Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 21, 2020.

Marhwini

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. Deryck C. 19:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Minor fictional concept, not mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia, and it probably shouldn't be. Hog Farm ( talk) 22:41, 21 May 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.

Image help

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 soft delete as unopposed. -- Tavix ( talk) 01:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Often will be a big surprise; any editor wanting to find Help:Pictures will probably know to prefix Wikipedia: to the search. This page will generally be quite helpful, so delete if no one finds an appropriate target. —  J947 [cont] 01:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply

  • I don't have a strong opinion on this redirect, but I think I disagree with the core assertion that anyone trying to find the help page will know the correct prefix syntax. signed, Rosguill talk 21:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:01, 21 May 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:Non-free image

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 Template:Non-free fair use. because I do not see consensus to delete. This would seem to satisfy other comments who are wary of deletion but unsatisfied with the current target. -- Tavix ( talk) 01:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:ASTONISHing to users of this template, as the name could plausibly refer to any type of non-free image. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:59, 21 May 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.

Greevillage, Pennsylvania

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 for history reasons and as a plausible typo ( non-admin closure) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete, simple misspelling that is unlikely to be replicated. Star Garnet ( talk) 21:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

  • @ Prahlad balaji: Please fully understand the criterion before using it, you have misapplied R3 several times now: This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move,[3] unless the moved page was also recently created. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:43, 21 May 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.

Christmas in Canada?

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 the question, redirect the second to Observance of Christmas by country#Canada. signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply

It's unlikely that anyone would type the question mark at the end, especially if that's not even the name of the episode. Redirect is barely ever visited. Also, only three edits to the redirect, which only proves how unhelpful it is.

If there was an actual article about Canadian Christmas, then it could have been redirected there, but there is no such article. Koridas (... Puerto Rico for statehood!) 06:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to allow for more discussion of the retarget proposal for the second redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:14, 21 May 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.

Interstate 425

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 revert & keep. There's a significant consensus that the actual move-without-redirect that led to this one was improper. There's also been some hypothetical discussion that's failed to think of a particularly compelling use case of the original redirect, but it's undoubtedly a technically reasonable search term given that this was demonstrably considered as a number for this road. The later participants increasingly seem to think that Tavix's suggestion of reverting this redirect to its original location is reasonable, as a result. However, BDD's point combines with my own view that it would be particularly bizarre to move-without-redirect this one back to Interstate 425 in Colorado to revert the move, while leaving a redlink at the undisambiguated Interstate 425 in the same way the original move-without-redirect was criticised. This unnecessarily complicated situation is, I think, most cleanly solved by recreating the original redirect and leaving this one where it is, as there's no significant page history anyway. ~ mazca talk 21:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD balaji ( M•T•A• C) This message was left at 21:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Revert per Tavix. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Revert/Keep Imzadi1979's move was fine, up until the obviously incorrect suppression of the original name. Tavix has demonstrated why the redirect itself it fine, and simply as a matter of navigation, there's no reason we shouldn't have both "Interstate 425" and "Interstate 425 in Colorado" redirecting. That could be accomplished simply by recreating the latter. Since there's no significant page history, the difference is immaterial for readers. -- BDD ( talk) 19:59, 3 June 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.

Xiao En

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 1#Xiao En

Rarest element

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. -- Tavix ( talk) 01:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Previously deleted after being listed at RfD but without drawing discussion, in addition to the argument raised there, I think we should consider deleting this redirect due to its ambiguity; it is the rarest naturally occurring element in the earth's crust, but synthetic elements are arguably more rare. FWIW, I wasn't able to find any sources that claim a definitive rarest element in the known universe. signed, Rosguill talk 19:30, 21 May 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.

Donald Pomeroy

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. -- Tavix ( talk) 01:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC) reply

First + middle name search terms are unlikely to begin with, and this redirect misspells the middle name. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete for a number of reasons. First, as Rosguill stated, it is a recently created misspelling misspelling and therefore qualifies for WP:R3 (not kidding this time around). Also, Rosguill stated that it is an unlikely search term, and that is why (a) it's only getting a meager 5 pageviews, and (b) only three pages link to it, all of which are not even articles. They are the creator's talkpage, this RfD, and the WP:RfD page. Nothing ever linked to the page before Rosguill brought it to RfD. So thank you, Rosguill, for bringing this useless and misspelt clutter to attention. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD balaji ( M•T•A• C) This message was left at 20:30, 22 May 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.

