Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 20

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

July 20 edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 20, 2019.

Sigma personality edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 8#Sigma personality

Akhilendra Sahu 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 per WP:R2 by Fastily. -- Tavix (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakenly left a redirect behind when moving a dud article back to draft scope_creepTalk 20:08, 20 July 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.

Ali Pur(Punjnad) edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 8#Ali Pur(Punjnad)

466453 edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 7#466453

GOOGL (NASDAQ) edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 7#GOOGL (NASDAQ)

Standard YouTube Licence 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. I'm refining to the relevant section. The objection given to these redirects has been addressed. --BDD (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target page does not contain a license. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Standard YouTube License is what users choose when they want to retain copyright of their videos, instead using of a Creative Commons license. It's discussed briefly (though not by name) at YouTube#Content accessibility. - Eureka Lott 15:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not discussed under the term "Standard Youtube License", which is what this redirect implies. It would still be confusing for someone searching for it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:03, 20 July 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.

EUtube 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) 02:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirects created by the same editor. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. "EUTube" appears to have been used by a number of news sources to refer to the European Commission's YouTube account when it was created in 2007, but the name does not seem to have caught on or be in official use. There is, of course, no Wikipedia page dedicated to the European Commission's internet presence. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. That channel still has activity today and is verified, so it is official or not? https://europa.eu/european-union/contact/social-networks_en#n:3+i:+e:+t:+s: searching by YouTube lists EUTube as one of its many YouTube channels. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:35, 23 July 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.

Youtube Terms 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) 00:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No list of terms mentioned in article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If taken to mean "terms and conditions" (which was not the creator's intent), it could redirect to YouTube#Community policy, but given just about everything on the internet has terms and conditions, I don't really see much plausibility in this redirect. Anyone search for YouTube's terms and conditions on Google will not be hoping to find the Wikipedia article on YouTube; they'll be looking for YouTube's page on the matter. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:00, 20 July 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.

YouTubeCanDoBetter edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 7#YouTubeCanDoBetter

Adam The Woo 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) 00:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a self promoting redirect that has nothing to do with the target. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:46, 20 July 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.

Video Manager 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) 00:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague to redirect here. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom. While "video manager" and "creator studio" might appear in the target article text, they are not clearly distinct to YouTube. For similar reasons "File Menu" and "Help Menu" should not redirect to articles on particular softwares. - Ryk72 talk 12:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC) amended Ryk72 talk 12:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the ping. I've added to my !vote. - Ryk72 talk 12:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Facebook also launched a Creator Studio so it could become a redirect, but then MOS:DABMENTION would require it be mentioned in the article, which it doesn't for now. Video manager is also vague, could refer to YouTube, Vimeo, Sametime or any app that does video editing and management. It is also a job title at numerous businesses. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:09, 23 July 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.

WeTube 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) 00:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:39, 20 July 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.

Durezza 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 Dureza. Consensus is that this redirect is most useful as a misspelling of Dureza. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of "Durezza at Hardness. I suggest retargeting to Dureza. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. wikt:durezza tells me that "Durezza" is Italian for hardness and a few related meanings (the Italian wp article looks to be a sort of broad concept article) so that's a WP:FORRED issue, however it is also a synonym of and plausible misspelling of the grape variety. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget for now per nom. Once the musical term gets added somewhere in English Wikipedia, I suspect it might be prominent enough to displace the grape from WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, but right now none of the mentions of the musical term are even worth a hatnote. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above, likely typo or alternative spelling. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dureza as likely misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 01:33, 24 July 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.

Self-Esteem, Self-Love 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) 00:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there are lots of google hits where these terms are basically treated as synonyms for a broader concept that encompasses both our separate articles. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a thesaurus list. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This reads like a book title but it isn't. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:09, 23 July 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.

Eſteem 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) 00:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it's unclear why a redirect with a long s is required (or failing that retarget to Esteem) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No obvious relevance to the use of an archaic character. PC78 (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, which will make the search engine automatically find esteem. (Retarget there as second option). —Kusma (t·c) 11:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing at target article indicates that this spelling is related. - Ryk72 talk 12:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I redirected to "self-esteem" because at the time "esteem" redirected to "self-esteem" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=esteem&action=history . I think I saw the long s character on the title of an old book or in a work, but I did not record which one it was :( WhisperToMe (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This could be a potential stylization for some brand / neologism, but not likely. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:29, 21 July 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:R from noun 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. Consensus is that there is a primary topic, rendering disambiguation unnecessary. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate both, as their titles can also refer to proper nouns (see Template:R from proper noun and Category:Redirects from proper nouns, respectively). Geolodus (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's always worth making @Paine Ellsworth: aware of discussions related to redirect categorisation, and I'd like to hear their take, but I'm leaning towards agreeing with the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's even better if you spell the username of the person you are trying to ping correctly: user:Paine Ellsworth. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did notify on their talk page. Geolodus (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I hadn't looked at the history to see they were the creator when I wrote that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. In all these years I've never seen any reason to qualify the R from noun template redirect or its category since I've always seen "common noun" to be a sort of primary topic for the term "noun". A "proper noun" is more of a special case for the term, and common nouns are vastly more, well, common. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  13:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. After reading all the above and thinking more on this I realise that "noun" is normally used to mean "common noun" outside specific discussions about language, and the status quo doesn't seem to have caused any issues in the past so changing would involve a lot of work for little gain. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 24 July 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 Star Wars planets (M-N) 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) 00:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect, as it uses a categorization scheme that isn't used in the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There used to be a whole series of lists, organised in this fashion, but named with an endash not a hyphen, e.g. List of Star Wars planets (M–N). These were deleted in October 2014 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Wars planets (A–B) along with the redirects from titles with a hyphen (including an earlier one at this title), but this redirect was created in 2016 without any of the others apparently being. The current target list article has existed since 2005 but doesn't seem to have been brought up in the deletion discussion. I'm rather confused to be honest. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as leftover housekeeping. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:10, 23 July 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.

An acequia edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 7#An acequia

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_20&oldid=909860472"