Because if you take a look at the number of video game lists that have games redirected, page size would be consistent for these type of changes. So keep redirects. Thank you! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro[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.

Betrabati River[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. --BDD (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article - no indication whether it is an alternative name, a tributary, or a mistake. PamD 19:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a real oddity. Betrabati River was created on 26 January, describing it as a major river in Bangladesh. Neither of the sources mention it, although one does mention the river Betna. The Google Maps location given in that revision is unhelpfully short of labels. The Betrabati is also mentioned in Satkhira District, as distinct from the Betna. This source, which looks of reasonably quality, also mentions the Betrabati, calling it a major river of Satkhira.
However, Betravati is another name for Betwa River, northern India; and 'b' and 'v' ('bh' and 'w' are also in play) can be almost interchangeable in some transliterations from Subcontinental languages; another name for that river is Vetravati (mentioned in the article, and also in the redirect Vetravati; note also the 'v'/'w' alternatives in the names).
I'm going to throw my hands in the air, and suggest deletion. It's a different river to the Betna in Bangladesh, and an unattested spelling for the one in northern India. Narky Blert (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For added confusion there's Betrawati, the Uttar Gaya; a confluence in Bihar. The Betwa/Betravati flows through Madhya Pradesh, Orchha and Uttar Pradesh. Narky Blert (talk) 21:22, 18 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.

Wroetoshaw (YouTuber)[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. --BDD (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary disambiguation. I have requested unprotection of Wroetoshaw so that there can be a redirect from that title. PamD 19:25, 18 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.

The Sidemen (YouTube group)[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. --BDD (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RD from disambiguated version not needed. PamD 19:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom. I've also added a bunch of other similar redirects related to the Sidemen group created by the same user which do not need disambiguation. - Brojam (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly somewhat weakishly, per nom and Brojam, as I'm not sure, frankly, the likelihood of these redirects with YouTuber in a disambiguation qualifier are. Doug Mehus T·C 21:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except W2S and Behzinga, which could refer to W2 and Bazinga. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We don't need the redirects AngusWOOF proposes to keep because they're qualified with an unlikely and implausible disambiguation qualifier (YouTuber). Otherwise, I'd say, "yes, keep those as variant spellings/misspellings." Doug Mehus T·C 00:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I really think in this instance, the user has gone overboard with creating redirects relating to the Sidemen. Only redirects from their basic usernames or actual names are warranted. Ss112 13:55, 26 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.

River running[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. There is no consensus for disambiguation at this time. While a redirect can usually be converted into a disambiguation page as part of regular editorial action, I'd encourage anyone thinking about it to consider this discussion, or at least wait a bit. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Jahaza's suggestion following the second relist in this RfD discussion for River Running, the idea of dab-ifying River running with at least 3-5 initial dab links was expressed. In turn, River Running would be retargeted to the new dab page. Let's discuss, as the rationale is compelling. Doug Mehus T·C 03:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. See the the RfD discussion for River Running
  • Disambiguate and if the dab page is created, retarget River Running to here. Hog Farm (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • N.b., I've added River Running, which has been repurposed from its Middle-earth usage per the previous RfD. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it seems like there's a consensus to convert to dab, but from reading the prior discussion it wasn't clear what the content of the dab should be. Dmehus, would you mind drafting a proposal fort he disambiguation page so that this can be closed more easily? signed, Rosguill talk 22:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, sure I can try and do that. Note, too, that Chiswick Chap also supported the dab page from the previous discussion (you probably noted that). Doug Mehus T·C 22:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. It's drafted, with a {{disambiguation-cleanup}} tag. Hog Farm, Chiswick Chap, Narky Blert, myself, and others can refine and add to it. Doug Mehus T·C 23:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at Rafting. There is no mention of this title, with either capitalization, at Timber rafting or at Mirkwood nor any other Tolkien-related article, as far as I can see. If river running is synonymous timber rafting, then a hatnote will suffice. Cnilep (talk) 01:20, 19 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.

