Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 31

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 convert to a requested move discussion. I'm somewhat

(non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The page move discussion can be found here: Talk:Parasite (2019 film)#Requested move 2 September 2020. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @
  move request since the title of the article would become Parasite (film). Also, a move request would post the discussion's notification on Parasite (2019 film); at the present time, there's not even a notification on Talk:Parasite (2019 film) mentioning this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  We have two options to make Parasite (2019 film) the primary topic of Parasite (film): moving it there or making Parasite (film) a primary redirect. I prefer the latter, as I consider technically ambiguous parenthetical redirects more acceptable than technically ambiguous parenthetical titles. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I get that, but the latter option is not the case with Thriller (album), so we may want to keep things consistent ... Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The "Parasite (film)" section is a list of films and episodes named Parasite, so where is the proof of deleting this redirect. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  ...That's not what the nominator is proposing... Steel1943 (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it seems that it would like a move request since this redirect would be find whether that 2019 Parasite film is primary topic. I suggest to hold a move request and see what are consensus do. 182.1.25.170 (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close. This needs a
  WP:RM#CM request. Narky Blert (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep/Procedural close in favour of a move request of Parasite (2019 film) to Parasite (film). Parasite (film) should not be retargeted to Parasite (2019 film) when there are other films. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:46, 1 September 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 20:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Democracy movement →
  talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

• Delete to encourage article creation. This looks like an important but missing
  WP:BCA topic, which could go back to 1848 or earlier. Narky Blert (talk) 12:33, 1 September 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 delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Child's Play (2010 film) → Child's Play (franchise)#Future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I do not understand why this page redirects to that article. There is actually no 2010 film named "Child's Play". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In 2010 when this was created there may have been a future project, but if there was then it didn't become a 2010 film. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is a 2010 film of the name, but it's a NN short film involving two NN people. Narky Blert (talk) 06:59, 3 September 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. Consensus holds that this isn't a helpful redirect, being a very vague term. The incoming links mentioned seem to have broadly been fixed already. ~ mazca ^talk 20:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Democracy protest → Protest  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ungrammatical and vague, the target provides no further elaboration on this phrase. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I see nothing ungramatical here, but I do see a plausible search term with no good target. I was hoping there would be a list of pro-democracy protests to, but all the lists of protests I can find seem to be much too specific - e.g. List of protests against the Vietnam War, List of protests in Hong Kong and List of protests in the 21st century. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment of the grammar and next steps. As you may guess, my nomination of #Democracy movement above came up while looking into this. --BDD (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I created it to link red links to somewhere associated with it. So, it can be deleted, but please first change the links before deleting.Ahmetlii (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily what we'd want to do. See

WP:REDLINK. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Topic is too broad. Not helpful for distinguishing protests. —
  talk ~ contribs) 17:28, 4 September 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 keep. Mention added, nomination moot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Flyspeck notation → Notation for differentiation#Newton's notation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, a Scholar search didn't return any results for this exact phrase. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added a mention and a citation to the 9th edition of a textbook. Narky Blert (talk) 10:47, 1 September 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) 15:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Trent Sullivan → H2O: Just Add Water  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, they're an actor with multiple roles. Even if the article mentioned them it should still be a redlink. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:08, 2 September 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 Usurped.

Hungarian State (1849) has been moved over the redirect and a hatnote added. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Hungarian State → Government of National Unity (Hungary)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

(There were 3 links-in, all for intended for Government of National Unity (Hungary), which I've linked directly to that article.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert:,

Please take into also account Goverment of National Unity is thedirect translation of "Nemzeti Összefogás Kormánya", it's a government article, not a state article, so the current redirect is utterly wrong. "Hungarian State (1849)" original name is "Magyar Álladalom", which is equivalent with it's English counterpart (one word in archaic form) and it's a state article. Apart from that yes, generally all Hungarian state could be considered like that, but it's a famous, revolutionary one. By the way, regarding the examples you mentioned, "Hungary between the World Wars" would not comply as it is not a state article, "Second Hungarian Republic" was never referred like that, similarly the "Hungarian People's Republic" which is the symbol of Socialist/Communist era of Hungary. Next to this, proposal (3) I would abandon similar reason mentioned before.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@

Second Reich as a "state"; and Hungary is an EU member state. Narky Blert (talk

)

@Narky Blert:, yes, however the German Empire was a state, so Kipling had right, as Hungary, no connection to EU membership.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

• I think the most
  Hungarian State (1849) to Hungarian State and add a hatnote there pointing at Hungary and History of Hungary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Move
  WP:OVERLINK. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 9 September 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 keep.

