Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 11

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 Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Cultural Marxist → Frankfurt School#Conspiracy theory  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Propose redirect to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory per this discussion. The page itself is protected so I can't tag it or redirect manually. BlackholeWA (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: RFD tag added to page on September 13. - Eureka Lott 15:16, 13 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 keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• European+Union → European Union  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Who would use a + instead of a space? TheAwesomeHwyh 20:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a very common rendering in URIs and search queries to avoid the %20 for a space (it's exactly equivalent to the way MediaWiki uses an underscore). This means it is very plausible for someone to copy and paste this string into the search or address bar assuming that our URIs work that way. We shouldn't premeptively create them but if someone does create them there is no benefit to deleting them absent specific problems with an individual redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Very+strong+keep+per+above.+I+encourage+people+to+create+maintenance+redirects+like+this. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, since anyone can copy and paste this string into the search bar. While not implausible, I strongly oppose the need to encourage anyone to create these types of redirects, and we shouldn't preemptively create them as per Thryduulf above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly an implausible redirect. 2-word titles that use "+" instead of "_" would make it look like a compound word. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf – this is a helpful and harmless redirect. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If a reader copies this search phrase from a url bar and gets taken to the desired article they will likely assume this to be a feature of searching rather than a trick enabled by one idiosyncratic redirect. The danger is that if they try that with something else (say, blue+cheese) and not land at the desired article they may assume that such an article does not exist. Seventyfiveyears also makes a good point about. – Uanfala (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, that's only a problem when searching in the URL bar – if the internal search function or a general search engine is used for a search of blue+cheese, blue cheese comes up as the first result and no harm is caused. I think that the PANDORA problem is a comparatively minor problem (most readers, I think, would not assume that + redirects always are there from just one example – and they would very likely just use a space rather than a plus in subsequent searches as it is more usual and easier to type; URL copying is hardly a common thing), and that the amount of readers helped outweighs that small possibility of confusion. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true: when using the search bar the desired page comes on top of the list. But you know, if this is easy for blue+cheese, it is equally easy for European+Union, isn't it? You're also right that the vast majority of readers won't search using the URL, but if we're going to keep a redirect whose sole purpose is to help readers who copy from the URL bar, then maybe we should allow the possibility that some of those very same readers may also paste into that URL bar, no? – Uanfala (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose (the langauge argument...). But I think that it is as likely for a reader to type en.wikipedia.org/wiki/xxx+xxx and assume there is no article about xxx xxx (because that's a standard format) before and after encountering a previous redirect using a +. Simply deleting all redirects with + separators in them helps no one, whereas keeping this one has helped ~1000 at a slight risk of confusing them later. I don't have the time to elaborate, but there are some unusual alternative options (editnotice, autoredirects, bot creates 25 million-odd redirects) that are better than the keep or delete scenarios IMO – but I believe that keeping this redirect is a better result than deleting it. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:16, 18 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) 19:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Midnight Raymond Chandler → Raymond Chandler  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article or in Raymond Chandler bibliography, leaving readers searching for these terms left with finding no such information. Steel1943 (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the title of a 1971 compilation of two novels and four short stories by Chandler,
  ISBN 0395131529. - Eureka Lott 20:27, 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Messiah ben David (Christianity) → Jesus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused redirect that started more or less as a

• Delete I cannot find sources which use this as an alternative name for Jesus. (t · c) buidhe 22:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unplausible search term. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:18, 12 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 16:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speech and Speech Disorders → Speech  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Delete. This (badly capitalised) redirect may cause confusion if targeted at one article or the other. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:38, 12 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 16:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Drusus Claudius Nero II → Nero Claudius Drusus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There was no "Drusus Claudius Nero I", so this redirect is misleading.

• Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 06:00, 12 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 16:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Drusus Claudius Nero (grandfather of Tiberius) → Tiberius Claudius Nero (grandfather of Tiberius Caesar)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This name is a mistake.

• Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 06:01, 12 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 16:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Drusus Claudius Nero I → Tiberius Claudius Nero (grandfather of Tiberius Caesar)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This name is a mistake, this man was not named this.

• Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 06:01, 12 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 speedy deleted G14. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Speedy delete per
  WP:G14. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:21, 11 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 speedy deleted G14. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Support deletion of all aforementioned "Drusus Claudius Nero" pages. They were apparently named in error and there was never more than one person referred to as such, so the disambiguation is unnecessary.
  talk) 15:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete. This seems to fall under
  WP:G14. --Dps04 (talk) 04:41, 12 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2020 ICC World Twenty → 2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Highly doubt someone would make this mistake. HawkAussie (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the tournament was originally scheduled to take place in 2020, so if it is plausible to refer to the tournament as the "ICC World Twenty" (I don't know) then the redirect should be kept as someone not knowing it was postponed or following links from before it was rescheduled would plausibly look under this title. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because let's be honest, nobody really calls it the ICC Men's T20 World Cup outside of journalism and the like; I've grown up calling it the "World T20", and so "World Twenty20" is a perfectly normal title for a redirect. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 03:04, 17 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 16:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ꞯ → Small caps  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Might also refer to Voiceless upper-pharyngeal plosive, or to Japanese phonology#Gemination (which currently simply uses a capital Q), the original target of the redirect, which has been changed by Nardog. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig. Almost all single unicode characters outside the private use area should be blue links. If there are multiple things that this could refer to and none are primary then the correct course of action is to disambiguate. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: This should not be disambiguated but converted into an article like other letters of the Latin alphabet. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can write an article about this character then go ahead, but unless and until that happens disambiguation is best. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What should this character look like? It does not render on my system. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Likewise (Safari, macOS 10.15.6). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Shhhnotsoloud and LaundryPizza03: the character is U+A7AF "LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL Q", which should give some indication of the expected display but there is also a picture at [1]. I'm not sure why that is relevant though? Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 12 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 retargeted. Per Talk:Frankfurt School#Split?. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Cultural Marxism → Frankfurt School#Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is fully protected after a 2014 deletion discussion, but per consensus at Talk:Frankfurt School, a separate article has been created for the conspiracy theory, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. This should redirect there. (t · c) buidhe 10:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. The suggested target has more information about the conspiracy theory than the current target, which mentions the conspiracy theory exactly once, in the "See also" section.
  talk) 12:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I've never closed an RfD so I'll leave that to someone else, but this is  Done. Sam Walton (talk) 15:37, 11 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 keep. no valid reason for deletion presented

(non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Idaho (Cosmo's Midnight song) → Cosmo's Midnight  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Only contains 2 members, both redirects back to the artist page. Richhoncho (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is an {{R from song}} that is mentioned at the target. It is unclear how the the nomination statement invalidates the helpfulness of this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Steel1943. Unclear nomination rationale. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:24, 11 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 16:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Feminism in Indonesia → Gerwani  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A single organization, Gerwani, can not represent the entirety of feminism in Indonesia. Please delete as a redlink will encourage page creation. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This link from Feminism in Indonesia to Gerwani was originally a piped link, added in 2017 (not by me), in {{Feminism sidebar}}. In 2018 I created this redirect to replace the piped link. I can't see any benefit in creating a redlink. Many redirects have been expanded into full articles - that's part of their purpose. Better to leave it in place and tag it with {{R with possibilities}}. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a retarget to Women in Indonesia would be better, as the current target is not representative enough. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems like a better target. That change, along with the proposed tagging, sounds like a good approach to me. It takes the reader to somewhere relevant, whilst encouraging creation of a more specific article. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like a clear case for
  WP:REDLINK to me. Clear article potential here, and no real appropriate target currently exists. Delete to encourage article creation. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete to encourage article creation. The potential for an article is quite strong here.
  talk) 12:22, 11 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 deleted by

(non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Wikipedia:Simpkins → User:Carleboo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The page creator moved a userspace draft to the Wikipedia: namespace which is clearly the wrong namespace, so I moved it back. In other words, this is a cross namespace redirect.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 05:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as
  WP:G6 uncontroversial housekeeping, to clean up from a clearly erroneous move. Perhaps the user intended to move it to Draft:Simpkins. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The target of this redirect has since been deleted, so I flagged it for G8. Naleksuh (talk) 03:49, 12 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 Pearl Harbor National Memorial. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pearl Harbor Memorial → USS Arizona Memorial  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This should probably be retargeted to Pearl Harbor National Memorial (of which the Arizona Memorial is a part). Mdewman6 (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget Redirect The redirect doesn't make sense if you're redirecting one topic to a different topic. As this redirect is very confusing as the Memorial of the Pearl Harbor National Bombings had the Arizona Memorial thing, I would honestly redirect it to the Memorial cause It violates some rules in Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons_for_deleting or probably this is just messing up my brain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaleGuy22 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support proposed retarget. Considering that there are several memorials at Pearl Harbor, it seems odd to redirect it to Arizona, which is just the most famous one. The other option is to make it a disambiguation page to include the three articles about "Pearl Harbor Memorial" bridges. Ibadibam (talk) 20:17, 11 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.