Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

February 10

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 10, 2021.

Template:RoundN

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 19:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect and I find there is no reason to create this redirect, only just match module name. Hhkohh (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2021 (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.

Military First

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 19:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not the common title. Probably refers to militarism, in a similar matter that [insert country name] first refers to nationalism. Aasim (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep every single one of the use of this exact term on Wikipedia (other than in the middle of sentences) is about North Korea, and in very nearly all of them it is used as a translation of "Songun". Google results at first glance don't include North Korea, but when you exclude first aid kits, first responders and first-person shooters it's clear that (other than more irrelevant mid-sentence results) there are only two contenders for primary topic - Songun, or militarism in the context of North Korea (i.e. Songun). After that comes a military policy card in
    WP:GAMECRUFT) and a military surplus store in Manchester (that is not notable). There is a single Council on Foreign Relations blog post about how "the military-first policy in Northern Mozambique is bound to fail", but searching on Wikipedia for "Military First" and "Mozambique" finds exactly two relevant uses: the first is the title of a reference at Reconnaissance General Bureau, a North Korean intelligence agency ("North Korean Civil-military Trends: Military-first Politics to a Point."); the second is at Foreign relations of North Korea#Principles and practice - "...while Article 59 [of the North Korean constitution] says the country's armed forces will "carry out the military-first revolutionary line.". Thryduulf (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. As a capitalized proper noun, it primarily refers to North Korea. MB 23:25, 10 February 2021 (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.

Hungerleider

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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hungerleider is German for pauper. It appears that this redirect was created as a redirect from another language to

WP:RLOTE, and this redirect should just be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello, this redirect made sense before the content of
Starveling to Hungerleider and peoples named "Straveling" and "Hungerleider" have also been deleted and is now itself a forwarding to Robin Starveling. BR, Asurnipal (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2021 (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.

Secret Headquarters

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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target.

Draft:Secret Headquarters exists and establishes that this is a planned film produced by Paramount, but it has yet to be listed at any article in mainspace, and a mention at Paramount Pictures doesn't seem due. If a mention of the upcoming film is added to an article redirecting there would be appropriate, but until then this should probably be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 17:51, 10 February 2021 (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.

Tessica Brown

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 19:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this girl isn't notable - she said she wanted to sue Gorilla Glue but doesn't even have a case. I've removed the content from teh article as it's entirely irrelevant and just another internet fad that will quickly fade, as is she. CUPIDICAE💕 17:50, 10 February 2021 (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.

Wikipedia:EY

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) 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Because I found that the abbreviation of enjoy yourself is “EY”, so I create it. But I put it here to check if there are other articles where the abbreviation is also “EY”.

talk) 16:41, 10 February 2021 (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.

Tempalte:West Santa Ana Branch

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 delete per
WP:CSD#G6 - obviously created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

G6 as this redirect has a typo in template namespace and that it was unambiguously created in error. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2021 (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.

COVID-20

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 19:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over disambiguating with a link to

Variant of Concern 202012/01 or redirect to the current target. Discussion attempted at this redirect's Talk page with no participation. The new COVID variant seems to be the only new thing that could be the reference to 20 since the last consensus here. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Disambig. Google results are showing a complete mix of uses for the COVID-19, the B1.1.7 varient, the second wave of the pandemic and a few other things that we probably don't have articles about (but I've not looked). Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig. There is nothing officially titled "COVID-20" (with the possible exception of independent zombie survival game, more on this later), so disambiguation seems to be the appropriate path forward, as it allows the disambiguation page to indicate that the term itself is a misnomer, while providing links to both COVID-19 and whatever variants identified in 2020 that make sense. In the event the independent game is considered notable enough to get an article COVID-20 (game), the disambiguation page will be even more necessary. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per Thryduulf. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - too vague to be useful as a search term for any particular sub-topic. A reader using this as a search doesn't know what they're looking for, but they won't be disappointed by landing on the central COVID-19 article. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the redirect already takes readers to where they want to be, although neither of the possible dab links actually mentions the term "COVID-20". Sending readers and searchers to a dab page isn't helpful when we can send them directly to the relevant page, complete with links to individual variants if that's what they want to know about. Asking them to make a decision about two pages on essentially the same subject before they understand it is just confusing. The redirect target describes the disease COVID-19 while the suggested alternative target describes a virus variant, not the disease, although it would certainly be better if one or other article actually mentioned this particular term. It has been used formally by respectable scientific sources, so not just an invalid term as I thought at first. More generally, I don't get this obsession with creating dab pages with only
    WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Lithopsian (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Have heard of no such thing called COVID-20, and even then I see it as much of an implausible search term as "COVID-21", "COVID-22", "COVID-23", etc. Plus, I am yet to see reliable sources use this term to refer to the variants of COVID-19. Aasim (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Awesome Aasim: I can see a reason for COVID-23 as a main part of the story of Songbird (film), but everything else... I can agree to. Jalen Folf (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Awesome Aasim: it doesn't matter whether it is used in reliable sources, what matters is whether people are looking for content using this term (which they clearly are) and what content they are looking for (google results show a mix of things, hence we should be disambiguating this). Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distambig per all the above. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:26, 19 February 2021 (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.