Energy-isolation device[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 28#Energy-isolation device

Spoken English[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. Noting the RfD equivalent of a WP:HEY to Wugapodes and SMcCandlish, consensus was clear that retargeting Spoken English to List of dialects of English and Spoken French to Varieties of French was preferred, particularly given their common usage. Participants are welcome to refine and add to the rcats after closing. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 00:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken French is a new redirect that does not follow the convention used by Spoken English. I have a slight preference for redirecting to the language's phonology (as with Spoken French), but it seems to be a vague enough search term that deletion may also be an appropriate option. signed, Rosguill talk 18:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see the terms as vague: "Spoken X" refers to the variety (or as in the case of English or French, varieties) of the spoken language as different from the written standard in the grammar, lexicon and style – this has nothing to do with the phonology of the language. Spoken English and spoken French don't appear to be treated in any systematic way anywhere on wikipedia, so delete both. – Uanfala (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with deletion since they're both useful search terms and could aid accidental linking. I think the targets List of dialects of English and Varieties of French would be the best targets. Uanfala is right that these redirect terms are used as a stand-in for non-standard, but there are lots of Englishes and Frenches spoken across the world so it is vague what English "Spoken English" refers to. Targeting lists of dialects articles sends readers to the page describing all the different varieties of "Spoken French" or "Spoken English" so that readers can find that information, and we still get the benefit of a useful search term and aid to linking. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both per Wugapodes. Both are likely search terms, and deserve more useful targets than general articles. Narky Blert (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment for entertainment value. English as She Is Spoke. Narky Blert (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to phonology articles, per Wugapodes. It would do readers a serious disservice to redlink them, and if our wikiprojects on language and linguistics thought it was a good idea to cover "varieties of the spoken language as different from the written standard" in this particular way, we would have done that a decade ago (never mind that there is no written standard of English in the first place, and the one for French promulgated by la Academie francaise is all but ignored in France and very much ignored in most of the rest of the Francophonie). Alternatively, send the English one to Regional accents of English, and the French one to Varieties of French. I checked, and Varieties of English redirects to List of English dialects, which is probably less helpful than Regional accents of English. We just do not have a 1:1 correspondence between English and French articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Wugapodes and SMcCandlish. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:44, 20 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.

中華人民共和国[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. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the Japanese name for China per WP:RLOTE (formerly RFFL, FORRED) signed, Rosguill talk 18:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the still-valid WP:RFFL. No particular affinity between the Japanese name and the article about China. Narky Blert (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:RLOTE, which says such foreign languages should be avoided, "[d]irect translations where the native/original form of the title is in English." This certainly seems to apply here. Agree with Narky, though, that WP:RFFL is still valid. I have no preference now between the two; I like them equally. Doug Mehus T·C 21:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:49, 19 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.

Ofo founder 戴威[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. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this is both Chinese and English Dq209 (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think this was created as a courtesy redirect when a page was moved, so the original editor could find it. This is certain due for cleanup now. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 18 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.

Elise Zaavan[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. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this is a character in LoL, but they're not mentioned at the target. I don't see any List of League of Legends characters, so it seems like the appropriate option is to delete. signed, Rosguill talk 18:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; I see an "Elise Zaavan" on Facebook, for what that's worth, but no evidence of potential notability. Deletion is best here. Doug Mehus T·C 18:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; it's probably a non-notable pro-gamer who focuses on that game.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:41, 19 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.

Bianconeri[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 Juventus F.C.. Consensus was on the retarget proposal of ComplexRational, finding concurrence from @Narky Blert and GiantSnowman:. Participants are encouraged to refine and add to the rcats after closing. Note to self do not add the extra space following the first period that follows the letter F when retargeting. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 23:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to find that this redirect doesn't redirect to Juventus F. C. Juventus F.C. (the article about the squad/club, not specific players). Similar redirects point to the team rather than a list of players, and I believe this one should as well (retarget), since anyone unfamiliar with the term would more easily find what they are looking for. ComplexRational (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small typo, the correct intended target is Juventus F.C. (without space, as the other is a redirect). ComplexRational (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Juventus F. C. per nom. Bianconeri has a half-a-dozen mentions in that article, as one might expect, and is explained for the benefit of those who don't know the team's kit colours. Narky Blert (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The target should of course be Juventus F.C.; I made the same typo. Narky Blert (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:42, 19 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.

