Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 28

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 28, 2020.

Template:Global warming infobox

[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. Redirect from move that appears to still be in use on a few pages, no real rationale for deletion left standing now that the redirect's origin has been established. signed, Rosguill talk 21:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unused and has implausible name for an infobox, actually currently is a sidebar TerraCyprus (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not an implausible name, the page history shows that another user previously "moved page Template:Global warming infobox to Template:Global warming sidebar: not an infobox". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pigsonthewing: Not an implausible name apart from claiming, do you have any evidence and could share that with other Wikipedians? TerraCyprus (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See above, and don't accuse me of merely "claiming", when I have already given evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:56, 29 October 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.

Template:Hanacaraka infobox

[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) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unused and has implausible name for an infobox TerraCyprus (talk) 23:45, 28 October 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.

Template:Ghana constituency infobox

[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) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unused and has implausible name for an infobox TerraCyprus (talk) 23:27, 28 October 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 works produced by Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios

[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 21:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirects to a page listing productions from Hanna-Barbera only. Projects from Cartoon Network Studios are seperately listed on that company's article. IceWalrus236 (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this originates from a page move following a content split and so is required for attribution history, but not necessarily at this title. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There's a prominent link to Cartoon Network Studios at the target page, though readers would have to subsequently check its Filmography section to sort of assemble this list on their own. This would be a relatively straightforward WP:XY deletion for me if not for the matter of the attribution history. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 23:24, 28 October 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.

Space Mafia

[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. Space Mafia. Not much of a consensus either way, but this is the option that has the momentum. I'm leaving Spacemafia alone. It was added late, no one had any specific opinion about that one, and the only usage of Spacemafia as one word is the Among Us usage (cf. WP:SMALLDETAILS). That being said, feel free to nominate separately if you believe it needs individual discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While this is an ok description of Among Us's gameplay, as far as actual use of this term is concerned, RS don't seem to refer to Among Us this way, whereas there appear to be multiple non-notable subjects that have used this name. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 23:24, 28 October 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.

Slaver Rebellion

[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 all per Tavix. Ruslik_Zero 20:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Not mentioned at the target, doesn't appear to have any traction in RS based on a Google Scholar and internet search. Delete unless evidence of usage can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, based on evidence of some significant casual use given above. If there were other things sometimes informally referred to as a "slaver's rebellion" that were being legitimately confused by this, then a lack of reliable-source usage would make it worth deleting it based on ambiguity, but what usage there is does seem to point to this target. ~ mazca talk 20:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to a lack of attestation in reliable sources. If it becomes established, it may be worth a blurb in Names of the American Civil War and then I would reconsider a redirect. For now, it seems more like an obscure synonym to be deleted per WP:R#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Mazca. I'd agree that this hits the novel or very obscure synonym for an article name of WP:R#DELETE, but it is unlikely to be useful doesn't require deletion. Given the lack of confusion with other items (except, maybe, Slave rebellion) or any other meaning, though, I think it's reasonable, if poorly utilized. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Straight synonyms are, IMO, one of the only types of redirects that are useful when not mentioned at the target page. I see the most likely use case for this redirect as someone coming across a reference to the "Slaver's Rebellion" in internet discussion and trying to find out the meaning. In that case, this would probably do, though we couldn't discount the possibility of WP:SURPRISE. This also feels very much cart before horse. I'd prefer sourced inclusion of the term at Names of the American Civil War. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 23:23, 28 October 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.

NC 10 (film)

[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 21:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no film named "NC 10", so it's unlikely to be a search term. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the nomination statement is facutally incorrect - there is a film called "NC 10" per [10], [11], [12] and other sources (so the nominator has yet again failed to do a WP:BEFORE check). Those sources also confirm that Kriti Sanon stars in it and plays the/a leading role. As it seems to be a Telugu-language film, there will presumably be plenty more sources in that language. I'm not sure whether that means this is a good redirect, but it is at least plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find any evidence on Google search. If there was a real film with this name, it normally wouldn't redirect to that page. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation - the actress's previous films generally seem to be article-worthy, and there does appear to be a reasonable amount of coverage developing about this one too, though much of which I can't read. Assuming this film's notable, we should be encouraging creation of an article about it, not redirecting it somewhere it isn't mentioned. ~ mazca talk 20:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_Zero 19:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, there is no mention of the film at the target, so it's unhelpful for anyone wanting to learn anything about the given film. Second, there has been an argument that the film is notable, so it should be deleted per WP:REDLINK to encourage creation of an article at that title. -- Tavix (talk) 20:15, 28 October 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.