(non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Noise reduction in radio broadcasting → FM broadcasting#Noise reduction  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is misleading redirecting to its current target since there's no evidence that "noise reduction in radio broadcasting" is exclusive to "FM broadcasting". The redirect as phrased could refer to any type of "radio broadcasting" and not just FM. Steel1943 (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no 'noise reduction' technique that is specific to radio broadcasting. There are a number of audio processing techniques in radio broadcasting, some of which have the effect of noise reduction among others, but they are not usually described as such. This redirect is just pointless clutter. Harumphy (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It makes me really sad if I see people participating in deletion discussions without doing the necessary homework before voicing an opinion. In contrast to what you state, there have been at least three dedicated noise reduction systems for FM radio broadcasting,

High Com FM, and FMX

. (Variants of them were also tested in AM broadcasting, but never left experimental status AFAIK.) They all work on the compressor/expander principle of the audio signal. This is not "pointless clutter", these systems are well documented in the radio broadcasting world.

What you might mean are noise filters to remove some noise from audio signals, but they work by trying to remove already existing noise from the signal, not trying to keep it from occuring in the first place. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The operative verb in my comment is "is", not "was". I'm aware of Dolby FM etc., which all failed to catch on nearly 40 years ago. If the aim of the FM Broadcasting article is to document every ancient incremental proposed tweak that never caught on then fine, keep the redirect. Harumphy (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it is. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Thanks for the clarification. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that wideband (as in broadcast) FM could itself be considered a noise reduction technique. FM is less noisy partly because of the higher frequency (where there is less noise) but also because of the way wideband (wider than the bandwidth of the audio signal) works. Noise reduction systems like Dolby weren't available (or technically feasible) at the time. Wideband FM needs the higher frequency to have enough spectrum space. (Broadcast FM uses 200kHz for each, 20 times what AM broadcasting uses.) There was for a time Dolby coded FM broadcast, but they never quite caught on. Maybe not enough for a whole article. While I believe that FM broadasting is, in itself, a noise reduction system, I don't know that it enough for a redirect. Gah4 (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, at most retarget. The redirect, which is deliberately flagged as a redirect with possibilities because we ultimately need a dedicated article about the topic, points to a section on noise reduction in the FM broadcasting article not because the topic, as a concept, would be limited to FM broadcasting, but simply because this article and section already has some contents about it, and it is established to link to such contents regardless if the title of the target article could be misunderstood per
  WP:REDIR
  .

The topic is not even off-topic to be discussed there at all, but reflects real-world usage. There have been at least three systems dedicated for FM broadcasting,

High Com FM, and FMX. I am not aware of similar AM systems for public broadcasting (except for experiments to adopt the above systems for AM use). If you are aware of a better place to point the redirect to, please name it. If you are aware of other noise reduction systems that were in use outside FM broadcasting, please name them and let's convert the redirect into an article and move all the info there, otherwise let's keep the direct as it is, because it is not misleading, helps to build infrastructure, and points readers to the best information we have on the topic at present. Deletion would be counter-productive and improve nothing. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep not particularly misleading or otherwise harmful.
  WP:DEMOLISH arguement. ~Kvng (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Matthiaspaul, whose clearly knowledgeable rationale presents a detailed explanation why this redirect is beneficial to the encyclopaedia and its readers. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 1 September 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 20:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Islamic Community of India → Islam in India  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Remnant of failed org article (by creator of several non-notables) not mentioned at target, with link (now) incorrectly used in several articles. Instead of using the link, better to remove the non-notable org redirect and it's links. (a lowercase Islamic community of India redirect can be created as and when needed.)Widefox; talk 15:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft delete per nom. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:17, 3 September 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 disambiguate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Poke the Bear → Timber Creek Lodge  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Although I recognize that this is the name of one of the episodes and that TV episode redirects are common, I think that this particular one will

