Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 3

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

December 3

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 3, 2019.

Ivan, Ontario

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of Ivan at the target article and a reader will find nothing about it there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud: Why don't you just add the names of the missing communities to Middlesex Centre? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: why didn't I? Because I would never have found that source. Why didn't you? Never mind, I've done it now. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2019 (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.

Ethnic minorities in British media

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) 17:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect only exists because of a move to a more correct page title, as Muslims and ethnic minorities are different things. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This is a redirect from a move, but the target was at this less than a day and the sole author prior to the move has contributed since so they will be able to find it. I would have preferred a redirect to an article that does discuss ethnic minorities in British media but I've not been able to find any. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious case of a {{R from move}} that should have been suppressed as a serious misnomer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:20, 5 December 2019 (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.

K word

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. I've done so at K-word, which seemed most grammatically correct, and retargeted the others there. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous redirect; not exclusive to the racial term. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:56, 4 December 2019 (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.

Type casting

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 Typecasting (disambiguation). Unanimous support, so consider this a "withdraw". (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seems that the target is traditionally known by the version of the phrase that has a space. For this reason, I'm thinking these redirects should be retargeted to Typecasting (disambiguation). Steel1943 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm, SnowFire, Necrothesp, and SMcCandlish: Pinging participants of Talk:Typecasting#Requested move 26 November 2019. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2019 (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.

Clown college

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) 17:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per circus school, this is not the only school where one can study to be a clown. Suggest retargeting or deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote per the above. PS: agreed with James-the-C. and Dmehus that future disambiguation is a possibility, e.g. after clown-instruction-specific expansion at circus school, or a spinoff article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC); rev'd. 19:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add hatnote to circus school per above. --Lenticel (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The hatnote could be useful. Future disambiguation might also be a possibility, too, as James-the-Charizard makes a strong case. I would be supportive of retargeting to Clown school with a similar hatnote as well. I'm pleasantly surprised to see SMcCandlish participate in RFD, which is arguably the friendliest and most collegial of the XfDs, if I might say so. Doug Mehus T·C 02:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I make my rounds. Most XfD's don't attract my attention unless I'm notified/pinged, and then I tend to plough through the remainder of them on the same day's worth of listings.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:03, 5 December 2019‎ (UTC)
      • Ah, interesting. Cool. I'll try and remember to ping you when I see an interesting RfD in which I think you'd like to weigh in, assuming that's not allowed. I should it's probably okay because it's only one ping and, crucially, I'd have absolutely no idea which way you would be inclined to support. So the ping would be entirely neutral. Doug Mehus T·C 16:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Dmehus, that's rather the opposite of what I advised with regard to pinging people. If you keep drawing particular people to discussions, it looks like WP:FACTION behavior. And overuse of the tool can be a bit oppressive. E.g., when I logged in just now, I had 6 new "alerts" waiting. They were all you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:28, 6 December 2019 (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.

Death of Dennis Ritchie

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus , leaning keep. A redirect that few would have created, but fewer still would see as harmful. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found it initially in the "Deaths by person in the United States" category, redirects to Dennis Ritchie. His death is not a notable event and really does not need a redirect page. Greyjoy talk 09:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2019 (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.

Religious vilification

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 Religious intolerance. --BDD (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not delete, but I think the target is wrong here. Perhaps it means different things in different countries, but https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/racial-vilification-law-australia http://austlii.community/foswiki/VicDiscrimLRes/Racialandreligiousvilification https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vilification https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.20851/j.ctt1t3051j.10?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2019 (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.

Spindle (fire making)

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 Bow drill. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't indicate that there is a fire-making tool called a spindle, nor that "spindle" in fire making has a definition anything other than the regular use of the word. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which regular use of the word? 94.21.78.76 (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A spindle is a component of a bow drill and a pump drill which are used for fire making, but spindle in this context doesn't have any special meaning beyond a normal use of the word. However, since the spindle is in fact mentioned in the "Friction" section of fire making, the redirect has at least minimal utility. Since redirects are cheap, minimal utility is enough to keep it. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2019 (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.

