Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 22

July 22

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 22, 2019.

SFormula

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 1#SFormula

Jugoslawien

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) 05:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jugoslawien → Yugoslavia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:FORRED, no reason to have the German name for the country. signed, Rosguill talk 23:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pakislam

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) 05:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pakislam → Pakistan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Internet search doesn't indicate that this term has any usage, neither does the page history. signed, Rosguill talk 22:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Pakislam and you will get intense results for Pakistan. http://www.google.com/search?q=Pakislam Barracuda41 (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is obviously taking a pot shot at Pakistan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought this was a short (well, definitely too short) way of getting to the article Islam in Pakistan. – Uanfala (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SURPRISE! signed, Rosguill talk 22:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its official name is Islamic Republic of Pakistan and even its flag has the Islam sign and color green and its capital is Islamabad, which proves it even further. So by definition it's Pakislam. I could also do Afghanislam, Turkmenislam, Uzbekislam, Tajikislam but I probably won't because they are rather misspellings.Barracuda41 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any sense at all. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Islamic Republic of Pakistan is where Pakislam comes from. It's also easy to do so since istan and islam are similar. Barracuda41 (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, should we have Germafed point at the Federal Republic of Germany? signed, Rosguill talk 16:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Barracuda41: I understand how you constructed the neologisms, what doesn't make sense is why you think this makes it a good redirect. Christianity is the official religion of Argentina, should therefore Christentina, Christiantina or Christina redirect to Argentina? What about Liechtianity → Liechtenstein? Cambuddhism → Cambodia? These are all identically constructed neologisms. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but Pakislam and Pakistan both have 8 letters and Pakislam only changes 2 letters in Pakistan. Besides, Liechtenstein has no official religion, nor does Cambodia, let alone Argentina, while Pakistan DOES. And Pakislam and Pakistan still rhyme. P.S. If Islambul redirects to Istanbul why doesn't my redirect work ???? Barracuda41 (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Islambul is explained in the article - see Istanbul#Islambol - I'll refine the redirect to point to that section. Absolutely nothing else in your comment is at all relevant to the redirect - "Pakislam" is a neologism not an established term for the target - see WP:NEO and most pertinently WP:R#DELETE point 8, "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the above, it's not entirely a neologism because Google gives you results for pakistan if you google pakislam. Barracuda41 (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What I see in search results is a mix of non-notable deviantart pages and social media posts mixed in with "Pakislam Positive League" and "Pak Islam Party" which are 2 (I think) very minor political parties that are not mentioned at List of political parties in Pakistan (the first might even be defunct) and about which I would struggle to write even a single encyclopaedic sentence about. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nonsense at best, derogatory at worst. And, indeed qualifies under surprise! Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 16:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean derogatory? It is NOT derogatory and everyone knows that. Besides it's more like a misspelling and it's allowed to be redirected because again Pakistan's official name mentions Islam. Barracuda41 (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For it to be reached with spelling typos, letters l and t would have to be as close as letters m and n, otherwise the argument devolves down to- there are some people in the world who know "paki"s (a well established racist slur) are from an islamic country and so, when they hear pakistan, they will send their ears on holiday and just assume the name of the country is "pakislam", and we need to have a redirect so that those people have a jolly comfortable time in wikipedia. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 12:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Needs more neologism notability, at which it can then be covered by the -stan suffix as a subsection. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Identity based provinces of Nepal

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) 05:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Category that this was pointing to, Category:Identity based provinces of Nepal was merged into the current target. At this point, I think that having this redirect from the mainspace to the current target is contrary to WP:SURPRISE. signed, Rosguill talk 19:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The title is wholly inappropriate. I assumed the category discussion's merge meant the articles that populated the category were to be categorised into the proper category (the target of the merge). After that's been done, no reason not to kill it for good. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 20:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Migthy the Armadillo