• There's nothing wrong with current target if there's no better alternative. I say leave alone until there's a reason to redirect to another page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig. In addition to the current target there is a single from the Spooky Action album, a book by John Locke (author), an episode of Saving Hope (see List of Saving Hope episodes) an episode of Summer House (2017 TV series) and a Wikipedia essay Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear. It's also a partial title match for an episode of Little Women: LA ("Couples Retreat: Don't Poke the Bear") which might merit a see-also. Wiktionary has wikt:poke the bear that should be linked from the dab page too. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not opposed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from nominator: I concur with the dabify recommendation, including the Wikitionary link. -2pou (talk) 07:16, 7 September 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 retarget to

(non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rogue Two → The Empire Strikes Back  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in this Star Wars movie article. Seventyfiveyears at 16:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or super weak retarget to
  Zev Senesca (whom it's presumably referring to) redirects. This guy goes by the callsign "Rogue Two," which has been used by several Rebel pilots, but only the list of characters article mentions the term and the redirect could potentially create ambiguity. Do you copy? This is SONIC678! 02:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Best thing to do would probably be retargeting to Rogue Squadron#Zev Senesca and adding his call sign there. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 24 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 20:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nambu langauges → Nambu languages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is the result of a typo made during a page move in March; the typo was corrected within hours so there are no viable concerns about preserving links. Redirects containing this particular typo are not desirable. Because the move was done using a page swap, this redirects has the history of the redirect Nambu languages, which has existed since 2009, so maybe worth preserving at a different title (say Nambu dialects). – Uanfala (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Pings to those who have recently edited the redirect: Kwamikagami, Atlantic306, Gorobay. – Uanfala (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I requested deletion back in March and it was rejected. Didn't understand the reason (as a RD for outside links). The page history there is due to round-robin swap from some non-typo title. — kwami (talk) 12:19, 31 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 keep. Previous discussion was closed barely a month ago and nothing has changed since then.

(non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comparative morphology → Comparative anatomy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Reopening the RfD with narrower options, either dabify or keep. Comparative morphology could also mean comparative physiology, comparative embryology, etc. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I was expecting this to be a thing in linguistics, but looking at usage, I see that the phrase has variously been used with one or another meaning of "comparative". So "comparative morphology", in linguistics, can mean either the morphology of comparison (ie. short, shorter, shortest), or the comparing of morphologies – in the latter case the comparing can be either the one of comparative linguistics (i.e. historical/reconstructive) or the one of contrastive linguistics/linguistic typology. – Uanfala (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• A draft of a disambiguation page could help. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. This was just hashed to death last month and no new arguments have been presented. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - If a month and a half long discussion from June through August couldn't come up with a consensus, there's no use in rehashing that by opening another discussion less than a month after the previous one closed. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom comment – While the previous nomination was unclear, this nomination is clear like water: the current redirect is ambiguous and require a disambiguation. I will draft a dab page to illustrate the ambiguity with the current redirect. If the redirect is kept, we should consider hatnoting the current target, which can be annoying. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:23, 3 September 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 retarget to Mike Walker (columnist). --BDD (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Michael Walker (journalist) → Novara Media  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unexplained and unmentioned. Created without explanation by account now blocked for BLP violations. Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, he has been added to the page as he is one of the main contributors and host of the site's talk show. User:Starklinson 00:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep now that he is mentioned in the article. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other journalists with the same name, though. Robofish (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ambiguous with Mike Walker (columnist) and not notable. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the columnist with a hatnote to Novara Media. BD2412 T 04:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since subject is now mentioned at target article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Change my comment to Retarget to the columnist with a hatnote to Novara Media. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:32, 1 September 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.