February 19

Bickford Park High School

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)17:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bickford Park High School →Palmerston-Little Italy (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No high schools are mentioned at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided._signed,Rosguill^talk22:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Though not precedent setting, it's worth noting similar redirect discussions forList of schools in Yalova andList of schools in Turkey, both of which closed as "delete" for similar reasons—lack of a mention. So, it's pretty much a case ofWP:R#D10, I'd say.Doug MehusT·C22:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hindh

IDenfi

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)17:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• IDenfi →Ident protocol (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, this redirect was created by an account which has now been blocked for spam. It seems like IDenfi is an example of an Ident protocol, but without any exposition at the target I think that deletion is appropriate here._signed,Rosguill^talk21:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not notable term. Searches point mostly to multiple typos from the word identify or identity, especially with ID in caps.AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)01:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per@Rosguill andAngusWOOF:.Doug MehusT·C01:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blast the pants cannon

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)17:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Blast the pants cannon →Flatulence (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Blasting the pants cannon →Flatulence (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article, not commonly used[1][2], not commonly used, noWP:ATT issues with deletion.Hog Farm (talk)21:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due, solely, to the lack of usage. I absolutely get what this means from thecontext, though this is somewhat ambiguous in that it could also refer to crapping one's pants socould be a modestWP:XY thing. The low usage, though, and the full phrasing make this a clearWP:R#D8 fail.Doug MehusT·C21:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you to nomHog Farm for including the pageview statistics. ;-)Doug MehusT·C21:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The cannon could refer to the penis. No mention in target articles.AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)22:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I tend to think that'sless likely, but there's at least one and maybe two other possibilities, so deletion is likely best here.Doug MehusT·C22:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not mentioned in the target; alsoWP:NEOLOGISM andWP:DICDEF.Narky Blert (talk)00:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unlikely search term, not mentioned --DannyS712 (talk)02:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Airpoop

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)17:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Airpoop →Flatulence (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article, has always been a redirect to no attribution issues with deletion, 19 pageviews[3], not a common name for subject.Hog Farm (talk)21:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (wasWeak delete) due to the lack of a mention and low usage perWP:R#D8, without prejudice, of course, to recreation as asoft redirect toWiktionary if and when an alternative form dictionary entryair poop is added forfart. It's clear to me, from thecontext of the topic, that "air poop" refers to polluting the air with one's bodily gases. There is no ambiguity here.Doug MehusT·C21:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, not a common neologism. Could refer to bird droppings.AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)22:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True.Doug MehusT·C22:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Could also refer tobicycle horn.Narky Blert (talk)00:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narky Blert We're arguing the same thing, but, sorry,how exactly? Can you clarify howairpoop is synonymous withbicycle horn? ;-)Doug MehusT·C15:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Squeeze the bulb and it makes a pooping noise.Narky Blert (talk)15:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, sorry. Too early in the morning, I guess? ;-)Doug MehusT·C15:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unlikely search term, potential other meanings --DannyS712 (talk)02:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Draft:Bark at the moon (Ozzy Osbourne) (Page Redux)

