May 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 12, 2020.

Interstate 425

• Interstate 425 → Interstate 270 (Colorado)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

not mentioned at the target. I see that U.S. Route 425, although I'm not sure if it's ever referred to as "Interstate 425". Either redirect to there or delete if no justification for the current target can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Molderland

• Molderland → Moldavia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, no hits on Google Scholar. The spelling suggests that it could be a German term, but there's no entry on deWiki either. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I could find nothing at all. The German names for Moldavia/Moldova and so on all derive from "Moldau", and changing -au to -er strikes me as highly implausible; it's not how German works. I can find no evidence that "mold", "molde", "molden" or "molder" exist in German. Narky Blert (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Hello guys, sorry I left the job unfinished, after the redirection I should have added more relevant info on the Moldavia article, which now | I have just done. Thank you and sorry for any incoveniences. 13:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)~~

Petrus Schroderus

• Petrus Schroderus → Finns  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target. Searching online suggests that this is the name of a Finnish person, but does not establish why it should point at our article for Finns. Delete unless a justification or alternative can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CCP Virus

• CCP Virus → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• CCP virus → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

CCP Virus is the terminology used by The Epoch Times (RSP entry). A WP:DEPRECATED source that is consistently disseminating misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (e.g. conspiracy theories and hoaxes already proven fake). Wikipedia should not be amplifying hoaxes by including them in places that do not have critical comment. See coverage at The Epoch Times. MarioGom (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There is another variant: CCP virus. --MarioGom (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's not just the Epoch Times, CCP Virus is all over the Internet. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. But note that a lot of the "CCP Virus" instances revolve around stories or videos published initially by The Epoch Times. So, yes, as many hoaxes and misinformation pieces, they find echo in several places. In any case, the usage of the term is still problematic even if social media users or some questionable sources gradually adopted it. --MarioGom (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Before this it was called the "Wuhan virus" by Chinese news outlets and people in some Chinese demographics still refer to it as such and it's become WP:COMMONNAME among them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. "Wuhan virus", while arguably inappropriate, was largely used by sources in many countries and languages. "CCP virus" doesn't seem WP:COMMONNAME and it is actually linked to some of the conspiracy theories that we document at Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. If delete is not found appropriate (I think it is), then I would suggest retarget to Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. For similar reasons that we redirect Fake ABC News to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump#Organizations and not to ABC News. --MarioGom (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Wuhan virus" redirect. Delete tendentious POV "CCP virus". Zezen (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zezen: Wuhan virus is not nominated, nor is it part of this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: CCP virus added to the nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget - Since this term appears to refer to conspiracy theories, I think that it should go to 'misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic'. I'd be more or less fine with deletion as well, I guess. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Retarget - The term is admittedly tendentious, but it is widely used by New Tang Dynasty Television, and China Uncensored uses it frequently outside the context of conspiracy theories in most of its videos. It is not unreasonable to think that people will be looking up the term on Wikipedia to find more information about the virus, which is why it is valuable as a redirect. -Iketsi (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this isn't about the viral spread of Maoism in the 60s -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Highly politically charged name, propaganda, not backed by science at all, controversial and more. Iluvalar (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Iluvalar: And how does that justify keeping? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I know it is ;) . Iluvalar (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If WP:DUE, mention the term in Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Chinese government and retarget there; if not, delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Extremely non-neutral, politically charged name mostly used by fringe conspiracy theorists. We shouldn't give a name like this legitimacy. Nmurali02 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment More accurately, it is most often used in the context of non conspirational criticism of the Chinese government's response to the pandemic. Per @King of Hearts:, it should be retargeted to Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Chinese government. -Iketsi (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a common name and is rarely used elsewhere. --Efly (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Referred to in some Chinese circles as such. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep CCP Virus, China Virus, Wuhan Virus have all been used by people, news. I came here because of a youtube ad that used CCP Virus. If its propaganda then the argument should be that if someone hears CCP Virus and wonders what it is, Wikipedia should redirect them to correct page (with correct terminology) and not leave them wondering. Do you really want them to search/find only the propaganda websites that use it?. -EatingFudge (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 'Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Chinese biological weapon' or delete. Strongly believe this must not be kept as is. The term is produced almost exclusively among conspiracy theorists, and Wikipedia should not legitimise something that has no reliable sourcing whatsoever by keeping a redirect to it like this. At the very least it should be a disambig with the misinformation link at the top. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This term is never used apart from hoaxes and propaganda. Leaving the page gives it legitimacy and endorsement. It's also attracting vandals who add politically motivated conspiracies and general vandalism. Signvisas (let's talk!) 13:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirects are not required to be neutral. feminist #WearAMask😷 11:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not opposed to retargetting this to a potentially more relevant article. It's just that neutrality is not a reason to delete a redirect. feminist #WearAMask😷 16:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. If the term really is all over the Internet, readers are going to be searching for it. It would be a disservice them to delete this redirect and to leave them guessing. It would also be a disservice to keep it as a redirect to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, giving the impression that it's an appropriate term. Point it where it belongs, so that the first thing they see gives them an idea of the quality of the source they found it in. Narky Blert (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose retarget. If the intention to retarget is to give the term a characterization of the source where they found the term("gives them [readers] an idea of the quality of the source they found it in"), I feel strongly that it would constitute a violation of Wikipedia:ORIGINAL to say the least.--Chlorineer (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no suitable target, it could be to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (because people may call it that), Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (because it probably wasn't created by the CCP), or Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Terminology. We shouldn't be trying to guess what they mean. Terminology is guaranteed to address the basic title if we include it.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but retarget to the terminology section of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.--Chlorineer (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic per Narky Blert. Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is no longer an article; it now redirects to National responses to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (see AfD). Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is not a useful target, it doesn't mention the Party or the Chinese government at all, let alone the origin of this term. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose retarget to Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. That article does not discuss the term "CCP" at all.--Chlorineer (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You are right. In fact, the sole remaining use of this term in English Wikipedia is an incidental mention at List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. There is also a Wiktionary entry which is listed at Wiktionary:Requests for verification. I don't think either of those is more useful than search results. So I'll change my opinion to delete. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to SARS-CoV-2; that's what is literally meant by "CCP virus", or alternately Coronavirus disease 2019 or the pandemic article. Oppose retargeting to misinformation article because the people probably want info on the virus, not on misinformation. buidhe 07:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete for now, as there doesn't seem to be a consensus other than the current target is inappropriate, if the term is worth discussing in detail somewhere, then it can be recreated. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This name is in common use, as I have seen it in print and on television in the last 24 hours. It is a POV name, but we should enable our readers to find out what it really means easily by having a redirect. Whether the name is explained in the article is a different issue, and I do not think it is required for all redirects. A possible alternative destination is Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2‎. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Terminology as per Naddruf above. It is not the official name of the virus, and it says so in this article, WHO has advised against using locations in disease and virus names from 2015. The fact that there is this much discussion on this term shows that it's a controversial term and should be redirected to a neutral PoV of the virus' terminology. Valkyrino (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Valkyrino. --Soumyabrata ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Nielsen (producer)

• Mark Nielsen (producer) → Mater and the Ghostlight  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

From his IMDb entry, I doubt whether he is notable. I am however certain that a redirect to a video short which he produced and which does no more than mention his name is less than useful. Narky Blert (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update by nom. He won an Academy Award for Best Animated Feature for Toy Story 4. I still think that readers would be better served by a redlink than a redirect. Narky Blert (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gamont

• Gamont → Dune (franchise)#Plot arc  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should be deleted, waiting the proper article to be written. Deals about a microbiology topic (see pages linking to it). Weirdly links to a space opera article, with no records of the word in the target article. Fraf (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Apicomplexa (1^st choice) or delete to encourage article creation (2^nd choice). This would be a more feasible option than to redirect here, as the planet Gamont (which is probably what this redirect refers to in the context of the Dune franchise) doesn't seem to be prominent from what we see on its page on the Dune Wiki, and the topic seems to have more widespread usage in microbiology (as the nom says). Regards, SONIC678 17:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The planet is anecdotal in the Dune series. I created this redirect in 2007, and it is clearly unnecessary now for that franchise. The parasite is clearly the primary topic here (and I believe this redirect predated any parasite-related links). Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 18:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NBA Horse Challenge

