Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 14

February 14

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 14, 2020.

Dan Baldwin

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. signed, Rosguill talk 03:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially company promotion - link on Holly Willoughby's infobox (which I've taken off) linking straight to the company rather than the individual himself, who unfortunately lacks notability at this time for a page. Mechimp (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a simple redirect to the company he's the owner of, since he's not notable enough to have his own article. I don't believe this redirect to be "potentially company promotion" either. Vistadan 17:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, it was more its position linking from the infobox as 'Spouse' on the Holly Willoughby article (alas, I'm not sure you can marry a company). There may be other, more appropriate needs for the redirect elsewhere but that seemed the most prominent one. Mechimp (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mentioned in the article, plausible search term, no problem. Narky Blert (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest keep as this is a common name and WP:RFD#d10 would be better, so I'd prefer "delete" on such a basis but consensus is not trending that way. I'm sure there's a notable Dan Baldwin somewhere. Moreover, I actually have suspicions about the target and may look into nominating for deletion in some fashion in the next few months. Doug Mehus T·C 21:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:47, 14 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.

Alex Brown (footballer born 1879)

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 consensus against deletion, retargeting, or restoring a previous article here, noting the participation and analysis of editors Hog Farm and Struway2 which were invaluable to the discussion and, arguably, to the outcome. Rcat {{R from merge}}, proposed by Hog Farm, will be added post-close. Others may feel free to additional rcats as required post-close. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 15:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong birth year. Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and tag as {{R from merge}}. Diff of content being removed from this one [1] and diff of content added to the target [2]. Looks like a merge, so we'd need to keep it for WP:ATT issues. Hog Farm (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Totally missed the fact that this was a {{R from merge}}. In cases like this, the preferred option would be to move the edit history to a plausible title, such as Alex Brown (footballer, born 1877) so that the redirect with the problematic title is removed. Steel1943 (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Hog Farm: See above. The edit history has now been moved to Alex Brown (footballer, born 1877). (Sorry you had to find out it was a {{R from merge}} before I did; I try to resolve issues like that before I nominate, but I did not catch this one until after I nominated.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...Well, all of that can be disregarded. I'm not sure what the path forward is in this, considering that it seems that the subject of this redirect and the subject of the target are not the same subject. In other words, compare the current state of Sandy Brown (footballer, born 1877) with the state of Alex Brown (footballer born 1879) before it was redirected. I'm not sure "what" was merged or "how" it was merged anymore ... considering that these look like two separate subjects. Something is not right here ... and I'm not even sure we need to retain the content of the redirect's edit history since they seem to be two separate subjects. I guess at this point, my vote is to "restore article". Steel1943 (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's clear that the articles were about the same person at the time of the merge (compare source to target). I'm not convinced that the current version of the target's about a different subject, either, though all the merged text has since been edited out. —Cryptic 23:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • The merged content appears to have been related to him scoring 15 goals in the cup. Hog Farm (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • ...I guess the main question now is ... how valid are these references about the subject's birth date? Steel1943 (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disentangle. They seem to be two unrelated people. Compare Sandy Brown (footballer, born 1877) and Alex Brown (footballer born 1879) before a seriously questionable (not to say misguided) blank-and-redirect in 2009. Although they are alleged to have played for the same clubs at the same time, their birth dates and places (21 December 1877, Muirkirk and 7 April 1879, Beith) are so different that they make their having been the same person impossible. It might be worth asking Wikipedia:WikiProject Football for help. Narky Blert (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR coming up: although both Alex and Sandy are Scottish shortenings of the given name Alexander, it seems unlikely that many people have used both. The only person I can think of who may have done is Alexander R. Todd (and neither shortening is mentioned in his biography). Narky Blert (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/keep They're the same person: more recent research has shown the 1879 birth date to be wrong. See here. The Scottish Football Association website still gives the incorrect birth year under the name Alex, so the redirect is appropriate. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Struway. GiantSnowman 18:06, 16 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.

Criticism of Aldi

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 03:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criticism of Aldi → Aldi#Criticism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Section no longer exists. Criticism is in the eye of the beholder, but I only see one sentence that unambiguously reads as critical (the one about their relationship with Irish farmers). Perhaps that's a sign that more critical perspectives would help the article, but since WP:CRIT recommends against criticism sections, I don't foresee this redirect being helpful any time soon. BDD (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete as it does have 36 pageviews in the preceding twelve months, but that's, admittedly, not that great so it could pass WP:R#D8 as a deletion reason; failing that,
Refine redirect target to Aldi#Reputation, perhaps? With applicable rcats? Doug Mehus T·C 22:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nominated (and even if there was a section...) - Nabla (talk) 11:30, 22 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.