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)17:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Bark at the moon (Ozzy Osbourne) (Page Redux) →Bark at the Moon (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete redirect resulting from aborted pagefork attempt by now-blocked editor. Attempt at CSD was declined.UnitedStatesian (talk)18:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since its not harming any search results being in the non-indexed "Draft:" namespace, ormove toBark at the Moon (album) without leaving a redirect to preserve the attribution and to leave the edit history at a more helpful and likely search title. (Also, for what it's worth, in response tothis edit,WP:RDRAFT wouldnot be an applicable reason to keep this redirect since the redirect isnot a{{R from move}}.)Steel1943 (talk)19:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  ...Update todon't care.Steel1943 (talk)02:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the attribution has no value in the reirect; much better to just create the redirect that has the parenthetical, which I have just done. I am proposing deletion because to the "(Page Redux)" parenthtical, which interferes with maintenance of the draftspace.UnitedStatesian (talk)19:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...I get the attribution concern you are stating. I'm, more or less, stating that the attribution probably should be kept since there are already two editors who have edited the redirect stating that the edit history needs to be retained.Steel1943 (talk)19:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the editorsaren't saying that. Other than the currently blocked user and bots, Diannaa just added the edit summary for attribution to the main namespace article; she never saidthis redirect needs to be kept. Cryptic declined speedy deletion, and may or may not have misinterpreted what Diannaa's edit summary had said.Doug MehusT·C20:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One said that there is attribution, and the other declined a CSD due to attribution. The actions speak for themselves.Steel1943 (talk)20:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I concur withUnitedStatesian; this was a duplicate content fork createdfrom andafter an existing article. Some administrators will declinespeedy deletion requests for G7 or G6; others will approve them. It's a coin flipwhich administrator you draw. Even Diannaa's edit summary notes thatall the attribution history is at the subjectMain: namespace article.Doug MehusT·C19:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteorMove without leaving a redirect toMain: namespace, as a reasonable compromise to the citedWP:RDRAFT, per above,and per our suprapolicy ofWP:COMMONSENSE.Doug MehusT·C19:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Seriously, you might as well just say "perWP:IAR".Steel1943 (talk)19:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Since this hasn't been done yet ... pingingCryptic andDiannaa due to their involvement with this redirect.Steel1943 (talk)20:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as housekeepingAngusWOOF (bark •sniff)22:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This was not a draft that was moved to mainspace; it was a mainspace article that was copied to draftspace. We don't need to keep this redirect for attribution reasons, so I think it should be okay to delete.—Diannaa (talk)23:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,Diannaa, as always for your insight. That's what I was thinking.Doug MehusT·C01:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Drought Bowl

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. Rough consensus, but there's no argument to keep or agreement about where else this could target. --BDD (talk)17:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Drought Bowl →Super Bowl LIV (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Most of the internet search results for this phrase are about sporting events other than the Super Bowl. I would thus suggest deletion._signed,Rosguill^talk19:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Could we possibly move toDrought bowl, leaving a redirect, and disambiguate this? I'm seeing a fair number of "drought bowl" results.Doug MehusT·C20:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget toList of NFL franchise post-season droughts since it lists NFL-relateddroughts, ordelete per nom and due to the fact that there is no potential for a disambiguation page at this title unless there is verifiable evidence that this is an alternative title (not an slang term used inWP:OR) for any existing encyclopedic subject on Wikipedia.Steel1943 (talk)22:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steel1943WP:OR is a guideline that applies toarticles, though, no? Disambiguation pages are navigation pages; we have slang terms mentioned on disambiguation pages all the time.Doug MehusT·C22:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...That's just untrue on multiple fronts (considering that "slang" with a good reference is notWP:OR ... and in that case, not really even "slang"), and sinceI've already had my grievance with your interpretation ofWP:OR, I'll just leave it at that.Steel1943 (talk)22:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You've convinced me. Noting your "weak retarget," Ido think deletion is best. There really isn't any targets to disambiguate.Doug MehusT·C23:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (wasDelete) per above. I disagree thatWP:OR covers disambiguation pages, but nonetheless, I agree with Steel1943 that we don't have really any targets worth disambiguating.Doug MehusT·C23:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm seeing 'drought bowl' used to refer to the historical U.S. dust bowl and at least two different sporting phenomena. The fact that President Franklin D. Roosevelt himselfexplicitly labeled the 30s crisis this way does make me wonder. The term has also been mentioned inacademic study.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)00:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Based onCoffeeWithMarkets' source, and I concur that I've heard that term used in that context, it's clear we have aprimary topic here, and it'snot the Super Bowl list. What about retargeting to eitherDust Bowl,Drought, orDust Bowl (disambiguation), where it's mentioned either directly and explicitly or in a clearly synonymous fashion? I'd tend to probably favour the latter.Doug MehusT·C00:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to107th Grey Cup per actual news article deeming it as suchhttps://ca.news.yahoo.com/drought-bowl-winnipeg-hamilton-look-184446889.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkKjspxiShk . Hatnote to dust bowl.AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)22:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oof (or perhaps that'swoof? ;-)),another possible target. I can appreciate the desire to keep this redirect, and, despite my being Canadian, I doubt a Grey Cup final would be theprimary topic. I honestly think there'stoo many variables here; we either (a) need to disambiguate, if possible and within the confines ofWP:DABMENTION; or (b) delete.Doug MehusT·C22:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate sources for that Grey Cup (BNN Bloomberg, CBC (also Yahoo Canada used this article)), and only one from a random newspaper for the Super Bowl XIV (Kenosha News) I don't really see any "Drought Bowl" references for Dust Bowl besides the president's comment mentioned above so that did not catch on as a nickname, but drought is certainly associated with Dust Bowl in general, so it's an easy strong association. Disambiguation may be okay, but it would only be if mentioned, and someone's single neologism isn't enough to keep it as a mention.AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)02:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but, arguably, this is a silly neologism to refer toone Grey Cup win in Canada. The fact that it's been used inreliable sources doesn't mean it'snot still aneologism. I think deletion is best perWP:XY. It would be fanatically patriotic of me to suggest this term was theprimary redirect for a Grey Cup football (i.e.,not soccer, Narkyet al.) championship.Doug MehusT·C15:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and above asWP:XY.Doug MehusT·C15:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rogues' cant,

