Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 12

February 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 12, 2020.

Erection angle

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) 18:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: What should we do with this redirect? It currently points (excuse the unintended pun) to Human penis#Erection angle, but Erection#Direction is an equally possible target. As well, at De Olifant, Burdaard, it's noted that that structure was erected at, and is inclined at, a certain angle. Thus, it's equally plausible that the "erection angle" doesn't just refer to the angle at which a human penis is erected. It could be one of those WP:XY things, and is likely to cause confusion per WP:R#D2. Should we disambiguate, delete, or something else? Doug Mehus T·C 23:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This appears to be somehow both too specific and too vague for it to properly go to anything. Any constructed physical object in the world can be positioned at a noticeable angle. Deletion is probably the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. This was the decisive question at issue in Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd, which (as regrettably so often in patent cases) had nothing to do with penises. Narky Blert (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Nom Position I'm not ambivalent between disambiguation and deletion any longer. So, I'm favouring deletion per WP:XY and WP:R#D2. No prejudice to future dabification or article creation, of course, in the future. Doug Mehus T·C 00:01, 13 February 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.

Privy member

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The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn/speedy keep. I'm satisfied with @CoffeeWithMarkets and Narky Blert:'s analysis that there is little ambiguity here. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 00:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Privy member → Human penis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm recommending we delete this redirect privy member (presumably, a slang term for the penis), due to a lack of mention in the current target, human penis, but also because of the ambiguity and confusion this would cause because a privy member could also be construed as an alternative short name for a member of the Queen's Privy Council (typically, but not always, the Cabinet) in Commonwealth countries. I'm open to other alternatives, but would oppose keeping this at the current target. Doug Mehus T·C 22:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. 'Privy member' meaning 'penis' has been standard English for at least 400 years. "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD." - Deut 23:1 (KJV). Narky Blert (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough, can we add a hatnote at the two Queen's Privy Council articles to human penis and, in turn, to the human penis article at the two Queen's Privy Council articles? Doug Mehus T·C 23:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If this isn't yet mentioned in that article then it absolutely should be. The proliferation of the term genuinely surprises me. It's not just simply used in the Bible but has literally been incorporated into legal statute (see here). Seeing the term being used formally to refer to a government official appears to be extraordinarily rare. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, and great source. With your and Narky's responses, I'm leaning towards withdrawing my nomination, but waiting on Narky Blert to concur with the hatnotes. Doug Mehus T·C 23:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose hatnotes. The only time any Privy Councillor will have been called a Privy Member will have been as an insult. I remembered that KJV quote from my CofE upbringing. The expression is unambiguous. Narky Blert (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On-topic light relief. Narky Blert (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose hatnotes - I agree. Nobody's going to call a public servant this without trying to be pejorative. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:14, 13 February 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.

KRIT-FM

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) 18:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KRIT-FM → KMYX-FM  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. The California radio station KMYX-FM has not used the callsign KRIT or any variation of it, at least since 1980, according to FCC records. There is another FM station with the callsign KRIT (no suffix) that has been in operation in Parker, Arizona, since 2002, but apparently there is not yet a Wikipedia article about it. R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and, specifically, for WP:R#D2 (due to the lack of a mention and potential for confusion), WP:R#D10 (to encourage future article creation as and when used), and lack of use and utility per WP:R#D8 (<10 pageviews in the last year). Doug Mehus T·C 22:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly disambiguate? I say 'possibly', because in my experience DABfixing callsign links can be a nightmare. Narky Blert (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've neutrally requested Bearcat's wise counsel in consideration of the potential for dabification, as Bearcat is known for helping to maintain most of the world's licensed commercial station articles on Wikipedia. Doug Mehus T·C 00:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was a bit of a confusing one to sort out, but the traditional practice of WikiProject Radio Stations in a situation like this is that the station that currently has the call sign gets primary topic precedence for the name. A station that had the call sign 30 years ago can be hatnoted if there's a valid reason to believe people might actually be searching for it with this call sign, or just ignored if there isn't — but it doesn't really require a full disambiguation page. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As far as I can tell, KMYX-FM has never been KRIT-FM… or even just KRIT for that matter. The Arizona station with the KRIT call sign is co-owned with KMYX-FM, and this owner runs similar programming on all its stations, but the two stations are too far apart for there to be any further connection. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and make way for actual content. --MadeYourReadThis (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC) (the redirect's original creator for whatever that's worth, which ain't much)[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.

Drought Bowl

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 19#Drought Bowl

Cinq

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. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cinq → 5  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous with other things known as "cinq". Retarget to cinque. -- Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. 'Cinq' isn't mentioned in '5' but is in 'cinque'. Narky Blert (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Narky Blert, why, though? We have other pages beginning with cinq that don't have ue following them? Doug Mehus T·C 20:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate (changing !vote). Draft DAB page added below the RFD notice. (@Dmehus: - good point.)
I urge in the strongest possible terms that everyone read Jay Rayner's restaurant review of Le Cinq, Paris. He has a way with words. Narky Blert (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Narky (and me). DAB page looks good so far. Doug Mehus T·C 21:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Narky Blert. Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, per Narky Blert and Dmehus. PK650 (talk) 22:24, 13 February 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.

