Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 11, 2020.

True Jedi[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 Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga. signed, Rosguill talk 01:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True Jedi is the amount of studs you have to collect in the Lego Star Wars game level, and is not mentioned in Lego Star Wars. Not sure whether to delete or retarget to the games, but do not retarget to Lego Star Wars: The Video Game, the stud meter was not called True Jedi at the time. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:12, 4 June 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, 11 June 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.

Wikipedia:MIXEDCAPS[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 01:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably point somewhere else. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without prejudice against immediate recreation as a valid shortcut to a target that has something to do with mixed case. In general, shortcuts are ambiguous; it's impossible to make a shortcut name completely unambiguous in every case. Hatnotes can be placed at the target if desired, but ambiguity by itself does not block the existence of a shortcut. However, the target should be tagged with {{shortcut}} and should in some way relate to the name of the shortcut. --NYKevin 20:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Every participant so far has had a different suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose anything that will break the usage of this redirect on talk pages. That means, I oppose deletion (strongly), disambiguation, and retargeting. If there's a problem with this redirect, just add a hatnote at its current target. No need to do anything more complex. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a well-established shortcut that has been pointing to the current location for over a decade, any changes now will needlessly break links and cause confusion reading old discussions. If there are other targets people might be looking for then add them in a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WP:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects. The point the OP was probably trying to make is that the internal anchor WP:Redirect#othercapitalization hasn't existed since 2009. The above is the relevant section in the article in its current form. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:10, 16 June 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.

!vote[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 Negation#Programming language and ordinary language. signed, Rosguill talk 01:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THis has a different target than WP:!VOTE. However, I think it's better to delete this XNR to avoid confusion of normal readers, as this starts with a regular exclamation point. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:38, 3 June 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, 11 June 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.

Characters in Lego Star Wars[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 21#Characters in Lego Star Wars

Po-town[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) 15:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, an internet search returned results about a location in Pokemon Sun and Moon, but our article about that subject doesn't mention it. I wasn't able to find any sources referring to Poughkeepsie by this name. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget Po-town is a well-used nickname[1][2] in the region, but should probably target for the city, not the town. Cbuccella (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cbuccella: Either way, a sourced reference would be helpful and avoid confusion for those that follow the redirect (especially if it is to target the city not the town). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if there's no mention, as ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/poughkeepsie_po_town_nickname
  2. ^ https://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/life/2019/10/31/actor-kevin-makely-recalls-poughkeepsie-roots-enroute-hollywood/2494817001/
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:06, 11 June 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.

WWF Old Pay Per Views[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 deleted by Rosguill (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did not mention the target. The redirect was created in 2007 and did not retargeted in 13 years. I suggest retarget it to List of WWE pay-per-view and WWE Network events, the better target for the list of all WWE PPVs. 2600:6C4E:580:A:B8D5:1392:EB27:E9D8 (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of WWE pay-per-view and WWE Network events: more likely search term. JTP (talk • contribs) 17:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It serves zero purpose. In the history of the page (until it was listed here) the page only was view more than once on one occasion. What does "old" mean here, not a term that is ever used in defining this, so its just random. Plus the correct spelling is "pay-per-view" so its got the typo spelling too. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Galatz. It's ambiguous and an unlikely search term. The redirect only got 28 pageviews in the last 90 days. --im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 07:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:06, 11 June 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.

Government transparency[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 19#Government transparency

Defeat of Nazi 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is the best target for it. Defeat involves more than surrender. buidhe 20:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously per Buidhe. @Mr. Guye: Why did you nominate this redirect without providing a reason or suggested action? --Pandakekok9 (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah nevermind, though you could have added it to the "Defeat of Nazi Germany redirects" nomination. I still believe it should be kept as it is, per Buidhe's rationale. Pandakekok9 (talk) 05:08, 12 June 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.

Defeat of Germany redirects[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 retarget to German Instrument of Surrender. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what we should do, but the status quo cannot stand.

We have many similar redirects targeting at least three different targets, all in some way related to the defeat of Nazi Germany. This is confusing and either retargeting, deletion, or something else should occur to fix this predicament.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:21, 11 June 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.

𝔸[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 Blackboard bold#Usage. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, I can't find any indication that this character unambiguously refers to algebraic numbers (although it doesn't help that Google Scholar interprets this character as a normal A when searching). Delete unless a justification or a more appropriate target can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete is sometimes used for denoting the affine space. In any case such a redirect is not useful, as, except for blackboard-bold notation is never used without being defined. D.Lazard (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Retarget is fine for me. D.Lazard (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to blackboard bold which specifically discusses several possible meanings of this individual symbol. --NYKevin 20:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to blackboard bold as it's unambiguously defined there, but not as frequently used as its BMP counterparts denoting certain sets. Perhaps also a {{R from Unicode character}}? ComplexRational (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to blackboard bold#Usage, which shows the symbol and its mathematics usage. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget per NYKeving. —JBL (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment – retarget sounds good to me. signed, Rosguill talk 16:55, 14 June 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.

