This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 7, 2020.
Vigennial
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, Rosguilltalk 08:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)reply
No source that this word exists, gives almost no search results in standard search engines. Probably meant to be vicennial.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 23:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Looks like an unlikely typo.
Narky Blert (
talk) 19:11, 8 March 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.
Congo (Democratic Rep)
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.
Unlikely and unhelpful disambiguator, especially considering that
Democratic Rep doesn't exist.
Steel1943 (
talk) 02:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete The form of brackets in title are generally discouraged. 'Democratic Rep' instead of 'Democratic Republic' makes retaining as a redirect unhelpful.
Sleath56 (
talk) 03:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as unlikely abbreviation of "Republic" to "Rep" as the ambig qualifier. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 21:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as a disambiguation that is used in multiple sources (especially the
African Union, which has a high profile internationally), and is thus likely to be used in searches. Any hypothetical confusion with a "Democratic Representative" is implausible at the moment; I doubt there has ever been one solely referred to as "Congo".
Congo (disambiguation)#People with the name lists none.
Glades12 (
talk) 05:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per 65.94.171.6 and Glades12: attested in sources, little potential for confusion. –
Uanfala (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per IP. J947(
c), at 18:25, 8 March 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 soft delete.
Deryck C. 16:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The edit summary for the creation of this redirect says similar brands offering same stuff. "Diversitycomm" is not mentioned at the target; if it's not actually the same organization, then I don't think it's helpful to have this redirect and would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguilltalk 20:59, 7 March 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.
China men's national under-21 volleyball team
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. That's going to take a minute. --
BDD (
talk) 20:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)reply
No mention in the target article
Pelmeen10 (
talk) 20:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: Similiar nominations merged. @
Pelmeen10: If you feel a need for this to be undone, feel free to contact me.
Steel1943 (
talk) 23:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all. None of these are mentioned in any of their target articles (maybe one of them is, but there are so many, I did not check them all). Also, the user who created these redirects was indefinitely blocked for persistent
addition of unsourced content.
OcelotCreeper (
talk) 15:24, 13 March 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.
Standard Galactic Grid
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) 20:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete;
it's being viewed by Star Wars fans but we don't seem to have a target for it. I can find just
twomentions of this. J947(
c), at 21:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 16:18, 7 March 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, Rosguilltalk 08:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. VIII is not an abbreviation.
Narky Blert (
talk) 15:46, 7 March 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.
Triennial
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 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.
Radium anniversary
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, Rosguilltalk 08:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Enwiki has nothing about the subject (which according to Google might have been either a 70th or 75th wedding annversary).
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 21:03, 10 March 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.
Queen's University Current Events
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, Rosguilltalk 08:46, 15 March 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, Rosguilltalk 08:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)reply
This redirect should be deleted. There is no content relating to it on
X.500, and in fact
X.500 references it, and redirects back to itself.
Tystnaden (
talk) 01:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The account that created the redirect is blocked. --
Tystnaden (
talk) 02:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)reply
WP:G5 doesn't apply since the account was never proven to be a sock; the block was for an issue with the account's username.
Steel1943 (
talk) 16:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)reply
My reasoning is that if someone wants to create an article about X.520, that is fine. But until somebody does that, we should just remove the redirect, since it serves no purpose by itself. Let it be a red link on the one article that actually links to it. --
Tystnaden (
talk) 19:51, 7 March 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.
Porn++
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, Rosguilltalk 08:45, 15 March 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.
TMNT Nickelodeon
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.
Implausible redirects created by undiscussed page move. Being that subsequent Ninja Turtles series have aired on Nickelodeon (as they own the franchise now) these shouldn't point to any one series. The the chances of anyone else looking up these exact titles are nil (the mover/creator is clearly limited in English proficiency and competency). Unneeded.
oknazevad (
talk) 18:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)reply
PS, added the redirect also created by the first move (mover moved the article twice within minutes of the first move).
oknazevad (
talk) 18:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't think anyone would argue Nickelodeon should be in the title of the article. Redirects are meant to aid in searching, though, so we have a lot more leeway. --
BDD (
talk) 15:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Sure, but the fact remains that there already have been multiple TMNT series aired on Nickelodeon, so it's a poor redirect to even have in the first place.