Wine store

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 Liquor store. I'll also tag with {{R from subtopic}}. -- Tavix (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these two should have different targets. By its own description, an enoteca is just one type of wine shop. On the other hand, a liquor store is a broader topic. There's no reason we couldn't have an article at one of these titles (compare Beer shop), but I don't think deletion would be productive here. Right now, I'm leaning towards Liquor store as the target. Thoughts? --BDD (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Liquor store for both. Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
discussion not useful for determining consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Oh administrator BDD nominated this. Since he was uncertain as to redirect target, pinging him based on the recent !votes. Doug Mehus T·C 03:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dmehus: you should not assume gender. If you do not know and do not want use a gender neutral construction, you can use {{they}} or a related template (see the documentation there), e.g. {{they|BDD}}. You also do not need to tag everyone every time you mention them, and whether a nominator or commenter at an XfD discussion is an admin or not is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Thryduulf: oh, that's an interesting template! Thank you! I did not know we had such a thing, or that we could even set our preferred gender pronoun in our "preferences." Very cool. What would make that even better is if that template also included a ping in the username, or at at least had a "p=[y/n]" parameter. I will try and remember that. As for including administrator before certain admins usernames, I do that as a sign of respect for admins which exemplify the model editor behaviour, knowledge of policies, neutrality, objectivity, etc., like an honourific. If, on the other hand, I am less enamoured by an admin, then I don't. You are most definitely in the former camp. :)Doug Mehus T·C 14:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, didn't know about the template either. Very cool! (I've long been in Category:Male Wikipedians, though.) As for the target, any reasonable option that syncs these redirects up is an improvement to me. Enoteca still looks like a specialized type of wine shop; there are wine stores that mostly or exclusively sell wine (i.e., not beer or liquor) without being an enoteca. Still, with two concepts so close, this isn't a good candidate for redlink deletion. Enoteca is my second choice. --BDD (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD and Thryduulf:, ah, is that how the template identifies our gender, if the editor has tagged their userpage (presumably not usertalk page?) with an appropriate gender category? I couldn't find anything in the actual Wikipedia site preferences. To your latter comment, BDD, I see your point in that Enoteca is a specialized wine shop and liquor stores also sell wine. I'd probably still prefer Enoteca as my first choice, with the hatnote, but actually, a disambiguation page might be the way to go (with Wine shop redirecting to the dab page, which could also have the effect of serving as the redirect to use when one intentionally needs to link to a dab page). Doug Mehus T·C 14:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can set gender in your preferences. It's under the Internationalisation section of the User profile tab. I suspect this is what the template is drawing from, though I'm surprised only he and she are offered there. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. I'll skip the tag this time since we're both active on this page. I missed that. I find it odd that it's under the "Internationalisation" section. I would've thought including it at the bottom of "Basic info" would've been more intuitive. I did see, (When mentioning you, the software will use gender neutral words whenever possible), but that's a curious option. Why not say, Gender neutral? --Doug Mehus T·C 15:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wow, that's really cool, and it works with them as well. Thank you, administrator Thryduulf. S Marshall, since you mentioned this as well in an unrelated talkpage discussion, my problem with misidentifying editors'/administrators' gender has been solved with the {{they}}/{{them}} templates. --Doug Mehus T·C 14:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to liquor store, a plain-English term and what most people will be thinking of. Enoteca is an Italian thing, a narrow subset; it's a term unfamiliar to probably 99.99% of our readers, and to the extent it pertains to the English-speaking world at all, it's going to be something found only in major cities for the most part (and particularly wine-connected suburban enclaves like the California wine country just north of San Francisco). I agree that we could possibly have a spinoff article, similar to Beer shop, but until then, liquor store is the appropriate target. It's perfectly fine for a redirect to be a subset of the target article's scope, but it's often confusing and unhelpful for the target to be a subset of the redirect's scope.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I just did some overhauling at Beer shop (and made sure the obvious Beer store redirect actually existed), and at some related articles like Liquor store and Liquor license.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:46, 7 December 2019 (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.