Autopatrolled[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) Captain Galaxy (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect, these are highly discouraged. If this had links, I wouldn't advocate deleting, but whatlinkshere states that it is linked only on exactly on userpage. This redirected is of a discouraged type, and deleting would not have harmful effects. Hog Farm (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is one of the exceptions to the general discouragement for these cross-namespace redirects because it is helpful for very new users who aren't yet familiar with the concept of namespaces. This is not a term that is used in any context outside of MediaWiki that I can find, so anyone searching for it is going to be looking for this target and there is no danger of confusion with any encyclopaedic content (if there was there would be an uncontroversial self-ref hatnote). The page view stats show that it is a well-used redirect with 10-30 hits each month this year and over 200 hits last year. Deletion would accordingly making things harder for new users without any significant benefit at all. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#KEEP#5. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 12:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I doubt that a "very new user" have knowledge about autopatrol while not knowing how to use namespaces. If they knew about autopatrol, a jargon very unlikely to be known by a newbie, they surely also know how to use namespaces. I have no opinion whether to delete this or keep, both of which are harmless in my opinion. Pandakekok9 (talk) 09:51, 18 June 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.

Bernabe Buscayno[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. This is not the correct venue for requesting page moves; see RM. (non-admin closure) — J947 [cont] 19:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects look inverted to me, just based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). I'd concede that there seems to be roughly equal coverage for both this nick name and the real name, Bernabe Buscayno. But nothing to disproportionately say that his real name is superceded, which is usually the naming convention in Wikipedia. Jontesta (talk) 17:25, 11 June 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.

Parque de María Luisa (park)[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. It is WP:SNOWing. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 04:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Superfluous redirect with awkward lemma. No backlinks. Hildeoc (talk) 16:47, 11 June 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.

Content provider[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) Captain Galaxy (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding that this has been stable since 2007, I don't think the article describes what is now known as a "content provider". It may be better if we delete as ambiguous and allow uninhibited Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's telco industry jargon, but it remains in use: [2]. The line between telcos and the Internet has indeed blurred (is Google a "content provider"?), but then the page should be updated or turned into a redirect, not deleted entirely. Jpatokal (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, in agreement. --Xannir (talk) 13:06, 18 June 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.

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 keep. signed, Rosguill talk 00:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links to this, and that character doesn't exist on any normal keyboard, so unlikely anyone would search for Engliſh rather than English. If you know what ſ means, then you'll know how to spell English Joseph2302 (ftalk) 09:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The term is a valid one and has been used before, but is anyone today actually going to go out of their way to type "ſ" using a different keyboard layout? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copy and paste is a thing, and it is also available without changing keyboard layouts in various ways (e.g. <compose key> f s). Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Long s per WP:LEAST. If someone searches this word, it is probable that he/she has found this spelling somewhere and copied it in the search box. It is likely that he/she is looking for the explanation of this spelling rather than searching for "English". If he/she is really searching for "English", the explanation found in Long s will give them the indication for getting the searched article. D.Lazard (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would strongly oppose a retarget there. Someone searching "Engliſh" would be wanting English, of which "Engliſh" is a valid (but archaic) spelling. If someone specifically wanted to know about the long s, they can copy and paste that specific letter—which is exactly how it would work for any other letter that may look weird. For example, I would seriously hope no one would consider retargeting façade to Ç or naïvety to Ï. Someone would search "façade" because they want to learn about facades, not about the c-cedilla. -- Tavix (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy doesn't work. Long s, as you said is archaic and no longer used practically in this age. Ç in façade and Ï in naïvety are still used practically, so it's more likely that average user (especially those who don't use English as their first language) will search with those letters than long s. And unlike long s, you cannot turn, for example, coconut into çoçonut, so WP:PANDORA won't apply to those letters, but it does apply to long s, because you can turn every s that is not the last letter to ſ. Pandakekok9 (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PANDORA is misleading nonsense at best. Every redirect is evaluated on its own merits, and if it is useful it is created/kept and if it is not it is deleted (or not created in the first place), this is regardless of what or how many similar redirects do or do not exist. While theoretically any non-final "s" could be replaced with "ſ" in practice there are a finite number of terms including it that are actually used to search for information on the English Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Long s in Wikipedia's search box will automatically convert it into normal s. However, it doesn't get converted when put in the browser's address bar, so your argument is valid. Pandakekok9 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and explicitly strongly oppose retargetting to Long s, both per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It isn't harmful and is at least plausible. Captain Galaxy (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:FORRED: The word in question is related (identical) to the language in which the spelling originates. --NYKevin 04:19, 12 June 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.

Battle of Horain[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) 15:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, or anywhere else on Wikipedia as far as I can tell. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable, and barely covered on Wikipedia anywhere. Jontesta (talk) 17:51, 11 June 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.

