Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 19

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Coral Ridge Mall (Fort Lauderdale, Florida) → Fort Lauderdale, Florida  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I would recommend deletion, as I can't imagine that this redirect would be terribly useful for anyone: the target doesn't mention the Coral Ridge Mall, and anyone searching with this term obviously already knows that the mall is in Ft. Lauderdale so that additional piece of information isn't useful. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Retarget.
  Coral Square Mall is a notable mall in a suburb of Fort Lauderdale and I'm torn as to whether this is a plausible search term for that mall or not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 20 May 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 delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Searching online, this would appear to be a brand name of a line of chemical compound products for water sanitation purposes. It also likely meets

• Delete. Bioxide is not a chemical synonym used for hydroxide. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:42, 29 May 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Printer's pi → Lorem ipsum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While Lorem ipsum receives almost 2000 pageviews every day, this redirect has received none in at least the past month. The term is also not mentioned in the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A printer's pi is a random mess of type traditionally created by, say, accidentally dropping the type on the floor after setting it. The lorem ipsum is not an accidental jumble of letters resulting from type becoming pied; rather, it is deliberately typeset nonsense.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 03:41, 20 May 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Tswift → Taylor Swift  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• MCyrus → Miley Cyrus
• B. Spears → Britney Spears
• D. Lovato → Demi Lovato
• JBieber → Justin Bieber

*

• D. Trump → Donald Trump
• H Clinton → Hillary Clinton

While the context of these redirects is clear, they're not likely to be common search terms. None of these are actually used nicknames. I'd also suggest the deletion of S. Gomez but its not a redirect so this isn't the correct venue. NØ 13:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• One of those is not like the others. Trypanosoma cruzi is routinely referred to as T. cruzi, so the period-less version should stay. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like a bit of a random selection at first glance. Why not
  C. Ronaldo? There could be hundreds of these. Are redirects from initialisms not valid? PC78 (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I would have selected those as well had I known they existed. I guess this is a discussion about a very broad topic. But in my personal opinion these initialism redirects are pointless unless it’s an initialism that is commonly used by reliable secondary sources. Some of these could also be applied to multiple people (eg. B Spears could apply to Bryan Spears etc)—NØ 19:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete those without a space. Tentatively keep

T. cruzi is commonly written, although it may be too ambiguous. Delete or convert to disambiguation page those which do not have a primary target. Also Delete those with a primary target for which there are secondary target, unless a {{redirect}} template can be kept in place. Although I would be perfectly happy if they were all deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep/disambiguate as appropriate. S. Gomez is an acceptable example of a disambiguation page and could be used as a model for those redirects that need to be changed. - Paul^T+/_C 20:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC) Also note, some of these redirects date from 2008 or earlier (e.g. B. Spears). - Paul^T+/_C 20:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC) Also note again, previous RfD debate on H Clinton from 2016. - Paul^T+/_C 20:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: unnecessary, and misleading unless cluttery "redirect" hatnotes are added to target pages to allow for people like the various
  T cruzi, a different case. PamD 08:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep
  T cruzi which is not like the others (@MaranoFan: perhaps you might consider withdrawing this from the nom?), but inclined to delete the rest and other similar redirects per Arthur Rubin & PamD. Unless any of these people are commonly known by their first initial + surname, all we're doing is creating ambiguous redirects which then leads to unnecessary and unwanted hatnotes and dab pages, none of which will be of any real benefit to anyone but which will create a lot of unwelcome clutter. Would also support redirecting to surname pages if there's a compelling reason not to delete. PC78 (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note, I added links back to this RfD at the malformed nominations above. I did it manually so it may not have been done 100% correctly. I would appreciate it if someone could check if I broke anything. - Paul^T+/_C 20:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In general initialisms are not likely to be searched or used in secondary sources. Unless they are, they should not be redirecting.-
  WP:WAWARD) 00:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment It was supposed to reference Ted Cruz, and it was probably a typo. HotdogPi 21:18, 24 May 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) 17:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Kanjanaphisek National Museum → Golden Jubilee Museum of Agriculture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Kanchanaphisek National Museum → Golden Jubilee Museum of Agriculture

R from move which resulted from mix-up in the creation of the article (which is now at the target). The Kanchanaphisek National Museum is different, distinct, and unrelated to the Golden Jubilee Museum of Agriculture. Please delete. Paul_012 (talk) 12:04, 19 May 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 Statement (computer science)#Compound statements. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• With statement → JavaScript syntax#With  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Inappropriate redirect created by disruptive editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Arthur Rubin: Please can you give some more context as to why this is inappropriate given that the target seems to be about a type of statement called "With". Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  There are many languages with "With" statements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: also used in Pascal and Python. There is very brief general coverage at Statement (computer science)#Compound statements. Certes (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Statement (computer science)#Compound statements. No programming language can claim this as primary topic IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Statement (computer science)#Compound statements per King of Hearts. (And we'll want to remove the then-recursive wikilink.) --BDD (talk) 17:54, 30 May 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 restore and send to AfD.

(non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Asenso Manileño → Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Asenso Manileño is a city-based party that went against the Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino in the most recent election. If people will be deleting whatever sub-stub is made here in favor of a foul redirect, probably a lot better to leave it as a red link. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ::Support Tho Asenso Manileño and PMP partnered in the last two elections, these parties are totally different parties of their own with the former being established by Danny Lacuna while the latter is by Joseph Estrada.
  Korean Rail Fan 02:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - mentioned in target, viable redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. Mentioned in target, yes. But the article itself is about the opponent of the redirect. You don't redirect Alabama Republican Party to Democratic Party (United States). Howard the Duck (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. You don't redirect Alabama Republican Party to Democratic Party (United States) because the ARP has its own page. Until this organization has enough notability to warrant its own page, a redirect to the section showing that it is an affiliated party is completely correct.
      • I'm sorry if you've not been understanding anything. Asenso Manileño is no longer the affiliated party of Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino. Its candidate just beaten the nominee of the latter. If it's not notable after winning the mayoralty of a capital city of a country larger than Ireland, and winning 2 seats in Parliament Congress, just red link it and don't link it to its opponent. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and AfD. Redirecting appears to be technically inaccurate, as even if affiliated they are still different parties. The notability of the subject warrants wider discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This party used to be an affiliate of the larger party. It's no longer the case in 2019. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and send to AfD per Paul_012. The redirect is it seems not correct, the bold redirection has been objected to, and there has been no discussion about the notability of the subject. All of this points to AfD being the correct venue for this. Thryduulf (talk) 02:04, 21 May 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.