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)17:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rogues' cant, →Thieves' cant (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect with a comma at the end.Soumyabrata (talk •subpages)18:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as with all other redirects ending with non-substantive punctuation.UnitedStatesian (talk)19:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Unnecessary clutter/housekeeping.Rogues' cantRogues' cant, without the superfluous comma, exists.Narky Blert (talk)20:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because of the comma.AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)22:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Narky Blert --DannyS712 (talk)02:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Narky, Danny, and as nonsense.Doug MehusT·C00:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wedian

Toxic gases

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasretarget the first two toList of highly toxic gases,no consensus on the other two. --BDD (talk)16:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Toxic gasesToxic gases →Chemical weapon (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Toxic gasToxic gas →Chemical weapon (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Poison gasPoison gas →Chemical weapon (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Poison gasesPoison gases →Chemical weapon (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While chemical warfare is an application of toxic gas, not all toxic gases are used for chemical warfare.List of highly toxic gases could be a viable alternative target, although I'm open to other suggestions as well._signed,Rosguill^talk18:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect toxic gas(es) toList of highly toxic gases. Toxic just means "don't breathe this in", and doesn't imply a use. I've worked with several common industrial chemicals which are in that list.

Retarget poison gas(es) tochemical warfare (for which the broader conceptwar gaswar gas is also a target). Poison does imply an intended use.Narky Blert (talk)20:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep poison gas and poison gases as redirect to Chemical weapon, a narrower and more specific topic than Chemical warfare (unless we choose to merge Chemical weapon and Chemical warfare). Differently from Toxic gases (which is related to a "neutral" property of those gases), poison gas name implies the aim to kill someone. --Non ci sono più le mezze stagioni (talk)23:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not satisfied with the proposed targets identified byNarky Blert. It's still ambiguous. Iconcur with the nom that change is needed, but don't knowwhat said change is.Doug MehusT·C23:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget - I'd send them all to 'List of highly toxic gases'. The term 'toxic' implies nothing in terms of intent. The vast majority of these chemicals are used for industrial purposes or other activities having nothing to do with warfare. 'Poison' implies a possible intent, however, the term doesn'tnecessarily mean anything to do with conflict and fighting between human beings. Poison meant to kill weeds is still poison. Same thing for exterminating cockroaches, gnats, mosquitoes, et cetera.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)01:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all toList of highly toxic gases with potential rcat(s){{R from ambiguous term}} and/or{{R to related topic}} perCoffeeWithMarkets. I am satisfied with their rationale thattoxicity of the gases says nothing ofintent. Best outcome here, I think.Doug MehusT·C14:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ordinary People (2018 film)

