This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 1, 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. Consensus is that this is a useful and plausible search term.
(non-admin closure)
feminist (
talk)
03:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
The redirect might cause confusion: Barkan is not in Israel (it is on the occupied West Bank). Presently there is 0 article links to Barkan, Israel (and I cannot see any reason why anyone should need to link to it.)
Huldra (
talk)
23:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- "Barkan, Israel" is a common search term Someone who created
this redirect should not be making these kind of suggestions. Not to mention the dishonesty involved in removing more than a dozen links to
Barkan, Israel, and then coming here to state "Presently there is 0 article links to Barkan, Israel"
Here come the Suns (
talk)
23:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per extant usage (e.g., "
Barkan, Israel: Muslim Employed in Israeli Work-Place Murders Two of His Jewish Co-Workers, Attempts Murder of a Third"), and tag as either {{
R from incorrect name}} or {{
R from incorrect disambiguation}}. While I do not disagree with Huldra's replacement of the links per se, the articles should not have been edited
solely for the purpose of bypassing the redirect. --
Black Falcon (
talk)
00:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. This is not a redir for the convenience of readers, it is a political statement.
Zero
talk
01:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- as opposed to
this one, yes?
Here come the Suns (
talk)
01:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Lack of neutrality is not a sufficient reason to delete redirects (see
Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects). If neutrality is a concern, we can tag the redirect as {{
R from non-neutral name}}. --
Black Falcon (
talk)
04:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Black Falcon. It is plausible for every settlement in Gaza or the West Bank to be searched for using either "<place>, Israel" and "<place>, Palestine" / "<place>, Palestinian Territories". It is irrelevant which is "correct" or whether either or both are a political statement or espouse a point of view. What matters is that they take readers to the content they are looking for.
Thryduulf (
talk)
15:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, as nominator, and pr Zero0000: it is a political statement. Presently, exactly 0 nations in this world accepts that
Israeli settlements (such as
Barkan) is part of Israel, so it is inaccurate to refer to
Barkan, Israel. (And yes, I have removed links to it: as I remove all wrong links I come across.) Of course,
Israeli settlers wants us to believe that Israeli settlements are a part of Israel (and I can dig up links to how the
Yesha Council give courses teaching Israeli settlers to edit Wikipedia, if you want me to,) We should strive to give the correct info about certain settlements, and not to give the "wish-full thinking" situation of the
Israeli settlers,
Huldra (
talk)
21:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as plausible search. Not to mention that for all practical purposes it is indeed in Israel.
Debresser (
talk)
23:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as at least a plausible {{
R from incorrect disambiguation}}. Redirects aren't political statements (at least not to any greater extent than absolutely anything else in the world), they
don't even need to be neutral. –
Uanfala (talk)
01:19, 4 December 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.
Desert Village Mobile Home Park, Arizona
- 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.
(non-admin closure)
CptViraj (
📧)
08:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
The redirect might cause confusion: Hebron Ariel is not in Israel (it is on the occupied West Bank). Presently there is 0 links to
Ariel, Israel (and I cannot see any reason why anyone should need to link to it.)
Huldra (
talk)
22:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- "Ariel, Israel" is a common search term (with over 100,000 searches on Google). Someone who created
this redirect should not be making these kind of suggestions.
Here come the Suns (
talk)
22:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Presently there are 0 article links to
Ariel, Israel (and I cannot see any reason why anyone should need to link to it.) Having this redir only obfuscates the facts,
Huldra (
talk)
23:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- and how many articles link to
Shit Happens in Gaza? You are the classic
WP:NOTHERE editor.
Here come the Suns (
talk)
23:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I doubt if the organ of the
Chabad movement can be considered a source on anything except themselves.
Huldra (
talk)
21:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep. Consensus is that this is a useful and plausible search term.
(non-admin closure)
feminist (
talk)
03:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
The redirect might cause confusion: Hebron is not in Israel (it is on the occupied West Bank). Presently there is 0 links to
Hebron, Israel (and I cannot see any reason why anyone should need to link to it.)
Huldra (
talk)
22:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Again, I doubt if
Vos Iz Neias? ("run by four anonymous Orthodox Jews") is a RS on anything, except themselves,
Huldra (
talk)
21:17, 2 December 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.
Chargesheet: The Shutterlock Murder
- 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 delete. Sorry, I misread something when declining the speedy nomination, no need to discuss this. —
Kusma (
t·
c)
22:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
Not a plausible search term, the correct title is Chargesheet: The Shuttlecock Murder. I would suggest deletion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
21:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was retarget to
Halophyte. This looks to be the most popular choice after it was suggested. I've added {{
R from subtopic}} to the redirect. --
Tavix (
talk)
18:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned at target. Salt tolerant grass is a description, not a specific taxon. Hyphenated "salt-tolerant" is an unlikely search term unless there is some entity that is pushing "Salt-tolerant Grass" as an Official-common Name of Ammophila (Wikipedia prefers to ignore idiosyncratic capitals, but perhaps not hyphens). However, I can find no evidence of this as a term particularly associated with Ammophila.
