Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 13

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

December 13 edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 13, 2020.

Condominiums and the Jewish community 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 22:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this redirect exists. "Condominiums and the Jewish community" is a broad topic that is not specific to Chicago, and it is not a topic that would warrant an article unless it meets WP:N. Edge3 (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that it doesn't make sense to redirect this broad topic to an article on a Chicago bimonthly newspaper, but I also don't think that the issue of mezuzot being banned by condominiums or homeowners associations should be covered in an article on a Chicago bimonthly newspaper either. The content might belong in mezuzah (which I see has a section on legal issues already). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning delete The redirected to currently duplicates part of the passage in mezuzah, including some word-for-word copying. I'm really having a hard time seeing why a rather vague statement of an issue should redirect to one specific difficulty. Mangoe (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mangoe. This could probably be its own article. In particular, mezuzot aren't the only religious issue, and they're not only an issue in the US; see e.g. [1] regarding a Canadian case about a sukkah on a condo balcony. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would presume that similar issues arise anywhere there is an HOA, not just with condos. Mangoe (talk) 03:49, 14 December 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.

Boris J 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 Boris Johnson. There's an overall lack of enthusiasm for most outcomes - this is clearly not a common nickname, but it's also a very rational abbreviation. The point is made that Boris Johnson is several orders of magnitude more viewed than Boris Jordan, who has not done a great deal of note recently, so most participants consider that Johnson is the primary "Boris J" at the moment, with or without the slightly tenuous Trump nickname. This may indeed need to be revisited in future if there are other notable Boris Js - but all we can do here is be as helpful as we can in the present. Notability isn't temporary, but redirect popularity can be! ~ mazca talk 12:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a better target than in previous discussions where it was deleted: this redirect previously targeted Boris Johnson and List of nicknames used by Donald Trump#Boris J. I think this is still an unlikely search term, even for the current target. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 15:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep given that a redirect has been created multiple times the evidence would suggest it is actually a likely search term and the current target seems the most helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a point, but even without the redirect, anyone typing in "Boris J" in the search box would see search predictions including Johnson, Jordan, Jorgen, etc. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 04:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The search box is only one of many ways people find Wikipedia content, and the majority of them don't have search suggestions - even the search box doesn't if you are in an environment without javascript. Search suggestions also cannot be relied upon to list the desired target on every occasion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Boris Johnson since it's a nickname used for him. Nickname aside, he would easily be the primary topic for the abbreviation. -- Tavix (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Boris Johnson per Tavix. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 05:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or Keep either works for me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Do not retarget to Boris Johnson unless evidence is provided that he's ever called "Boris J". I follow UK politics, have seen him called many things, and have called him many things myself; but have never seen him called "Boris J". Narky Blert (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a Trump nickname for him (eg [2]). -- Tavix (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't know if "Boris Johnson" is the primary topic, since this is an ambiguous term.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Boris Johnson is weakly the most common result when searching for "Boris J" with no other context, I don't see that as clearly the primary topic so I remain opposed to retargetting to Boris Johnson. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - This is an unlikely search term, and I find it difficult to believe that any reader would actually type it into the search bar. (Our pageview statistics show only a small handful of hits every few days. Even so, the more likely search term is Boris Johnson. Edge3 (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Boris Johnson. As stated above this is a Trump nickname for him. List of people with given name Boris#J has only 2 entries, Boris Johnson and Boris Jordan. On most days Boris Johnson receives around 400 times as many page views as Boris Jordan, so in my opinion he is the primary topic here. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sympathetic with the nominator, and given the contrasting opinions about the appropriateness of this as a nickname for Boris Johnson, I expect it to be a recurring RfD headache unless we just cut the Gordian knot. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 21 December 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.

Lake harriet (hennepin county, minnesota) edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 20#Lake harriet (hennepin county, minnesota)

Bella Bandida 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) 17:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned at multiple pages, none of which have all that much coverage. Deletion to allow for uninhibited search results seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 18:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, Ryza Cenon was redirected because she portrayed the main character of the show. Read more here: https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/11/14/lifestyle-entertainment/show-times/make-way-for-bella-bandida/796152/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by KapamilyaAdventurer (talk • contribs) 04:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per reason by Rosguill. Creating these page that only redirect to a specific "biographical" page is not really necessary needed, plus the person itself is not only the cast of the said series but more than one. We all know that not all TV series have an existing pages, but creating a "standalone" page with a supportive citations is okay. In this case, just only to create a redirected page for the person's page "as a main character" shows pointless and has no significance by either the topic of a person or by the series. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi don't delete, just revert it back to redirection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KapamilyaAdventurer (talk • contribs) 11:44, 14 December 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.

Video Beyond edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 16#Video Beyond

Byond 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) 17:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a totally implausible misspelling, but internal search results return several pages that actually mention things named Byond. As none of these mentions are particularly prominent, deleting to allow for internal search results appears to be the best option. signed, Rosguill talk 18:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have had to advise User:Childishbeat three times now against making innumerable pointless redirects. This is one of their less egregious examples, but I see no merit in it. I also agree that allowing any user on Wikipedia to simply use the Search box without immediately redirecting them pointlessly to one single page is actually a far more effective way for that user to find multiple examples of where a name or word has been used within articles. The sooner they appreciate this, the less disruptive will be their contributions here. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:50, 13 December 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.

