Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 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 retarget to

(non-admin closure) eviolite (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• United States Surgical Corporation → Covidien#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• U.S. Surgical Corporation → Covidien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• U.S. Surgical Corp. → Covidien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target or discussed in any other article in sufficient depth to be useful to a reader. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but modify. The redirects should be to Tyco International#1990s, where United States Surgical is mentioned. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the acquiring company Tyco International#1990s per Wasted Time. Jay (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2022 (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 Docklands Light Railway extension to Thamesmead. Not much of a consensus, but this option has the momentum following the other RfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reason #10: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." This redirect is used to have something to link to, as if Wikipedia had any useful information on this planned DLR station.

But we don't. Much better to delete the redirect and unlink until linking gives a reader something useful.

• Delete.
  Beckton Riverside station are separate redirects (that I'm about to nominate on today's page), this redirect should target information about the development the proposed station would serve that either has a link to or contains information about the proposed station, however I can't find any article that currently has any such information. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Given the development proposed in the next 10/20 years in the area (see here) I think an article may emerge in the future - but for now, Beckton seems a reasonable place to link the redirect. Could always stick a line in the Beckton article, if you'd like. Turini2 (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

CapnZapp (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  CapnZapp: adding information to the target that is encyclopaedic and DUE that supports a redirect is not gaming the system, it is improving the encyclopaedia and something that happens quite often. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Of course, when and if useful info can be found. However, I was responding to Turini2's comment - I am talking about the (hypothetical) case where editors make an effort to mention the redirected term for the chief purpose of not having to delete a redirect, not for the purpose of actually bringing the reader useful information. Anyway, this discussion is well and good, but there still is nothing on the

CapnZapp (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Well we do create {{

Rail transport in the Maldives would not be deleted? In this specific case though you can see I am recommending deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I would like to limit my response to simply noting our agreement. Thank you

CapnZapp (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Retarget to
  Beckton Riverside station. If the other RfD closes with a change of target, then fix this accordingly. If Beckton Riverside is not notable in itself outside of the context of the railway station, then Reason#10 is not the way to delete this. Jay (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Retarget to

  Beckton Riverside station per the close outcome of the other RfD. Jay (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Docklands Light Railway extension to Thamesmead per Jay. Currently, the only thing we have information on that could be referred to as "Beckton Riverside" is the station, which redirects there; I suggest {{R avoided double redirect}} as once the station is built and we have an article, this redirect should be retargeted. eviolite (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2022 (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 Civil law without prejudice against creation of a separate disambiguation at this title. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Civil court → Lawsuit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Civil courts do much more than hear lawsuits. I recall that when I changed my name there were something like 30 options on the form, and only 2 or 3 involved lawsuits. An article that explains that fairly well, if too briefly, is Civil law (common law). I think it would be better to retarget there. The other concern with this redirect is that it could be ambiguous with a court operating under Civil law (legal system), but the proposed target links to the DAB Civil law, so I think that handles that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 11:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree the current target isn't great, but I'm wondering whether a dab page might be better. The top hits on google for me relate to County Court (England and Wales) for example, but this will likely be different for those googling from outside that jurisdiction. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:REDYES. Veverve (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  We already have sooo many stub articles on marginally distinct legal topics. I'd just as soon not encourage creation of another. What is there to be said about civil courts that can't be said in the article on civil law? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that both Civil law (common law) and Civil law (legal system) hatnote the DAB Civil law.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Something that hasn't been mentioned yet is that the phrase "civil court" is often used to denote the opposite of Ecclesiastical court, i.e. a court that applies secular rather than religious law. Several of the backlinks indeed are using this meaning: I noticed Priest–penitent privilege in England from the Reformation to the nineteenth century and Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich at a glance. (Heck, I've even used it that way myself: "...holding that the civil courts could not review church disciplinary proceedings".) See also some of these Google Scholar results and Black's Law Dictionary: "[Civil] is also used in contradistinction to military or ecclesiastical, to natural or foreign; thus, we speak of a civil station, as opposed to a military or an ecclesiastical station; a civil death, as opposed to a natural death ; a civil war, as opposed to a foreign war." My recommendation would probably be to retarget to the dab page Civil law (which needs to be expanded) since the phrase is ambiguous. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to be clear agreement that the status quo is unsatisfactory, but no clear consensus between retargeting, deletion, and disambiguation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to Extraordinary Writ's suggestion, although I'd still prefer my own. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A separate disambiguation page, as Thryduulf proposes, would be acceptable as well, I think. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Having thought more about this, I think a dedicated disambiguation page, linking to but separate from, Cvil law would be the best. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the disambiguation page Civil law or create a separate disambiguation page. Schleiz (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Civil law. I'm sympathetic to the call for a new disambiguation page, because the other uses don't seem to apply. You probably wouldn't call a court a civil court just because it was municipal or part of a continental legal system, though both of those would have their non-criminal courts. It would be nice if the disambiguation page could easily account for the usage of non-criminal/non-military/non-religious law, but if I had a good idea for how to do that, I'd do it.

A draft disambiguation page could help if we're still holding out hope for disambiguating this title. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2022 (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) eviolite (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Not in any language relevant to the article. Not target article. QuickQuokka ^[talk] 21:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This appears to be Macedonian or Serbian. See mk:Софија and sr:Софија. - Eureka Lott 01:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @EurekaLott: I know, but Bulgaria's language is Bulgarian, and the Macedonian/Serbian aren't relevant to the article, since they're not spoken in Sofia. QuickQuokka ^[talk] 10:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to
  WP:RLOTE purposes. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Totally agree. QuickQuokka ^[talk] 12:45, 26 February 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hornography → The Potash Twins  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: search results are for various musical ensembles, mainly a non-notable brass band in Somerville, Massachusetts. Certes (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2022 (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-sovereign monarchy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Constituent monarchies → Administrative division  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Constituent monarchy → Administrative division  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to

• Retarget both away from the current target which is unsatisfactory, to Monarch (and remove circular wikilink there). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of current constituent monarchs is much closer to what reader why expect to see when he/she enters 'Constituent monarchy'. --Thesmp (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I was concerned that Non-sovereign monarchy does not define "Constituent monarchy" (although I admit Monarchy doesn't either). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shhhnotsoloud, now I added this synonym too. Thesmp (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Non-sovereign monarchy. There isn't a need for the article to define "Constituent monarchy" as it appears to be a conjectural term rather than one in much use. CMD (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Download Songs → Billboard Japan#Singles and tracks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As-is, apparently too vague to mean one specific chart. Couldn't find other charts using exact phrase or name, but I believe it may also mean any other downloadable songs chart. George Ho (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add redirects here, hatnote to
  Download Charts. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom, too vague. Veverve (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete once upon a time this would surely have meant Napster -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Download Albums → Billboard Japan#Albums  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As-is, too vague to mean one specific chart. May also mean

• Keep as with Download Songs RFD. Same reasoning, can be disambiguated when there are multiple charts with the same name. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete once upon a time this surely would have meant
  bittorrent (or The Pirate Bay) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2022 (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 Glossary of basketball terms#tweener. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tweener (basketball) → Basketball positions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Term is not mentioned anywhere in the target article Tube·of·Light 03:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Glossary of basketball terms#T, where it is defined.—Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to
  vanchor}} on it) per above. TartarTorte 18:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]