Richard Goldberg (WMD)

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. -- Tavix ( talk) 01:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Seems like an unhelpful disambiguator. The subject does appear to have some relation to WMDs, as Iran and weapons of mass destruction is listed as a See also link, but this connection is not explained in the article text. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The brackets seem to imply that Richard Goldberg is himself a WMD. Delete as it's an incorrect disambiguation regardless if Goldberg is connected to WMDs in some way. Chess (talk) (please use {{ ping|Chess}} on reply) 22:03, 21 May 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.

Bilanggo

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 28#Bilanggo

TLOB

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. -- Tavix ( talk) 01:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC) reply


I wasn't able to find any instances of RS referring to the target this way, and did end up with a lot of unrelated search results. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 21 May 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.

Warworld (Transformers)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 28#Warworld (Transformers)

Jammu and Kashmir

The result of the discussion was looking at the history (in addition to the previous RfD already noted):
So disambiguate with no prejudice against an RM to make the state (or any of the other topics) primary by moving it here, or against turning the disambiguation page into a broad-concept article. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 17:18, 28 May 2020 (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.
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Jammu and Kashmir is also a former state 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 ( talk) 17:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Disambiguate, no clear primary topic. JIP | Talk 20:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict) Disambiguate for now as drafted below the redirect, see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_30#Jammu_and_Kashmir. I like BDD's idea for a WP:BCA but I don't think it can be implented immediately. For now, a dab page seems to be the best idea. —  J947 [cont] 21:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Disambiguate so as not to endorse a specific POV on the Kashmir conflict. Jammu and Kashmir can refer to either the princely state, the Indian state, the Indian Union territory, or even the general region of "Kashmir". Redirecting to an Indian territory named "Jammu and Kashmir" endorses the Indian position that India is the legitimate successor to that princely state and that Jammu & Kashmir is a part of India, a statement I would imagine Pakistan disagrees with. Chess (talk) (please use {{ ping|Chess}} on reply) 22:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep redirect to Jammu and Kashmir (state). There is existing WikiProject India consensus that it should be retained for the foreseeable future. The state has exsited for 70 odd years, while the new union territory has not even existed for 70 months. There are vast number of references to the state in reliable sources, including several thousand on Wikipedia itself. There is no conceivable reason to throw all of them into confusion. For the people who are trying to look up current events, the hatnote at the top of the page sens them to the union territory page, and the problem is solved. Don't fix something that ain't broken. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep redirect to Jammu and Kashmir (state) per Kautilya3. I am swayed by the argument that those looking for J&K should get a Wikipedia page that describes it in its current state. However, this is usually simply a springboard to access other information about Kashmir: its history, details of the conflict, etc. There is a vast administrative challenge in reorganising all Kashmir-related information. It makes sense here to defer to the Indian WikiProject, which has taken on the challenge, and will keep on top of possible developments or legal challenges that materialise hereafter. This position also doesn't privilege one position or another on Kashmir, which is a breath of fresh air, given how easily Kashmir-related articles are politicised. Kohlrabi Pickle ( talk) 11:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment there was a discussion about this (and a suite of similar redirects) in November last year - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 30#Jammu and Kashmir. While that discussion ended in no-consensus overall, there was consensus that the current target was not inappropriate even if there wasn't agreement on whether it was the best target. @ BDD, Bluesatellite, DeluxeVegan, JJMC89, Kautilya3, Mazca, Sharouser, Steel1943, Tavix, Uanfala, and Willbb234: you had some involvement with that discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep status quo as a redirect to Jammu and Kashmir (state) per above (the redirect was retargeted to the union territory only a few days ago). Notwithstanding the recent political reorganisation, there's still a more or less clear primary topic. Of course, this will need to be re-examined at some point in the future, but it's too early now. Disambiguation for example is premature as it will require renaming and possibly restructuring at least some of the related articles. – Uanfala (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Disambiguate per draft below RfD on the page. Crazy Boy 826 —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a redirect to Jammu and Kashmir (state). That has been and is still the primary usage of the term in reliable sources. If that changes, we can retarget and/or disambiguate the title. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Disambiguate (for now?) to clean up links and make sure they're pointing the correct article. The other redirects from the previous discussion should be retargeted there. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Disambiguate for now. Those who said Jammu and Kashmir (state) is the primary topic because it exsited for 70 years just makes no sense, since Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) had existed earlier and way much longer (over a century). "Jammu and Kashmir" is pretty much ambiguous for now, so let's not unneutrally promote a certain topic and just let the readers choose which Kashmir they want to read. Bluesatellite ( talk) 21:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Disambiguate for now. -- Sharouser ( talk) 08:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Disambiguate for now. I strongly oppose redirecting the base title to a disambiguated one. If we determine there's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it should be at the base title. -- BDD ( talk) 02:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - WP:FIXDABLINKS will apply if there is a consensus to disambiguate. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 11:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I've already commented briefly above, but given that the hints by me, Kautilya and others appear to have been ignored, I feel I need to go at greater length. First off, disambiguation requires the absence of a primary topic, and this has not at all been demonstrated. We've got an established article that has been at the primary title for over a decade, and the question has already been discussed several times, including at Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (state)#Disambiguation page, Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)#Requested move 1 November 2019, and Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 68#Kashmir pages. I haven't reviewd these discussions now, but if my memory isn't deceiving me, disambiguation was floated several times, it received some support, but no consensus that I recall. Given the extent of the past discussions, I can't see how anything short of an RfC would be procedurally acceptable.
    Now taking a broader look, I think the article about the contemporary administrative unit ( Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), or whatever article succeeds it) will ultimately need to be moved to the primary title, but this will probably happen in at least ten years, possibly more. Disambiguation could well be an appropriate intermediate step, suitable for the phase when the salience of the former state has waned and the contemporary union territory has moved to the centre of the discourse. For the time being, the overwhelming majority of uses of the term "Jammu and Kashmir" are for the former state, and it's going to be years before this changes.
    And as for attempting to fix incoming links at this stage, that would be a fool's errand. The vast majority of links will be for Jammu and Kashmir (state), but that article's title is ambiguous as it could appy to any of the three articles listed in the draft disambiguation page: the former (princely) state, the former state (of India), and the current union territory (which is set to become a state in the future). Changing the links without first rethinking the article names would be pointless. All the more so because after the union territory is promoted to a state it will be perfectly plausible for the two articles to be merged again (with Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) remaining as an obscure article about a briefly existing administrative territory), and in that case many of the previously "fixed" links would need to be changed back again. – Uanfala (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Without commenting on your other points – an RfC and further look at all three titles may appropriate – I believe that there is no primary topic here. The views indicated a slim majority for the former state but those views are largely pushed up by where the Jammu and Kashmir redirect targets – when the undiscussed May retarget of the redirect happened, the union territory was pushed up, though not as much the former state had been pushed up by. Thus, I don't think that the former state holds the primary topic – at least by view of where the readers want to go. —  J947 [cont] 20:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC) reply
    Regarding "the overwhelming majority of uses of the term 'Jammu and Kashmir' are for the former state", it may well be that the links were created when that state is current, but I suspect many of them are fundamentally about the region, and would be equally useful if ultimately routed to the current political unit. I spot-checked three of these ( Irredentism, Sikhs, and Rhododendron), and all fell into this category. I assume there are a few instances along the lines of "The state of Jammu and Kashmir was established in 1954", so sure, some links will need to be fixed.
    Ultimately, this is why a broad-concept article is optimal. When we disambiguate at base titles, it's to say, "There are multiple things with this name, none of which is predominant." But I would argue that there really is one thing primary called "Jammu and Kashmir" (i.e., a region—while this is not my favorite example, compare to Ireland), and intellectually, these specific political entities with that name are subtopics. -- BDD ( talk) 21:52, 25 May 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.

