Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 18, 2021.

National TV[edit]

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, WP:G8. I hope this won't be seen as too much of a cop-out. No prejudice against... well, any normal editorial action. --BDD (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this title is too generic to redirect to a specific channel. Incoming links agree. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow the June 8th log page to be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:59, 18 June 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.
  • @BDD: I don't think speedy deletion was valid here. Speedy deletion is meant to be used when it's apparent that nobody could reasonably object or the outcome is obvious, but all of the delete comments here had been removed or revised, and there was active discussion about what to do with the redirect with full knowledge that its previous target had been deleted, none of those comments endorsing deletion. I have created a disambiguation page at the former title, I would appreciate if you would undelete and merge the history. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I was just looking at a likely no consensus outcome and thought we could consider it fresh. Do you really want a histmerge, though? The entirety of the history was as a redirect, with a couple of double redirect fixes before this RfD. Nothing significant. I can do it, or wouldn't object to you doing so with your main account... --BDD (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have said "if you think it needs to be done". I trust your judgement ;) Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. Nah, nothing important there. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monatomic[edit]

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 05:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this target is a bit too narrow, given the existence of Monatomic ion, Atomicity (chemistry) and possibly other pages too (especially if something gets written about the pseudoscience use as a result of the discussion below). I think retargetting to Atomicity (chemistry), which does a good job of explaining the concept in the lead would be better than the status quo, but this really isn't my area of expertise. If this is retargetted the link in the table will need changing so it doesn't become circular. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The current target seems appropriate to me. Monatomic gases are the most significant topic having to do with "monatomic" in chemistry and thermodynamics, and it's also what most incoming links intend. It's similar to Diatomic → Diatomic molecule. "Gas" may make it sound more limited than "molecule", but it's the same level of generality. "Gas" makes sense in the name because it avoids the name "monatomic molecule" which is self-contradictory according to some definitions of "molecule", and because in the monatomic case they all turn out to be gases. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure what to do here. My first inkling is to delete these {{R from adjective}} redirects and rely upon search results to let readers choose the appropriate topic (e.g., monatomic gas or monatomic ion). But, I'm probably in the minority there, and I see merit both in keeping or retargeting to atomicity (chemistry). If retargeted, all analogous redirects should be treated similarly (diatomic, triatomic, polyatomic, and so on). I will note that the similar set of redirects for the related topic, Valence (chemistry), are treated a bit differently: monovalent targets the disambiguation page monovalence, divalent and trivalent target valence (chemistry) (analogous to targeting the broader article like Atomicity (chemistry), and polyvalent is relates to a somewhat separate topic. So perhaps there is benefit in some mixture of disambiguating/targeting a broader article as opposed to treating these as simple primary redirects. Monoatomic in particular could be disambiguated. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 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:RSCASTE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 26#Wikipedia:RSCASTE

WP:IMAGENAZI[edit]

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 00:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Offensive and no longer needed. Please see the discussion at WT:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions#IMAGENAZI shortcut. I'm embarrassed to say that I created it, and am the only person to have edited it, a decade ago, and no longer remember what I was thinking. (Maybe a reference to the Seinfeld joke about The Soup Nazi.) In any case, it should be deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the nom. I started the discussion about this on the talk page last year, and I probably should've just been bold at the time or followed though better myself when nobody responded instead of waiting more than a year to do so. FWIW, I get the reference to "Soup Nazi" and realize adding "Nazi" to words was a popular thing to do back in the day (mainly due to the popularity of Seinfeld); I just don't think it's probably something that still should be being done on Wikipedia since not everyone is likely to see the humor in it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It hs gone out of use and is seen in old discussions only. Not more than 3 pageviews at any time. - Jay (Talk) 05:21, 19 June 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.

Exploding Head Syndrome[edit]

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 Exploding head syndrome. (Normal practice to redirect to alternative capitalisation). (non-admin closure) ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 20:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the name of an album released in 2019, but it's also an actual health syndrome. Keep, retarget or disambiguate? Colgatepony234 (talk) 20:49, 18 June 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.

Move in the Right Direction(Gossip song)[edit]

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 00:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB: spacing error. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:55, 18 June 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.

Cmaj9[edit]

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 Ninth chord and add a hatnote on the °Cmaj9 article. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retarget to ninth chord. Readers are probably looking for the chord, not the album. 122.60.71.65 (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom, with hatnote. Vaticidalprophet 11:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: my concern is that if it gets retargeted, there's basically no way to search for °Cmaj9 anymore, since no one is going to type a degree sign into the search bar. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget with hat per Vat, although with sympathy to Jochem van Hees's point. I've created the redirects that 122.60 suggests, as well as Cmaj9 (album). Hopefully that will help a bit. The truth is, though, sometimes there's just no way to give every reader what they're looking for on the first click. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:41, 19 June 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.

Future Eurovision events[edit]

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 11:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unnecessary redirects about future events. No one looking for info about specifically these events wants to go to the main (J)ESC page. Similar past discussions had the same result (1, 2, 3). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 08:57, 18 June 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.

Pac-Mania (1987 video game)[edit]

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 04:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary disambiguation as there are no other articles named "Pac-Mania", "Pac Mania" or "Pacmania" on Wikipedia any more and probably will never be either. Only incoming links are from two IP user talk pages. Delete this. JIP | Talk 14:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. Unnecessary disambiguation is never a reason on it's own to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 19 June 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.

Bandle City[edit]

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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 00:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of these fictional locations are discussed at League of Legends, and at best they have only passing mentions at other articles. None of the passing mentions would make good redirect targets, so I propose that we delete all of these. I have withdrawn the nomination of Piltover and Zaun (city) as they are mentioned at League of Legends#Animated series. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Details of passing mentions
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:28, 18 June 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:NR[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 25#Wikipedia:NR

Bolsovirus[edit]

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 03:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral term not mentioned in the target, or anywhere else. Possible attack page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Short-lived (I assume) nickname given by his opponents. Here and here. Delete in the absence of any mention. - Jay (Talk) 03:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't seem to be relevant. Coltsfan (talk) 15:04, 19 June 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_June_18&oldid=1138996477"