Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 28

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 procedural close. You are requesting a move, which isn't what RfD is for. I have moved your request over to Talk:July 5, 1962 Stadium#Requested move 28 December 2018. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Stade du 5 Juillet 1962 → July 5, 1962 Stadium  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Requesting moving the article to this redirect, Stade du 5 Juillet 1962. The stadium is more commonly refereed to as "Stade du 5 Juillet 1962" rather than the the current name, "July 5, 1962 Stadium", even on non-French sites. Ben5218 (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2018 (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.

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. If anyone wants the content, just let me know! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Recurring jokes in SpongeBob SquarePants → SpongeBob SquarePants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no such list at the target, and such a list would possibly be WP:TRIVIA. (This redirect is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Several running gags from the show are famous and have media mentions. Especially a keep !vote since this redirect has history, and has a tiny chance of being the topic of an article in the future (not crystal). wumbolo ^^^ 16:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Then move the content hiding under the redirect to Draft:Recurring jokes in SpongeBob SquarePants without leaving a redirect. Regardless of what the show may or may not have, at the present time, readers searching this term and arriving at the redirect’s current target are not going to find what they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If one wants to start an article on this topic, the "article" in the redirect's history would not be a good place to start. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:39, 8 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.

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 Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Name changes on SpongeBob SquarePants → SpongeBob SquarePants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Changed Names (SpongeBob TV Series) → SpongeBob SquarePants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems that Name changes on SpongeBob SquarePants is a {{R with history}} with a bunch of uncited WP:TRIVIA regarding various name changes for concepts on SpongeBob SquarePants. However, as the target article currently stands, the only name change it mentions is the change of the show’s name before it was released. These redirects, for that reason, could be seen as misleading, possibly making readers think they will locate more information than they will. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters, which discusses a few character name changes. Smartyllama (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: I oppose this option for Changed Names (SpongeBob TV Series) due to its odd formatting as a search term. Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only name changes I saw were for "Realistic Fish Head", though I admit I just did ctrl+F on "name" and "change". There were a few instances of characters' names being revealed after going nameless up until that point. --BDD (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Name changes" are not limited to the character's changing names—some other elements of the show, such as places or things have had their name changed as the show developed. I have no idea how reliable the redirect's history is, but it mentions that "Krabby Patty" is a changed name from "Barnacle Burger", and this isn't a character. In addition, as Steel1943 mentions, that target doesn't really discuss name changes anyway. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:37, 8 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.

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) 20:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bob Esponja → SpongeBob SquarePants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Bob l'éponge → SpongeBob SquarePants  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:FORRED. The target subject does not have originating affinity for languages other than English. Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is an English language programme, no need for foreign language redirects. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the only time I see foreign language titles being necessary would be if the shoe originated from that country (ie most articles for a Anime series that have been dubbed into English have their original titles as redirects if the title was changed as a result of localization).--67.68.28.220 (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2018 (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.

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. Steel1943 puts it well. If the AfD is kept for whatever reason, feel free to renominate with a rationale for deletion of the redirect, not the article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• American Airlines Flight 5320 → PSA Airlines Flight 5320  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to a article on a non-notable aviation accident that is already at AFD and pretty likely to be deleted. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep. No need to preemptively nominate this redirect: if the target gets deleted, this redirect will be speedy deleted per WP:G8. No reason to put the cart before the horse. Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2018 (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.

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) 17:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:GFOO → Category:AfC pending submissions by age/0 days ago  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• CAT:GFOO → Category:AfC pending submissions by age/0 days ago  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As I mentioned in the discussion for Wikipedia:Great Firehose of Ordure, this is inappropriately WP:BITEy, and not old enough or in heavy enough use to outweigh that. While I do appreciate the hard work of AfC reviewers and recognize that they deal with a lot of low-quality submissions, comparing the pending submissions to a stream of shit is in really poor taste. --BDD (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I just replaced the advertised shortcut at the target to one that is less bitey and hopefully makes better sense. BDD, do you want to include CAT:GFOO or do you think that one may be too old or well-used? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to. Thanks. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (so I guess we can G7 CAT:GFOO now); I suppose it's a bit bitey. I have removed the other usage of this shortcut from the AfC helper script, as well, for the same reason. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I genuinely had no idea what GFOO stood for until I saw this nom, despite having used AFCH and seen the link in it since it was first added. Definitely BITEy, definitely needs deletion. The updated text in the script is a lot more explanatory, anyway. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as quickly as possible. Very inappropriate and not in the least helpful to the project. Sjö (talk) 09:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 23:19, 29 December 2018 (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.

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) 17:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WPMEDRS → Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Cross-namespace redirect with apparently no precedence for existing per the list of pages in the "(article)" namespace that start with "WP"; most of the pages in the list are 4-letter call signs. Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Does not meet the high bar for cross namespace redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 23:30, 29 December 2018 (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.

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 Arrival (film). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Arrival (2016 film) → Arrival  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There isn't a 2016 film The Arrival. There is Arrival (film), 2016. This redirect to a disambiguation page should be deleted to avoid making it more difficult to find what a reader wants (Delete reason #1). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Arrival (film) as {{R from incorrect name}}. Narky Blert (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Arrival (film). Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:56, 30 December 2018 (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.

