Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 30

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

January 30 edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 30, 2019.

Module:Graph:Timeline 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Graph has nothing to do with timelines. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:26, 30 January 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.

Module:Adjacent stations/example basic 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see a need for this entirely orphaned redirect in module namespace, when the target is not especially "basic" (also, not sure whether RfD or TfD is the correct venue for this). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:49, 30 January 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.

€™ 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. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mojibake. And unused. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Very common Mojibake, useful for Wikipedia to be able to provide an answer to "what is this thing", redirects are cheap Tantek (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Pinging Gorobay since they've been helpful with mojibake-related redirects in the past.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It’s the UTF-8 bytes of U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK reinterpreted as Windows-1252 with the first letter capitalized by MediaWiki, so the target is appropriate. In general I don’t think mojibake redirects are useful. This, representing a single character instead of being embedded in a longer title that happens to not be fully ASCII, is perhaps an exception. Gorobay (talk) 02:26, 1 February 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.

'"Live, Vol. Four" 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed attempt at formatting italics when the page was created; now unlikely search term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC) UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:54, 30 January 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.

Subchapter edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 8#Subchapter

CAP. 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 Cap (disambiguation). — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't necessarily always refer to "chapter". This could also refer to "capitalize". Due to the full stop, I don't think this should be retargeted to Cap. Delete so Wikipedia's search function can help readers figure out what they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 30 January 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.

2017–2019 Iranian protests edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 9#2017–2019 Iranian protests

Financial crisis (2007–present) 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such a thing as a Financial crisis from 2007 to 2019 (or 2020 or 2021) Bertux (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I added three more variants. -- Tavix (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Still used in many articles, which should be fixed. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:14, 30 January 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.

City of Atlanta, GA. 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) 15:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excessively implausible orthography. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. per nom. No more plausible than CIA., as opposed to CIA or even C.I.A. And redirects ending with periods have a long history of getting deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I must have seen this on a particular website before, but I don't remember where I saw it. I think this is why it's good to keep track of which URLs a particular name form comes from. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how this is "excessively implausible" at all. It got 14 hits last year, for example, it clearly links to the correct target (City of Atlanta also redirects to Atlanta) and this orthgraphy is used in sources, e.g. Library of Congress, Hathi Trust. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The orthography in both those links is City of Atlanta, Ga. (the state's abbreviation, not its all-caps. postal code). UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(previously redlinked redirect subsequently created by another editor) UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 14 hits over the course of a year to a target that received 1,676,078 hits last year is excessively implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was hoping you wouldn't need me to repeat myself, but as happens nearly every time you bring up this fallacy you are wrong - the relative number of people using different targets is irrelevant. What matters is that by deleting this we would, completely unnecessarily be making life harder for people who use this redirect without bringing any benefits to the encyclopaedia or anyone else. There are no maintenance requirements: there is no need to bypass any links to this, it's no more or less likely to be vandalised than any other redirect on the project and in the exceedingly unlikely event the target page is moved a bot will update this redirect so the cost of the redirect is exactly zero and it does help people find the content they are looking for so it's the very definition of WP:CHEAP. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Given we do not have City of Atlanta, GA I cannot see how the one with the period is more plausible. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (previously redlinked redirect subsequently created by another editor; I hold to my delete !vote, as postal codes like GA are NOT abbreviations and so should not have a period) UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I recall that there may have been a RfD in the past like this one regarding mailing codes or census codes or something like that. I cannot find it at the moment... Steel1943 (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now, subject to change) per Thryduulf's statement regarding "orthgraphy" in lieu of me finding the discussion which I am referring to. I believe the end result of that discussion was "keep" and included some examples of redirects which would normally seem implausible such as this one (and some contained non-Latin alphabet letters), so I'd believe that there has to be some plausibility in this redirect per either an antiquated use or a current use. Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible, 14 hits in a year suggests readers only incidentally encounter this imo. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because as noted above, postal abbreviation + period is quite unlikely. I don't know how the rest of the world uses US postal abbreviations when they encounter them, but we Americans never put periods after them, unless the context demands it ("Today I'm going to the City of Atlanta, GA. Tomorrow I'm going somewhere else."), and if you didn't know better, you'd consider it an acronym that should either get two periods ("G.A.") or none. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 3 February 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.