American Indian history

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 mixed. This is a messy close, but it looks like we have a weak consensus to keep American Indian history and retarget the other three redirects to Indigenous peoples of the Americas#History, with no prejudice against creating a disambiguation page. signed, Rosguill talk 23:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that native Americans aren't confined to the US, wouldn't it make sense for these redirects to go somewhere else? Native American and American Indian are both dab pages, so one solution is to create a dab page here as well. Another is to retarget to the article with the broadest scope: Indigenous peoples of the Americas#History. – Uanfala (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, would support Delete but I think retargeting doesn't make sense here. Doug Mehus T·C 01:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Naddruf Agree with you on the first one, but the trouble I have with retargeting the others is to where? Thus why I said keep for now, for all of them, without prejudice to retargeting—without a full RfD debate—in the future. Doug Mehus T·C 20:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"American Indian" is not usually just used for the United States, at least not in the global context in which wikipedia is positioned. – Uanfala (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I'm in Canada and I tend to use the term "First Nations"; rarely do I use Indigenous, and never do I use the terms "Indian" and "Aboriginal" and certainly never with "American" to refer to a non-American Indian. Do you have some sources showing common usage outside of North America for non-American "American Indians"?--Doug Mehus T·C 22:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the other side of the pond and I'm used to seeing the term referring either as a whole to the native peoples of the Americas (both North and South, as in this book), or specifically to the ones in the US (as here). I don't have particular knowledge of the topic area (or of English for that matter), as that's why I brought this for discussion here. However, if the general feeling is that "American Indian" has the US ethnicities as a primary topic, then someone needs to make the case for that as the tacit consensus so far appears to have been otherwise (American Indian redirects to a disambiguation page, and has been a disambiguation page for most of its chequered history). – Uanfala (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2019 (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.

Tail wagging the dog

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 redirect. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of this redirect at the target article, and I'm not sure the article really deals with the phrase. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • soft redirect to Wiktionary wikt:tail wagging the dog. There a loads of mentions of this term, and it's a very likely search term, but I can't find an encyclopaedia article that deals with it. The idiom is explained at Wiktionary for those who don't know what it means, which is quite a likely reason for searching for it (particularly for non-native speakers), and it is not explained anywhere on Wikipedia I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only mentioned at the wiktionary though. Otherwise Wag the Dog (disambiguation) might be feasible. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:tail wagging the dog per administrator Thryduulf above. AngusWOOF's redirect to Wag the Dog (disambiguation) is also a good idea which I'd be supportive of, potentially with a Wiktionary definition link to wikt:tail wagging the dog How come, though, when I added a soft redirect to wikt:red cunt hair for Cunt hair, it was summarily deleted? Legit question: what's our standards for when to create soft redirects to Wiktionary for Wikipedia redirects that don't have articles? --Doug Mehus T·C 03:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly my being an administrator is completely irrelevant here. Second, soft redirects to Wiktionary are generally only used when the term is likely to be searched for, there is no suitable article in Wikipedia, we are unlikely to be able to write an article that is encyclopaedic (as opposed to dictionaric) content, and there is relevant content at Wiktionary that is more useful than search results or a disambiguation page. In the case of Cunt hair there was no relevant content at Wiktionary. However as Red cunt hair exits as a redirect to Cunt#Derived meanings, and that section gives the same meaning to both "cunt hair" and "red cunt hair" I've created the former as a redirect there. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redir per Thryduulf, though I do believe we could write an encyclopedic article about it. It's a term with significant cultural resonance. The concept is the subject (not just title) of a major feature film. And so on. However, I'm not certain it's actually likely that such an article would be written. I've generally been a fan of the principle of redlinking to inspire article creation, but in this case, I think that a) reader desire for an explanation is going to be high, and Wikitionary provides one, and b) the majority of imaginable attempts to create this article are going to be WP:NOTDICT failures (it takes a fair amount of work, and a good handle on the difference between dictionarian and encyclopedic writing, to create a WP-worthy article about a phrase).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish, oh it's nice to hear another person who is a fan of deleting redirects per the reason to inspire article creation. That argument often gets overshadowed by the "cheap" argument of late. Doug Mehus T·C 16:48, 6 December 2019 (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.

PHGSS

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) 17:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym not mentioned in the target. Also, most third party engine searches return results for a topic related to Phygelius. Steel1943 (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2019 (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.

