Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 25

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 disambiguate

WP:AVALANCHE. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Implausible redirect. Untied means that something is not fastened or knotted (i.e.

• Comment: From the previous RfD, Untied.com was suggested as a possible target. There was also mention of Tied redirecting to Tide, for which I have initiated a separate RfD above. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comment in the previous RfD since my stance has not changed during the past 7 years. Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck since Untied (album) exists, which was created in 2017. I now have no opinion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. In addition to Untied.com, Untied (album) is also a plausible target, while neither appears to be the primary topic. (There's also Untied aid, though this is a partial title match that generally wouldn't warrant mentioning.) --Paul_012 (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Paul_012, and also because it's extraordinarily difficult finding things actually called "Untied" in search results because of all the {{
  R from typo}}s. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:19, 26 August 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.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Maltese Falcon (1936 film) → Satan Met a Lady  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Never an alternate title for the film. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not a misleading redirect. The title of the 1929/30 work is indeed The Maltese Falcon (novel) and the 1936 film, although it changes character names and some of the plot elements, along with adding comedic touches, is nevertheless always listed as one of the three versions of the novel, unlike 1975's The Black Bird, which is not a version of the book's plot, but a spoof of its characters and storyline. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is misleading if the film wasn't titled or otherwise known as "The Maltese Falcon", especially if a searcher really wanted The Maltese Falcon (1931 film). The film is listed at The Maltese Falcon (novel)#Adaptations for readers trying to find it that way. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am more persuaded by the rationale provided by Shhhnotsoloud. -2pou (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Roman Spinner. This is the 1936 film version of the novel and so it is a plausible search term for someone who doesn't remember it wasn't titled that. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 25 August 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.

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) 15:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirecting a mononym to a minor role in a film seems like a bad idea, given that other people could easily share the name. The article once created at this title is spam and does not merit being taken to AfD. I think that the redirect can be safely deleted here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. Ab207 (talk) 05:57, 28 August 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.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the target article and the redirect unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or weak retarget to St. Elmo's fire, an alternative name for which is "Corposant" or "Corpusant" both derived from "Corpus sanctum" (the first via Portuguese the second direct from Latin) and this is sort of mentioned in the article (but not brilliantly). Google results are dominated by a non-notable tattoo parlour. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 26 August 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.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Akhter Ahsen → Eidetic memory  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Person that was presumably mentioned at the now-deleted article

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 and section-target to Google Search#Trademark, per WhatamIdoing and Thryduulf's arguments that that's that only target that uses this term as a referent. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Famous web search engine → Google Search  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

At least to me, this is a clearly ambigous phrase. I'm getting hits for Google, but there's also a number of hits for Bing and one for Firefox coming up for me. Discussion in 2017 closed as no conensus, pinging participants and closer from that one who aren't indeffed: @WhatamIDoing, AngusWOOF, Thryduulf, Feminist, PNC02WPS, and Train2104: - I get the arguments for keeping there, but there's uses not explicitly referring to Google is an unnamed Chinese search engine is Bing, and there's several others. While I am finding quite a bit for Google, I'm not finding proof this is a "euphemism for Google" as claimed in the previous discussion, at least not enough of one to have a redirect for this. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep again.
  Lmgtfy"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Dabify for now. I will draft a dab page below the redirect. If editors oppose dabifying, then a hatnote should be placed. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soumya-8974, what do you think the hatnote should say? Maybe "As it says in the Google Search#Trademark section of this article, Famous web search engine, which redirects here, is a name used specifically for Google Search, but just because independent reliable sources gave it that name, Wikipedia isn't saying that it's the only possible web search engine that could ever be considered famous by some people"?
    As for your proposed dab page, I don't see any evidence that Wikipedia:Independent sources call Bing "a" famous web search engine. Bing.app itself, despite its over-the-top self-promotional language, does not claim to be "the" famous web search. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Too vague, and I do not see this as a plausible search term. In terms of
  WP:N there are Google, Bing, Baidu, DuckDuckGo, Yahoo, etc. I do not agree with dabifying, and I cannot think of any good title to redirect this to. Aasim 15:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per WhatamIdoing and the other sources presented in the last discussion. A hatnote is fine, but as an exact phrase it explicitly means Google and should lead there. I very strongly oppose deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf, what do you think about retargeting it directly to the section where the name appears in the article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refining to that section would be even better than a straight keep. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless there's a web search engine brand called Famous, like Famous Footwear or others listed in Famous (disambiguation), this isn't necessary. Otherwise, you can redirect it to List of search engines, which assumes any search engine there has some fame to it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is none that has used this name for themselves, but there is exactly one that has had this phrased used to refer to them specifically and repeatedly in reliable sources - Google. Calling it a euphemism isn't quite right but it's not far off. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 27 August 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.

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 Withdrawn by nominator.

(non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Majenang is not a regency, it is a district in Cilacap Regency. "Majenang Regency" does not exist. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that this article that I moved was actually about a plan to separate parts of Cilacap Regency to form a new regency that is named Majenang Regency. How do I withdraw the nomination and undo the move? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this nomination. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:15, 25 August 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.