Araz Junction, California edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 20#Araz Junction, California

Scottish English Wikipedia edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 20#Scottish English Wikipedia

1010011010 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 666 (number). signed, Rosguill talk 22:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is an inmate number, but the targeted disambiguation page does not mentioned "1010011010". Delete unless justification can be provided. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, no this is a binary number that represents decimal 666 exactly. So, it is working properly. Since we're on binary digital computers, such a value (all 1's and 0's) might be put up by various computer savvy people as redirects. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DCLXVI redirects to 666 (number), while hex value 29a/29A is missing (666 in hexadecimal) and 1232 is a year article, but "1232" is the octal representation of "666". Google turns up many results for "1010011010" as an alternate form of "666" -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The album link you pointed out sounds like a better target. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Godsy below, the number article has info on the binary value, so that's a better target -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 666 (number) contains the information that this is the binary equivalent within the page's infobox. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a better choice than the album article. Though a link to the album article will need to be added as a hatnote -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 03:30, 16 December 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.

Xbox Next 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. Nomination created by banned sock. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is ambiguous. While this is the former name for the Xbox 360, someone searching it could also be searching for "the next Xbox console". I do not think this should be deleted, as this isn't a made-up name, but i think it should be retargeted to Xbox to avoid confusion. User:milkmankarlson (Talk) 13:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That has already been deleted so it’s not an option.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As that's been deleted, the current 360 article would seem to be the best choice, with a hatnote to the development section of the base Xbox article for any future developments -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 04:32, 14 December 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.

Playstation 6 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 22:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled, implausible redirect - the PlayStation 5 only recently came out, and the target doesn't contain any information on this upcoming, completely speculative, console. Maybe PlayStation 5 Pro could be a plausible redirect, but we don't need redirects for every upcoming, speculative product. User:milkmankarlson (Talk) 13:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 15:02, 14 December 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 the Kashmir conflict edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 20#History of the Kashmir conflict

China COSCO 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 COSCO Shipping. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The listed company, COSCO Shipping Holdings, formerly known as "China COSCO Holdings", seems no longer the primary topic of China COSCO. The ultimate parent company of the listed company is known as China COSCO SHIPPING, or without stylize , COSCO Shipping as the most common common name Matthew hk (talk) 06:53, 13 December 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.

Spontaneism (art) 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) 17:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence of a connection between these two terms. "Spontaneism" isn't mentioned in the target, and Googling the two terms gives a total of five results. All but one of the uses of "spontaneism" in other articles refer to Revolutionary spontaneity. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As we now have an article on Spontaneous realism, it would be preferable to make the redirect to this.--Ipigott (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: Can you point to any sources that use "spontaneism" to refer to spontaneous realism? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I added the original redirect a number of years ago, it was based on redlink in a Wikipedia article (subsequently deleted) which provided sources containing the term "spontaneism". If I remember correctly, the term was used by a respected art critic. But as with so many internet links, I can no longer access it by means of a normal search. Those with special access to art journals, etc., would no doubt be able to find it. I would certainly not have entered the term if I had not found it in a reliable source. I am pretty sure that spontaneism is equivalent to spontaneous realism.--Ipigott (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spontaneism is not a term that is commonly used by art historians or critics. There is no historically significant movement or style that is called that. When considering the relevance of Spontaneous realism, take into account the lack of natability of its exponents, like Françoise Nielly. Also note how odd it is that the same term can supposedly refer both to Tachisme and Spontaneous realism, which have almost nothing in common. To even have this at all gives undeserved legitimacy to a term we ought to be avoiding. Delete the redirect please. Vexations (talk) 12:54, 19 December 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.

Knighthood Village, Indiana edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 20#Knighthood Village, Indiana

Template:WGVG 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 22:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. Izno (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused abbreviation shortcut and only plausible if struggling with the abbreviation for "WikiProject". (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 06:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a plausible abbreviation and a useful shortcut, and WP:WPVG exists as a shortcut to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. User:milkmankarlson (Talk) 14:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How is WG plausible? --Izno (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Strike blocked sock vote —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it should be {{WPVG}} instead -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 0 page views in past 30 days as well, and I don't see any reason to type WGVG instead of WPVG. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely implausible. -- ferret (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. "WikiProject" is abbreviated to "WP", not "WG". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:04, 14 December 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:CANSANFRANBANFRAM and Wikipedia:CSFBF 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. No arguments given for deletion or retargeting. (If you don't know what something means, don't start a community discussion to find out.) – bradv🍁 02:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may be too reckless, but what is this redirect supposed to mean? It looks like an implausible redirect to me. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's supposed to mean, can San Fran ban Fram? jp×g 00:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpxg: Who is san fran? 4thfile4thrank (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (WMF, or simply Wikimedia) is an American non-profit and charitable organization headquartered in San Francisco, California.[9] jp×g 01:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: Sounds rather implausible to me. Was there any times it was used? 4thfile4thrank (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This redirect is part of Wikipedia's historical record and should be retained as such. Shearonink (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was a snide joke, and it hasn't improved with time. WP:FRAMBAN (already present) suffices. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects are cheap, and this is linked to from a few talk page archives. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:09, 13 December 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_December_13&oldid=1124349949"