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasno consensus, though I've marked it as unprintworthy. --BDD (talk)16:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ordinary People (2018 film)Ordinary People (2018 film) →The Villagers (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Doesn't appear to be an alternative name or translation for the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided._signed,Rosguill^talk19:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only alternative English-language title I could find was"Bear".Narky Blert (talk)21:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Because this movie title has atvN Movies version. Please checkthis link.St3095^(?)08:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just did, and was redirected tothis empty page.Narky Blert (talk)20:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The translation might be improper, but then I'm seeing a smattering of websites using this title.Here's one that even has what appears to be an official film icon. However, being not at all familiar withLetterboxd, well, I'm not sure if it has the reputation of supplying false information or not.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)23:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeWithMarkets: thank you for your comment.St3095^(?)13:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per@CoffeeWithMarkets andSt3095:. Even if it'snot the correct name, we can use{{R from incorrect name}}, if it gets users/readers/patrons to thecorrect name at the article, no? As nom, what do you think,Rosguill? (Pinging you only because you're busy with other things, and may not have had a chance to revisit this thread since nominating.)Doug MehusT·C15:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it looks like Letterboxdsources all of their information to IMDb. IMDb currently lists it only as "The Villagers". If you dig into theirrelease info section, "Ordinary People" is listed as a "South Korean informal English title". I would lean toward not trusting this information._signed,Rosguill^talk23:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It looks like Letterboxd sources all of their information to IMDb". What could possibly go wrong? </sarc>

IMDb can be very useful, but I always keep a supply of salt (in a form suitable for taking in pinches) close at hand.Narky Blert (talk)00:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

°С

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)16:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• °С →Celsius (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The "С" in this redirect is from the Cyrillic alphabet making this redirect implausible.Pkbwcgs (talk)10:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not completely implausible to me that a rusophone might type such a thing, since the °C abbreviation is used in every language.Justin Kunimune (talk)13:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, themost used Cyrillic keyboard layout has Cyrillic С and Latin C on the same key, making this kind of typo very common. —⁠andrybak (talk)14:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrybak: Mixed-script redirects are considered to be implausible; seeWikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Common_outcomes#Mixed-script_redirects.Pkbwcgs (talk)14:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, last year, this redirect only got10 pageviews for the whole year which goes to show that it is not a very helpful redirect and the typo is not "very common".Pkbwcgs (talk)14:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral (wasKeep per above.) Regardless of the alphabet it comes from, it's a reasonable search term, although maybe somewhat less used. It is both harmless and potentially useful.Doug MehusT·C15:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dmehus: It is not a reasonable search term. You can't type the Cyrillic letter "С" on a QWERTY keyboard which is why it is not used very often. Compare this with°C where the "C" can be typed on the QWERTY keyboard. Redirects like this are generally deleted. I don't understand what is the need to keep this redirect.Pkbwcgs (talk)15:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough, but for clarity, wedo already have°C as a redirect, correct? If wedo, then I'm officially neutral on this, per the above.Doug MehusT·C15:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: Yes,°C exists where the "C" is from the QWERTY keyboard so the redirect that uses the "C" on the QWERTY keyboard can be kept.Pkbwcgs (talk)15:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete perWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes#Mixed-script redirects andWP:RFFL. Anyone typing in "°С" would almost certainly be better-served byru:Градус Цельсия (to which °С redirects), or the like in other languages, than byCelsius.Narky Blert (talk)20:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This really depends on whether the degree symbol ° is strongly related to Cyrillic font like pi is to Greek, but I don't see that. Perhaps with Roman numerals though.AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)23:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

А1

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion waskeep. --BDD (talk)16:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• А1А1 →A1 (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The "А" in this redirect is from the Cyrillic alphabet making this redirect implausible.Pkbwcgs (talk)10:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Note that a prior RFD for this was closed as "Withdrawn" in 2009. SeeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 29#А1 → A1.TJRC (talk)15:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is completely plausible for "A1" to be searched with a Cyrillic A. It is not a mixed script redirect.Utopes_{(talk /cont)}00:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Utopes: It is not plausible to search this with a Cyrillic "А". This is the English Wikipedia. Last year there have only been100 pageviews throughout the whole year (365 days). This make this redirect not very useful and it is not being searched up very often.Pkbwcgs (talk)08:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 100 views in a year sounds like it's a pretty easy typo for someone with a Cyrillic keyboard mapping. Such users are better served by the redirect than a no-such-article error; and the error will be especially confounding because the "А1" and "A1" look identical, so the source of the error will not be apparent to the reader.TJRC (talk)17:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @TJRC: 100 views a year is equivalent to one view approximately every four days.Pkbwcgs (talk)20:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep. Once every four days is way too frequent to be considered an "implausible typo". Sounds like it's plausible for some users, especially those with Cyrillic-capable keyboards or keyboard mapping.TJRC (talk)20:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per@TJRC andUtopes:' analysis and rationale, respectively. This passesWP:R#K5 in terms of plausibility.Doug MehusT·C21:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dmehus: IfА1 is plausible, so isА2,А3 and so on except they don't exist because they are not plausible redirects andА1 isn't plausible either.Pkbwcgs (talk)22:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Two of the TV channels listed in the dab page are in languages that use Cyrillic. –Uanfala (talk)14:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

А330

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)22:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• А330 →Airbus A330 (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The "А" in this redirect is from the Cyrillic alphabet making this redirect implausible.Pkbwcgs (talk)10:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure how I see theA in the subject redirect makes this redirect implausible. In fact, I'm not certain ofany usage outside of the Airbus A330 model aircraft, so I'd be inclined to "keep" it, possibly strong, perWP:PRIMARYREDIRECT.Doug MehusT·C15:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dmehus: The "А" is from the Cyrillic Alphabet. SeeWikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Common_outcomes#Mixed-script_redirects.A330 already exists where the "A" is not from the Cyrillic alphabet.Pkbwcgs (talk)15:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough on this one, then. I think you're probably right.Doug MehusT·C15:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dmehus: as an aside, there's certainly an A330 road in the UK.Blue Square Thing (talk)20:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Square Thing, true. No doubt there's probably a UK road named [A-Z][001-999]. Not sure they'd ever be the primary topic, though, at least not to Airbus. ;-)Doug MehusT·C21:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This redirect is not an instance of a mixed-script redirect, as the only script being used is the Cyrillic script. A mixed script redirect would beАirbus, where the "A" is in Cyrillic and the "irbus" is all in Latin. With that being said, "а330" with the cyrillic "a" gets hits on google, so I would consider this to be a viable redirect.Utopes_{(talk /cont)}00:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Utopes: The redirect only gets hits on Google at Russian websites. This is the English Wikipedia; not the Russian Wikipedia.Pkbwcgs (talk)22:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete perWP:RFFL, ]at the least.А330 (with the Cyrillic letter) has no language-specific relationship toAirbus A330.Narky Blert (talk)00:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perUtopes. I went back and forth between neutral and keep and, yes, this is a different script, but at the same time, there are multiple keyboard layouts and multiple scripts. This is harmless and, potentially, useful.Doug MehusT·C21:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dmehus: There were only27 pageviews in the last year. That is approximately one pageview every two weeks which shows how useless the redirect is.Pkbwcgs (talk)22:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – the less of this confusing, untidy mixed-script garbage the better. It's particularly convincing what Pkbwcgs says about the minimal number of page hits and their origin from Russian users, rather than English-speaking ones. --Deeday-UK (talk)10:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no affinity betweenAirbus A330 and Cyrillic; even in the corresponding articles on theSerbian,Bulgarian andRussian wikipedias, theA ofA330 is the Latin-script one. Could a user of any of those wikipedias search for this aircraft model using CyrillicA? Yes. A user of the English wikipedia? Practically not. –Uanfala (talk)14:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

2031 Cricket World Cup

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)22:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2031 Cricket World Cup2031 Cricket World Cup →Cricket World Cup (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2027 Cricket World Cup →Cricket World Cup (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 2030 ICC Men's T20 World Cup2030 ICC Men's T20 World Cup →ICC Men's T20 World Cup (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 2026 ICC Men's T20 World Cup2026 ICC Men's T20 World Cup →ICC Men's T20 World Cup (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Delete.WP:CRYSTAL-ball gazing into guesswork of if/when these next tournaments will take place. Nothing has been confirmed by the International Cricket Council.Lugnuts^{Fire Walk with Me}10:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perWP:CRYSTAL. The proposed2018 ICC Men's T20 World Cup never took place; there was a jump from2016 ICC World Twenty20 to2020 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Exactly the same could happen with future tournaments which no-one has started thinking about organising yet. The2023 Cricket World Cup looks as if it will take place, but anything after that is pure conjecture.Narky Blert (talk)20:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think this is case for theWP:CRYSTAL as the earliest one out of that lot is six years away and we don't know what the ICC will be doing in that time between now and 2026. I think it would be safe to say delete it for the time being.HawkAussie (talk)11:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Musubi-no-Kami

Two Watchers

Gilrain

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. I think there's a reasonable consensus here to delete this. I'm fairly amenable to keeping old redirects, and if it came down to it, I think I'd probably side with the keeps here, but I must admit that I read the discussion below as making a convincing argument that it is not helpful and indeed harmful to keep this redirect.

