Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 1

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Seth Ator →
  Midland–Odessa shooting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

• Keep - The perp who committed the mass murder more than meets the threshold for notability related to the event and should be identified as the shooter in article
  Midland–Odessa shooting and included. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The event is notable, the perpetrator was not and is not. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and the sources used in the article refutes your statement since the perp is named and plastered all over the news media. I respectfully disagree. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS. Steel1943 (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  ...Hmm, interesting. I could have sworn that the subject of this redirect was not mentioned in thevtarget article when I made this comment. Either way withdrawing my comment. Steel1943 (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per two more deaths
  Connor Stephen Betts redirects to 2019 Dayton shooting. I think it also applies here and it's not about whether or not news or notable, he's the unfortunate perpetrator of a major incident reported worldwide. --CoryGlee (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. He is named in the article so of course a redirect is appropriate. WWGB (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I’m not convinced by the deletion rationals. Nothing in
  WP:NOTNEWS applies since the event the suspect is being linked to is clearly notable. Finally, the suspect is mentioned in the article and there is a consensus at the talk page to include the name so this redirect is highly relevant to subject.--67.68.29.90 (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per others. Ator is perhaps not the most notable of individuals, but he has sourced coverage in the target article. That is typically enough to warrant keeping a redirect.
  talk) 06:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per what ONEEVENT says about redirects. The Language Learner (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Policy-wise there is nothing wrong with these redirects. I am aware however that those in the mental health industry has been advising for decades that the way the media currently covers mass shootings is not advisible and that the events should not be given such intense coverage, which tends to encourage other events. Our articles are effectively news media and history at the same time so this is doubly important for us. I'm not sure what the right answer is here but a bigger discussion will eventually be needed on this. I predict that at some point even WMF will need to make an official statement regarding mass shootings and how they should be covered. This is BLP level importance in my opinion. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a likely search term, but the individual is notable only for the event, hence proper to redirect. Here come the Suns (talk) 22:05, 4 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ToonTime ...In the classroom → List of Looney Tunes video games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target. From looking up a youtube review of "ToonTime...In the classroom", it seems like the game isn't even licensed by Looney Tunes but simply uses public domain Looney Tunes clips, so it's not clear to me that the list should be amended to include this entry. If there is a consensus to not include this at the target, then the redirect should be deleted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:38, 1 September 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

(non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Combies → Tankless water heating  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target, based on internet results this is an informal plural of "Combi boiler", a Navien brand name. As this doesn't appear to be an actual nickname in use by reliable sources, and it is a surname (albeit not one of anyone that already has a Wikipedia article), I would propose deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change target: (I created the redirect) "Combi boiler" is a UK generic short form of "Combination boiler", and is not specific to the company named above (if it ever was; but in any case, cf hoover). The usual plural is "combis": like all plurals in "-is" it does occasionally occur spelled "combies" but prob too occasionally to be found (yet) in reliable sources. The notional surname is irrelevant, but because "combies" is also short for several other things also beginning "combination..." it could sensibly point to the existing disambiguation page Kombi. Ingratis (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Kombi as per Combi, of which "combies" is a plural. PC78 (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Kombi per Ingratis. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 16 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• UBX:GAL → Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm actually uncertain as to whether this is an ok redirect or not. "UBX" as a namespace prefix doesn't appear to be used anywhere else, and the correct namespace is Wikipedia, so in a sense this is technically a cross-namespace redirect from mainspace to WP-space. That having been said, unless there's an actual infrastructural reason for deletion, this could be a useful redirect. If this shortcut is found to be inappropriate, I think it could be converted to

• With your argument, the
  MOS:YOU etc. would be deleted. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  MOS: is an accepted, established pseudo-namespace; UBX: is not. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is a "pseudo-namespace prefix". See also Wikipedia:Shortcut#Pseudo-namespaces. They are not against policty. It does, however, appear to be a fringe one. And page view statistics suggests it is virtually unused. I believe keeping it adds small bit of conceptual difficulty for editors (an extra pseudo namespace to worry about) and so in that sense it does more harm to keep it than deleting it. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jason Quinn. Given the prevalence of and lack of consistency among userboxes, UBX: would be a costly pseudo-namespace to maintain. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:52, 2 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Salad's Sauce → Salad#Dressings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Sauce isn't always salad dressing, in addition to the capitalization being unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncommitted weak keep Perhaps I can see this being useful for non-native english speakers attempting some literal translation from their native tongue when they are unfamiler with the term "salad dressing" itself. Looking at page view statistics suggests traffic average about a hit a month. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unlikely search term given the odd capitalization and possessive form. I created
  Salad sauce to address the scenario suggested by User:Jason Quinn. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:57, 2 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Debian 6.0.5 Squeeze → Debian  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Debian 6.0.4 Squeeze → Debian  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Debian 6.0.3 Squeeze → Debian  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These are implausible ways of using finding information about Debian 6.0. Redirects exist for "Debian 6.0" and "Debian Squeeze". They are unused and nothing links to them. No other bug fix-level version number redirects exist in the entire set of redirects for Debian versions. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:36, 1 September 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Debian 3.2 → Debian  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no Debian 3.2 and never will be. This unused redirect was made using a CRYSTALBALL in anticipation of Debian 3.2 being Etch but Etch ended up being 4.0. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:28, 1 September 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) 19:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sport climbing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's →
  talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 
• Sport climbing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's →
  talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. The article talks about the whole sport, not each individual event. Its way too early anyways for a redirect for an event that will happen next year. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating this article for the same reason: Sport climbing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfan 1234 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 1 September 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.