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 1#Migthy the Armadillo

C22H33N3O6

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 1#C22H33N3O6

Alleanza Nationale

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. Clear agreement that this misspelling is plausible enough to warrant a keep. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existent word, the Italian name is Alleanza Nazionale, this is an obvious mistake, it should be deleted. Wololoo (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep obvious possible typo. Onel5969 TT me 15:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per onel5965. This is a very plausible mistake for an English speaker to make. Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible misspelling. Geolodus (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fox boy

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) 05:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fox boy → Tails (character)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Too vague to redirect to this article in particular. See also: Naruto. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or disambig. The most prominent single use seems to be The Fox Boy, a book by Peter Walker (author) about Ngataua Omahuru but we don't have an article about the book or the author, nor is there any mention in the biography we do have other than being used as a reference (and it's also used as a reference in at least two other articles). We do have a few sentences on and an image of a statue by this name at Menstrie#Recreation, but while that would be enough for a disambiguation page entry or hatnote it's not the primary topic by a long way. Fox Boy and Fox Girls are two background, non-speaking, characters mentioned at The Mysteries of Alfred Hedgehog#Russard family but that's even more obscure. While Tails (character) does get referred to as a fox boy in a few fanfictions, as far as I can tell it's not a name for him or more common than for him than for any other young male fox in furry (fan)fiction. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably best to have Wikipedia's search function help out our readers with this one. Steel1943 (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no such article although Category:Anthropomorphic foxes might be helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Omni-Viewer

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) 05:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overly vague sci-fi concept to redirect here. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Full List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters and Items

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) 05:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. WP:GAMEGUIDE is a content policy and the target is a full List of (encyclopaedic) Sonic the Hedgehog characters and items. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I understand Thryduulf's point, and would agree with it applying to this redirect if ... this redirect did not contain the word "Full". The redirect is misleading since it claims that the target list is complete since the redirect contains the word "Full", and Wikipedia is always a work in progress ... leaving redirects such as this one inaccurate by default. Steel1943 (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943. The target is not a full list, so the redirect is misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943. Good argument by Thryduulf, but the word "full" turns this into a meaningless redirect. James-the-Charizard (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as full list for franchise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Agent b

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) 05:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague to redirect to this specific character. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google results make it clear there is no primary topic for "Agent B" and the Sonic the Hedgehog doesn't make the top 20. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

司令官

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) 05:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It just says Commander in Japanese, too vague to be a redirect here. Delete per WP:FORRED for the actual Commander page. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per above, too general to redirect to a video game. viztor ✦ 00:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Find the computer room

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) 05:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overly vague redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not mentioned in target or Chaotix. Steel1943 (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as likely game-level objectives fancruft like "find the control room" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

God of destruction

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 disambiguate. Withdrawn by nom; per WP:SNOW consensus to disambiguate the page. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An overly vague redirect to be directed to this article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Unclear this is would be what a reader with this search term would be looking for. Mythological or religious entities could be plausible. --LukeSurl t c 12:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend a disambig page per LukeSurl's last point. Perses (Titan) and Shiva are both described as gods of destruction on their articles. It's not quite the same as war god and "destruction" as such doesn't seem to be a common enough association for an entire article about it, so a disambig might work best. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 16:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per Nizolan. In addition to those they list and the current target, there is Beerus (a character from Dragon Ball), Batara Kala (Javanese and Balinese) and Nergal (from ancient Mesopotamia) are both clearly described in our articles as being gods of destruction. Erra (god) (Akkadian), Typon (Greek) and Set (deity) (Egyptian) don't use the exact phrase in the article but should be listed. Trillion: God of Destruction, a Japanese roleplaying video game merits at least a see-also, I'm not sure about Loki or List of Marvel Comics characters: A#Abraxas. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Batara Kala and Nergal definitely belong there. I'm not sure about the others. Ironically, Set is only described as a god of destruction on Typhon's page! They and Erra fit a general bill of "gods of bad stuff", but might be more appropriately listed elsewhere. Set and Typhon are already listed at Chaos gods, which I included in the See also. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Beerus definitely should be there as well since he has directly been called a god of destruction.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate I had started a short disambiguation page, and Thryduulf has given me many suggestions to add. We may want to tweak it into a list suitable for inclusion at Category:Lists of deities. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per Thryduulf and BDD --Lenticel (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify as above. This is more helpful. If the Sonic one explicitly uses the title per MOS:DABMENTION then you can add that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Shiva, the Hindu god of destruction. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase God of Destruction does not appear in the article not is there any evidence that Shiva is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this term. The dab page is the better option.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't know why Shiva would take priority over all the other ones people have turned up here. "Destruction" is mentioned as one of many titles in the Shiva article. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 02:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Blaze (cat)