• NBA Horse Challenge → Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sports#North America 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not currently mentioned at the target, delete unless a due mention is added. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

High Exit-Only Turnstile

• High Exit-Only Turnstile → Turnstile  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete unused/unneeded. Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agreed. This seems useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article does say (although unsourced) "There are two types of full height turnstiles, High Entrance/Exit Turnstile (HEET) and Exit-Only", so I can infer the 2nd type is fully a High Exit-Only Turnstile. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smurf communism

• Smurf communism → The Smurfs#Smurf Economy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• The Smurfs and communism → The Smurfs#Economy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of communism at target article. The Smurfs and communism was originally deleted and when the recreated article was nominated for AfD, it was moved to Smurf communism. Delete unless a justification can be proven OcelotCreeper (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can someone help fix this? OcelotCreeper (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turned out I forgot to place the last 2 brackets for the link The Smurfs and communism, which led to the substitution template breaking. OcelotCreeper (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Anarchyte (talk • work) 04:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to The Smurfs#Sociological discussion. The content of the article, prior to the redirect, was loosely equivalent to the section #Smurfs and political controversy at the time of the redirect; since then, that content has been condensed and moved to the "Sociological discussion" section, so the logical approach would be to retarget both redirects to the new location of the content. --Waldyrious (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Male pornography

• Male pornography → Gay pornography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Male porn → Gay pornography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not equivalent, I would suggest deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - female pornography also exists. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to Pornography. These redirects are both plausible search terms, in my opinion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to pornography per CycloneYoris. Narky Blert (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Ukraine

• Ancient Ukraine → Kievan Rus'  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

KIENGIR nominated incorrectly: Sock created page, the validity is disputable, possible POV issue.
Additional coment: Kievan Rus' is a loose federation, not specifically "ancient Ukraine". CrazyBoy826 (talk | contribs) 18:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to History of Ukraine - More likely to be searched for instead of Kievan Rus. Especially when people are looking for ancient Ukraine, not just one period in history. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 21:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to History of Ukraine per Koridas. Kievan Rus' extended well beyond Ukraine, and its period was well after what most people call "ancient" (which I'd place at no later than 500 AD at the outside). Narky Blert (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1990 Polish local elections

• 1990 Polish local elections → Elections in Poland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 1994 Polish local elections → Elections in Poland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 1998 Polish local elections → Elections in Poland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The 1990 one should be a separate article, and the 1994 and 1998 ones are not mentioned in target Andrei (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RAW World Champion

• RAW World Champion → WWE Universal Championship  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The WWE Universal Championship is currently defended on Smackdown. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete could just as easily be a description of World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) which was in storyline originally created as a RAW exclusive championship from Sept. 2 2002 to June 30th 2005 after Brock Lesner refused to wrestle on RAW. In fact a quick check shows that the difference in time between the two belts moving to Smackdown was about 6 months.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obamagate

