Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 7, 2020.

Vigennial[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 08:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No source that this word exists, gives almost no search results in standard search engines. Probably meant to be vicennial. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 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.

Congo (Democratic Rep)[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) 04:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely and unhelpful disambiguator, especially considering that Democratic Rep doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 02:27, 29 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 21:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a disambiguation that is used in multiple sources (especially the African Union, which has a high profile internationally), and is thus likely to be used in searches. Any hypothetical confusion with a "Democratic Representative" is implausible at the moment; I doubt there has ever been one solely referred to as "Congo". Congo (disambiguation)#People with the name lists none. Glades12 (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 65.94.171.6 and Glades12: attested in sources, little potential for confusion. – Uanfala (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IP. J947 (c), at 18:25, 8 March 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.

St Fort[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#St Fort

Diversitycomm[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 soft delete. Deryck C. 16:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary for the creation of this redirect says similar brands offering same stuff. "Diversitycomm" is not mentioned at the target; if it's not actually the same organization, then I don't think it's helpful to have this redirect and would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:59, 7 March 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 men's national under-21 volleyball team[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. That's going to take a minute. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in the target article Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Similiar nominations merged. @Pelmeen10: If you feel a need for this to be undone, feel free to contact me. Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Similar basketball-related redirects were recently deleted. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. None of these are mentioned in any of their target articles (maybe one of them is, but there are so many, I did not check them all). Also, the user who created these redirects was indefinitely blocked for persistent addition of unsourced content. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:24, 13 March 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.

Standard Galactic Grid[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) 20:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:18, 7 March 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.

Time elemental[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 15#Time elemental

Giant mantis[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 15#Giant mantis

25 Henry VIII.[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 08:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Useless punctuation in the title. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:02, 7 March 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.

Triennial[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 Anniversary#Latin-derived numerical names. You can make this kind of change without coming to RfD. signed, Rosguill talk 08:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Anniversary#Latin-derived numerical names analogously to related words. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:55, 7 March 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.

Radium anniversary[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 08:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing about the subject (which according to Google might have been either a 70th or 75th wedding annversary). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:03, 10 March 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.

Queen's University Current Events[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 08:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do not create redirects or articles for "current events" at universities. feminist (talk) 07:53, 7 March 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.

Queen's School of Computing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 15#Queen's School of Computing

LetterATopics/Aaron[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 15#LetterATopics/Aaron

X.520[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 08:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted. There is no content relating to it on X.500, and in fact X.500 references it, and redirects back to itself. Tystnaden (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The account that created the redirect is blocked. -- Tystnaden (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per WP:G5. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:G5 doesn't apply since the account was never proven to be a sock; the block was for an issue with the account's username. Steel1943 (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reasoning is that if someone wants to create an article about X.520, that is fine. But until somebody does that, we should just remove the redirect, since it serves no purpose by itself. Let it be a red link on the one article that actually links to it. -- Tystnaden (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to create redlink consistent with X.521. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:07, 10 March 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.

Porn++[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 08:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article. As far as I can tell, these redirects refer to a defunct, non-notable porn site (see Pornplusplus : porn++ :: porn reviews and discussions; safe for work link). SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:03, 7 March 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.

TMNT Nickelodeon[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) Hog Farm (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • PS, added the redirect also created by the first move (mover moved the article twice within minutes of the first move). oknazevad (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Per Talk:Playhouse (British TV series)#Requested move 29 January 2020, the channel is NOT attached. St3095 (?) 16:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone would argue Nickelodeon should be in the title of the article. Redirects are meant to aid in searching, though, so we have a lot more leeway. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but the fact remains that there already have been multiple TMNT series aired on Nickelodeon, so it's a poor redirect to even have in the first place. oknazevad (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yeah, I'm ok with these. Now, the last time I could claim to be a TMNT fan was during the time of the original TV series, but if someone referred to "the Nickelodeon TMNT" or something, this is what I'd assume they meant. If I'm reading the articles right, there's only one other series on Nickelodeon, and it's linked in the lede, so I'm comfortable calling this one primary topic. The redirects seem genuinely useful for someone who may not remember that the title simply is "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles". (N.b., Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Nickelodeon also redirects here, and can be deleted if these are.) --BDD (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it helps distinguish between that and the 4Kids or syndicated TV series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 7 March 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.