oknazevad (
talk) 02:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Yeah, I'm ok with these. Now, the last time I could claim to be a TMNT fan was during the time of the original TV series, but if someone referred to "the Nickelodeon TMNT" or something, this is what I'd assume they meant. If I'm reading the articles right, there's only one other series on Nickelodeon, and it's linked in the lede, so I'm comfortable calling this one primary topic. The redirects seem genuinely useful for someone who may not remember that the title simply is "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles". (N.b.,
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Nickelodeon also redirects here, and can be deleted if these are.) --
BDD (
talk) 15:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 22:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as it helps distinguish between that and the 4Kids or syndicated TV series.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 22:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 00:10, 7 March 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.
Smirch
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, with no prejudice against creation of a disambiguation page. --
BDD (
talk) 20:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at target article, delete unless justification can be provided. Created by
User:Neelix, who's redirect-creating prowess led to a temporary CSD specifically for his.
Hog Farm (
talk) 17:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)reply
QuestionHog Farm, did you want to finish that thought? It's unclear what you mean by who's redirect-creating prowess led to a temporary CSD specifically for his?
Doug MehusT·C 17:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)reply
redirects created by him. See
WP:X1.
Hog Farm (
talk) 17:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I get that, but, specifically, the part after led to a temporary CSD specifically for his. Feel free to use <ins></ins> to add to your sentence.
Doug MehusT·C 17:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)reply
ROFLMAONow I see what you mean, a temporary
CSD category X1 was created and later repealed. Yeah, this probably wouldn't have qualified for that, so best to let RfD play out. But, geez.
Doug MehusT·C 17:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)reply
CommentBesmirch redirects to Defamation. Would this be similar?
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 21:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Question Though we can use {{R from synonym}}, since we don't have an exact target for this word,
smirch, would both of you @
AngusWOOF and
Narky Blert: alternatively support a soft redirect to
smirch that Narky identified?
Doug MehusT·C 14:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Soft retarget to Wiktionary or delete. Random morphemes should not redirect to legal concepts which are vaguely associated with words in which those morphemes are found. Don't use the Wikipedia redirect system to create a confusing, half-assed version of Wiktionary. Just point to Wiktionary directly.
59.149.124.29 (
talk) 03:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, without prejudice, to recreation as a Wiktionary soft redirect in the future.
Doug MehusT·C 03:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I've added the
Wiktionarysoft redirect below the current target, should that be the outcome. If it closes as "delete," or something else, no worries as that can simply be voided.
Doug MehusT·C 03:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete to reveal the search results: there are various fictional entities named "Smirch" that are mentioned in this or that article (conceivably someone might be looking for them), and the wiktionary entry appears prominently at the top of the "Results from sister projects" category in those search results. –
Uanfala (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
BDD (
talk) 20:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Those are the ones I found so far.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 00:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per Uanfala. signed, Rosguilltalk 23:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 00:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Given the situation, it honestly seems like it's best to simply let people search. I understand that there's likely no set consensus here, though. Still, the above users make some good points.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 05:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)reply
If there are that many possible targets (see among others AngusWOOF's list shortly before the latest relisting) then why couldn't we replace the redirect by a disambiguation page? —
Tonymec (
talk) 20:29, 8 March 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.
Fish Belly
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, with no prejudice against creation of a disambiguation page (which should probably be at
Fish belly). --
BDD (
talk) 20:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)reply
This particular slur is not mentioned at the target article. Delete unless it is determined to be worthy of a mention.
Hog Farm (
talk) 19:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Rename and retarget, leaving a trailing redirect to
Fish#Digestion where the subject is discussed broadly. I think that's best
Hog Farm. Add any rcats that are applicable.
Doug MehusT·C 19:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Dmehus: Yeah, that's probably the best option. Retargeting to where the literal belly of a fish is discussed makes the most sense.
Hog Farm (
talk) 20:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not mentioned at target and a redirect to
List of ethnic slurs is unhelpful. I object to the proposed retarget at this capitalisation;
Fish belly would be acceptable but pointless if it redirects to
Fish. Note that
Fishbelly rail exists.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 11:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Both
Fish belly and
Fish Belly would redirect to
Fish#Digestion. The latter is retained because of its existence as a plausible search term/access point. No need to delete. One would not redirect to a redirect; that'd be a double-redirect and fixed swiftly by a bot.