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) 17:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Santorum (neologism) → Campaign for the neologism "santorum"  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Doesn't actually exist and is only used as a WP:POINT argument to keep a useless disambiguation page. wumbolo ^^^ 15:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there is nothing wrong with this redirect. The name that the article is describing is "Santorum", and it is a neologism per the article title. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The article's title doesn't imply that, just like the title of the article Campaign for an Independent Britain doesn't imply that there exists an Independent Britain. wumbolo ^^^ 15:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The article title is titled that way because the article has a wider scope than the neologism itself. The Reception and political impact section shows that "Santorum" definitely exists as a neologism, thus legitimizing the nominated redirect. Campaign for an Independent Britain is the proper name of a group and they can call themselves whatever they want. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree that the disambiguation page shouldn't exist, and have nominated it for deletion. I'm baffled about the claim regarding this redirect, though. There plainly is a neologism "santorum", We've twisted ourselves into knots to talk about it chiefly from the angle of a campaign promoting it, sure, but the target page is nevertheless the primary place the neologism is discussed on Wikipedia. I see no problem with the redirect. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2018 (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.

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 Church–Turing thesis. Deryck C. 16:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Turing Church → Singularitarianism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Astonishing redirect, term not mentioned on target article. A more obvious target would be Church–Turing thesis. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's named after https://turingchurch.net/ Deku-shrub (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This redirect might cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Church–Turing thesis, which is indeed the "obvious target" (IMO) --DannyS712 (talk) 04:30, 5 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.

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. With the current evidence, it appears that Gowari should not be linked from Goala. It should not be added back unless the article can support a claim of the alternative name. --BDD (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Goalla → Gowari  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unclear what this term refers to. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the only google hits I'm seeing are for a surname. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: should Goala be edited to remove its link to Gowari? feminist (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2018 (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.

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, and authorize Tavix to merge as proposed. This remains subject to normal editorial processes, of course, and could be reversed, though I hope editors will keep the difficulty of this discussion in mind if they advocate for that route. Private label might be the better place to point this if the pages remain separate or are separated back out. --BDD (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Own label → Store brand  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Own-label → Store brand  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This whole situation is a bit confusing. Own-label previously targeted Private label until I retargeted it to Store brand since Own label targeted Store brand. In all honesty though, in lieu of merging Store brand into Private label since my lack of seeing a distinction between the two is boggling my mind a bit, these two nominated redirects need to target the same page or not exist at all ... but if they should target the same page, I’m not sure what page that should be. Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Dismabiguate for now, listing Store brand (which has redirects from about a dozen similar terms), Private label, White-label product and Original brand manufacturer (which has a redirect from Own Branding and Manufacturing). I'd also recommend starting a discussion about merging some or all of these articles. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I will leave a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brands and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Marketing & Advertising. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Private label and Store brand per nom. The distinction is trivial and it should be fairly easy to do by removing a lot of the fluff from both articles. I'd be willing to do the merge should this option be accepted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're willing to do the merge then I'm all for that. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merger. Private label refers to one company making products that are sold under the name of another company. Store brand refers to a retail company selling eponymous products. These are different concepts; the German and Japanese Wikipedias also make this distinction. Maybe disambiguation will work better. Deryck C. 12:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are similar enough that I believe both concepts can be covered in a single article. A store brand is a specific type of private label. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Tavix' merge proposal seems to make sense to me. Most of the content of Store brand could fit into a new L2 section on Private label, possibly with some content being moved to the Uses subsection. Neither article is sourced particularly well, so some (dare I say it?) synergy might be the best outcome possible. Based on the times of their creation, I'd guess there was some discussion or coordination about these two somewhere... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:12, 21 December 2018 (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.

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 Process. This is a loose consensus, but after coming on two months of listing, I believe it's a reasonable outcome, given the uncertainty. I have added Language processing in the brain to that page. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Processing (language) → Processing (programming language)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The use of "(language)" for "(programming language)" is generally avoided as it can be confusing, but here it's even more confusing as the redirect can be taken to refer to any of the two topics known as "Language processing". – Uanfala (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to language processing which has a hatnote to the programming language. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has a hatnote to Natural language processing but not to Processing (programming language). One could be added but it will look odd and it's difficult to justify outside of the existence of this redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and hatnote to both Language processing in the brain and Natural language processing. Deryck C. 11:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies to the closer, but Delete. This is an awkward disambiguator that could reasonably apply to three different pages, none of which is ideal. It's not a good place for a dab page either. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Process, the target of redirect Processing, as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, and add any applicable entries there that this redirect me refer. Given the ambiguity of this redirect, there’s a chance this will get recreated to point to a different target if deleted, so this option would potentially be the best prevention for that. Steel1943 (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Process, given that "processing" redirects their, and per Steel1943 --DannyS712 (talk) 04:29, 5 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.

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 soft delete. Deryck C. 16:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Motherland Party (Ukraine) → All-Ukrainian Union "Fatherland"  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't know whether this is correct or ought to target the stub Motherland (Ukraine). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2018 (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.

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 soft delete. Deryck C. 16:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bob Price (ice hockey) → List of players who played only one game in the NHL  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Price is no longer listed at the target per Talk:List of players who played only one game in the NHL#Bob Price. It cannot be verified if he actually played in a game. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:55, 17 December 2018 (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.