Adam Griffith (American football) (disambiguation)[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. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary disambiguation attached to the end of the footballer qualifier. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under WP:G14 - nothing to disambiguate. Narky Blert (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've tagged the page. I've wondered if redirects with two disambiguation qualifiers, one of them being "disambiguation" qualify. I suspect yes as, to say otherwise, probably amounts to wikilawyering. Doug Mehus T·C 17:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the tag. This perhaps meets G14 in spirit, but it doesn't by the letter because the target is a disambiguation page. Glades12 (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure if you replied to this before I reverted, but hoping an administrator can clarify. It may actually qualify for G6 as housekeeping, since it's a highly implausible search term/typo. Doug Mehus T·C 17:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe I replied first. Glades12 (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, no worries then. Let's let it play out, and see if deleted per G14 in spirit or per G6 as non-controversial cleanup/housekeeping. If it can be deleted sooner, that's great. If not, that's fine, too. It will be deleted in a week (or sooner per WP:SNOW). Doug Mehus T·C 17:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I have removed the CSD tag because it had been previously removed by Glades12. While it appears the outcome of this discussion will be delete, and rightly so, CSD is not the correct venue for deletion per the lead of WP:CSD. Glades12 removed the tag in good faith because the redirect targeted a dab page instead of a normal article, which is a justifiable stance. CSDs are designed for uncontroversial speedy deletions. Because the tag was removed, it shows that not everybody agrees that the page should be "speedily" deleted, so the redirect should go through due process in RfD. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Utopes Good point, I hadn't thought that G6 would not apply since an editor had objected to it. Very good point. In hindsight, it would've been better to tag as G6 instead of G14, as suggested by Narky Blert, because then we would've had a clearer picture of it was controversial or not. If an editor had still removed it, it would stay at RfD. If not, then it could've been speedily deleted. Oh well, lesson learned. Doug Mehus T·C 18:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dmehus: Neither WP:INCOMPDAB nor WP:PARTIALDAB are as crystal-clear as I for one might wish. However, there is the maintenance Category:Disambiguation pages with (qualified) titles; with the implication that the WP:INTDAB-required (qualified) (disambiguation) redirect falls foul of the principle which populates that category. Narky Blert (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Narky Blert: So in other words, we can be forgiven for thinking G14 would apply? Thanks for pointing out that category. Possibly we can add such redirects to that category and, presumably, it's monitored? Doug Mehus T·C 21:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dmehus: This is the same problem or ambiguity with G14 which I identified in my post in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 11#Tobacco (disambiguation). Narky Blert (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slow delete. At the moment, there is indeed nothing to disambiguate, which makes this misleading. Glades12 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added to the tag G6. Even if it doesn't technically qualify for G14, per the letter of the guideline/policy, it quite likely could be non-controversial housekeeping. See also a trailing redirect left behind from a page move in a previous log day. Doug Mehus T·C 17:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G6 if not G14 in spirit. Doug Mehus T·C 17:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Utopes has removed the tag, and referred to me a portion of the policy of which I was not aware. So, let's let it play out. I'm still curious if G14 may apply in spirit, though; probably depends on the deleting administrator, I suspect. Doug Mehus T·C 17:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only one American football player at the dab page. Hog Farm (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Utopes has separately proposed a move of the disambiguation page. Doug Mehus T·C 19:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • G6; this is not how we do article titles at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:39, 19 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.

Dean/Milan[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. By CambridgeBayWeather per WP:CSD#R3. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 06:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The title of "Dean/Milan" is formed by merging two characters played by the same person in a TV series. I cannot believe this is a likely redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:45, 18 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.