Proms

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 21:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Retarget to Prom (disambiguation) per WP:PLURALPT similar to the fact that Cars redirects to Car despite the fact that the film has nearly as many views, in this case Prom more than double views (18,680) than The Proms (9,307)[ [1]]. See similar outcomes of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 26#Doors (and Wishes below) so there might even be a case to redirect to Prom but the DAB page probably makes most sense. There was a failed RM at Talk:The Proms#Requested move 17 April 2020. I have no objection in moving The Proms to something like Proms (UK) but there shouldn't be a primary topic for the plural per WP:WORLDWIDEVIEW. There are still a number of links to Proms which I can't determine even though I fixed most of them. Like Cars (film) The Proms also derives the general dance meaning. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Disambiguate per nom, but make Prom the disambig page itself, since "Prom" as a disambig page would clearly not be a primary topic. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD balaji ( M•T•A• C) This message was left at 18:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I would also note that while most people would indeed be typing just "Prom" to find the general concept surely some of the people looking for the BBC Proms would type "The Proms" or "BBC Proms". Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, good redirect, I'd never type "The Proms" when searching, nor "BBC proms". Their name is "Proms", not "The Proms", and we should have moved. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The concert series is by far the primary topic for the plural form "Proms". No-one would type the plural if they were looking for the school dance, or any other topic on the disambiguation page. But people are very likely to type "Proms" if they are looking for the concerts, as that is their commonly used name, and this holds throughout the world - although UK-based they are an internationally known series, with musicians from around the world taking part. WP:WORLDWIDEVIEW thus supports the present redirect. And the quoted viewing figures are irrelevant - they tell us which pages people looked at but not what they typed in the search box to get there. I would add that there are many links on other pages that make use of this redirect as it has been in place and stable for many years. Changing the redirect would disrupt these existing links as well as disadvantaging users looking for the concert series. -- 92.40.53.205 ( talk) 09:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply
    By the same logic the film is by far primary for "Cars" yet not only does Cars not go to the film it goes to Car. Cars (film) gets 74,315 while Car only gets 56,728![ [2]] yet its the textbook example of a WP:PLURALPT. Why on earth would we make The Proms primary when it gets less than half the views of prom(s). WORLDWIDEVIEW generally supports going to the general meaning which Prom is. Perhaps if anything that article is a WP:Broad concept article for The Proms which we could discuss there. But at minimum there is no primary topic. The links aren't a problem, they can be fixed if you know the meaning but even after doing external searches I couldn't determine if the links were intended for proms in general or the BBC Proms. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 07:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC) reply
    Firstly WP:PLURALPT says we should discuss each case on its own merits and so we cannot use "Car"/"Cars" as a template for how we deal with "Prom"/"Proms". Secondly, as I have already said in my comment above, the page views you quote are not relevant because they don't tell us what people typed to find the page. I don't think there is any doubt that the concert series is the primary topic for "Proms" (plural), and that is what people are most likely to type in the search box. They are much less likely to search for "BBC Proms", and very unlikely to type "The Proms" as that name seems to be a Wikipedia invention - it is not used on the Proms website or publications. -- 92.40.53.205 ( talk) 17:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply
    Yes PLURALPT says we should discuss each case on its own merits and in this case the points for treating proms in general seems stronger than for cars since (1) the views for BBC Proms are less than half of proms in general, (2) BBC Proms has other terms it could be search for with namely "The Proms" and "BBC Proms" even if "Proms" alone is still the most common and (3) as I noted proms in general could probably be used as a broad-concept article for the BBC Proms since its about a type of proms while the film could probably only be mentioned in an "in popular culture" section while it would probably be possible to mention the BBC Proms at in the lead of the Prom article. So indeed based on my last point the views for BBC actually adds rather that detracts for the general meaning which indeed means you could actually argue that the plural should point to the general meaning instead. Going back to PLURALPT prom(s) seems to be a count noun similar to chair(s) and car(s) in that its commonly used in both the singular (1 car) and the plural (many cars), isn't this the case with prom(s), I don't know since I've never heard of either the general term or the BBC Proms but the article seems to indicate it is a count noun. There are also many cases where although the singular has a primary topic the plural goes to a DAB (like Walls) which is what I'm suggesting here but there are only a few cases where it goes to a different topic (like Windows). In many cases where a "plural" goes to a DAB (like Papers) or another article (like Blues) is actually because the article located at the "singular" is a mass noun meaning it doesn't really have a plural form. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 08:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC) reply
    I can see there might be an argument to create a broad-concept article about Proms concerts in general, covering topics such as the Hallé Proms (Manchester), the BSO Proms (Bournemouth) and the RSNO Proms (Glasgow and other Scottish cities), but this would not displace the BBC Proms as the primary topic for the term "Proms". Note that at the moment these other Proms seasons are not even mentioned on the pages about their host orchestras. -- 92.40.53.205 ( talk) 09:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC) reply
    The article currently titled Prom can probably do that without the need to create a new article. See Kansas City as a similar example where links to both cities appear in Kansas City metropolitan area (which Kansas City redirects to) which the same could be done for Prom(s) in which case nothing more than Something like "One of the most notable proms is the BBC Proms. Which would cover cases where people were seeking the BBC Proms specifically rather than proms in general. Indeed other proms like in Bournemouth and Scotland could also be mentioned in the UK part of the Prom article along with more about the BBC Proms. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 08:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Please keep this excellent and useful redirect, per Gerda Arendt and 92.40.53.205 above.-- Smerus ( talk) 10:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As per others, a search for plural "Proms" is most likely to be for the globally known concerts, and as regards the OPs other suggestions "The Proms" is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC) reply
    Well the global general article seems a clear primary topic if anything. Crouch, Swale ( talk)
  • Keep as a primary topic redirect. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 16:51, 23 May 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.

