Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 17

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

February 17

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 17, 2019.

ಥ⁀ಥ

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) 01:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in article Abote2 (talk) 21:49, 17 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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Crapwatch

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying the next morning that this is indeed keep and not speedy keep; I'm not convinced that this nomination was itself POINTy, and while I generally disagree with the practice, the community here has frequently been accepting of nominations of items previously and recently done in-bulk. It'd probably be better if we did those at DRV. Also, and this is really burying the lead here, but this was closed on time, not clearly not speedy. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was a rather WP:POINTY creation during Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 8#Wikipedia:JCW/CRAP. I had added this redirect to that discussion so all the "crap" redirects could be discussed at once, but since this received no individual disussion, I'd like to have that now. The target is not in and of itself a stand-alone WikiProject (certainly not one with this uncivil name), but rather a subpage of WikiProject Academic Journals. It has no usage outside of the context it was created, nor should it. -- Tavix (talk) 20:39, 17 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.

Cartoon network original series and movies

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 3#Cartoon network original series and movies

Atatürk and Kurds

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) 01:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AND, the article doesn't discuss this. The first has been around since Feb 2007, but content was merged the same Sept. 188.143.76.152 (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is plenty of discussion about Attaturk and the Kurdish people but it's spread out through his biography and various articles about different events rather than there being a single article I've found. There is a lot of material out there so it's far from a random collaction, and it's quite possible there is an overview of the relationship somewhere that I've not spotted that would make a good target. Thryduulf (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I couldn't find an article that has Attatúrk versus the Kurds (or with them). I can't find the spelling "Attatuerk" in any reliable source either. Had we content about Attatúrk (not Turkey, but Attatúrk) and the Kurds, I would say rediret to it. As it is, I think it is just misleading. Same anon, new IP178.164.162.144 (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "ue" is a common modification of the German ü, so a bot created "Atatuerk and Kurds" based on the presence of "Atatürk and Kurds". Many such redirects have been brought to RfD; this page has several examples. The pattern seems to be to keep those attested elsewhere. --BDD (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've spent more time searching and while this is obviously a plausible search term, I agree with Tavix that, unfortunately, I don't think we can improve on search results for now (even though for some people this will be several clicks away). Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: While I appreciate the support, I have not opined in this discussion. I think you mean BDD. -- Tavix (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Indeed I do, my apologies to both you and BDD. I guess it reads like the sort of rationale you would use. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 22 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

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Park Inn is a sister brand of Park Plaza Hotels & Resorts. However, i am not sure the hotel chain is a primary topic of "Park Inn/inn", while article Park Inn Hotel also existed. I am also not sure aforementioned historical Park Inn Hotel in Mason City, was part of "Park Inn" hotel chain or not. It seem "Park Inn" is a generic term. Matthew hk (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More over, Park Hotel, Park Plaza are disambiguation page, despite Park Plaza hotel chain existed (not sure individual Park Plaza hotel are part of the chain either), as well as multiple Park Hotel chains. Since not enough entry for creating Park Inn (disambiguation), RfD is more suitable than RM. Matthew hk (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Turn out The Omni Grove Park Inn and Dog Bark Park Inn also existed. Matthew hk (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 17 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.

Mineralogical Magazine

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 Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland#Publications Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mineralogical Abstracts was a supplement to Mineralogical Magazine and Journal of the Mineralogical Society. It makes no sense to redirect the larger organizations to the side-product. This should be deleted per WP:REDLINK. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to retarget to Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland#Publications per PamD (talk · contribs). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I created the redirect in 2013. It's true that Mineralogical Abstracts was a supplement to Mineralogical Magazine and Journal of the Mineralogical Society. However, in WP there is no page (that I know of), that conveys more info on Mineralogical Magazine than the Mineralogical Abstracts page. Therefore I consider the redirect serves a useful function, until a Mineralogical Magazine page is created. DadaNeem (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:Retarget to Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland#Publications. PamD 09:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great retarget! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I've re-targeted. This can be closed as withdrawn/retargeted/whatever. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:20, 22 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.

Small coal

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 2#Small coal

Austrianism

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. --BDD (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect term not explained within target; no obvious connotation discernible. Hildeoc (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Austrianism is mentioned in a quote in the references section, the topic is literally the only one in the first three pages at least of google results for the exact phrase, so someone unaware of the meaning is only going to see it in a context that means this article will not be a surprise. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Please note WP:R#PLA.--Hildeoc (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, almost my entire comment is devoted to explaining why someone searching for "Austrianism" would not be astonished to find themselves at the "Austrian School" article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: ... and still, since it is not identical with the current target lemma, the term Austrianism should be integrated there in a proper manner (i. e. according to the relevant guidelines as given in the above policy) ...--Hildeoc (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines (which are not themselves a policy, but guidelines) and long precedent both say that when the context is clear bolding isn't required. In this case, as I explain above, context is clear. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Firstly, if you had read carefully, you would have seen I wrote the relevant guidelines as given in the above policy. And secondly, as is apparent from these, it's not just about bolding ...--Hildeoc (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how you want to play the semantics it doesn't alter the fact that, for the reasons previously explained, this redirect should be kept and the the target is fine as is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I personally know plenty of people would refer to this branch of economics as "Austrianism." It's decently common. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 01:32, 22 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.

Media file

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 3#Media file

Middletown ct

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 Withdrawn and then speedily deleted (per WP:CSD#G4) by RHaworth. Thryduulf (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Middletown ct → Middletown, Connecticut  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary redirect from town and lower-case state abbreviation, already deleted at RfD in 2018. PamD 18:54, 17 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.

השואה

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 1#השואה

MMSA

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 disambiguated -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name MMSA which is an acronym that is pointing to the university doesn't seem to mention the acronym anywhere in the article or any expanded version. It also perhaps blocking MMSA acronym on the template:post-nominals in the William Fletcher Shaw article. scope_creepTalk 16:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dab page now created, and mention of MMSA replaced in University of Malta. Dab page includes the MMSA postnom: the redirect from Master of Midwifery of the Society of Apothecaries to Worshipful Society of Apothecaries existed, but not from the abbreviation. PamD 08:55, 18 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.

List of smartwatches

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 withdrawn Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to deleted section within article. uKER (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with a redirect to Smartwatch#List_of_smartwatches? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I missed that section being there. Fixed. You may close this. --uKER (talk) 09:50, 17 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.

Medical Veritas

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 27#Medical Veritas

Taxis Australia

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) 01:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created by a page move. Original title was a typo (and a pretty implausible one at that). No reason for this to continue to exist. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Drover's Wife: Hear hear. No doubt the R3 exemption was carved out as a response to some ridiculous edge case in a long distant time, but now it just limits the criterion’s most useful application. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The R3 criterion does not apply to page moves or long-standing redirects for very good reason, not just edgecases. When pages get moved there is a high likelihood of incoming links in many cases and not all typos are as implausible as they first seem - especially when they've been around as long as this one has (3½ years). In this case it seems only to be a partial title match for a couple of non-notable cab firms, but discussing such redirects is not a waste of anybody's time. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 17 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.

IPad (2012)

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 List of iOS devices#iPad. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous since the iPad (4th generation) was also released in 2012. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Convert to disambiguation page per Champion's info above. I've drafted this on the redirect page, ready to go. PamD 21:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it was just a suggestion, based partly on existence of iPad (2017) and 2018.
Retarget per Steel1943. PamD 09:26, 18 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_February_17&oldid=1142586786"