Smirch[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, with no prejudice against creation of a disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Question Hog Farm, did you want to finish that thought? It's unclear what you mean by who's redirect-creating prowess led to a temporary CSD specifically for his? Doug Mehus T·C 17:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but, specifically, the part after led to a temporary CSD specifically for his. Feel free to use <ins></ins> to add to your sentence. Doug Mehus T·C 17:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ROFLMAO Now I see what you mean, a temporary CSD category X1 was created and later repealed. Yeah, this probably wouldn't have qualified for that, so best to let RfD play out. But, geez. Doug Mehus T·C 17:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice, to recreation as a Wiktionary soft redirect in the future. Doug Mehus T·C 03:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added the Wiktionary soft redirect below the current target, should that be the outcome. If it closes as "delete," or something else, no worries as that can simply be voided. Doug Mehus T·C 03:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to reveal the search results: there are various fictional entities named "Smirch" that are mentioned in this or that article (conceivably someone might be looking for them), and the wiktionary entry appears prominently at the top of the "Results from sister projects" category in those search results. – Uanfala (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For fictional characters:
* Sylvester Smirch in Beethoven's Christmas Adventure film
* Herman Smirch, a character in the Nintendo Comics System series of comic books
* Ms. Smirch, a character in the film Tassels in the Air starring The Three Stooges
* Mr. Smirch, a character in the episode "Disaster in the High Seas" of the anime show Marine Boy
* Jack Smurch in "The Greatest Man in the World", as listed in List of unnamed fictional presidents of the United States
Those are the ones I found so far. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Given the situation, it honestly seems like it's best to simply let people search. I understand that there's likely no set consensus here, though. Still, the above users make some good points. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are that many possible targets (see among others AngusWOOF's list shortly before the latest relisting) then why couldn't we replace the redirect by a disambiguation page? — Tonymec (talk) 20:29, 8 March 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.

Fish Belly[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, with no prejudice against creation of a disambiguation page (which should probably be at Fish belly). --BDD (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This particular slur is not mentioned at the target article. Delete unless it is determined to be worthy of a mention. Hog Farm (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename and retarget, leaving a trailing redirect to Fish#Digestion where the subject is discussed broadly. I think that's best Hog Farm. Add any rcats that are applicable. Doug Mehus T·C 19:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dmehus: Yeah, that's probably the best option. Retargeting to where the literal belly of a fish is discussed makes the most sense. Hog Farm (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned at target and a redirect to List of ethnic slurs is unhelpful. I object to the proposed retarget at this capitalisation; Fish belly would be acceptable but pointless if it redirects to Fish. Note that Fishbelly rail exists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both Fish belly and Fish Belly would redirect to Fish#Digestion. The latter is retained because of its existence as a plausible search term/access point. No need to delete. One would not redirect to a redirect; that'd be a double-redirect and fixed swiftly by a bot. Doug Mehus T·C 14:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: I'm not completely opposed to disambiguation here, but wouldn't the literal belly of the fish be a clear primary topic here? Can you suss out your thinking a bit more, for Hog Farm and I? Doug Mehus T·C 16:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if one of those fish articles support a clear definition of a belly of a fish, then it can be primary topic and the rest can be in a disambiguation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do support AngusWOOF's disambiguation proposal, BDD, if this will save a relist. I'd prefer to rename it Fish belly post-close, but we can do that, well, after closing Doug Mehus T·C 20:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per AngusWOOF -- in all cases the belly of a fish should be indicated somehow. -- 70.51.46.77 (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Someone care to draft the potential disambiguation page? Such a draft may help here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You need your redirect to be mentioned on an article that is a list of ethnic slurs. OcelotCreeper (talk) 14:13, 15 March 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.

Slavs in Germany[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 Demographics of Germany because I have not found consensus to delete. -- Tavix (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this is an appropriate redirect, as while the redirect title could conceivably cover all Slavic speakers that have ever lived in Germany (see Slavs), the target article is exclusively about historical Slavic tribes living in or near the Holy Roman Empire (even calling the region Germany is ahistorical). I would suggest deletion, but am open to proposals to disambiguate or target this redirect elsewhere. signed, Rosguill talk 18:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a fair bit of history in that idea, and I would stay out of it. Breslau was a German-speaking city for a thousand years, but that name is now a redirect. Narky Blert (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noting your modest amendment to your !vote, thanks for the clarification, Narky. It does make sense. Doug Mehus T·C 01:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to discuss the last minute retarget suggestion if desired
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rosguill to settle the relisting. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. This is, as stated above, immensely vague. I've no prejudice against creating a future article, but I'm not sure what it'd look like either. In the meantime, deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD: The section is extensive, but has plenty of information about Slavs in Germany, including the aforementioned Sorbs, so it's a great target. A section need not be exclusively about Slavs in Germany to be the right target for it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist to generate a stronger consensus following the late contributions of Amorymeltzer et al. While a handful of participants have notionally !voted "delete," despite this being not a vote, two of those including Kusma and myself have nothing against a disambiguation page or other options. As well, ~Amory and BDD have discussed retargeting two retarget options. Finally, Kusma and ~Amory had both been expecting Sorbs to be the retarget suggestion. Thus, there is not yet a particularly strong consensus in either direction. One more week should be sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 01:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time. It looks clear that there is not support for the status quo ... but as the song sort of goes: Should it stay (retargeted to Demographics of Germany), or should it go (delete)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, upon giving this more thought, I think that going to 'demographics of Germany' does seem reasonable enough for right now. I still believe that the ideal would be deletion followed by the creation of a kind of broad concept article, but in the meantime, yes, a retarget appears to be right. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't really give a strong vote in my nom statement, but at this point I think retarget to Demographics of Germany is better than deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 06:48, 15 March 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_March_7&oldid=946177577"