The Hunt (2019 film)[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. Consensus was clear. No participants responded to St3095's related proposal toward retitling and/or deleting the current target article, but that seems slightly out of scope of this RfD discussion and can, of course, be discussed on the target article's talk page or through other venues. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 00:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did not release in 2019. Also, there are no incoming links in the mainspace. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. According to the article, it was originally scheduled for a 2019 release, so sources published before the film was pushed back would correctly refer to this as a 2019 film. -- Tavix (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, the reason for being pushed back is noteworthy since it was due to the Dayton and El Paso shootings. The poster alludes to this by x-ing out Sept 27 and adding March 13 to the right of that. -- Tavix (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Was going to release in 2019, but postponed due to noteworthy controversy. Would be a logical search term as a result. Hog Farm (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a likely search term. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 18 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.

Julias caesar[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 26#Julias caesar

IVLIUS CAESAR[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. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible because the letter "u" did not exist on the uncial Latin. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; who correctly says it should be IVLIVS. (IULIUS might also be possible, but not this mixture of alphabets.) Narky Blert (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One letter off typo, seems fair. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC) New comment at very end. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    U and V are from different Latin alphabets. Narky Blert (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Weak keep per Utopes (was Speedy delete per SMcC below). If the second letter were any letter other than U and V, then I'd say "delete," but those letters are very similar to each other and, as Narky says, in different alphabets, they may even be the same. Since we're dealing with an ancient Roman figure, I think the typo is modestly plausible. Probably less likely, so it's likely not very useful, but it's also not in any way harmful. Doug Mehus T·C 16:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely possible to make this typo especially if your keyboard is in alphabetical order Dq209 (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a keyboard with U next to V? Narky Blert (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are lots of keyboard layouts. But not what Dq209 meant, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was just a dumb mistake on my part; probably ran out of coffee; IVLIVS CAESAR is what I intended. I do not believe this actually is a plausible typo, in the reader-search sense, because anyone looking for an all-caps name of Julius Caesar with a Latin V in it is looking for the actual Latin string IVLIVS CAESAR because they saw it on a photo of a monument or something. No one is likely to encounter this broken mixture of V and U.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish. Nothing implausible about variations with V and U, but implausible that someone would mix the two of them in this manner—and if they did, they'd presumably run into one of the more plausible redirects in the process. P Aculeius (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish --kingboyk (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Delete. The author of the redirect, SMcCandlish, requested deletion, which qualifies this redirect for speedy deletion via G7. The page has been tagged. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC). Slow delete, did not realize that Dmehus already tagged the page. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Utopes, I tried that already; hence why I reverted to a "weak keep" !vote. Note, too, that my attempt at speedy deletion per G7 and G6, brought the declining administrator, kingboyk, in to the discussion. So, it'll be a slow delete, but that's okay. Doug Mehus T·C 01:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; meh. No harm in keeping it. FWIW, this redirect actually doesn't have too much less usage than IVLIVS CAESAR, indicating some plausibility at least. J947 (c), at 00:56, 22 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.

Homelander[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 List of The Boys characters#The Homelander, and Homelanders to Andrew Klavan#The Homelanders series, with reciprocal hatnotes. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retargeting to List of The Boys characters, as that seems to be the primary usage. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not sure about that proposed target; I still think it's a sufficiently ambiguous and vague term. It could refer, in some cultures, to a person who sticks close to the home, or home country, where they were born. I'm leaning towards deletion or disambiguation, if possible, per WP:R#D2 and per WP:XY. Doug Mehus T·C 18:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of The Boys characters#The Homelander. That is the best, indeed the only possible, target in English WP as it is today. Possibly add a {{redirect}} link at that target to wikt:homelander. Dmehus's suggestions are not supported by that Wiktionary definition. Narky Blert (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narky Blert: For clarity, that Wiktionary definition is actually what I meant. I'm surprised, somewhat, we don't have possible targets on English Wikipedia, though. Doug Mehus T·C 22:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wiktionary isn't a reliable source anyway, per WP:UGC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: I don't think that applies to hatnotes, though, which are more of a navigational aid than anything. Doug Mehus T·C 01:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll reply at User talk:SMcCandlish#Wiktionary, since my input on this one has been long already.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of The Boys characters#The Homelander and disambiguate with hatnote for Andrew Klavan#The Homelanders series. The YA novel series by Klavan (real but clearly not going to be WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT target) consistently uses singular "Homelander series" in the editions from the Australian and possibly main publisher (despite author being American). Also published in a one-vol. edition titled The Homelanders and was previously referred to variously as "the Homelanders series" or "the Homelander series", and apparently also re-published as separate books with titles like Homelanders: The Final Hour without a leading "The". The original editions did not have the word, in singular or plural, on the cover.