Plantdrew (
talk)
05:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
- That could be appropriate with an {{
R from subtopic}}. But if anybody is searching for the topic of grasses that can tolerate salt (or is wanting to start an article on that topic), I'd guess they might be more likely to look for "salt tolerant grass" than "salt-tolerant grass". Or they might look for "salt-tolerant grasses", or a
WP:PANDORA's box of any number of other variant terms.
Plantdrew (
talk)
04:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
Plantdrew (nice nickname!) and the nom. While it's true "salt-tolerant grass" isn't listed in the target article, "tolerant of saline [...]" is. So, it's a plausible search term. The problem, as I see it, is there are, presumably, more than one salt-tolerant grass. Disambiguation is a possibility in the future, I think, but we'd need to put together a dab page with at least an initial list of salt-tolerant grasses; however, if
Plantdrew wants to add an initial list of dab targets at the subject page, I'd, alternatively, support a move to...
- Disambiguate (2nd choice) or...
- Retarget (3rd choice) per
BDD with one or two hatnotes, with potential to disambiguate in the future. --
Doug Mehus
T·
C
21:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Halophyte. Pretty good R from subtopic IMO, since a couple of grasses are mentioned there, and readers will get general information about salt-tolerant plants. And in American English, at least, the hyphen is correct usage, even though its absence really doesn't affect understanding. --
BDD (
talk)
21:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
BDD I'd support that as an interim solution, with one or two hatnotes to other salt-tolerant grasses, without prejudice to converting to a dab page in future maybe?
Doug Mehus
T·
C
21:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Other salt-tolerant grasses could be added to the Examples section, but I don't think a hatnote is the right approach. Crucially, it doesn't appear that any grass species is called simply "Salt-tolerant grass" as a common name; it's just a descriptive term. --
BDD (
talk)
21:50, 21 November 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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 10#Iman Elman
- 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)
16:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
The redirect does not appear to be an alternative name or spelling for the target, and I think that the edit distance is a little too far for the misspelling to be a useful redirect. I would thus suggest deletion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep The name was annunciated incorrectly in an interview I heard where it sounded like this. It took further research to find the Wikipedia page of the real man. The purpose of these redirects is to make it easier for people to find a page when they hear it in media. I've never understood why there is such a drive to delete simple redirects that make Wikipedia a more accessible research tool.--
Dr who1975 (
talk)
20:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The reasoning behind nominating these sorts of redirects for deletion is that they can often make it difficult to find other articles (either already existing now, or created down the road) that are closer matches to the misspelling/mispronunciation than the target of this corrective redirect. In this case, I'm not really sure how to weigh a mispronunciation in an interview vs. the potential for confusion, and would appreciate it if other editors also weighed in. signed,
Rosguill
talk
00:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk)
16:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
It would appear that Xyfindit is a competitor to TrackR
[1], which makes this redirect less than useful. I would suggest deletion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:22, 22 November 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.
Agreed. Redirecting to a competitor is not good. --
Treekids (
talk)
20:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- 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)
18:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
This phrase has an ambiguous meaning and thus is an unsuitable search term. While it could refer to "issuing money" (in which case the current target is appropriate), it could also refer to (and IMO more strongly refers to) something along the lines of "the problem of money", in which case the current target is not particularly helpful. Due to the lack of usage history, I think that deletion is a better option than disambiguation. signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. While it is potentially ambiguous, only one of the two possible uses is a plausible search term for an encyclopaedia. We have exactly four other titles beginning "Issue of":
Issue of Edward III of England is an article using a completely different sense of "issue" and so is not relevant here.
Issue of law and
Issue of fact both redirect to
Question of law, which is about a specific distinction that is the subject of an article and not comparable to the general "problem of" sense.
Issue of Taiwan, a redirect to
Political status of Taiwan, is the closest but again there is a very specific target article about a single clear issue. There is no equivalent for money as there are multiple potential problems of and/or with money in multiple senses that are way too vague to disambiguate - even if there is an article. On the other hand "Money creation" is a specific, concrete subject for an encyclopaedia.
Thryduulf (
talk)
15:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above keep argument is reasonable, as nom I'm fine with closing this as keep as opposed to relisting or ending as no consensus. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk)
18:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
There was only one use of this, where
Capone (rapper) was intended, which
I fixed.
Capone targets Al Capone, but this is an unusual misspelling of the name, so if someone goes out of their way to spell it like this, Al Capone is more likely not their intended target.