Adam Thorn (wildlife biologist)

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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply

This page was redirected several days ago. Before the page was redirected, the only contents were "Adam Thorn is a wildlife biologist who is notable for appearing in the History channel television series Kings of Pain." Considering that Kings of Pain is the article that this redirects to, I think this redirect might as well be deleted due to the fact that the the information provided by the redirect doesn't provide any information that isn't already provided by the Kings of Pain article. XXX8906 ( talk) 11:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Comment The intent retaining the redirect is that if someone types Adam Thorn into the search box, this will point them to the information being sought. Without the redirect, you'd already have to know Kings of Pain relates the the Adam Thorn you might be looking for. I did notice that you are the original creator of the page when an article, so I'm overall neutral. - 2pou ( talk) 17:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know. XXX8906 ( talk) 11:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - the suggestion in the search bar makes this redirect helpful; even if the Kings of Pain article gives minimal information about him, it's still more than nothing. ~ mazca talk 12:16, 25 May 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.

Saint Lucia at the 2020 Summer Olympics

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 to make way for an article being drafted at User:Jonel/sandbox signed, Rosguill talk 21:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned on target page (or Saint Lucia at the Summer Olympics). I'm not sure if there is sufficient content to start the article (a quick google search suggests several hopefuls but no-body qualified) but this page definently should not retarget to 2020 Summer Olympics where Saint Lucia isn't even mentioned
SSSB ( talk) 11:09, 21 May 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.

Wikipedia policy

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 Wikipedia#Policies and laws. signed, Rosguill talk 21:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Retarget to encyclopedic content at Wikipedia#Policies and laws. —  J947 [cont] 02:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:49, 21 May 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.

Trigintaduonion

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 Sedenion. where it is mentioned usefully. ~ mazca talk 14:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC) reply

No mention at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 09:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:39, 21 May 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.

Royal Australian Iinstitute of Architects Gold Medal

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 21:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply

As per an earliier diiscussiion wiith an "Iirish" rediirect, Ii'm not sure how plausiible thiis typo of "institute" iis (thiis rediirect now haviing much fewer pageviiews compared to iits correctly spelled counterpart Royal Australian Institute of Architects Gold Medal, whiich iis worth keepiing because iit's the offiiciial name of the iinstiitute siince the pagemove iin 2006 to the correct spelliing). Regards, SONIIC 678 03:45, 21 May 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.

Working Pearl

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 28#Working Pearl

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_21&oldid=1140357221"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE