Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 27

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 Aleksandar Stamboliyski. Jay (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Aleksandr Stambolisky → Stefan Stambolov  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Re-Target to Aleksandar Stamboliyski as an alternative Romanization. I have no idea why this directs to Stefan Stambolov, the name isn't mentioned once in his article. BSMRD (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Retarget (is speedy retarget a thing?) there is no logic to this redirecting to
  Say Hi! (talk)) 01:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Retarget per both above. Often when you get apparently nonsensical targets like this it's because the target article used to cover the search term but has changed over time, however that's not the case here - Aleksand(a)r was not mentioned in the about Stefan when the redirect was created in July 2004, and the proposed new target article did exist at that point so could have been targetted there all along. Thryduulf (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per others. Huggums537 (talk) 00:01, 1 December 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.

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. Early closure per

(non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• South African variant → SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading, as could refer to

• I agree that the current target is not acceptable, as the phrase "South African variant" has been used more for the Beta variant than the Omicron variant. I think the best option is to convert to disambiguation. Second choice: retarget to Variants of SARS-CoV-2. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• converted to disambiguation. We should not be using this name, in any case: there is a general movement away from naming pathogens after places. -- The Anome (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig. While this name shouldn't be used, that doesn't stop the media using it and so it is a very likely search term. It is however ambiguous with no obvious primary topic. There are also South African variants of other things (HIV, haemoglobin, diabetes, aircraft) that google finds but I've not attempted to determine whether any of these also belong on the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• As a user from abroad (Germany), i agree that the conversion to a disambiguation page is a good solution. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Sounds like we have unanimous consensus here, and this is a slam-dunk. Can somebody please close this? -- The Anome (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as disambig. There is no obvious single target.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Say Hi! (talk)) 03:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment happy to have the DAB page, and can be closed as DABed IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:22, 28 November 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.

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. Unopposed deletion request. Jay (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 1883 Magazine → 1843 (magazine)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There does not appear to be any connection between 1883 Magazine, as described in Draft:1883 Magazine, and 1843 (magazine). Not a useful redirect, and should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:17, 27 November 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.

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. ✗plicit 04:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Parenthetical disambiguators use the name of the field ("linguistics") and not related adjectives ("linguistic"). This redirect is clearly a result from an error during a page move of 2017, and the article stayed at this title for only 3 minutes [1] [2]. – Uanfala (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Uanfala. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 27 November 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.

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) 05:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mordekaiser → League of Legends  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target; otherwise used only in passing mentions such as at 2019 League of Legends Rift Rivals and Symphony of Destruction. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What dark magic is [[Symphony of
• Destruction]]? Answer: it's across multiple lines? But the line doesn't actually break when un-indented? Check [[it
• out]]. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no description of this term anywhere on Wikipedia. Not even on Symphony of Destruction. A red link would be better suited for readers instead of having a redirect with no plausible target. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignore the dark magic though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:48, 8 December 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.

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 soft delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Karthus → League of Legends  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target; otherwise only appears in passing mentions at Jørn Lande, ZP Theart, Lich, and K/DA. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:55, 27 November 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.

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. Feel free to recreate if a description is added somewhere. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• C4H4F2 → Polyvinylidene fluoride  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Looking at the general formula, this appears to be lacking two fluorine atoms, and while there were passing mentions, I couldn't find any proper discussion of any compound with this formula on the web. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Could refer to any difluoro-substituted version of the compounds listed at C4H6, but I don't believe we have articles for any such compound. If anyone finds any significant mention of such a compound then retargeting could be considered. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could this refer to a difluoro-substituted compound?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:53, 27 November 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.

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 per

(non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• H2S04 → Sulfuric acid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is not a correct chemical formula, and replacing O by a zero doesn't seem like a particularly likely typo. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this is deleted,
  CH20→Monosaccharide, and similar redirects can be deleted under the same rationale. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 22:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  CH20 is especially misleading, since it looks like the "20" applies to the carbon atom (although this chemical formula would of course not be possible). ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep {{
  R from typo}} the 0 key is next to the O key on a QWERTY keyboard. It is also a common misinterpretation of O/0 in the world at large. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - No chemist would ever mistake H2S04 and H2SO4 (and I'm a chemist), but non-chemists sometimes read about chemicals in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep – there's a children's song about a chemist who died because "what he thought was H2O was H2SO4". I can imagine a layperson hearing the formula and assuming the O was actually a 0. Probably an uncommon scenario, but redirects are cheap. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per everyone above. While this is an incorrect formula, someone might confuse O and 0, and the 0 key is right above the O key on a QWERTY keyboard. Can't hurt to have a harmless error like this one. Regards, SONIC678 16:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per the above. Not something I think we need, for instance there is no hatnote to
  S04, but its utility probably outweighs any potential for confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2021 (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. ✗plicit 04:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Willamette Stone and Willamette Meridian → Willamette Stone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Keep as occasionally useful search term. XY doesn't apply as a deletion rationale because both topics are covered in the one article. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know we've in some cases deleted these sorts of XY redirects in the past even when both parts point to the same place, but yes WP:XY doesn't technically apply in such a case. This combination does appear on the Oregon Historical Society page. I would be fine with keeping as it is a plausible search term. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a plausible search term per the link above. As noted above,
  WP:XY doesn't apply. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per J947. Huggums537 (talk) 02:21, 1 December 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.