    Disambiguation page might be possible, but only with notable entries. List of The Boys characters#The Homelander and Andrew Klavan#The Homelanders series are the only two I can identify. To dispel the other suggestions, including the current redir target: First, the "Gen Z" reference is a protologism made up (so far as I can determine) by a single Forbes writer (who for this is a primary source in an otherwise often secondary publication, though the entire piece is an editorial not journalism, thus would be primary anyway), and it is virtually unattested with this meaning in other ostensibly reliable sources. See the details of this Google News search in which I had to exclude foreignism after foreignism to even get English-language hits that were not about the comics or the derived TV show, about the YA novels, about a mid-range pro-gamer by that handle, or other false positives. Of the few remaining hits, some are non-notable websites, and some are probably also topically false positives. Next, supposing that a reader will take the term to mean "a person who sticks close to the home, or home country" verges on original research, based on folk etymology about the constituent word parts. It probably is true that some individuals will guess at this meaning, but it does not translate into well-attested usage (i.e. a definition in any sense an encyclopedia should care about). Thus, it doesn't even rise to WP:NOT#DICTIONARY questions, since dictionaries don't have this meaning in them. There's a lot of WP:CIRCULAR risk in both of the above; if WP says it means A or B, it will tend to actually impose such a meaning on the world, and that's not right.

    The Homelanders (plural) redirect should also not go to Generation Z, for the above reason. It should instead go to Andrew Klavan#The Homelanders series, for which it is PRIMARYREDIRECT. We have no reason to treat the Gen Z reference as real English usage that rises above WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE policy. This part actually is a WP:NOTDICT matter; most especially, WP is not Urban Dictionary. Maybe the term in that sense will one day be common usage, but for now it's just some journo's bit of idiosyncratic cuteness/cleverness, that a tiny handful of other writers have imitated. I'm strongly reminded of Santorum (neologism) which now properly redirects to Dan Savage; it originated as Santorum (sexual slang), as I recall, was found not to be actual slang (i.e., not real usage to any noteworthy degree) but simply a neologism with little use, and then found not independently notable, so merged and redirected to Savage. The Forbes writer, Neil Howe, is notable. So, if we did decide that the Gen Z reference was just barely encyclopedic, we could do something like Homelander (neologism) and redirect it to Howe, with mention of the term there, or maybe actually redir it to Generation Z, and cover it with Howe attribution as a neologism. That would call for a three-item disambiguation page, either way. PS: I have also (rarely) seen "Homelander[s]" used in reference to employees of the US Dept. of Homeland Security, but this not attested often enough in RS to matter, either. PPS: It might take some research on the neologism anyway; it's more than possible that Howe was simply making a reference to the Klavan novels; the coincidence that they're about Gen Z teens is a bit too much. If that's the case, we should not treat it as an independent term at all. Analogy: if some journo wrote an article that referred to tall basketball players as "Ents" and a handful of other sportswriters picked up on it, that would not be cause for us to treat it as a sports term WP has to cover and account for with a special redirect. (Cf. related caution at MOS:NICKNAMES about mistaking journalists' incidental cleverly descriptive turns of phrase as being actual nicknames.)
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:15, 19 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.

Generation C[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. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, most online mentions I were able to find were blog-like sites [2]. From my understanding, the concept described there is similar to digital native, so retargeting there could be an option. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a common name. Moreover, if only blogs use this, it is probably safe to say it is not notable. Nerd271 (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nerd271. When a whole bunch of RS use it consistently and it starts appearing in dictionaries, and we have something encyclopedic (WP:NOTDICT) to say about it, then include it. This isn't ProtologismPedia. Cf. also WP:NFT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:17, 19 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.

Generation V[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 28#Generation V

Swoop (comics)[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. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target page, heading no longer exists at target page Elizium23 (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 'Batman Swoop' in the searchbox threw up several references to Batman swooping, but nothing about this character. Narky Blert (talk) 10:54, 18 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.

