Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 11

November 11

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 11, 2020.

Unidad de Inteligencia Financiera

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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Unidad de Inteligencia Financiera (Mexico). Both are linked from the disambiguation page at UIF. Raymie (t • c) 21:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per WP:NOPRIMARY. Two articles with the identical title but for the qualifiers, neither WP:PTOPIC. Narky Blert (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per Narky Blert. Thryduulf (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

QLOC

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. There is dissatisfaction with the current target, and while an alternative has been proposed, there seems little certainty as to whether it's definitely correct and there's minimal mention there. There's therefore consensus to delete this at this time, but it can be freely recreated if it becomes meaningfully mentioned in a sourced way somewhere. ~ mazca talk 13:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • QLOC → Capcom#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Currently redirects to Capcom#History but this makes no sense since QLOC is not a subsidiary of Capcom and has worked with many other game developers (just do a Wikipedia search for QLOC). Ultimately, we should have an article about QLOC which seems to be reasonably notable. In fact, there are articles on pl.wiki and ru.wiki (pl:QLOC and ru:QLOC) if anyone is interested in a simple translation project. Pichpich (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete That a company has an agreement with Capcom is not a reason to redirect its name to Capcom. The article does not contain relevant information on the other company. Dimadick (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Dimadick:@Pichpich: 1C Company is poorly written/translated, but is it trying to tell me that QLOC is owned by 1C? If that's right then retarget. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. The pl.wiki article doesn't mention 1C but the ru.wiki article includes the sentence "Принадлежит компании 1С." which Google translates as "Belongs to 1C company". I'd like to get more solid evidence but 1C Company may indeed be the right target for now. Pichpich (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Slave era

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 History of slavery. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous. Other countries had eras where slavery was legal. Hog Farm Bacon 20:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete if nobody has a good counterargument for why the US context should be predominant here. BlackholeWA (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to History of slavery. Most certainly not US-specific. Narky Blert (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget per Narky Blert. Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to history of slavery per above. Seems most appropriate. Mar4d (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

La Conquete

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 18#La Conquete

Virus disease 2019

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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Kivu Ebola epidemic also took place during 2019. I don't think COVID is the primary topic for "virus disease" Hog Farm Bacon 20:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. It's not at all helpful. Graham Beards (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget. Was there a disambiguation page for notable 2019 diseases? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly that's what most users are looking for when typing this, as evidence by this. This is also a plausible redirect, so where is the proof of deleting this? Also, add a hatnote that this term redirects to the COVID page, saying that "for the Kivu Ebola outbreak, see Kivu Ebola epidemic." Seventyfiveyears (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not only is it a shortening of the only official term ending in 'virus disease 2019', but using the terminology of the WHO for that name the Kivu Ebola epidemic began in 2018, not 2019. I would expect anyone searching for an Ebola outbreak in the year 2020 would use the search term 'ebola' rather than 'virus' (we can reconsider later if this changes). I also oppose adding a hat note, given the work done to minimize hatnotes on the various COVID articles given their long ledes. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Authoritazation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 18#Authoritazation

Political TV

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 22:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Political TV → C-SPAN  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Current target doesn't seem to be the primary topic. Hog Farm Bacon 20:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vague, a great deal of TV covers political topics at least some of the time. (t · c) buidhe 17:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or retarget it to Category:Political television series or some other similarly appropriate location. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Paris of the Midwest

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 G7'd by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm Bacon 03:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Most internet search results suggest that this was a more common nickname for Detroit than Kansas City. signed, Rosguill talk 20:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Retarget Kansas City has only recently been considered Midwestern. The more well known nickname is “Paris of the Plains” perhaps somebody conflated the two. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snester Yes, I screwed this up, "Plains" is what I intended. I'll fix, thanks for catching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4D00:4840:9C71:78FD:56BA:ACF0 (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brian James Gage

 Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 19#Brian James Gage

Criticism of Hinduism

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 restore article. No prejudice against AfD—in fact, it may well be a necessary step to resolve this, whether that means a clearer consensus to keep, delete, WP:TNT, redirect, or whatever else. (N.b., I reviewed discussion at Talk:Criticism of Hinduism and agree there is no consensus to redirect to Hinduism, and that option was soundly rejected here.) --BDD (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be a redirect to Anti-Hindu sentiment but instead should be a redirect to Hinduism where a proper WP:CFORK can be done. The discussion on the talkpage seems to indicate that it is going in that direction, but a user objected. jps (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as currently described and let the discussion run on Talk:Anti-Hindu sentiment instead on whether the topic should split off or stay as a redirect. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion has already run for months. It's time to make a decision. jps (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's nothing to fork at Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't anything to fork at anti-Hindu sentiment either. No criticism of Hinduism to be found in that article. The WP:MOS says we should redirect to the main article. jps (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see plenty of criticisms there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is just an article accounting Hinduphobic instances. There is no criticism of Hinduism in the article. jps (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with jps. The Anti-Hindu sentiment article is part of a series on Discrimination and Religious Persecution. A Criticism of X implies something along the lines of scholarly or social criticisms levied against X. Examples for religions include Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Jainism, Criticisms of Christianity, etc. Conflating the two would be like creating a redirect from Criticism of Islam to Islamophobia. Both articles serve different purposes and should exist independent of each other. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It appears that this page was converted to a redirect without due process. As an article it was prodded on 6 July 2006, then deprodded and AfD'd on 7 July 2006 where the decision was speedy keep also on 7 July 2006. There has been some edit warring on this page, and it looks as though it should be converted back to an article and, for at least the second time, see if it survives AfD. Then if the consensus is to redirect this page, that decision should be honored no matter what article it targets. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article I agree with the course of action per Paine Ellsworth. This should also allow us to potentially improve the article before or during the AfD discussion in order to make a better decision regarding this. There are criticisms against various tenets of Hinduism - sometimes against particular sects sometimes against the whole contemporary religion - that I can find spread across multiple pages on Wikipedia[1][2][3] and also original sources (B.R. Ambedkar. Riddles in Hinduism. ISBN 978-1-9743-4941-8.)[4]. These combined together should provide an article along the same lines as the ones on criticisms of Islam, Christianity, Jainism, etc. At the very least it would be useful to have an article that acts as a single point of access - maybe even a List of - for criticisms of Hinduism. This would also follow the theme of articles related to other religious practices as listed at [5]. This way we will also have a more complete article over at Criticism of religion hopefully helping improve overall quality here. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article per Paine Ellsworth. The blank-and-redirect on 9 June 2018 was out of process, especially for an article which had been WP:SNOW kept at AFD. There's been atrocious WP:EDITWARring over the last 14 years (I make it 40 ping-pong reverts within 44 minutes by two IP editors on 13 September 2013), so I'd suggest going all the way back to the version which was speedily kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Hinduism on 7 July 2006. This is a matter for WP:AFD not RFD. Narky Blert (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article and do whatever we want per Narky Blert. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I know that an article on Criticism of Hinduism has a right to exist. But I don't know of any Wikipedian capable of writing it. Even Joshua Jonathan hasn't been able to write one. All the material that existed was WP:POV junk that kept getting inserted and deleted repeatedly. We have better things to do with our time than fighting useless battles with axe-grinding POV warriors. If somebody can show me 5 solid sources that discuss the subject thoroughly, I will be glad to change my mind. At the moment, we don't have them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Junk indeed; restoring that version from years ago would be a disservice. But even the one-paragraph stub that's left now is problematic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The past history of this redirect/article can't be denied. What is troublesome is that there are other good religion criticism articles, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of the Bible, Criticism of the Quran,​ Criticism of Jainism, Criticism of the Catholic Church, Criticism of Muhammad and even Criticism of religion itself. All of these appear to break the rules in regard to sections and articles strictly about criticism. And yet those obviously controversial articles are entitled to an expression on Wikipedia, while "Criticism of Hinduism" is not? There's something wrong with that picture. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) We see that there may also be similar stifling controversies in regard to Criticism of Hindutva and Criticism of Upanishads? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Kautilya3: 5 seems to be an arbitrary number but here are some works for a start. This is stuff I already mentioned in my previous comment. Note that some of these have articles on Wikipedia already so it might also make sense to have this current article redirect to a "List of" kind of article. [6][7][8](B.R. Ambedkar. Riddles in Hinduism. ISBN 978-1-9743-4941-8.)[9]. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is funny to see editors assuming authority to commission pages at an RfD discussion. That is silly! An article stands or falls based on Verifiability and NPOV. RfD can do nothing about that.
People interested in seeing a page on the topic might start by creating a section at Hinduism and let us see where that takes us. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The authority to commission pages is had by just about all editors on Wikipedia! Why should RfD participants be denied what the vast majority of editors may enjoy? Also, from the pages' histories it appears that your suggestion to begin with a section has been tried with edit-warring results. Proponents of WP:CRITS have battled with editors to keep such a section out of possible target articles of this redirect. And lest we forget, this is not a case of let's get together and write a brand new article about criticism of Hinduism, this is a case of restoring an article that was first formed 15 years ago and has undergone a turbulent editing history – an article that was deleted and redirected without due process. Yes, very funny. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and/or write article a valid topic that deserves a wiki article. There's no criticisms of Hinduism listed on the anti-Hindu sentiment page. (t · c) buidhe 16:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article to maintain status quo, Criticism of Hinduism has no business redirecting to Anti-Hindu sentiment in the first place. Who came up with this brilliant idea? The latter article deals with incidents of prejudice against the Hindu community (or Hindu individuals). Whereas, the former would deal with criticism of the Hindu religion and/or certain tenets/practices of Hinduism. Mixing the two is an example of false equivalence. Mar4d (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Soundwaves