Wikipedia:FK

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. Neither the deletion rationale nor the keep !vote are particularly strong arguments, I see no reason to relist this. signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fk is short for fuck, and I'm put it here first to check if FK has any other meaning in Wikipedia.

talk) 16:29, 10 February 2021 (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.

No. 9

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) — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

"No .9" is too ambiguous to redirect to

talk | contribs) 15:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree, it should point to the disambiguation page. Whether or not the pepper should be included in that page is a whole other discussion. Kehkou (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retargeted page to Number nine as per consensus. Kehkou (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although all the comments choose to retarget, half of the retarget comments chose 9 (disambiguation) as the nominator proposes that target, while the other half chose to retarget to Number nine.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2021 (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.

User talk:Wmur2000

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 19:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I have carried out the requested history split for the three that were using their talk page as sandboxes and restored the talk page content. -- Tavix (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages are for communicating with a user, not reaching an article. If there is a CSD criterion that could apply, please tell me, as there are quite a few more of these redirects. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The second redirect here was created by a spammer who would go on to write some kind of threat about hacking, so it can safely be deleted.
The other 3 are from people using their talk pages as sandboxes, so the resulting pages (
WP:HISTSPLIT with the talk page content being moved back to the talk page and the article content staying where it is. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2021 (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.

Wikipedia:RFP

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 19#Wikipedia:RFP

Wikipedia:Ⅸ

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 speedily deleted by
WP:REFUND. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 11:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't know if this redirect is possible。

talk) 11:06, 10 February 2021 (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.

Voting in broward county

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 19#Voting in broward county

Electrical college

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 19#Electrical college

Ôzaru

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 20#Ôzaru

Antiespaña

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. Discussion suggests that this is likely an independently notable topic. Until such an article is drafted, there is a weak consensus that deletion is preferable to the existing redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the name of the redirect is too broad for the redirect to the Spanish Black legend to be pertinent. Veverve (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be a separate article Reading the Spanish entry, the concept of Antiespaña is a political concept which belongs to the Spanish right, and it is explicitly stated that it is different from the Black Legend (Spain) and Hispanophobia. Hispanophobia is an undeniable fact (though honest differences exist about its extent and expression) the Black Legend is debatable but a large number of neutral academic historians believe it has a basis in fact. Antiespaña is primarily an identification of Spain with a specific ideological vision of what Spain should be, and then signalling any criticism of that idea, or even diversion from it, as "Anti-Spanish". It should not therefore redirect to either Hispanophobia or Black Legend (Spain). Boynamedsue (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I just don't see a good place to point this.
    WP:REDLINK deletion is more called for. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2021 (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.

Elsie Lovelock

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) 16:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is ambiguous. The actor also voice acted in other works like Meta Runner, and I cannot find a good target that best exemplifies this actor's notable work. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to allow for uninhibited search results, as the first results the Wikipedia search engine turns up are all the various pieces of her work. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2021 (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.

Hamilton, California (disambiguation)

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. Precisely which topics belong at the disambiguation page is beyond the scope of this discussion, and can be addressed by the usual procedures. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one "Hamilton, California" at the dab page. Hamilton City, California was formerly known as Hamilton, but there is a hatnote at Hamilton, California pointing there, so this isn't needed. Hog Farm Talk 16:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It doesn't help that Hamilton City, California was not listed at Hamilton: I added it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I found these locations named Hamilton in California that might be suitable entries on a disambiguation page:
There are also 3 Hamilton High schools in California, but I probably wouldn't include them in a DAB page:
86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:54, 10 February 2021 (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.

That was some weird shit

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) 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

This is apparently a quote from George W Bush ([1]), but isn't mentioned at the article except in a citation title. I would lean toward deletion, as this is an unlikely search term that may not be intended to find the current target. signed, Rosguill talk 17:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It is partially mentioned in the target section, the last sentence of the third paragraph "Former president George W. Bush reportedly referred to the speech as "some weird shit" after the ceremony concluded" 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Partially mentioned at target as I mentioned above, almost every google search result is related to George Bush's usage of the phrase and, surprisingly, the phrase "That was some weird shit" does not appear to be used anywhere else in the encyclopaedia. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per 86.23. Doesn't seem a hugely likely search term, and if it were a shorter quote like "weird shit" or "some weird shit" I'd say it's too ambiguous, but it does seem like the full-sentence form is overwhelmingly associated with this instance. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 11:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IP. This one keeps confusing me -- I keep thinking I already !voted and seeing I haven't. Regardless, as prior mentioned, this does seem quite strongly associated even if it's not the likeliest search.
Just noticed I forgot to sign this... Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. W. may well have provided the most memorable epigraph for the entire Trump administration. older ≠ wiser 13:39, 11 February 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_10&oldid=1138583056"