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 all. There is broad consensus that none of these redirects should be deleted. Alternative targets have been suggested for some of them and editors are encouraged to retarget these boldly as they see fit. Deryck C. 15:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(cat) is not a proper disambiguation for a fictional character, and is confusing. The same applies to (echidna) and the others. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all for all these combinations of Name (species) there is no other notable entity which the reader would plausibly be looking for. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap so there is nothing to gain from deleting what are navigational aids to content in articles. Tails (fox) in particular is an extremely useful redirect. --LukeSurl t c 12:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • They all refer to it from an in-universe perspective. I would agree if it said (fictional fox) etc. but for these that is not the case.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep all. Whether or not these redirects contain the word "fictional" or similar in their disambiguators, these redirects don't seem inaccurate or ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When there are real life articles like Knut (polar bear) I don't see how you think it couldn't provoke confusion. These disambiguations are normally used for actual animals.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are accurate because they are referred to as those animal species within their respective fictional universes. It is not necessary to add fictional because they are not confused with any notable real life animals by these names. -- Tavix (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added Vector (crocodile) to the nomination. My "Weak keep" rationale still applies. Steel1943 (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only have specific concerns about "Big (Cat)" and "Big (cat)". I could see a reader searching for them looking for Big cat, i.e., "What's 'big' in the context of cats?" --BDD (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, except for Big (cat), which should be retargeted to Big cat (disambiguation). The former is per LukeSurl, while on the latter, I think it almost seems like the perfect split, as in I can see people searching for the character, or Big cat. James-the-Charizard (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: Ack! I forgot that could be retargeted! That’s what I meant, not disambiguate... James-the-Charizard (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all; nomination doesn't make sense, as it's entirely plausible that someone who finds that Rouge is not about the bat will try to place (bat) after the character's name. Let's keep the big cats too, since this nomination is problematic; we can always start a new RFD on them later. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Iruvar Ullam (2017 film)

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. Deryck C. 15:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iruvar Ullam (2017 film) → G. Ramesh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Iruvar Ullam (2016 film) → G. Ramesh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Iruvar Ullam (2015 film) → G. Ramesh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The film did not release in 2017 and has been shelved. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the 2015 & 2016 redirects which I've just added to this nomination; perhaps keep the history of the 2017 redirect, though it may be better moved to a different title such as Iruvar Ullam (Ramesh film). PC78 (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would Iruvar Ullam (shelved film) or Iruvar Ullam (unreleased film) do? Although the latter label is only for films that were completed, I think this project was dropped after being substantially shot. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Do i sounds gay

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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do i sounds gay → Do I Sound Gay?  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible variant. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • How so? I made it because its what I had searched for in looking for the article. Thmazing (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds instead of sound. There is separately a Do i sound gay redirect. It's sort of like creating a redirect for "To kills a mockingbird". — the Man in Question (in question) 06:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a common spelling variant of the topic as opposed to Lolcats AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC) 🎶Should I Stays or Should I Go🎶[reply]
  • Keep 'S' is right next to 'd' on the keyboard. Per WP:R#KEEP No. 5: Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. The search system is shitty enough. Don't discourage someone who had a typo who wants to improve the system by adding a plausible misspelling.—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#KEEP no. 5, creator and Bagumba. Claims that uspecified other redirects would not be useful are not relevant to this redirect (see WP:OTHRSTUFF and WP:VAGUEWAVE). Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, having way too much fun imagining Gollum saying this! --BDD (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 06:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible typo.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though I expect this to end with no consensus. The red flag for me is the word "sounds". That makes the redirect quite implausible. James-the-Charizard (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The title sounds like a lolcat meme to me. As such I don't see this as a plausible typo where the current target is the primary topic. Deryck C. 15:55, 9 August 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.