Draft:Erica C. Barnett.

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. Guy (help!) 15:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if a CSD criterion could apply (housekeeping, maybe?), but this redirect with the period was created in error following an undeletion and move to draft namespace by AfD closer SilkTork upon a request from JzG. Inclusion of the trailing period in the article name seems to have been an entirely accidental typo on SilkTork's part, which JzG promptly and dutifully corrected. Thus, the article has now been moved to the draft namespace at the proper article name, and so I thought I should move this redirect for discussion principally on housekeeping and implausible typo grounds. Doug Mehus T·C 15:37, 3 December 2019 (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.

Ash`s pokemon

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) 17:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the use of the hard-to-type "`", the subject of the redirect's target is not the subject of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2019 (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.

Metallics (Pokémon)

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) 17:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Metallics" is not mentioned in the target article, and referring to the target article as a "metallic", per third party search engine results, seems like some sort of unverifiable made-up WP:NEO. Steel1943 (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2019 (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.

Chapter IV (The Weeknd album)

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) 17:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of anything by the title Chapter IV at the target, so this redirect should be deleted for being purely speculative and unsourced. The Weeknd previously announced his upcoming fourth album would be titled Chapter VI (six, not four), and that is mentioned at the target. I cannot find a reliably sourced mention of the title in news media (pop music blogs like PopSugar are in Google search results, but these are entirely not reliable sources as their entire existence is to traffic in speculation). Ss112 13:45, 3 December 2019 (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.

Blood Orange (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 retarget. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this redirect should be replaced by a redirect to the page Blood orange (disambiguation). There are two films named 'Blood Orange' (one from 1953 and one from 2016). At present anyone looking for Blood Orange (film) is being automatically redirected to the page for the 1953 film, without being given the option to choose between the 1953 and 2016 films. AlanD1956 (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2019 (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.

Blood Orange

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 13#Blood Orange

Chaver

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 and retarget the plural form. Thanks, IP. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably refers to a surname of someone in the news in 2010. I'd like to overwrite with an article about the Hebrew term and title "Chaver" , which as a title is an interesting rarity. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:57, 3 December 2019 (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.

Dil Hai Ke Manta Nahin 2

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) 17:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No such film mentioned at the target page. Maybe it was dropped. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2019 (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.

Arzinoa

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. per WP:R3 Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 13:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo, to misspell Arizona with two separate letter swaps. Utopes (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2019 (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.

HftMT

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) 17:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did not realize that another one of these redirects existed. That would have been a good thing to check for before I put the first up for RfD. Frankly, I didn't want to add this redirect to the other entry, but my rationale for it still holds true. This acronym does not seem to be in (common) use and is an unlikely search term. Utopes (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2019 (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.

Hftmt

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) 17:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely acronym. This subject doesn't appear to be abbreviated to this 5-letter acronym, and therefore would be an unlikely search term. Utopes (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2019 (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.

Pokégods

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) 17:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2019 (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.

I don't even know at this point

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) 17:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is a plausible redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:09, 3 December 2019 (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.

List of Pokémon by Japanese Name

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) 17:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Japanese names in the target page's list, nor is there a way to sort the list in that manner. Steel1943 (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2019 (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.

List of Pokémon by "non-National" number

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, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target page is sorted by number by the "national" numbering scheme. The list is not sorted or sortable in any other fictional area's Pokédex scheme. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2019 (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.

List of Basic Pokémon

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, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target list does not define what a "basic Pokémon" is. Steel1943 (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish, oh, interesting...can revision(s) be restored from one deleted article and added in, chronologically, to the revision history of a current page, or do you mean the admin would have to pull the deleted revisions and paste them into the talkpage of a current page? Doug Mehus T·C 16:52, 6 December 2019 (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.

List of generation X Pokémon

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) 16:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generation 8 was just released. These two redirects are unverified WP:CRYSTAL. Steel1943 (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2019 (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.

Pokemon-Pets

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) 16:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2019 (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.

List of Pokemon by Stage

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) 16:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The word "stage" is not mentioned in the target page, nor does the target page make effort in the list to define what a "stage" is. Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2019 (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/2019_December_3&oldid=932313245"