• Obamagate → Spygate (conspiracy theory)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Obamagate does not exist, the target article does not mention this term, and Wikipedia should not prop up or legitimize nutty QAnon conspiracy theories. That is Mr. Trump's job, not ours. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Spygate doesn't exist. Birtherism doesn't exist. Harry Potter doesn't exist. It's a plausible search term that should point somewhere. I looked for Long-term lies and BS of Donald Trump but that's a redlinkd. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There's Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump, but no-one seems to have yet been motivated to write a main article. Narky Blert (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can anyone write an article when we don't even know what it would be about? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Redirects are cheap and harmless. This is a plausible search term and its absence would make more of a political statement than its presence, although that could be the entire point of nominating this redirect for deletion. 173.85.194.197 (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence provided for the term and while it does not redirect to the same article as it did back then this should be deleted per the reasoning at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Obamagate.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We don't even know what "Obamagate" is supposed to refer to.[1] It could mean something else, not Spygate, and therefore be mistargeted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a good point since at one point this redirected to what is now known as Trump Tower wiretapping allegations before it was deleted a few years back. In fact outside of the Donald Trump series template the original article this redirected to doesn’t even mention the current target.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mixed thoughts, but weak oppose deletion I think this redirect should continue to lead somewhere, but I don't know where. My limited exposure to the word "Obamagate" makes me think that Spygate isn't the best target article, but it's still very unclear to me what it's actually meant to refer to. The majority of news articles I'm seeing are specifically about Trump's inability to explain what the term means. I don't understand what "Obamagate" is, but I think the term is at least receiving enough coverage that readers should be able to find relevant well-sourced information if they type the term into the search bar. If it redirects the user to an explanation about how it's one of Trump's neologisms or conspiracy theories, that's fine by me. If it redirects the user to a well-sourced overview of what the term alleges Obama may or may not have done, that's fine by me as well. I agree with Koavf and the anonymous IP editor that redirects are cheap and that even nonsensical made-up scandals warrant redirects because they're plausible search terms.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose redirect. The Spygate article says that it's about Trump's conspiracy theory "that the Obama administration had placed a spy in his 2016 presidential campaign for political purposes." Obamagate doesn't refer specifically (and perhaps not at all) to that particular bit of Trump mendacity. According to this article, "Not even Trump appears to know what exactly Obamagate is," but it appears to relate more to the prosecution of Michael Flynn. I think "Obamagate" is notable enough to merit its own article. The unfortunate truth is that Trump, because he's President of the United States, has an unmatched "bully pulpit" for spouting pure bullshit and thereby rendering it notable. A wikilink to the Spygate article would be appropriate, though. JamesMLane t c 23:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - Per WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. This obscure neologism used as a redirect to Spygate (conspiracy theory) should be deleted per WP:R#DELETE 2, 3, 5, and 8. I generally disagree that it should be redirected somewhere as we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia, not the Trumpian version of Urban Dictionary. However, if we had to keep this redirect, the most appropriate target would probably be Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. - MrX 🖋 02:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't promulgate propaganda but we report propaganda if it's notable. The article And you are lynching Negroes is distinct from all the articles that report the facts about lynching; that one reports the facts about the USSR's propaganda about lynching. Of course, lynching was real, but our Death panels and Stab-in-the-back myth articles report on notable bits of propaganda that were false. JamesMLane t c 02:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not our job to spread idiotic conspiracy theory twitter hashtags. Volunteer Marek 04:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep From what's being said by POTUS, it's pretty much the Spygate controversy, rebooted in 2020 with a "dirty cop" claim instead of a "spy". If you delete it without salting, it will almost certainly be recreated. If you salt, editors will include "Obamagate" ion the Spygate article and articles will link to there. Deleting is a bad idea since it's counterproductive, doing nothing and letting the Wikipedia community run its course seems appropriate. Throwawayforcourtesydiscussion (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even Trump doesn't seem to know what conspiracy he's trying to invent here. It isn't our job to try to make sense of this. Guettarda (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prestige class

• Prestige class → Prestige class (Dungeons & Dragons)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not specific to D&D, as can be seen from the incoming links. Note that the previous target has just been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prestige classes. Prestige class is linked from e.g. Wizardry, Star Wars Roleplaying Game (Wizards of the Coast), and A Game of Thrones (role-playing game), which are all sent to a completely unrelated page through this link. This is a generic term and shouldn't link to one specific use of it only. Fram (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per BOZ at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 11#List of prestige classes. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert move and restore redirect. The Star Wars / GoT uses are d20 System games based off of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition. They probably shouldn't link to it at all, but if they do, it's still covering the same fundamental topic. The Wizardry claim that it was doing something similar to prestige classes is wholly unreferenced and original research, and there's no earthly way prestige-classes in Wizardry would ever be appropriate for an article. It's just some editor who thought Wizardy's system was close to 3rd edition D&D, which makes the original link to the D&D meaning accurate anyway - it's claiming that Wizardry was doing something like what D&D prestige classes did. SnowFire (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve schoos and a scho