Doug MehusT·C 14:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
@
AngusWOOF: I'm not completely opposed to disambiguation here, but wouldn't the literal belly of the
fish be a clear
primary topic here? Can you suss out your thinking a bit more, for
Hog Farm and I?
Doug MehusT·C 16:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Sure, if one of those fish articles support a clear definition of a belly of a fish, then it can be primary topic and the rest can be in a disambiguation.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 22:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I dosupport AngusWOOF's disambiguation proposal,
BDD, if this will save a relist. I'd prefer to rename it
Fish belly post-close, but we can do that, well, after closing
Doug MehusT·C 20:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Tavix(
talk) 00:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate per AngusWOOF -- in all cases the belly of a fish should be indicated somehow. --
70.51.46.77 (
talk) 20:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Someone care to draft the potential disambiguation page? Such a draft may help here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 00:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. You need your redirect to be mentioned on an article that is a list of ethnic slurs.
OcelotCreeper (
talk) 14:13, 15 March 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.
Slavs in Germany
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
Demographics of Germany because I have not found consensus to delete. --
Tavix(
talk) 15:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't think that this is an appropriate redirect, as while the redirect title could conceivably cover all Slavic speakers that have ever lived in Germany (see
Slavs), the target article is exclusively about historical Slavic tribes living in or near the Holy Roman Empire (even calling the region Germany is ahistorical). I would suggest deletion, but am open to proposals to disambiguate or target this redirect elsewhere. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom as vague. Germany wasn't a thing until 1871. Since long before that time,
Slavs have,
Pan-Slavism aside, been citizens of various countries, not an amorphous group of tribes.
Narky Blert (
talk) 20:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and
Narky Blert above, and to encourage article creation per
WP:RFDd10. Though, even then, it's probably not an appropriate title. Moreover, this is actually better as a redirect to a future dab page about Slavic people in and from Germany. --
Doug MehusT·C 21:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. There's a fair bit of history in that idea, and I would stay out of it.
Breslau was a German-speaking city for a thousand years, but that name is now a redirect.
Narky Blert (
talk) 21:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Noting your modest amendment to your !vote, thanks for the clarification, Narky. It does make sense.
Doug MehusT·C 01:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete for now, with no prejudice against creation of a dab page, which might have to be rather complicated (given that "Germany" has meant various things over the centuries). From the redirect name, I was expecting the target
Sorbs, by the way. —Kusma (
t·
c) 20:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to allow time to discuss the last minute retarget suggestion if desired
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Tavix(
talk) 23:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per Rosguill to settle the relisting. Utopes(talk / cont) 01:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I agree. This is, as stated above, immensely vague. I've no prejudice against creating a future article, but I'm not sure what it'd look like either. In the meantime, deletion is the right call.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 08:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget per
BDD: The section is extensive, but has plenty of information about
Slavs in Germany, including the aforementioned
Sorbs, so it's a great target. A section need not be exclusively about Slavs in Germany to be the right target for it. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c) 22:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:Involved relist to generate a
stronger consensus following the late contributions of
Amorymeltzeret al. While a handful of participants have notionally !voted "delete," despite this being
not a vote, two of those including
Kusma and myself have nothing against a disambiguation page or other options. As well, ~Amory and BDD have discussed retargeting two retarget options. Finally, Kusma and ~Amory had both been expecting
Sorbs to be the retarget suggestion. Thus, there is not yet a particularly strong consensus in either direction. One more week should be sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doug MehusT·C 01:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more time. It looks clear that there is not support for the status quo ... but as the song sort of goes: Should it stay (retargeted to
Demographics of Germany), or should it go (delete)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk) 00:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Actually, upon giving this more thought, I think that going to '
demographics of Germany' does seem reasonable enough for right now. I still believe that the ideal would be deletion followed by the creation of a kind of broad concept article, but in the meantime, yes, a retarget appears to be right.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 05:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I didn't really give a strong vote in my nom statement, but at this point I think retarget to
Demographics of Germany is better than deletion. signed, Rosguilltalk 06:48, 15 March 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.