Rettich[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 procedural close. The redirect has been converted into a legitimate name article. Thanks to those editors who did so. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no affinity for German Plantdrew (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There doesn't seem to be any valid target for this on Wikipedia. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to surname article. Draft added. An Interwiki link to de:Rettich (Begriffsklärung) should be made. Narky Blert (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Narky Blert's surname article draft looks fine, but with only two targets, do we really need this when we could just target (a) target the surname to one and add hatnotes or (b) delete without prejudice to recreation when a third target emerges (even as a redlink) and add hatnotes? Doug Mehus T·C 15:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two entries are fine for a surname page, see WP:NNAME - and look at the size of the German article, which shows that Rettich is a surname held by several other notable people (German WP's standards for biographies are generally high). {{R from surname}} should only be used if a name is unique or if one holder meets the standards for a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Narky Blert (talk) 16:09, 18 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.

Jacksepticeye's Funniest Home Videos[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely search term for the topic, and not mentioned on the page. Also not likely to be mentioned, as it appears to be a video series by Jack. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Utopes (talk / cont) 01:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak-ish Keep, due to the modest pageviews per WP:R#K5/WP:R#D8. I came here expecting to !vote "delete," but the Google search results show this is the name of the subject's YouTube channel, so it gets a (weak) pass from me. Recommend adding {{R from work}} rcat for clarity. Doug Mehus T·C 02:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the name of the subject's YouTube channel. The YouTube channel name is "Jacksepticeye", and the "Funniest Home Videos" is the name of a spinoff series on the channel. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but in the context of a redirect, it doesn't matter. It's still one of the subject's primary creative avenues. So, it's plausible. Useful? That's where I get the weak-ish from in terms of the low to low-ish pageviews. Doug Mehus T·C 02:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally it's notable enough and most likely will be searched since one of his biggest spin-off series in modern Jack history in my opinion St. Jimmy (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    St. Jimmy Jammy, notability doesn't really matter for redirects, but I know what you meant, and agree with you, that the subject redirect is a well-known and searched for phrase. Doug Mehus T·C 03:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and wait. As of now, the number of pageviews is hard to know. Best to wait a year or so. J947 (c), at 01:28, 22 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.

Middel-Letaba River[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for the RfD for Middel-Letaba Dam, this has both a typo and a bizarre hyphen. It's therefore an unlikely search term. There is no relevant history and nothing links to it. Reyk YO! 00:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - As stated in the other discussion, this appears to be an uncommon but genuinely used variant of the regular name (see here for an example from a non-profit agency). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFFL. Middel-Letaba is the Afrikaans name; it isn't a typo. Narky Blert (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RLOTE (testing out the new shortcut following the page move) and above. The hyphen wouldn't be so much of a problem for me, but I think this is a case where WP:RLOTE is useful for keeping. Doug Mehus T·C 15:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFOREIGN. I think that covers all that page's shortcuts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SMcCandlish Touché! Well, not all of them, like the depreciated WP:FORRED, which I refuse to give another wikilink to. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 02:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'd forgotten that weird one. Sounds like a boss monster in a bad RPG. Or a Cockney talkin' 'bout 'is brow. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RLOE (mwahaha another one) and others in the discussion. J947 (c), at 01:17, 22 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.

Middel-Letaba Dam[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has both a typo and a strange, inappropriate hyphen. That makes it an unlikely search term. Nothing links to it, and it has no relevant history. Reyk YO! 00:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This appears to be an uncommon but genuinely used variant of the regular name (see here for an example from a non-profit agency). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFFL. The Afrikaans name is af:Middel-Letabadam. Narky Blert (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RLOTE (testing out the new shortcut following the page move) and above. The hyphen wouldn't be so much of a problem for me, but I think this is a case where WP:RLOTE is useful for keeping. Doug Mehus T·C 15:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This is one of those "consider WP:BEFORE to apply to more than outright deletion of articles" matters. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per others. I have also created Middel-Letabadam. J947 (c), at 01:26, 22 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_18&oldid=944088986"