Template: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 speedy deleted. Following deletion of the target, the redirect was speedy deleted under criterion G8. Because this materially changes the circumstances of this nomination and the available options, and because the page is no longer a redirect, it's best to allow the next step to happen—whether at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, or a new redirect is created and then perhaps renominated for discussion, or something else entirely, or nothing at all. (non-admin closure) Bsherr (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I propose that Template:A be redirected to Template:Abbr the current redirect is barley used (12 times) and leads to a template that is only used 15 times. The redirect should be pointed to Template:Abbr because it used WAY more (446, 804 times) and is more useful, making the redirect more useful. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 02:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created as a result of this discussion, and it was discusssed again at RfD in June. – Uanfala (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my arguments in, and the consensus of, the previous discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace current links and retarget to Template:Abbr. If this is meant to be an abbreviation of "abbreviation", then let's have it target the actual template for abbreviations that is well used, instead of an extremely narrow meta-template that gets barely any use. -- Tavix (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect wasn't RfD tagged until just now. – Uanfala (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Much obliged to Uanfala for properly tagging this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer to TfD - The target is currently under discussion at TfD, and the existence of this redirect is being advanced as an argument for keeping it. Therefore, these discussions are in conflict and one should defer to the other. TfD is a higher-volume venue than RfD, so I propose we defer to them. --NYKevin 04:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and salt, commonly misused single-letter template name. Frietjes (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not usually fond of multiple relistings, but the facts have changed considerably here. With the target template undergoing deletion, "keep" really isn't an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:57, 30 January 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.

Maram language (Austro-Asiatic) 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 Maharam language. --BDD (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. There is already a page at Maram language, but even that is not a plausible target. 66.87.149.206 (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. According to the Maram language article it is a Sino-Tibetan language (as are the Kuki-Chin languages) not Austroasiatic so obviously neither of them are the correct target. I can't find information on Ethnologue about any language with this name, other than the Sino-Tibetan language we have an article on. There is though a mention of one at Khasic languages (which are Austroasiatic), I don't know that it would help anyone looking for information about the language though and I can't see what else is available (the table with the mention is referenced but only to an offline source and google isn't showing anything useful). I'm left at delete as misleading without prejudice to recreation as an article if sources are available. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rd to Maharam language. — kwami (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening per request, see note below.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:14, 30 January 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.

Rugby league players edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 7#Rugby league players

Ms 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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Among terms listed on MS, only two topics are written as "Ms": Ms. and Ms. (magazine). Other topics listed on the disambiguation page are either acronyms or abbreviations which use "MS". The page Ms should redirect to Ms., per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. feminist (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a reasonable capitalisation variant, so why should it be treated differently from other non-capitalised titles? See Az, Ct, Nd, Qr, and plenty of others. I expect some of these two-letter items may have US states' postal abbreviations as their primary meanings (particularly Az; also see the "City of Atlanta, GA." discussion above), but we redirect them to the disambiguation pages because there are plenty of alternate meanings. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is that "Ms" (with a capitalized M and lowercase s) overwhelmingly refers to Ms., which isn't the case with the four examples you suggested. I'd also dispute that US state postal abbreviations are the WP:PRIMARY topics in these cases. feminist (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also note that it is common for postal abbreviations to be written in all caps (hence AZ for Arizona, CT for Connecticut, etc.) which isn't the case with Ms. (rare to refer to someone as MS Smith etc.) feminist (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - searching "ms" leads to the page "Ms" because of auto-capitalisation. In that case, someone is unlikely to be searching for "Ms." or "Ms. (magazine)", and more likely to be searching for any of the other uses of ms/MS/Ms/sM. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 15:43, 5 February 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.

Park Inn edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 8#Park Inn

German Broadcasting Company 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) 10:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not used in any RS (or elsewhere). The common English name for this is Reich Broadcasting Corporation. 94.21.204.175 (talk)

Thanks, I did try to find uses, and my ngrams stats showed it is used far more frequently than "Reich Broadcasting Corporation" (especially in the years around WWII), but my Gbooks search turned up nothing and a general search just gave results where it was used in general rather than for this particular entity.
The target was proposed to be moved on 9 January, to "Reich Broadcasting Corporation", so perhaps this RfD is too late or too early. 94.21.204.175 (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We might consider retargeting to the current entity, ARD (broadcaster). --BDD (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf's findings, since the sources exist (thank you, 94.21.204.175, for withdrawing), but no opinion on retargeting. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 3 February 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_January_30&oldid=1138582588"