Luckin Coffee (version 2)

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 Moved to Luckin Coffee (company) without leaving a redirect. The leftover redirect qualified for WP:G6 as all of the rest of the "(version #)" redirects that have been brought to RFD have after their edit history was moved elsewhere. (There's a substantial amount of precedence for this.) (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luckin Coffee (version 2) → Luckin Coffee  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect has neither a useful title nor a useful history, only an unattributed cut and paste of its target made while it was being page-move-vandalized. It would be an R3 except that another admin deliberately and inexplicably moved it to this title. And so we're here. —Cryptic 22:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; showing zero pageviews in the last 365 days to today. Thus, it fails WP:R#K5 and passes with flying colours WP:R#D2. Doug Mehus T·C 22:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...of course it has zero pageviews; it didn't exist until thirty minutes ago. —Cryptic 22:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic I realized that afterward. Surely this would qualify for WP:CSD#G6, no? Since it's essentially just reverting a page move in error? Doug Mehus T·C 22:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was when I deleted it the first time. Now, it would be wheel-warring. —Cryptic 22:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wheel warring? Is that an administrator-specific version of edit warring? Doug Mehus T·C 22:48, 14 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.

Invaders(song)

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) 14:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB; Invaders (song) exists and is a redirect that targets the same target as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 14 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.

The Making of Queen

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 03:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Queen (band)#1980–1984: The Game to The Works with {{R to section}}, I think, because, unquestionably, the making of Queen is to refer to the famous band. If it were phrased as the making of the Queen, then I'd favour retargeting to The Queen. We can add a section hatnote there to Queen (Nicki Minaj album) and anywhere else, I think. Doug Mehus T·C 22:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is the title of an alleged documentary about the making of Nicki Minaj's Queen album, that was unfortunately never released. Lichtt (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no need for random redirects from "the making of XYZ" to "XYZ" unless there is some actual "The Making of XYZ" (and at least, marginally notable) - Nabla (talk) 11:28, 22 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.

Customs and Immigration

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 24#Customs and Immigration

Skor Kalpana

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) 14:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually included at the target, delete unless a justification is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:07, 14 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.

Template:Personalissuesunspecified

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) 14:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Personalissuesunspecified → Template:Personal issues  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Now unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; 0 transclusions. It's simply unused. Thank you to Pigsonthewing for following up at RfD after the template had been merged. I'd love to see more of this done, as I was just talking to Trialpears about this. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 02:48, 15 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.

0 series (manufacturing)

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 Pre-production. signed, Rosguill talk 22:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The title of these redirects and the title of the disambiguation page are not title matches in the least, leaving readers who search these terms bring unclear why they were redirect to the current page. (I cannot support "keep", but it's worth noting that 0 series and 0-series exist...) Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Interesting find, Steel1943. I agree that it doesn't make sense to keep these redirects targeted where they are. Both the identified disambiguation pages refer to pre-production processes in manufacturing, so I'm inclined to retarget both to 0 series. What about you? Doug Mehus T·C 20:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pre-production, following the example of Zero batch redirecting there as well. The article isn't ideal, as it discusses pre-production of films/music, but we can add a section on pre-production in manufacturing as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Matthiaspaul, who makes a good point on this being the most logical target and the proposed target is likely a clear primary topic. We can easily hatnote the disambiguation page 0 series. I don't see article creation forthcoming any time soon. Doug Mehus T·C 21:34, 14 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.

Phenethyl aldehyde

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 was clear that this is the incorrect, or obsolete rather, name for this compound. Rcat {{R from former name}} will be added to this redirect, but if editors @Claudio Pistilli, Narky Blert, and Project Osprey:, or the nom Rosguill, want to add or change any rcats, please, do feel free. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 15:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, my attempts to figure out if these are the same thing from searching Google Scholar proved inconclusive. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are two names for the same product, see Phenethyl alcohol, phenethyl acetate, etc, although we should mention the position of the phenyl group, or 2-phenethyl aldehyde for the phenyl radical lies in the 2d carbon of the acetaldehyde. For example, there is also 1-phenethyl aldehyde where the phenyl radical lies in the 1st carbon of the acetaldehyde. Only two possibilities can exist. Claudio Pistilli (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a seriously obsolete name for the identical compound, unlikely to be found except in print.
Claudio Pistilli is mistaken: there is only one possible phenylacetaldehyde. It has the phenyl group on the 2-carbon. The isomer with the phenyl group on the 1-carbon is acetophenone, aka phenyl methyl ketone. Narky Blert (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a valid name for the structure. Admittedly it's not systematic, but non-systematic names abound in chemistry. --Project Osprey (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The structure and names are ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudio Pistilli (talk • contribs) 16:05, 21 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.

