From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 14
January 16 >

January 15

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 15, 2020.

Lotsham and Sharchop language

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 20:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This started out as an unsourced 2-sentence-long stub in 2017 [1], but was then quickly redirected. I'm not sure what to make of it, the Lhotshampa indeed speak Nepali, but the Sharchop language language is a completely different entity. – Uanfala (talk) 21:52, 15 January 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.

How to tie-dye

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 all except for the {{ R from book}} identified by Steel1943. signed, Rosguill talk 20:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete More "how to", Quora-type redirects that we have regularly deleted at other discussions. The one that is a cross namespace redirect does not meet the high bar we have for those. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 21:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:15, 15 January 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.

Ccigarette

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 20:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Implausible typo. Hog Farm ( talk) 19:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete unlikely search term and obvious typo. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 20:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as implausible typo. Narky Blert ( talk) 18:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Kkeep - plausible typo, unambiguously directs readers to the content they're looking for. Wily D 15:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per WilyD. It's a less likely typo, and I'm hesitant to keep every possible typo, but it's doing no harm. So, I think this gets a WP:RCHEAP pass. Let's re-evaluate it in a year's time. If, in a year, it gets less than 3 visits per month, then we can probably safely delete it. Doug Mehus T· C 16:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it does not appear to be a common typo since it doesn’t fit visibly or phonically. I also don’t see any reason to wait year to see if it averages less than three views a month since the redirect was created in 2010 meaning I can’t think of any valid reason as to why this would suddenly become more significantly searched in 2020 because as mentioned this didn’t meet that threshold in 2019.-- 69.157.252.96 ( talk) 04:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No different than ciigarette or cigaarette or cigareette. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep ( edit conflict); there's no point in deleting it, nothing on WP:RfD#DELETE supports a deletion here. It causes no harm and has a fair amount of benefit. J 947 ( c), at 05:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, too implausible. Also delete Cciggarete which is even more implausible. — Xezbeth ( talk) 12:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment To add my two cents, I'm not sure how adding an additional initial letter is an "implausible typo." In my view, WilyD and J947 have the strongest arguments here—it very much is a plausible typo and, as such, there's really been no valid reason, whether policy- or evidence-based, for deletion here. Doug Mehus T· C 16:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Ddelete both, as duplicate letters are generally implausible typos and can leave a lot of useless redirects lying around while impeding searches, especially when nothing is properly spelled using such patterns (e.g. nothing I know of begins with Cc). ComplexRational ( talk) 17:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
ComplexRational True...I guess this is a case where both sides make an equally compelling argument based on the same rationale. I do like how both you and WilyD intentionally added a duplicate initial character to your !votes. Doug Mehus T· C 17:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply
I sort of gather that the "delete" !votes are confusing "tpyos" with "mispellings", certainly 69.X.Y.Z is very explicitly doing that. Wily D 17:35, 22 January 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.

Jeremy, Ron

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. SNOW-fall consensus was very clear that keeping this redirect for Ron Jeremy in inverted name is helpful; however, the R from sortname rcat should be added to make its purpose crystal clear. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T· C 15:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Not a plausible search term. If one would know the first and last names spelt correctly of the target, then they wouldn't place them in this order. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 18:32, 15 January 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.

Carnen

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 Carnen Ua Cadhla. There is consensus here, thanks to the nominator, that this subject redirect is a fairly insignificant fictional river in Middle-earth context—insignificant in that it isn't discussed anywhere on Wikipedia. Editor Narky Blert concurred with nominator Hog Farm's assessment such that there was no basis for deletion and, equally so, for keeping. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T· C 16:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Proposing Retarget to Carnen Ua Cadhla. This context is a Middle-earth river, but this river is not discussed in any Middle-earth context on Wikipedia. We have an article about an ancient Irish ruler named Carnen Ua Cadhla, but I'm not familiar enough with Irish naming customs to know if this is a good retarget point. Hog Farm ( talk) 16:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Support retarget. Carnen was his given name. Ua is an old form of the prefix O', meaning 'grandson/descendant of'. Narky Blert ( talk) 17:30, 15 January 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.

Amaravati Anantapur Expressway

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 keep. Technical close. Sorry that my comment at Talk:Agra Lucknow Expressway#Requested move 11 January 2020 led to this proposal. My point was that you don't move redirects; you move articles. So don't propose moving a redirect. And, when an article is moved; all redirects to that article normally follow the move and are automatically retargeted to the new title. This venue is for proposing that redirects get retargeted to a different place, or get deleted, or converted to a disambiguation. None of those possibilites are being proposed here. wbm1058 ( talk) 22:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Per MOS:ENDASH, the parallel discussion at Talk:Agra Lucknow Expressway#Requested move 11 January 2020, and per wbm1058's instruction to list the existing redirects at RfD. At Vatsmaxed's request, I'm listing the eleven redirects at RfD. Seems quite non-controversial, given the guidelines at MOS:ENDASH, so potentially could speedy retarget here. I'd say suppress the redirect, but the existing redirect could be helpful for preventing unilateral page moves. The biggest debate, if any, may be on what Rcats to add to the redirect and target pages Doug Mehus T· C 16:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Okay, I'm kind of confused now because I'm not quite sure what Vatsmaxed wants done with these redirects, as the target pages are all using en dashes per MOS:ENDASH. I'm inclined to !vote keep to all of these, which could be a speedy keep/nomination withdrawn as the nominator of these redirects, as I think they could all be plausible misspellings. I'll wait to here back from Vatsmaxed, but as I say, until I hear back, I'd say it's a keep/speedy keep. Doug Mehus T· C 17:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Eh? Of course pages moved from a title with a dash to a title with a dash should leave a redirect behind. I don't really understand why this is here. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 20:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Dmehus Shhhnotsoloud Sorry for not being more clear over here. Actually as replied in Talk:Agra_Lucknow_Expressway, these redirects were there because they would need to be changed if reverse consensus (reverse of MOS:ENDASH) is established. But thats not the case now, so now definitely I "withdraw nomination". But before this discussion is closed, the discussion at Talk:Agra_Lucknow_Expressway should be closed "ideally". Surely, old redirect names should not be deleted as they are misspellings.... Hope its clear now. Vatsmaxed ( talk) 07:46, 16 January 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.

Listán Prieto

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 Listan Prieto. signed, Rosguill talk 20:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This redirect from Listán Prieto to Listán negro is incorrect. It should go to page Listán Prieto, but that page has been called 'Listan Prieto'.

So, the redirect needs to go, and then the page 'Listan Prieto' needs to be renamed Listán Prieto. Fpr155 ( talk) 16:20, 15 January 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.

Halo 7

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 24#Halo 7

Physical Review Letters A

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 20:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete No such journal exists. This is a confusion between Physical Review A and Physical Review Letters and there's no obvious way to know which was meant. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per Headbomb-- MaoGo ( talk) 12:48, 15 January 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.

Black Thorn of Brethil

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 20:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC) reply

We don't have information about this weapon at the target page (or anywhere else), and there's no history to save in this redirect, so I don't see this redirect being useful. Hog Farm ( talk) 02:33, 15 January 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_15&oldid=937405368"