Bag of holding[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 19#Bag of holding

L2 norm[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 19#L2 norm

Yugoslawia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 18#Yugoslawia

Federation of Jewish Communities in the Czech Republic[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 as sockpuppet creation. (non-admin closure) buidhe 09:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful redirect as there is nothing about the organization in the target article. Delete to encourage article creation. buidhe 09:14, 11 June 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.

Holocaust restitution[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 in order to encourage article creation signed, Rosguill talk 00:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect that leads a reader to expect an overview article of the many forms of restitution, such as return of Aryanized property, forced labor settlements with private companies, etc., but instead redirects to a specific agreement. Should be deleted to encourage article creation. buidhe 06:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Added Holocaust reparations. Pandakekok9 (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Holocaust reparations should also be deleted for the same reason. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as proposer. buidhe 07:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, topic is far wider than indicated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page but Agree the redirect is misleading. Holocaust restitution is a larger subject than the reparations agreement between Israel and W. Germany alone. I think it would be better to create a stub with the outlines of the relevant areas of this subject rather than deleting it to encourage article creation. I'd be willing to start it. --Chefallen (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apparently created 1 of the redirects, I approve this message. Gzuckier (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the redirects. Keep the   Reparation Agreement between Israel and Germany is correctly named. It is an article about a specific Reparations Agreement (i.e., between Israel and Germany) and not an article about reparation agreements in general. Reparations Agreement is too general title for this subject (there are others besides this one that could be covered under the broader topic with definitions, background, history, examples, similarities and differences, results, etc. regarding the subject in general). FYI, I had already moved the titled back to Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany before I saw this discussion. -- Chefallen (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't appear to be a comment on the redirect discussion. buidhe 21:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my vote above accordingly. Thanks. --Chefallen (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation or stubify per Chefallen. It's a broader topic than this one agreement. Narky Blert (talk) 09:30, 12 June 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.

List of Twitter services and applications[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 00:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the recently deleted redirect UberTwitter (RfD), these are redirects to a list article which does not contain any information about the subject of the redirect in question. Other mentions of these applications on Wikipedia, are just that - mentions - and don't represent a useful target, so these should just be deleted. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. It's fine for actual articles and substance in the list to have a redirect. But for non-notable applications that aren't mentioned, this is just a tool to manipulate SEO. Jontesta (talk) 17:43, 11 June 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.

History of Jupiter[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 18#History of Jupiter

Terra (Planetry Science)[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 00:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling of "planetary science" in the disambiguator, delete. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:11, 11 June 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.

Whole World[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. signed, Rosguill talk 00:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to World, as it means "everybody", according to Wiktionary. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 04:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Added Whole world to the RfD. Pandakekok9 (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we should just make Whole world a dab page, because a search of "Whole world" in DuckDuckGo and Wikipedia shows up a lot of different results, like The Whole World (a song), or Whole World Theatre. Then retarget this redirect to that new dab page. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Whole World (drafted a dab there all the proper nouns - mostly WP:DABMENTIONed songs). Neutral on whole world, since if there's a better target for the concept of the whole world, it should probably go there instead of the dab per WP:DIFFCAPS. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig both (i.e. disambiguate at one title and retarget the other to it). There is no primary topic for either capitalisation as far as I can tell and one disambiguation page can cover both capitalisations. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate+redirect per Thryduulf. I mildly prefer Whole World as the basename. Narky Blert (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dab This has a number of meanings, the target being not the only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghinga7 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 12 June 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.

Tom Lane (Nissan)[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 00:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target or anywhere else besides Thomas Lane (disambiguation); does not seem to meet WP:NBIO to be expanded into its own article. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:51, 11 June 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.

Filipino communism[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 Communism in the Philippines. (WP:SNOW closure). Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect suggests that all Filipinos who believe in National Democracy are automatically communists, or fronts for the communist party, even though it is not. This is dangerous as red-tagging is rampant in my country. I suggest retargeting to Communism in the Philippines or which ever is appropriate, as long as the new target doesn't suggest that progressives are communists. Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:34, 11 June 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.

Carlos Burle[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 00:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there is an appropriate local page to retarget this to. Sending readers to non-English content is not helpful. Additionally, the plain soft redirect template is not used in the mainspace. Precedents: Mohamed Chabani|, Saint Michel Boulevard, Bonne Nuit les Petits, Kumagai Morikazu, and Éditions Fides. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage possible article creation. He's mentioned several times in English WP, but the best I can find is the thin mention in Sport in Brazil#Other sports in Brazil. The sourcing of the Portuguese article is terrible, but a swift Google turned up several WP:RS items (many in English). He's best known for riding a possibly world-record wave, and might fall under WP:BLP1E; but English-language reports of that event would be likely to keep cropping up in the first few pages of a search. There's also pt:José Carlos Burle (it too is badly sourced) to confuse him with. Narky Blert (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Godsy: – Use {{Ill}} (InterLanguage Link) to retain the red link on English Wikipedia while blue linking to another language Wikipedia. Senator2029 “Talk” 06:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Narky Blert. This would follow one the guidelines to encourage new articles from red links. Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:16, 14 June 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_June_11&oldid=964094516"