Vector Industries

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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vector Industries → Xenosaga  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Too easily confused with a real life company, such as Vector Launch. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to Vector (disambiguation) which has a number of companies that go by the Vector name. Note there is a real company http://www.vector-industries.com but it is not listed in the disambiguation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article mentions the term, and there is no article to which it could otherwise target (the mention at BBA Aviation is insufficient. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 05:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shhhnosoloud. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

C23H26Cl2N4O4

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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • C23H26Cl2N4O4 → Capeserod  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

C23H26Cl2N4O4 was created by mistake: formula of Capeserod is …H25Cl… not …H26Cl2…. There is no molecule in enWiki with formula C23H26Cl2N4O4. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of hydrochloride in article. If you want to keep redir please add hydrochloride form to article. Gyimhu (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned there now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 05:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Call of Duty 4 (Beta)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 11#Call of Duty 4 (Beta)

Οros Αthos

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 Χmas, delete the other two. -- Tavix (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Οros Αthos → Mount Athos  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Χmas → Xmas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Even more inappropriate mixed-script redirects. Greek letters have been underlined and bolded for convenience. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Χmas, as the Greek letter Chi is relevant. This is curiosity is described in the first paragraph of Xmas. No comment for the other articles. +mt 21:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Xmas as that was historically what it was originally. The Latin X came later. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Χmas, per above, the correct form! Delete the other two. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Χmas appears unanimous to "keep", but what about the other two?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 05:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Χmas" per above. Keep "Οros Αthos" as this gets a surprising amount of hits in a variety of independent uses, so it's seems plausible for someone to copy and paste it. Delete "ΥENED" as this gets essentially no uses outside this redirect and derivatives. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (week) keep Xmas, as per the previous arguments, the mixed script has some meaning. Delete the other two. - Nabla (talk) 00:19, 10 August 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.

