Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 23, 2021.

Horward[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 23:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke from one of the episodes, and too minor to be mentioned or discussed. However, this is a surname, of which there are currently no one with articles. The most noteworthy holder seems to be historian Donald D. Horward whose name is mentioned in several references, so it would be best to have search results here. -- Tavix (talk) 21:34, 23 May 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.

Goehr (composer and conductor)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 6#Goehr (composer and conductor)

Abolish Wales/Abolish Scotland[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. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POINTY redirects to political parties currently in elections; these seem to have been created to allow the parties to be linked to under POV attack links. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because of it being strange portions of a name (c.f. my essay, WP:FRIED) and because of its attack nature. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 21:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - "Abolish" is a common shorthand for national iterations of the "Abolish the [national legislature] Party", in the same way that "Tory" is shorthand for the Conservative Party, and how "GOP" is shorthand for the Republican Party. These are both plausible shorthand synonyms. WP:RNEUTRAL applies to the nominator's rationale - if these redirects are being used inappropriately that's not an issue with the title but with the editors who are abusing it. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 11:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per Ivanvector. "Abolish Scotland" is mentioned in the article, and "Abolish" is mentioned as a shorthand name of the Welsh party so "Abolish Wales" seems to also be a plausible search term since it is the "Abolish" party in Wales. A7V2 (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Neither party uses these to describe themselves (the Scottish party actually leans more torwards 'Abolish Holyrood'), and the only reason hits appear when they're Googled is either due to Wikipedia or to news articles having the words 'abolish' and 'Scotland/Wales' in them.
The argument that they are mentioned in the articles is weak - there is nothing there to verify that these are shortenings that are found in the real world. Plus, with the argument about the Tories and the GOP (both long-established mainstream political forces), there is a huge usage of those shortenings. The Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party was formed in 2015 and Abolish the Scottish Parliament Party in 2020, so there hasn't been a great deal of time for a single solid abbreviation of either to come about.
On another point, these parties are not affiliated with one another; such similar redirects make it seem like they are national branches of the same party (see Scottish and Welsh Conservatives).
My general feeling is that while these redirects could be plausible, the fact is that neither of the abbreviations are actually used anywhere (perhaps a little WP:TOOSOON). Gazamp (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point, but it's not necessarily a question of what they officially call themselves, and more about what people will search for; regardless of whether or not its an official abbreviation, people will think it's called "Abolish" (perhaps wrongfully so)--that's just how language works. I think a redirect would help clear up those readers' confusion or something. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Timrollpickering, can you elaborate on the nomination statement? What do you mean by "allow the parties to be linked to under POV attack links"? There are no incoming links right now besides notifications of this discussion (perhaps they were cleaned up). Despite the misleading grammar of the phrases, most of what I see at "abolish wales" -wikipedia and "abolish scotland" -wikipedia seems relevant. It's hard for me to see the harm. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:39, 23 May 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.

Template:Str rt[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 5#Template:Str rt

Matrimonial home[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 23:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not an alternative name for the song in question. Dominicmgm (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a reasonable search term for Love Shack, and it's averaging 0 hits a day. —valereee (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- dylx 16:42, 24 May 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.

Amok[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 disambiguate by moving Amok (disambiguation) to Amok. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 01:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if this should redirect to Amok (disambiguation) instead of Running amok as "amok" (or amok trey, which is how our article is titled, although there's evidence people use amok and amok trey interchangeably) is the national dish of Cambodia, and most people looking for running amok are probably entering ran/run/running amok. People tend to use the full phrase ran/run/running amok rather than the single word amok, and I feel like a country's national dish is at least as arguable a primary target, so I'm proposing we use the dab as the primary. —valereee (talk) 17:08, 23 May 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.

Avalahalli[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 23:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avalahalli is either this village, or this locale, or this forest. The only relationship B. M. S. Institute of Technology has with Avalahalli is that it is located in the village Avalahalli. A quick search on Google reveals nothing to prove that Avalahalli is a metonym for BMS Institute, nor does Avalahalli seem to have any notability of its own. This page must probably be deleted. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 16:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Avalahalli is not notable and it makes no sense in redirecting it to the educational institution. VV 16:58, 23 May 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.

Draft:In Japan[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 per G7. -- Tavix (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary; created as a result of my mistaken page move ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 15:22, 23 May 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.

Cappadocian scoundrels[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 23:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Does not appear to be a known or established phrase or expression for designating the topic under consideration. GX, May 1971 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- it appears to be a phrase used by seemingly unrelated theology blogs [1] [2]. I'm not going to pretend to understand much of anything on those sites, but the about pages suggest that the authors may be subject matter experts. Even if they aren't, this is clearly a term that has some traction in Christian theological discourse, and appears to unambiguously refer to the Cappadocian fathers, which would make it a valid {{r from non-neutral name}}. signed, Rosguill talk 22:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are anything but unrelated; Miguel de Servet, the redirect's author, as well as the writer of the first linked article, is also the one who left the comment employing the expression in the second article's comment section. — GX, May 1971 (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you are correct. Delete is the appropriate course of action. signed, Rosguill talk 23:34, 23 May 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.

Untitled The Walking Dead spin-off drafts[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 1#Untitled The Walking Dead spin-off drafts

Porte des Lions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 5#Porte des Lions

Α male[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 Withdrawn. Nominated in error, as I didn't realize the "A" was a special character. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found this redirect while cleaning up after a page move and don't really know what to do with it. Perhaps "A male" is someone's shorthand for "alpha male" (which is what many of the redirects are related to), but I guess I don't know. It seems like male might be the more obvious target, but I also don't think we normally keep redirects in the form of "A/n [noun]" -> "[noun]". GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. I've just realized while switching to source editing and seeing this in monospaced font that this is actually using the Greek capital letter alpha: "Α male" (maybe this will display it better for others: Α male). I'm still not sure it should be kept, but that does make slightly more sense. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete potentially ambiguous and/or clutter. Search does as well or better (t · c) buidhe 01:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think I might've heard the term as slang once or twice before but it's not common or useful to keep a potentially ambiguous redirect. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to male. If it were new I'd say to delete (as it'd be too WP:COSTLY to have an "a(n) ___" form of every article title), but this page has existed for 15 years. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 01:53, 23 May 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.

Grammar Nazi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 30#Grammar Nazi

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_23&oldid=1044067380"