This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 10, 2019.
Jiading City
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 football club is not the primary topic of
Jiading City despite the article of the football club was initially located at that title and have a
Afd.
Jiading Districtis a former city ,(edit:
Leshan, a prefecture-level city , is formerly known as Jiading) while the club with title sponsor name, should be "Jiading City Development", not Jiading City. Also the title sponsor actually known as Chengfa Group, use
pinyin instead of translation as their "English name"
Matthew hk (
talk)
22:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)reply
See the usage in the history book. Jiading [District] was notorious famous for Jiading massacre and other stuff in Qing dynasty. (edit 2, those book was about Jiading City of Sichuan AND Jiading City of )
Oppose - it's a suitable redirect. Hatnotes would be fine to point users in the direction of the 'District' article, if required. 12:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
GiantSnowman
Premature. Once we have content about the history of Jiading as a city, the redirects should be changed. Currently it doesn't seem necessary to change anything —Kusma (
t·
c)
12:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Edit: It seem i also mixed up which Jiading.
Leshan,
Sichuan is a prefecture-level city and is formerly known as Jiading. While the book Of Camel Kings and Other Things i cited, seem about Jiading City that administrate
Weiyuan County in Qing dynasty in Sichuan. But the book also wrote "Jiading area (present day Loshan [sic] county)", seem more articles i need to add back content.
Matthew hk (
talk)
13:32, 11 March 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.
Synergism
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 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.
Biff (computing)
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 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.
Dawn of time
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 topic is not mentioned at the target (though it is apparently the title of book by the author). There are multiple options: 1) just delete the redirects, 2) retarget to
Chronology of the universe (or a similar article) for people looking for info related to the age of the universe, 3) create a disambiguation page for the multiple possibilities (there are also likely to be other written works, songs, etc. with the title Dawn of Time).
Gnome de plume (
talk)
16:20, 19 February 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.
Mixed peel
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.
Comment "Mixed peel" is not vague - it is the exact name for a product that is sold in every British supermarket with a home baking section I've been to. It always refers to the candied peel of citrus fruits - usually oranges and lemons. A one minute bit of
WP:BEFORE would have told you that. It seems to be a type of
Succade (a term I'm not familiar with), but isn't it seems mentioned in any article currently. I'll ping the food and drink project, as this is definitely something we should have an article or section on somewhere.
Thryduulf (
talk)
11:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment What Thryduulf said. My mother always seemed to have in her larder two plastic tubs, one of Glace Cherries, the other of Mixed Peel, both manufactured (IIRC) by
Whitworths. These were used as ingredients in such things as Christmas cakes. the mixed peel was definitely citrus, mainly orange and lemon. There may have been grapefruit, but I don't recall limes. The peel was cut into chunks about 1/4" square by however thick the peel usually is on the fruit. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:29, 2 March 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.
Cybele Palace (Madrid)
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 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.
Comment. These relate to
this news story from France, but the idea that "Parent 1" always represents "Father" and "Parent 2" always represents "Mother" is not supported by the sources - indeed the intent is to be inclusive towards families with same-sex parents. This means the current targets are wrong. If we have coverage of the French proposal anywhere then it might make sense to retarget them there but I've not finished researching yet.
Thryduulf (
talk)
10:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment The most coverage we have of this seems to be at
LGBT rights in France#Education. It is mentioned at
2019 in LGBT rights#February but that's just a bullet point that could/should link to main coverage elsewhere so that's not worth considering as a target. Complicating matters though is mentions of similar proposals at
LGBT adoption in the United States#Wisconsin and
Registration of same-sex unions in Italy#Local civil union registries and other local initiatives, although both of these are passing mentions. The logical place to cover all of these might be a section at
LGBT parenting, however the issue is not exclusive to LGBT people (it's designed to eliminate differences between same-sex and opposite-sex couples) and there is no current mention of anything related. The
Parent article seems to be too high level for this sort of thing and
Parenting also feels a poor fit. Another wrinkle is that the terminology is also used in selective breeding, see for example
Goldenoodle#Breed status and the infobox at
Pione (grape). A disambig might be possible, I guess, but some sort of article explicitly about terminology for parents of different sorts ("father", "step-mother", "great-grandparent", etc) in different cultures is probably best - the only problem is we don't have any such article as far as I've been able to find.
Thryduulf (
talk)
12:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)reply
No target really fits, though there may (I'm not sure, haven't started looking) be sufficient coverage to create an article about such proposals in different places. I recall reading an evangelical Christian publication a few years ago that points to this as a
slippery slope argument against legalising same-sex marriages – this may mean that there is sustained coverage on this topic. Otherwise, I prefer deletion over the current targets.
feminist (
talk)
15:39, 9 March 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.