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 Soundwave. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should this target disambiguation page Soundwave, or Sound (consistent with Sound waves)? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soundwaves had 4 links in, which I've amended. 1 was for the current target; 2 related to a TV program on which we have no article; and 1 pointed the puzzled reader of an article about a TV superhero cartoon series to a section in an article about mundane physics. Nuff said. Narky Blert (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sound Wave

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 18#Sound Wave

Planet killer

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. No prejudice against disambiguation—I doubt anyone would object, but I didn't feel in a position myself to do it. As a matter of syntax, it may best to keep "List of planet killers" pointing to the list, with a hatnote for the disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proper target unclear. The words "planet killer" have been used to refer to asteroids, not just science-fictional doomsday devices, and the redirect is overly vague to redirect here. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment see also Planet destroyer. Not sure where this should go. Considered maybe somewhere on Global catastrophic risk, but that page doesn't exclusively refer to *complete* planetary destruction, and also refers only to Earth (although if there was an "end of Earth" article of some sort, maybe that would be good enough) BlackholeWA (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig. All the comments above indicate that it is a plausible search term for various different things - doomsday devices, asteroids, etc. so disambiguation seems the best choice. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect planet killer, planet destroyer and variants to doomsday device. The list redirect is probably fine as I don't see any "list of nonfictional doomsday devices". Potentially hazardous object may be included as a list item or linked from a hatnote on the list. Asteroids are not plant killers any more than motor vehicles are people killers. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2020 Barcelona Formula 2 round

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 22:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion per WP:RFD#D10 (Promote article creation).
SSSB (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, as usual with these kinds of redirects. A7V2 (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Keeping the links to these articles blue will discourage creation. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

MagSafe

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 move MagSafe (iPhone) to MagSafe, hatnote to (Mac). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magsafe → MagSafe (Mac)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous with MagSafe (iPhone). If this is the primary topic, then why was the target page moved in the first place? The Incognito Guy (Browsing privately) 07:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I added Magsafe. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate to include both topics. BlackholeWA (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, scratch that. It's only two articles and they both have hatnotes. However retarget to MagSafe (iPhone) as it may be primary seeing as the other product is now discontinued. BlackholeWA (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move MagSafe (iPhone) over MagSafe. Retarget Magsafe to MagSafe. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I drafted a disambiguation page. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move MagSafe (iPhone) over MagSafe. Retarget Magsafe to MagSafe. The iPhone device is far and away the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A disambiguation page to allow the reader to choose to read on the Mac version or the iPhone version would be more helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Félix An (talk • contribs) 18:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • With only two topics, one of which is primary, a redirect and hatnote is better as most users get the correct article first time whereas with primary disambiguation none do. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that MagSafe has a primary topic. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Google disagrees - almost all the search results are for the iPhone. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_11&oldid=990280417"