Inspector Lynley

[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 Target both to The Inspector Lynley Mysteries. signed, Rosguill talk 21:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two redirects for the same fictional character, however, the target is two different pages. They should target the same page, but I don't have an opinion which one it should be. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:06, 28 October 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.

"Googol" 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 delete Googol (disambiguation), keep the other two. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need those redirects of which all redirect to "Google [type]". Googol is a large number, while Google is a search engine. Also delete "Googol (disambiguation)" per G14 and partial title matches as there is nothing to disambiguate "Googol" except links containing "Google" and its primary topic in the "See also" section as there is only one Googol. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:24, 28 October 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.

Post Human

[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post Human refers to all four of the EPs under the Post Human name, not specifically Survival Horror. The other EPs will be released at some point in the near future, Survival Horror is just one of the EPs. JJP...MASTER! (0-3-5)'[talk about or to] JJP... master? (0-3-6-5) 17:20, 28 October 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.

Sridhar Maharaj

[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. There weren't any bolded votes, but comments made clearly establish a justification for the redirect as an alternative name. signed, Rosguill talk 21:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The redirecting to an unmatched article. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 16:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In what way would you say it's unmatched? "Sridhar Maharaj" is common shorthand for the guru in question. If I google the redirect in question, the entire first page of results are about B. R. (Bhakti Rakshak) Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaj. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:18, 28 October 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.

Trent Sullivan

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 9#Trent Sullivan

Palantir

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 5#Palantir

Árbol (disambiguation)

[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. Off-English-Wikipedia links (including {{ill}} links) aren't English Wikipedia dab entry-able, as noted by Pain Ellsworth. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish for tree, delete per WP:RLOTE. signed, Rosguill talk 15:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There is no scope for a disambiguation page on the English Wikipedia for Árbol or even Arbol as the results are all partial title matches. Thryduulf (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify. It's the name at least of two parishes and one rock band, for which we have very little, if any, content here, but the topics are notable, and we've got targets for the links. I've drafted a dab below the redirect. If kept, it should probably be moved to Arbol, provided we're certain that we won't have any use for the programming language article that lived at this title before getting deleted in 2016. – Uanfala (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Was going to say "dabify", but after looking into the entries, only one entry has a blue link that mentions it (as "Arbol" without the diacritic), and that's Antas de Ulla. The other blue link, Vilalba, does not mention a parish named "Árbol", and the third entry, the band, cannot be included because it has no blue link on enwiki. To be clear, there is only one entry that could be included on a dab page, and that would not be of any help to readers. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 22:18, 3 November 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.

2038 FIFA World Cup

[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 20:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Nothing has changed since Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 21#2038 FIFA World Cup: this is still WP:TOOSOON, there is still no specific information about a potential 2038 edition at FIFA World Cup, etc. However, the redirect is established as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2038 FIFA World Cup (2nd nomination), so I can't G4 it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 28 October 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.

YR2018

[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. Ruslik_Zero 20:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect more likely means "the year of 2018", so it's not a possible search term. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 11:19, 28 October 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.

Cindy Dock

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 5#Cindy Dock

Category:Fictional populated places in Calisota

[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. Ruslik_Zero 20:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded redirect for a specific fictional U.S. state (see Donald Duck universe). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:11, 28 October 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.