• MIT Schoo of Business → MIT World Peace University  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Salmon Bay Schoo → Seattle Public Schools  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Sierra High Schoo (Manteca, California) → Sierra High School (Manteca, California)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Emerson Preparatory Schoo → Emerson Preparatory School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St Cuthbert's Catholic High Schoo → St Cuthbert's Catholic High School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Fengshan Senior High Schoo → National Fengshan Senior High School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• St. Mary's Convent High Schoo, Mapusa, Goa → St. Mary's Convent High School, Goa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Chesapeake High Schoo → Chesapeake High School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Walkerton District Community Schoo → Walkerton District Community School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Datuk Awang Jabar Secondary Schoo → SMK Datuk Awang Jabar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Saetbyoul Middle Schoo → Saetbyoul Middle School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Pedmore Secondary Modern Schoo → Pedmore High School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Northeast High Scho → Northeast Senior High School (Pasadena, Maryland)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These redirects seem to get fewer pageviews on average than their targets and/or any correctly spelled counterparts...I'm wondering how plausible "schoo" is in the context of this misspelling. Oh, and there's a similar "scho" as well. Regards, SONIC678 06:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as unambiguously created in error and useless clutter. Narky Blert (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all G6, unambiguously created in error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_10#Eight_more_schoolls CrazyBoy826 (talk | contribs) 21:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wuhanvirus, Wuhan virus, etc.

• Wuhanvirus → Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Wuhan virus → Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Wuhan Virus → Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There may be additional redirects similar to those listed above. "Wuhan virus" is used informally in various contexts to refer to SARS-CoV-2. The issue is that "Wuhanvirus" is a recently recognized genus of viruses. It belongs to the family Autographiviridae, which has an article. Advice is sought on various ways or the proper way to address this. Another discussion about this is here. Velayinosu (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and hatnote the SARS CoV-2 article. --Soumyabrata ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Wuhanvirus to Autographiviridae as {{R from related topic}} {{R with possibilities}}.

Keep Wuhan virus as a redirect to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and add hatnote {{redirect|Wuhan virus|the genus of viruses|Wuhanvirus}}. Narky Blert (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added Wuhan Virus to the nomination. – Uanfala (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The punctilious thing to do would be take advantage of the fact that each of the two variants is "correct" for only one of the uses and so redirect Wuhan virus to the SARS-CoV-2 article, and Wuhanvirus to Autographiviridae. But the difference between the two terms is so small, that a hatnote would then be needed on both targets, and I don't like the idea of that: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, one of wikipedia's most popular articles, already has a lengthy and unavoidable hatnote and it would go over the top if another hatnote were added for such an extremely obscure and unrelated virus. On the other hand, we can't redirect Wuhan virus to Autographiviridae as this variant is apparently only ever used to refer to the SARS virus. An outcome that avoids these situations is to create a disambiguation page: it's standard practice for dab pages to disambiguate related terms, and the redirects aren't used that much so there isn't a big group of readers that we'll be doing a disservice to by intervening in their navigational path with a small dab page. I've drafted one below the redirect at Wuhan virus. – Uanfala (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Uanfala: You should remember that Wikipedia is not a paper. Anyway, changing my !vote. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, we're not constrained for the size of our pages, but that doesn't exempt us from considering potential clutter at the top of articles: hatnotes should generally be as few as possible and as concise as practicable (WP:1HAT). Also, the term "Wuhan virus" is loaded so it's best to avoid giving it prominence via a mention at the top of the article. – Uanfala (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per Wuhanfala. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Former Kill Paris redirects

• Kill Paris discography → Owsla  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Galaxies Between Us → Owsla  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Corey Baker (DJ) → Owsla  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Chill Harris → Owsla  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target nor anywhere else on the encyclopedia. Result of redirection of the former target, Kill Paris, to this target per Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Flooded with them hundreds. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not mentioned in Owsla, and I can't think of any reason why they should be. Narky Blert (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nugrape Twins

• Nugrape Twins → NuGrape  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• I Got Your Ice Cold Nugrape → NuGrape  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apparently this is a very old band with a very old song about some drink. Neither are mentioned at the article, so these redirects are unhelpful. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]