Atmospheric research

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 21#Atmospheric research

Video game enthusiast

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 21#Video game enthusiast

Be Careful What You Wish For (song)

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 Be Careful What You Wish For. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be Careful What You Wish For (song) → Who Built the Moon?  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are two songs with the title "Be Careful What You Wish For", (the other one is by Luke Combs, and both are mentioned at the dab page Be Careful What You Wish For. Suggesting retarget to the dab page, and then create a more specific redirect with the artist of this song's name in it. (I've already created Be Careful What You Wish For (Luke Combs song)). Hog Farm (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the redirect Be Careful What You Wish For (Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds song). Narky Blert (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to DAB per nom. Neither song has claimed primary topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:06, 14 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.

Hardcore game

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 Hardcore#Video games. --BDD (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardcore game → Gamer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Hardcore gamer redirects to Gamer, but since this redirect ends with "game" and not "gamer", searchers of this title may be looking for some sort of game or video game, not the profession. If a suitable target cannot be found, this would be better if deleted so that Wikipedia's search function can do its job to help readers locate the subject they are attempting to find when searching this term. Steel1943 (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to permadeath, add a {{seealso}} there to the target of Hardcore gamer, and a reverse seealso in Gamer.
'Hardcore' can also mean the highest difficulty of playing level, in which enemies are tougher; but I have no good target for that, and it's implied in permadeath. Narky Blert (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hardcore disambiguate. There is a video game called Hardcore, and the disambiguation page explains other uses including the permadeath. Hardcore gamer can be added there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Changing !vote) Retarget to DAB page hardcore per AngusWOOF. Narky Blert (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the dab page per AngusWOOF and Narky. Looks good. Doug Mehus T·C 22:15, 14 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.

Game name

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) 14:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Game name → Gamer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's unclear why this redirect targets its current target. Though the term is mentioned in the target article, it is only mentioned once as part of a gathered list of items in Gamer#Avatar. Per the section (as well as the edit history of the redirect), the subject "game name" would seem to represent the same subject as the one in User (computing), but at the present time, "game name" is not mentioned in that article. Also, since the term is mentioned in the section named "Avatar", maybe Avatar (computing) is the better target ... though "game name" is not mentioned there either. Anyways, with that being said, for the reasons above, in preferred order, 1) retarget to User (computing), 2) delete, 3) weak retarget to Avatar (computing), and 4) oppose creating a disambiguation page at this title since there is ample evidence that this refers to a specific subject, is not an official title for anything, and if a good target is not found, deletion is preferred to allow Wikipedia's search function to do its job. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ambiguous. This could mean absolutely anything: the name of a type of game, e.g. football; the name of any specific video game; the user name of a video game player; a named game such as the Rose Bowl game; or even to individual games forever associated with a particular player (e.g. Ian Botham or Bill Buckner). Narky Blert (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to let the search engine do its job. There's just too many things this term could conceivably refer to. Hog Farm (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Not specific like stage name or ring name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. The sheer vagueness means that, as stated above, deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:23, 17 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.

GTJ

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 Grace Theological Journal. This can be converted into a disambiguation page if more topics with the acronym "GTJ" are created. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reasonable or logical search term. There is no evidence that GTJ has ever been used in Monopoly play. Created by an editor with an unnatural fascination for TLAs, even, and often, invented ones.  Velella  Velella Talk   02:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of this acronym used in my life, and I've been quite involved in the Monopoly scene for over a decade.: Tostie14 (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF Does Grahamstown Journal have an article on Wikipedia, though? If not, I still favour retargeting here, but I can see potential disambiguation of GTJ in the near future... Doug Mehus T·C 13:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Mehus, the newspaper doesn't have a separate article, but MOS:DABMENTION doesn't mean the retargeted location has to be an article. It would still need to be added as an acronym in the Makhanda article though to qualify as a dab entry. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF Maybe, but that only gets us to a two dablink disambiguation page, and it's very weak, since the second link would only be a redirect to a passing mention in a tangentially related article. As much as I love disambiguation pages, I think retargeting, for now, with hatnotes, as needed, is best. Doug Mehus T·C 03:03, 16 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_14&oldid=942436033"