This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 1, 2020.
25 equal temperament
- 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. 22:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only mentions at target are in an image descriptions as one of the bounds for the diagram ("between 10-TET and 60-TET"; "equal temperaments from 9 to 25"). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:25, 1 August 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.
99 equal temperament
- 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. 22:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the article fairly comprehensively seems to mention even some pretty obscure equal temperaments; with no mention at all of these I can only assume they simply aren't used. If they aren't mentioned in the article, I don't think redirects pretending they are should be here either, it doesn't look like these have ever been mentioned in that section as far as I can see. ~ mazca talk 19:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hyacinth: Any comments? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:15, 9 August 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.
History of Afghanistan(Khorasan)
- 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Malformed disambiguation. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator and precedent. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Why should this exist when the correctly formatted History of Afghanistan (Khorasan) doesn't? Regards, SONIC678 19:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. And don't create History of Afghanistan (Khorasan) because it would be confusing; see the DAB page Khorasan. Narky Blert (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:46, 4 August 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.
Thomas Monarch
- 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 16:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This used to be an article which went to AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Monarch), with the result being to redirect to 1963 Mexican Grand Prix, a race in which someone by the name of Thomas Monarch was entered and then withdrew. This article has twice been recreated then redirected again per the AFD result. I believe this redirect should be deleted. He is only mentioned in the results table as having withdrawn from the race and being American. (since this has had many non-trivial contributors and multiple editors "created" this redirect, including arguably the AFD participants, I will ping the relevant editors in a second edit) A7V2 (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WilliamF1, Beusson, Bretonbanquet, Tassedethe, Rich Farmbrough, Corvus tristis, Cs-wolves, WOSlinker, Waacstats, BizarreLoveTriangle, Pichpich, Mr. Stradivarius, Smopuim0, Omgitsaheadcrab, TAnthony, R'n'B, Drdisque, and Waggers: - pining non-bot editors who either edited the page and/or participated in the AFD (apologies if I missed someone or pinged you when you aren't interested). A7V2 (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure why this merits the redirect to be deleted. What purpose would that serve? Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, I realise that I didn't really give any good reasons... Whether he is notable enough for an article is obviously highly debatable, but I feel that WP:RfD#D10 holds since he could plausibly warrant a stand-alone article and article contains practically no information about him. Also someone searching him would be quite confused by what comes up since he is only mentioned way down at the bottom of the article so will likely get nothing from the article, and someone clicking through from List of Formula One drivers will be equally confused. A7V2 (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, that makes sense. My usual response to these things holds here, in that it's not so much a reason to delete the redirect, but a reason to sort out the race article, which is, let's say, underdeveloped. I doubt Monarch could have an article about him, since he is such a mystery man, and there's so little info out there about him. But I don't care enough about the redirect to argue for its retention. Are there any other Thomas Monarchs out there which might prompt a dab page? Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the Mexican GP article ought to be expanded (given an unlimited amount of time I'm sure I would get to it eventually!), however even then I'm not sure he would really warrant a mention. A7V2 (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is comprehensive then everyone entered for the race should be mentioned – they certainly would in a race run this season, for example. But it would be hard to find much detail on Monarch or his entry, I suspect. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think it is more important to understand what purpose the redirect serves now. Imagine that somebody will search Thomas Monarch for whatever reason and then you are in the 1963 Mexican article without a clear answer why are you here. I assume that the most of the readers will just leave the page without further analyzing. Redirect helps when it addresses to the paragraph about subject. So, the deleting of such redirect will help to avoid unnecessary confusion. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:22, 1 August 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.
Anaflex
- 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 16:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anaflex is the trade name of different drugs in different countries (https://www.drugs.com/search.php?searchterm=anaflex), so this is confusing. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Special care is necessary when considering medical topics. If anything could be ambiguous or unclear the redirect should be deleted.NK1406 (talk) 22:21, 4 August 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.
Lord of The Rings - The Hobbit
- 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 16:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two completely different things. Delete per WP:XY. Hog Farm Bacon 01:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:XY. Narky Blert (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I suspect that since some folk saw Peter Jackson's The Hobbit films as "prequels" to his The Lord of the Rings trilogy, this was a possible name for The Hobbit (film series). I suggest it should Retarget to there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to Outline of Middle Earth. Someone using this could be looking for the setting of these works (Middle Earth), or the films or games set in Middle Earth. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per XY, and because the exact string is implausible. There is no reason to expect anyone to capitalize "the" before "Rings" (doing so is abnormal in every writing style) and to then to combine that error with a hyphen to separate titles of two works. Even if someone were expecting, as Chiswick Chap hypothesizes, a movie title with both names, they'd be looking for The Lord of the Rings: The Hobbit, probably. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:41, 1 August 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.
New and improved Karlsruhe–Basel railway line
- 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 16:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear what "New and improved" is meant to refer to. Otherwise, it's an unnecessary buzzword-y phrase. Steel1943 (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is doubtful whether they are useful, but they should redirect to Karlsruhe–Basel high-speed railway anyway, if kept.--Grahame (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: "New and improved Karlsruhe-Basel railway line" is a literal translation of the German name of the project ("Ausbau- und Neubaustrecke Karlsruhe–Basel"), which is a way of saying it includes both new line and old line that has been upgraded (so nothing "buzzwordy" about it).--Grahame (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "New and improved" is not a literal translation of the German, which reads "enlarged (other adjectives are available) build and new build"; note the word order. Ausbau implies improvement, but does not explicitly say so; the unambiguous German word for improved is verbessert ("besser" = "better"). Narky Blert (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think "enlarged" really conveys what is meant. "Upgraded" would be closer. It doesn't really matter because nobody would be searching under whatever wooden translation you would like to come up with.--Grahame (talk) 06:47, 1 August 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.
Trial of Jesus
- 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 Jesus#Trials by the Sanhedrin, Herod, and Pilate. I'll just note that Template:Jesus footer links to Sanhedrin trial of Jesus as "Trial" ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguous. Jesus was also tried before Pontius Pilate, and his appearance before Herod Antipas could also be thought of as a trial. Hog Farm Bacon 02:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguate (t · c) buidhe 02:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Buidhe. (My first thought was the trial before Pilate, not the one by the Sanhedrin.) Narky Blert (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]- Retarget to Jesus#Trials by the Sanhedrin, Herod, and Pilate which covers all of Jesus's trials and links to the main articles. -- Tavix (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to Jesus#Trials by the Sanhedrin, Herod, and Pilate per Tavix above. All of Jesus's trials appear in that same section. CycloneYoris talk! 22:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to Jesus#Trials by the Sanhedrin, Herod, and Pilate per Tavix, this section would better suit what readers are looking for than just this thing's current target. Regards, SONIC678 23:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget (changing !vote) per Tavix et al. Narky Blert (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to Jesus#Trials by the Sanhedrin, Herod, and Pilate per Tavix. I have created the likely highly searched Trials of Jesus to accompany this redirect. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:03, 2 August 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.
Cambridge Globalist
- 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 16:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in target (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article says, "There are many other journals, magazines, and zines". This is one such, and looks authentic enough but not worthy of mention. Narky Blert (talk) 06:15, 1 August 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.