If there everis a solid, stable mention of this, I will gladly restore it. ~Amory(u •t •c)17:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Gilrain →Middle-earth#Geography (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in a Middle-earth context, the only mentions are in a few random last names appearance (I can't find any articles with the name, so a name page would not be applicable here). Deletion would be recommendable, since the content isn't extant.Hog Farm (talk)20:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because this very old (2004!) and harmless redirect is for a place mentioned in previous versions of some Wikipedia articles, such ashttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_rivers_of_Gondor&oldid=2858499WP:RFD#HARMFUL tells you to leave old redirects alone unless there is something actively wrong with them. Also, the page views suggest that there are incoming links from somewhere else.WhatamIdoing (talk)02:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:WhatamIdoing, here's the list of pages that link to here. Some userpages and wikipedia space pages, several of which are associated with this listing here.[4].Hog Farm (talk)03:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, not sure why the fact that it used to be mentioned in articles would be a reason to keep.Hog Farm (talk)03:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1. No, that's a link tocurrent versions of pageson Wikipedia thatcurrently link to this page. That's different from (to give just one example) articles that could be linked to it the next time someone hits an Undo button.
    2. BecauseWP:RFD#HARMFUL has said those are our rules (since 2004 – this is not a new idea). If you haven't read that, then I recommend it.WhatamIdoing (talk)03:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think confusing our readers by redirecting to nonexistent content is harmful. I've owned books before where there were entries in the index that didn't match the pages listed, and that was confusing and frustrating. That's essentially what's going on here.Hog Farm (talk)03:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't "nonexistent content". The redirect tells them that this is a place in Middle Earth, which is a small amount of information. Note that there has never been a rule that says redirects should be deleted if it doesn't happen to be mentioned in the current version of the target article. That's not how Wikipedia works.WhatamIdoing (talk)18:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because there is something actively wrong with this redirect. Someone searching this is going to want specific information on Gilrain, so it is a disservice to our readers to take them someplace that does not give that information. --Tavix^(talk)03:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. If you think that Gilrain should be mentioned in that article, or that a reader of Tolkein's books wouldn't be able to glork the meaning from context, then you should fix the target.WhatamIdoing (talk)03:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a good place where Gilrain would be mentioned, and I would go as far as saying that I am not sure it would be appropriate to do so anywhere at the target. I'm willing to be swayed though, so if you or someone else has a better idea on how to treat this term, I'm listening. But unless that happens, I default to delete as a confusing and misleading redirect as it stands. --Tavix^(talk)03:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)edited 15:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no opinion on this redirect (see below).History merge non-redirect revisions toList of rivers of Gondor, per below, thendelete, per theWP:ATT/WP:CWW concerns of WhatamIdoing and Wugapodes above and below (wasdelete). Although this is aplausible surname, we appear to have no bluelinked target articles to disambiguate. Wedo have to be careful withattribution history with theMiddle-earth-related redirects if merges were involved, but there's nothing to keep here for this redirect. Thus, like Tavix says, it's doing our readers/patrons/users a disservice.Doug MehusT·C02:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RKEEP 4. This is redirect is old enough to drive in the US and last year received 150 page views. Deleting this redirect will break many links. The delete rationales haven't given great reasons as to why this is harmful. Yes, the coverage at the target is not extensive, but as Whatamidoing mentions, deletion is not cleanup. Just because the coverage at the target isn't as great as we want it to be doesn't mean we should delete a 16 year old redirect with significant usage.—Wug·a·po·des​22:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no opinion on whether Gilrain is a worthy redirect. Had I written the whole Middle-earth coverage from scratch I wouldn't have mentioned this small river, but if it would make people happy I or anyone who feels like it can easily add it toGondor#Fictional geography, a more specific target thanMiddle-earth#Geography. We'd say something like "The Gilrain was a small river on the western border of Lebennin." and could citeReturn of the King, Book 5, Chapter 9, "The Last Debate". If people would like this then I add it and !vote "retarget".Chiswick Chap (talk)21:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If there's no mention of it then it has no business being a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk)13:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question If there's history to preserve, could a closing administrator not dohistory merge of this redirect's history into a suitable target article, and then we can delete this redirect?Doug MehusT·C13:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There's nothing to merge. The only coverage this thing ever had wasthis. —Xezbeth (talk)13:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So why not, while we're here, selectively history merge the non-redirect revisions of this subject redirect into the edit history ofList of rivers of Gondor then delete? This would solve the valid concerns of editors@WhatamIdoing andWugapodes: andWP:R#K4.Doug MehusT·C13:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because there aren't any. Gilrain has always been a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk)13:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you just showed me an earlier edit diff and I took you at your word that was fromGilrain. Why would Wugapodes and WhatamIdoing being arguing to keep this redirect perWP:ATT if there was nothing to keep for attribution?Doug MehusT·C14:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are misreading Wugapodes and WhatamIdoing's rationales. They are not arguing for it to be kept for attribution purposes. --Tavix^(talk)14:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough; their rationales were different between this and theTwo Watchers redirect above, so I got confused. I see the external link breaking as relatively minor, as many bots will usually fix external links and search engines refresh their indices pretty rapidly. It's a "keep" reason, for sure, but I guess tend to agree with you and Xezbeth here.Doug MehusT·C15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing to keep here, per Xezbeth, and any external links that may be broken will be quickly updated when the search engines refresh their indices.Doug MehusT·C15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: That's not howlink rot works. Historical archives of the old internet that link to Wikipedia likemeatball:NeutralPointOfView, or Wikipedia internal page histories do not update and cannot be detected. When decade-old redirects get deleted those archival links break and cannot be fixed except by recreation of the redirect. Tech is not magic, and if this were a problem that could be resolved by a bot, I would have built it. There is a reason why age is listed as a reason to keep a redirect and{{R without mention}} is not listed as a reason to delete: one of these things isharmful because it cannot be fixed. As WAID mentioned above,surmountable problems should not outweigh long term harms in deciding whether to delete a redirect.—Wug·a·po·des​00:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Age alone is not a compelling reason to keep, though its effect can be compounded if there are other legitimate reasons to keep. This one has none. --BDD (talk)21:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tommy Walker(The Who)

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)21:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tommy Walker(The Who) →Tommy (The Who album) (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete perWP:RDAB. Its properly-spaced version,Tommy Walker (The Who)Tommy Walker (The Who), exists and targets the same page.Steel1943 (talk)04:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Typo with no incoming links and 11 hits all last year.Station1 (talk)07:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perStation1 and per nom that the existing redirect, properly spaced, seems to be more used. The lack of a space isn't necessarily a problem, I think, but it's simply unused perWP:R#D8.Doug MehusT·C07:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)22:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom --DannyS712 (talk)02:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

RAF Group Captain Walker

IFreelance / Kolabtree

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)21:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• IFreelance →List of employment websites (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Kolabtree →List of employment websites (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirects to a list of websites that the titles are not a part of, and neither are mentioned anywhere on the page.Utopes_{(talk /cont)}03:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, due to the lack of a mention in the target or, indeed,anywhere on English Wikipedia.Doug MehusT·C06:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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