< April 18
April 20 >

April 19

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 19, 2019.

Closure conversion

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 27#Closure conversion

Tropical Cyclone Vivienne(2005)

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another batch of tropical storm related redirects with a spacing error before the disambiguator. -- Tavix (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2019 (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:Cv

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 27#Template:Cv

Lexit

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 Brexit#Terminology and etymology. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, or in the body of any other articles with the exception of Communist Party of Britain (Marxist–Leninist) and Issues in anarchism, neither of which would be an appropriate target. A soft redirect to wikt:Lexit might be a possibility. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, the word was fairly widely used in 2016 and, as I said above, is mentioned in two articles. That doesn't however mean that redirecting it to an article that doesn't use or mention it is helpful: if a reader searches for this term then they're most likely to be looking for a definition and/or encyclopaedic information about it, neither of which is provided by the current target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Originally, there was a reasonable amount of content regarding Lexit in that article. Since it has ultimately been removed, a retarget is probably due. --RaviC (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I propose retargetting to Brexit#Terminology and etymology, and adding a brief definition there with a couple of citations, e.g. this (The Guardian, 2015), this (BBC, 2018), this (The Guardian, 2018), this (The Independent, 2018) and this (The Guardian, 2019). (There are mentions in The Telegraph and The Times also, but behind paywalls.) Narky Blert (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good solution, but it should be noted that there are also uses of "Lexit" to refer to EU exits other than the UK's (it's hard to remember now but before there was Brexit there was Grexit; Nexit and Irexit also exist). See Socialism Today on Greece, Yanis Varoufakis on a sentiment in the wider European left. So I think a section in Withdrawal from the European Union would be a more appropriate target than the UK-specific article, if one could be written (though Grexit actually points to an article about a Greek withdrawal from the Eurozone, which is another process again). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like we're getting somewhere, but could maybe use some further discussion to narrow down the options
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:13, 19 April 2019 (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: Thanks for the heads-up. My idea; my duty to implement it; done. Yes, it would have been nice if the closer had alerted me. Narky Blert (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump riots

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. (non-admin closure) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems no riots occur in any protests against Trump, may be misleading B dash (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2019 (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:Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths)

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 Template:Lepidoptera. per Steel 1943; please bring back to RfD you strongly object. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Strange cross-namespace redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2019 (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.

Nunquam

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 The Revolt of Aphrodite. --BDD (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear why this redirects here, rather than, say, The Revolt of Aphrodite. --woodensuperman 14:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just make another redirect for Nunquam (novel).--Johnsoniensis (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC) previously User:FFS[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2019 (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.

Eurasian Economic UnionEAEU

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect - It consists of the phrase 'Eurasian Economic Union' followed directly by the abbreviation 'EAEU' with no spaces in between. JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 13:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2019 (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.

Hamburder

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the target article explains, or even mentions, the term. PamD 17:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P45 misspelled hamburger as hamberder on twitter when he hosted the Clemson football team.[1] It became a meme, similar to covfefe.[2] 53zodiac (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this even nominated for deletion in the first place, rather than simply requesting clarification of the term on its talkpage? After three relistings there is still no clear consensus. Keep the redirect as it is, and stop wasting my time and everyone else's. 53zodiac (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2019 (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.

Lambda Omega sorority Norroena

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. Simply put, I think the arguments for delete are stronger. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Created for Research for the Lambda Omega sorority which started as Norroena and which eventually folded into Theta Upsilon. Article on Lambda Omega has been created since which goes into this. Naraht (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2019 (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:WEAK

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. No consensus for any target. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to retarget this unused shortcut, and created a new one for the current target, but those changes were reverted, apparently for the sole reason that they were not discussed first [7] so here we are. Neither essay is high-impact, but, despite what is implied in the message I received, nothing was harmed because the shortcut had never been used, and I simply think it makes more sense redirected to the WP:STRONG page, and I created WP:WEAKPA as a new, more specific shortcut for the other essay. (note that the previous RFD on this redirect predates the creation of either essay and is therefore not relevant.) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's look at those arguments one by one:
  • I can't see how it aids searches since it is unused, there is no reason to belive the new shortcut I made is any less helpful, and in fact more clearly refers to that specifc essay.
  • How many people have edited each essay does not seem the least bit relevant, neither is the relative age of the two essays as all we are talking about here is where the redirect should point.
  • There is nothing disruptive about changing a redirect that isn't linked anywhere, which is what is proposed here, not deletion.
I think that about covers it...Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response very simple, actually...
  • It aids in searches for editors who remember the shortcut keyword WEAK which is already established. Just because the shortcut link itself is not embedded in other content does not mean that it isn't used or useful--best practice is to avoid the use of redirects if at all possible when editing. Plus the daily pageviews on the essay's talk page show that it gains a good amount of traffic. Plus, the shortcut averages about 10 pageviews per month according to statistics. Certainly not a huge volume, but definitely not "unused" by any stretch.
  • The number of people involved in the essay is extraordinarily relevant. Sure, I was the original author but other editors have found it valuable enough to contribute to the essay--to mold it and shape it into something more driven by consensus; the new essay is nothing more than the contributions of one editor (plus now a grammatical error change from a second). It's not in the Template:Wikipedia essays so it's not really gaining any ground.
  • It's disruptive because the established essay has the history, and users of that essay would have to remember a different search term. For that reason, we don't move shortcuts without first having a discussion. The "apartment" (so to speak) is already occupied.
  • Another point--The new essay is strikingly similar to the shortcuts WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:NOREASON that redirect to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This essay section contains the exact same concept as the proposed target essay and therefore seems redundant and should probably be deleted or merged. The same ideas are already expressed in another place with established shortcuts. There's no need to change the shortcuts because one editor wrote the same thing in a separate essay. That, too, can be disruptive. I think it may be best to consider deletion of the new proposed destination, or possibly merging the content to the larger and more widely accepted essay.
  • Still another point: checking the history of the proposed essay, we can see that the original author did not think much of this essay during its creation. Comments like "may write more later but this is basically it" and "shortcut to this highly important essay" show a sense of apathy toward its creation. The "weak" references weren't even added until yesterday (after the original author let the essay sit untouched for several months). It doesn't look like there's much enthusiasm at all for this work from its lone author.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment, I do not get a sense of any "bad faith" here -- I believe that the proposed changes are made in good faith, I just believe that they should not be executed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI: you come across as being very condescending, starting with your talk page message to me, right up to this last remark. I'm not usually a fan of pissing contests but for the record I've been an admin for nearly a decade and on the functionaries team since 2010, not some new user who just doesn't know what's going on as you seem to keep implying. So, let's not make this personal, because it isn't, it's a discussion about a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If so, I apologize. I don't think I could be more polite. I made no presumption about any history of your editing, but I must point out that there is no WP:SENIORITY on Wikipedia and the best argument should be used regardless of its source. The points I have presented still stand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no seniority; but experience is a tangible thing. As Beeblebrox is trying to tell you  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of these personal comments about experience are variations of WP:ADHOM (arguments to the person), specifically listed as arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest WP:BLUDGEON is also required reading. ——SerialNumber54129 17:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2019 (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.
More