Gaoidhealg

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 Irish language. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archaic form of the Irish word for the Irish language (now Gaeilge). It does not refer exclusively to the period in question that it now redirects to. Personally, I doubt that this is likely to be a useful redirect but if not deleted it should redirect to Goidelic languages. buidhe 05:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Irish language, where it's mentioned and explained with links to elsewhere. Narky Blert (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - I agree. This should go to 'Irish language' and is worth keeping since it has been used online (albeit not commonly) as well as has a history in print (see here for one example). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:19, 13 February 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.

British Council (British Isles)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • British Council (British Isles) → British–Irish Council  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not the actual name of the organization or an accepted alias of it. Disambiguation does not really help confusion with British Council. buidhe 05:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The British-Irish Council has more governmental parties than just UK (there's a clue in the name). British Council is UK only, not British Isles. Narky Blert (talk) 14:45, 12 February 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.

Goidelic (Gaelic) language

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goidelic (Gaelic) language → Goidelic languages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Weird and unnecessary disambiguation. I cannot see how this could be useful to anyone. buidhe 05:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nothing to add. Narky Blert (talk) 21:17, 12 February 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.

Goidelic (Gaelic)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goidelic (Gaelic) → Goidelic languages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary disambiguation buidhe 05:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nothing to add. Narky Blert (talk) 21:17, 12 February 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.

Goidelophone

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goidelophone → Goidelic languages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Goidelophones → Goidelophone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Hog Farm (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a word. Only 11 Google results. buidhe 05:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Would you care to bundle Goidelophones into this nomination? It's a newly-created WP:DOUBLEREDIRECT through Goidelophone to Goidelic languages. Narky Blert (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: That's fine with me but I'm not sure how to do it technically. buidhe 15:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Goidelophones added manually. Hog Farm (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as WP:NEOLOGISM. The meaning is obvious, but that is no argument that WP needs it.
It'd be a really good name for a novel musical instrument, though. Narky Blert (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as WP:NEOLGISMs, I got 13 hits on Google. No evidence of common usage. Hog Farm (talk) 21:33, 12 February 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.

Electric vehicle conversion chapter: chassies, suspension, and running gear

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Electric vehicle conversion chapter: chassies, suspension, and running gear → Electric vehicle conversion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apparently, this was part of a Wikibook coordinated from Electric vehicle conversion, at a time when the dinosaurs still roamed these pages. Paradoctor (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT Realized a little late that where's one chapter, there's more Paradoctor (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Electric vehicle conversion chapter: technologies
  • Electric vehicle conversion: powertrain
  • Electric vehicle conversion: battery disposition, security, and wiring
  • Electric vehicle conversion chapter: auxiliary systems and control
  • Electric vehicle conversion chapter: high power electrical
  • Electric vehicle conversion chapter: control and interlocks
  • Electric vehicle conversion chapter: resources
  • Delete - This doesn't seem helpful at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on a minute noting Leonard G. created content and a navigation box template in this redirect's history, do we have a legal requirement per WP:ATT to keep this? I'd like to hear what Leonard G., and others, say. If the editor doesn't reply within a week, this redirect should be relisted at least once, to have a fulsome conversation. Doug Mehus T·C 20:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Rosguill: What do you think? Leonard G. created both this article and a wikibook in Electric Vehicle Conversion in or around the same day? I'm inclined to favour delete here because the of the close/same dates and that the creating editor is the same account. It seems like this was more of a rough draft of a preliminary chapter. But, I'd like to hear your thoughts, first. Doug Mehus T·C 20:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have basically no experience with Wikibooks and don't think I have any special insight into this issue. signed, Rosguill talk 21:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the series of edits here (specifically the edits from 17 November 2005 to 26 November 2005), it looks as though Leonard G. was using the nominated redirect as a temporary holding cell for content that was moved from the target article which apparently they either copied or planned to copy to Wikibooks. In other words, since there was no history that was copied from the redirect to another Wikipedia article, there's no reason per WP:A/WP:CWW/etc. to retain the edit history of this redirect, considering that the content in the redirect's edit history originated from the target page. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with thanks to Steel1943 for confirming that. There's nothing to preserve here. Doug Mehus T·C 00:26, 13 February 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.

Plague of 1636

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 Epidemiology of plague#Second pandemic: from 14th century to 19th century. signed, Rosguill talk 22:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plague of 1636 → Gondor#Decline  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is not mentioned at the target article. This plague is fictional, and there are references to real-life plagues in 1636 at Great Plague of London and Epidemiology of plague. I'd recommend deletion per WP:XY. Hog Farm (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Epidemiology of plague, with hatnotes to Gondor#Great Plague and Great Plague of London, per Soumya-8974. Doug Mehus T·C 23:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a strong case of WP:RFD#DELETE #1 to me: a redirect to a fictional plague makes it harder to find articles on real plagues that could plausibly be called the same thing. Compounding this is the fact that there is little to no coverage of the plague in the target article. Since "Plague of 1636" is neither an established name for the plague in Gondor nor for the one in London, I think our users are best served by the search results. BenKuykendall (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and BenKuykendall. Not least because Retarget and hatnote per Soumyabrata. there were non-fictional outbreaks of plague in at least London and Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1636. Narky Blert (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Epidemiology of plague, with a hatnote to Gondor#Great Plague. Keep your WP:XY thing aside, there are many workarounds to the problems like this. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could get behind that target. I actually think that's one of the better approaches, short of disambiguation. We have lots of potential targets (at least 3-4); deletion cases have not been prosecuted successfully. Doug Mehus T·C 16:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can live with that. Retarget to Epidemiology of plague as above, with hatnote to Gondor#Great Plague. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 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_February_12&oldid=941620443"