Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 23

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 23, 2020.

Wikipedia:Glitch Techs

[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. kingboyk (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect from Wikipedia namespace to Draft namespace. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominated for speedy deletion as "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace" - left over from a mistaken-and-reverted page move. Please close associated RfD if page is deleted.. @Aoi: if you do a mistaken page move and revert it, you can add {{db-author}} or some version of {{db-g6|reason db-g6 applies goes here}} and skip the discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Davidwr: Thank you for nominating for speedy deletion. I did look at CSD criteria to see if there was a criteria that would apply, but I didn't notice that option/didn't read closely enough. This is great to know for the future, thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:48, 23 January 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.

2030 United States Census

[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) 16:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is too soon. The redirect is misleading because the target offers no information on the 2030 Census. -- Tavix (talk) 20:42, 23 January 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.

Daddy Mann

[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. Justification provided, withdrawing nomination. signed, Rosguill talk 21:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apologies I meant to add a mention when making the redirect but seem to have got distracted. It's there now. ----Pontificalibus 21:37, 23 January 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.

Platycorynus garambaensis

[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) 16:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request delete: This redirect was the original title of its current target page. Based on the revision history of the target page, I believe this old title to have been created in error. (The target page was moved to its current title only a minute after its creation on 26 July 2016.) Additionally, there is no evidence I am aware of that there has ever been a species named "Platycorynus garambaensis", for that matter, let alone one linked to the species Proliniscus garambaensis. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete article/redirect creator was creating articles on Chrysomelidae species, working alphabetically through a source. They had just created articles on 8 other Platycorynus species prior to creating this one see here, and moved it to the current title in their next edit. Pretty clear this was a simple error by the creator. Wikipedia doesn't need redirects for nonexistent binomials. Plantdrew (talk) 20:29, 23 January 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.

Epigynous berries(false berries)

[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. The main issue raised in this deletion discussion was the typo, not the nature of the disambiguator or the suitability of the target. signed, Rosguill talk 22:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both Epigynous berries and False berries exist and target the same target as this redirect. For this reason, I'm not seeing a useful reason to retain this redirect with a disambiguator spacing issue as outlined in WP:RDAB. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 23 January 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.

Planet-sam

[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) 16:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be an alternative name for its target. And when searched for on third party engines, most results are for a blogger named Planet Sam. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While it does have a non-redirect version, that version is basically what Planet would be if it were a newly-written stub by someone experimenting with Wikipedia, which I suspect is the case. The account appears abandoned. Nothing of value would be lost by deleting this page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:03, 23 January 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.

Escaping the Earth

[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 Escape velocity. MBisanz talk 22:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear why this redirect targets its target, and it's unclear what a reader could possibly be looking for if they were to search this term. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 23 January 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.

Use of ocean resourses

[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) 16:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term where both the information is not necessarily in the target article, and the word "resourses" is misspelled. Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 23 January 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.

Former island

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 30#Former island

Historical territories of China

[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. R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. Non-admin closure. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At Article for Deletion this Article was Moved to Draft. Jungguk (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete I tagged this for R2; this is standard practice when one moves a page to draftspace but cannot suppress the redirect. If anyone has a suitable target in mind (which I do not), feel free to revert my tagging. ComplexRational (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a technical note, the RfD template on the redirect's talk page wound up on the draft-article's talk page. I moved to where it belongs. It will be deleted when the redirect is deleted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:15, 23 January 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.

French reform

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 24#French reform

Greenlander(s)

[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 Greenland#Demographics. Honestly it's a toss up between the various redirect targets, so no prejudice toward further discussion of that issue. However, retargeting to something is clearly a better close than a no consensus that defaults to keep without further action, so I'm going to pick Greenland#Demographics due to it having more votes. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These should target the same place. Glades12 (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Indeed, and you tempted me to try a non-admin closure as IP, but that would require IAR, and I reserve it for serious cases. Please apply {{sofixit}} on the singular. –84.46.53.207 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
plural or both for the following 3rd idea, consistent is clear, but I had no reason to ignore the Danes. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be bold and immediately retarget one or both, but the problem is that I am not sure what the most appropriate target is. Greenland is mostly about the country and not the people, and Greenlandic Inuit only covers the island's Inuit population (note that other ethnic groups such as Danes also live there). Maybe Demographics of Greenland would work, but it is probably best to let discussion decide when you're not certain. Glades12 (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is clearly consensus for retargetting, but no suggestion where they should be retargetted to. It would make sense to close as "no consensus", which would leaved it open for any editor to retarget to an article they see as suitable, but we may as well allow a little more time for more discussion if anyone has anything to suggest.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 10:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is clear consensus to retarget both to either Greenland or Demographics of Greenland, but in the presentation of rationales for both, relisting to allow the discussion to settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ComplexRational (talk) 13:38, 23 January 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.

David Robert Hayward-Jones

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 22:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion: I cannot find any credible evidence that Bowie was ever known by that name, as opposed to David Robert Jones, his original real name. The Anome (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I found several sources of varying degrees of unreliability calling him David Robert Hayward Jones, with or without the hyphen; examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; but nothing at all that I trust. His DNB entry, link, which I do trust, suggests how the error may have crept in: his father's given name was Hayward. We don't need to perpetuate what looks like an error. Narky Blert (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Narky Blert It's a redirect, so I'm not sure I agree we'd be "perpetuat[ing] what looks like an error." As you noted, this may well be correct. Nevertheless, the user is gently guided to the target article where (hopefully) authoritative information will substantiate David Bowie's real name and provide the needed clarity. If more authoritative sources emerge that clarify this is the correct birth name, then that can be updated on the target article. In short, I see redirects as predominantly for navigation, to get the reader to the most appropriate article or listing of articles that include the most likely articles being sought. We have all kinds of non-neutral name and incorrect redirects, so factual accuracy doesn't apply to redirects. --Doug Mehus T·C 15:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Please read the template and its documentation before you use or link to it. If you did, you would know that {{R from real name}} is not to be used. -- Tavix (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. You're right, I haven't read that off-hand, but part of the problem is, I have no way of previewing the link when I use the "tl" template. Doug Mehus T·C 15:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Type out your post, then click "show preview", then open the link in a new tab, then read what it says. If it still makes sense in that context after you have read and understood it, then you're okay to use it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that's true; I've been trying to be more systematic about using "show preview" and right-clicking on my links, but I will make a more concerted effort. The funny thing is that in regards to the WP:FORRED RfD, Narky even mentioned depreciating in a manner similar to {{R from real name}}, so I should've known that. Does this call for a trout Self-trout Doug Mehus T·C 15:48, 30 January 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_January_23&oldid=938556752"