Force of law

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 8#Force of law

Godawari, Bagmati

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) 02:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected this last year to Godawari Municipality on the basis of this erroneous PROD (which if carried out would have caused WP:ATTREQ problems). Godawari Municipality was subsequently moved to Godawari, Lalitpur. I now see, however, that Lalitpur_District,_Nepal#Administrative division lists Godawari Municipality and Bagmati Rural Municipality as separate administrative divisions, suggesting that Godawari cannot be in Bagmati. This seems to have to do with the establishment in 2015 of the Provinces of Nepal: Godawari may have been in the now-defunct Bagmati Zone (though that article doesn't say it was) but is not in the Bagmati Rural Municipality, itself established in 2017. In short, I'm not entirely sure what's happened here, or what's correct, or how to find out, but having created the redirect I feel a degree of responsibility and would appreciate others' input. WP:ATTREQ still applies, so deletion is probably not an option here, but if the current target is inaccurate a new one will have to be found. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Bagmati, Lalitpur is a rural municipality in Lalitpur District established in 2017. Godawari is in Lalitpur District, a part of now-defunct Bagmati zone. Godawari municipality and Bagmati Rural Municipality are local levels in Lalitpur District. Arms & Hearts, I think you little confused. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Previously a lot of local levels were followed by zonal names in article title. Now all are moved to replace zonal name by district name. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm more than happy to admit that I'm confused! So the gist is that "Godawari, Bagmati" is no longer strictly accurate, but is a plausible search term because Godawari was previously in Bagmati Zone? In that case, can we add a mention of this to the article? Otherwise the redirect strikes me as potentially confusing, especially given the existence of a new entity called Bagmati that Godawari isn't part of. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Godawari was previously in Bagmati Zone. I'll mention it in the article. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be deleted or be kept. Either would be fine. Previously, the full address of someone in Godawari would have been "[community], Godawari VDC - ward no. [#], Lalitpur district, Bagmati zone, Central Development Region, Nepal". As such, for example weather, map or travel websites would pick "Godawari, [one of the three], Nepal" so, all combinations of the above would have been valid redirects. People actually familiar would look for Godawari first (could lead to a ton of other places), then they'd try Godawari, Nepal or Godawari, Lalitpur. People unfamiliar would have tried Godawari, Bagmati, as well which is as valid of an argument today as it was then. Zonal divisions were always defunct (had offices but didn't do anything) but they were used in addresses in good measure. The current address format is "[Community], Godawari Municipality - ward no. [#], Lalitpur district, Province no. 3, Nepal. But, putting "Bagmati zone" between district and province is still not invalid. Since we have a new Bagmati rural municipality, now Bagmati has to be disambiguated to Zone, River and Rural Municipality. But, whenever, one mentions Godawari, Bagmati, it's clear from context it means Godawari municipality, Bagmati zone. As far as the usefulness of a redirect goes, those people who'd have searched for Godawari, Bagmati are still likely to search for it, those that wouldn't have still won't. Regardless of the validity, the demographic that the redirect services hasn't changed, as internationally, the administrative restructuring has yet to be noticed, and even if it were, I wouldn't expect them to change anything to reflect it, as in practicality, the restructuring has little to no impact. So, it's as valid as it was before. It's also as invalid as it was before. It's also as useful and as useless as it was before. I haven't heard of a smaller place named "Godawari" in Bagmati rural municipality. If and when it turns out there's another Godawari there, we can redirect it to there. Otherwise, there's no problem. So, keep it; or remove it as you wish. I'd still expect some website out there to have "Godawari, Bagmati, Nepal" in there database though. Whatever you do, probably a good idea to fix that circular redirect though. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 14:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There are a lot of redirects of this kind. See All pages with titles containing Bagmati. No need to discuss about Godawari, Bagmati only. And there is no valid reason to delete all the redirects. Pinging @Arms & Hearts: and @Usedtobecool:. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I came across this one in particular because of the unhelpful proposed deletion I mentioned in the nomination. I obviously don't normally edit articles about Nepali geography. I'd be happy for this to be kept if we could add to the target a mention that Godawari was formerly in Bagmati Zone. You said above that you'd do this but it doesn't seem to have happened. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     Done ~SS49~ {talk} 23:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Didn't expect a relist; probably my fault. Keep it per whatever "WP:don't fix what's not broken" is called. Thanks SS49 Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 13:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

BestReviews

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • BestReviews → Tribune Publishing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target, I can't figure out what the connection is between this redirect and the target. signed, Rosguill talk 13:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's the connection, from https://bestreviews.com/about-us: "BestReviews is majority owned by Tribune Publishing". - Eureka Lott 23:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if its content belongs in the target, add it to the target. If it is too trivial to belong in the target, then we should not have the redirect.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Draft:Bring Your Own Device

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Consensus is now clear, so closing prior to the new 7-day cycle per WP:RELIST. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XNR with no internal links, result of a page move on 4 April 2019 by User:Bradv to User:FlippyFlink/Bring Your Own Device which itself now redirects to mainspace (content fork, according to EC by User:Legacypac later on same day). Incidentally, there are caps difference on "Your Own Device", but fortunately Draft:Bring your own device is red (I haven't checked for other combinations outside of mainspace). 94.21.252.162 (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we keep Draft redirects after moves typically. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do we? I couldn't find anything that says that we should or shouldn't. I would have thought this is dealt with on a case-by-case basis depending on internal links, e.g. from talk pages. Although I can't find anything to say so, I presume that external sites shouldn't be linking to draft articles expecting them to be stable. But even if we do generally keep draft links as redirects, this is a little more complicated because it was moved from user space, then back again, so really it's a vestige of those moves and nothing more. 94.21.252.162 (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Struck part of mine out above, consensus is documented at WP:RDRAFT.) 94.21.252.162 (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Feynmanium Element 137

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 7#Feynmanium Element 137

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_22&oldid=910285117"