Non-free

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 5#Non-free

COVID

[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. Ruslik_Zero 20:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Among with Covid, CoViD, and CoviD. It's supposed to be targeted to Coronavirus disease, as COVID is the abbreviation of it. There's a hatnote at the article that can target readers to Coronavirus disease 2019 if they want to. GeraldWL 04:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Wasn't the acronym created for COVID-19? While you're techincally correct, I'd wager that the vast majority of people typing "COVID" are looking for "COVID-19", not information on MERS or SARS or other diseases. "Coronavirus diseases" seems like the more logical search for the latter (or "coronavirus" and then navigating from the virus group to the disease article). I'd be in favor of keeping the acronym pointing to COVID-19 until there's a COVID-21 or COVID-22. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikmoz, it's not created after the pandemic, simply popularized. And I don't think the fact that majority are looking for COVID-19 would justify keeping this redirect to the COVID-19 article. In the Coronavirus disease article, the abbreviation of it (COVID-19) is bolded, meaning it's a redirect to the article per MOS:BOLD: "[Bolds are also done for] a synonym in the lead that redirects to the article." The official abbreviation of Coronavirus disease is COVID, so it should redirect there, not COVID-19. The hatnote will direct readers to COVID-19 if they want to. GeraldWL 06:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure? The COVID page itself was created in February 2020. My understanding is part of the reason for the new naming scheme in 2015 was due to names like SARS and MERS potentially fueling fear (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) or being stigmatizing (Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome), and that COVID came directly from needing a name that fit those new guidelines (replacing the previously used 2019-nCoV). I don't see any use of either the acronym COVID or the phrase "coronavirus infectious disease" pre-December 2019. If you can find a source from then using the term, please share it here. Absent such use pre-COVID-19 and until there's a future novel coronavirus infectious disease, COVID refers only to COVID-19. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Discussed below. GeraldWL 15:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any references to "COVID" prior to WHO naming COVID-19? Checking PubMed, I can only find 20 papers published before this year's outbreak that reference "coronavirus disease" and about half of those are mis-dated papers that discuss COVID-19. There are 0 papers referencing COVID before this year. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Wikmoz. Most people entering COVID are looking for COVID-19. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 11:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Acebulf, again, the hatnote will do its job. The right meaning of COVID is Coronavirus disease. Does the fact that most ppl are looking for COVID-19 justify targeting it to Coronavirus disease 2019? I don't think so. GeraldWL 12:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While "COVID" in "COVID-19" refers to coronavirus, it's not actually clear to me that it was coined before COVID-19 as a quick search didn't net me any earlier results for it. Anyone using "COVID" is referring to this strain, not to coronaviruses in general. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Roscelese, See above for your last sentence. The point is, it is an abbreviation to Coronavirus disease, not Coronavirus disease 2019, so it shouldn't redirect to COVID-19. The hatnote will do the job. GeraldWL 12:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your post that it was "simply popularized" during the pandemic, but I don't see that that is in fact the case. Wikimoz is right that we can start directing it to coronaviruses in general when people are using it to refer to anything other than COVID-19; I don't think "it's technically, linguistically an abbreviation for any coronavirus" beats out "it refers to COVID-19 specifically and exclusively." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Roscelese, I think it really beats out. My argument is simple: it is an abbreviation of Coronavirus disease, not Coronavirus disease 2019. What's hard on reading the hatnote and clicking Coronavirus disease 2019 if that's what the reader is looking for? Plus it does not refer to COVID-19 specifically and exclusively. Sure the media refers to it often as COVID to make life less difficult, but that doesn't mean it is COVID-19. Having "COVID-19" bolded at Coronavirus disease would seem very weird if "COVID" redirects to Coronavirus disease 2019 instead. I don't really see a problem for redirecting to Coronavirus disease, as it would fit Template:R from abbreviation. GeraldWL 13:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Neither "coronavirus disease" nor "coronavirus disease 2019" seem to be the primary topic. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seventyfiveyears, I don't think "being a primary topic" is an aspect of consideration. COVID is Coronavirus disease; thus it should redirect there. GeraldWL 13:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Covid" also redirects to "Coronavirus disease 2019". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seventyfiveyears, already said above. GeraldWL 15:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per Seventyfiveyears. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 15:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until there is a future disease with the COVID moniker. Until then, the specific term COVID refers only to COVID-19, as per the WHO's new naming scheme in 2015 existing diseases would keep their names (such as SARS and MERS). The coronavirus disease page was only created in January 2020, with the title "coronavirus respiratory syndrome". It was renamed on February 12th, and essentially consisted of nothing more than duplicate information found in the Coronavirus#Infection in humans article. And, as best I can tell, none of the sources in the coronavirus disease article reference the common cold, SARS, or MERS directly as a 'COVID' (please correct me if I'm incorrect). As such, I question the need for the coronavirus disease article at all (it wasn't needed after SARS or MERS, why now?), and even if we keep the article in keeping with other articles split by the virus (Orthomyxoviridae) and disease (Influenza) to date the acronym COVID seems only to be used to refer to COVID-19. Without a WP:MEDRS source referring to SARS or MERS as a COVID, or the discovery of a second novel COVID, it's inappropriate to redirect COVID to anything but COVID-19. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bakkster Man, what matters is that now, Coronavirus disease is abbreviated COVID, so it must redirect there, not to COVID-19, because it is not the right abbreviation and merely a nickname. Whether or not the article is worthy of inclusion is another story; it is still here. As long as it's here, "COVID" must be redirected to Coronavirus disease, because that is the correct abbreviation of it: CDC says "The "CO" stands for corona, "VI" for virus and "D" for disease."
    Off-topic: Regarding "none of the sources in the coronavirus disease article reference the common cold, SARS, or MERS directly as a 'COVID'," well it is specified as a coronavirus disease. GeraldWL 15:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerald Waldo Luis per the WHO, this does not appear to be the case. "Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus." The ECDC mirrors this wording: "Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)". Note, they refer to coronavirus disease as COVID-19, full stop. So it seems inaccurate to say that COVID-19 is one of several 'coronavirus diseases', they say explicitly that "coronavirus disease" refers to COVID-19 specifically. I understand where the confusion arises, but it does not seem that the WHO's definition of the term "coronavirus disease" (which again, I can't find in any contemporaneous accounts before December 2019, and if they existed would likely change my view) was written to retroactively include SARS, MERS, or common cold due to coronavirus infection. Instead, "coronavirus disease" appears to have been defined by the WHO as shorthand for "coronavirus disease 2019", as backed up by the two WP:MEDRS sources above. So I'll reiterate, Keep the current redirect which matches the WHO definition, and allow users who want the (incorrectly named) coronavirus disease article to click the hat note. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bakkster Man, I feel like your arguments are more of an AfD to Coronavirus disease. If you feel like that article should be deleted or dabified (I'll prefer to dabify it), feel free to start a discussion on that, and this discussion can be closed. GeraldWL 17:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually just finished doing exactly that. Though I still believe this redirect should continue to point to COVID-19, with whatever disambiguation page we decide is appropriate as a possible hat note to that page. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In 2020 the overwhelming meaning of the term "COVID" (in any capitalisation) in common usage is for COVID-19. If that changes in future this can be revisited but nothing has changed since this was discussed in May. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wikmoz, Acebulf, Roscelese, Seventyfiveyears, Soumya-8974, and Thryduulf: Feel free to participate in sucessor of this RFD: Talk:Coronavirus disease#General applicability and specificity, which may cause this RFD to soon be closed. GeraldWL 17:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least at the moment someone searching for "COVID" is overwhelmingly likely to be interested in COVID-19 rather than coronavirus diseases generally. The article Coronavirus disease didn't exist in any form until January of this year when it was created as a disambiguation page after COVID-19 appeared. Yes, I know there's a hatnote, but a hatnote is far less convenient than being taken to the right article in the first place. Hut 8.5 18:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hut 8.5, see Talk:Coronavirus disease#General applicability and specificity. GeraldWL 05:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), since 1) the term "COVID" was created for it, no matter what the acronym expands to, and 2) "COVID" is a very WP:CommonName that is exclusively used to refer to COVID-19 (and sometimes to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but that's besides the point), and 3) therefore the principle of least astonishment indicates that it should redirect to COVID-19, not a generic "coronavirus disease", per the MOS. (As a final tangentially related note, I feel COVID-19 should be the article about COVID-19 and Coronavirus disease 2019 only a redirect to it, since the former is both the common name and the WHO-sanctioned acronym, but I guess that should be discussed in a page move section.) LjL (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the previous discussion. Helping the readers is more important in redirects than pedantry, as much as I use the latter. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:43, 30 October 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.

Template:Romanian counties infobox

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 5#Template:Romanian counties infobox

Paradife loft

[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) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joke? The long s is not an f (ie. it is not a legit alternate title/spelling), and no one will be searching under the mistaken impression that "paradife loft" is a real title. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:56, 28 October 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_October_28&oldid=1083819242"