It could be retargeted to
Capone (surname) or
Capone (disambiguation) (which should probably be merged anyway).
185.62.130.234 (
talk)
19:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk)
18:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
Appears to be a typo for a song on the album
Bigger Wow. Didn't find any other logical target for the redirect
Richhoncho (
talk)
21:09, 22 November 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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 15
Upper Caste (disambiguation)
- 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
Upper Caste, which is once again a disambiguation page.
Thryduulf (
talk)
10:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
The redirect does not point at a disambiguation page and is thus unnecessary, and thus I would suggest deletion.
Upper Caste already exists and points at the same target. signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was speedy delete. --
BDD (
talk)
15:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
While this is an approximation of a broken Japanese pronunciation of the target, the actual Japanese convention is to just write "Engrish" (see
jaWiki entry). I would suggest deletion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. The very reason ill-formed use of English by speakers of East Asian languages is known as Engrish is because those languages lack the distinction between L and R. So Ingurisshu is just the Japanese rendition of English and means "English" (be it language, people, or whatever), not "Engrish" (because there's no way to distinguish it from "English" in those languages). Although we could refine it to
English language or
English (disambiguation), that would be a very obscure synonym discouraged at
WP:R#D8/
WP:FORRED as it is a romanization of the Japanese rendition of the name of the language or people in English, even though the language is referred to by the exonym
英語 and the people as
イングランド人, seldom as
イングリッシュ (Ingurisshu)—not to mention Japanese orthography doesn't use the Latin alphabet.
Nardog (
talk)
19:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy delete per
WP:G4. I created the redirect by mistake. --
Soumyabrata (
talk •
subpages)
11:28, 4 December 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.
List of United States tornadoes in 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 retarget to
Tornadoes of 2019#Events given that at the present time, an applicable set index article does not exist.
(non-admin closure)
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
This redirect should be deleted. It was created when the target page was moved back in February, but that move was soon reverted. The redirect is no longer accurate as there are now multiple monthly lists for United States tornadoes (see
Tornadoes of 2019#Events). It is standard procedure from
WP:SEVERE to have monthly U.S. tornado lists, but not an annual list.
TornadoLGS (
talk)
18:50, 1 December 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.
Yoga as exercise or alternative medicine
- 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.
(non-admin closure)
CptViraj (
📧)
13:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
Unlikely search phrase with "or" in the middle; we already have "Yoga as exercise", "Yoga as therapy", and "Yoga as alternative medicine" so this one is redundant.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
09:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Neither of these are good reasons really. The statement makes little sense as no history is accessible on the redirect page, see for yourself. On incoming links (to a redirect!), they should all go somewhere better: thanks for noticing this – I've repointed them directly to where they should go now. On the traffic, it's steadily declining since
Yoga as exercise and
Yoga as therapy were created. That fact points to a further problem with the redirect: with the disjunction ("or") between two link targets, it's very likely to go the wrong place: indeed, yoga as exercise is a more likely target than the current one, therapy, but then anyone wanting the therapy article would hardly key in "as exercise", and anyone wanting the "as exercise" would hardly key in "alternative medicine", would they now. All the best,
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
15:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- On further investigation, I find that this matter has a complex history. First two pages were merged:
Yoga (alternative medicine) with
Yoga as exercise to form
Yoga as exercise or alternative medicine. Now this has been split again. These mergers and splits seem to be performed with little participation and the lack of stability indicates a lack of consensus. Yoga has a long and rich history and there are many variations. This means that there are many ways to approach the topic and so we see variation here too. As the participants come and go, we should maintain our history of the matter, rather than deleting it. This provides an audit trail, attribution and explanation for those who wish to trace the history of our coverage. My !vote stands.
Andrew D. (
talk)
21:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Policy is that
incoming external links are also considered, so they are perfectly good reasons. If there is a netter target, then it should be fixed by changing to that and a hatnote added to the new target, not deleted.
Andrewa (
talk)
22:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk)
18:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
This redirect is not mentioned in the target article. It was recreated almost immediately after
a deletion discussion was concluded. ―
Susmuffin
Talk
07:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, I created it after the deletion discussion in which I explained why a redirect was the right outcome.—
S Marshall
T/
C
15:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. I agree with the AfD comments by
User:Zxcvbnm and
User:Sgeureka. A character redirect to a list that does not mention that character is not helpful for readers, and they should be the primary consideration. As for discouraging editors from re-creating the article, a red deletion notice seems much more likely to discourage that than a confusing redirect. If there is consensus that the character merits a mention at the list, then we should restore, merge, and redirect, but that option was specifically considered and rejected at the AfD. --
Black Falcon (
talk)
00:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk)
17:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Delete since even though the target is different, the redirect seems to have the same
WP:REDLINK concerns as it did in the previous discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
02:51, 1 December 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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 10