Trichome

thcscience_admin

March 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 5, 2019.

MAKE A JAM![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 List of Dance Dance Revolution songs. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not mentioned in the target article, and certainly not in the ALL CAPS VERSION! UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:35, 5 March 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.

Summer (singer)[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 Summer (disambiguation)#People. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as Summer XO is not the only singer with this name, others include Donna Summer and Summer Watson. There is no single page that lists all of them as disambiguation is split between Summer (surname) and Summer (given name) so I'm not sure what the best target is though. Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as the article says she performed as Summer before 2013. I added a hatnote to respond to the nom's concerns. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SNSL. While there may be other singers with the name, I don't see evidence of any of them using Summer mononymously as the redirect suggests. With the hatnote now in place to catch other uses, this one looks fine. -- Tavix (talk) 22:22, 5 March 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.

Thermostatic Expansion valve[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. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Amorymeltzer & co. Hildeoc (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(This is an obvious misspelling (cf. WP:R3) – as opposed to thermostatic expansion valve – without any backlinks.--Hildeoc (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

  • Speedy keep, no rationale has been given. -- Tavix (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: The rationale is: "This is an obvious misspelling (cf. WP:R3) – as opposed to thermostatic expansion valve – without any backlinks."--Hildeoc (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a misspelling. Are you referring to the fact that the E is capitalized? Then keep per {{R from other capitalization}}. -- Tavix (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not great at proofreading spelling, but I don't see the purported misspelling. Thermostatic Expansion valve seems to be a widely used term for which Thermal Expansion valve is an alternative name. Both names are noted in the target article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – perfectly plausible redirect for Thermostatic expansion valve, which is where this article should actually be moved to. Bradv🍁 20:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix, Barkeep49, and Bradv: Please information Note: As I've tried to make clear, we do already have a redirect "thermostatic expansion valve", where the e- in "expansion" is not capitalized. Thus, there is no reason why we should keep the redirect in question – as I've stated before as well, there aren't any backlinks to this misspelled lemma. So, please make a long story short and delete that redirect.--Hildeoc (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hildeoc: We create redirects for alternative capitalizations all the time, and this one is perfectly reasonable, especially since the topic is frequently abbreviated to TX valve or TE valve. This is in accordance with WP:POFR. Bradv🍁 21:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there are bots which will change links to redirects to the redirect target just because there are no links now doesn't mean it hasn't ever been used. Plus redirects are cheap and alternative spellings common. You definitely feel more strongly about this than I do - though I definitely know more about this topic than I used to - and that should count for something, but as far as my weakly held opinion goes this redirect is with-in policy and practice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:58, 5 March 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.

Missing or redundant brackets[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per the outcome of other recent nominations. The missing or redundant brackets are typos and do not make useful redirects or likely search terms. PC78 (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all redirects listed above. As noted, they are not useful. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:41, 5 March 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.

SPHINX OF MODERN CHIOS[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old redirect left from a page move to Sphinx of Modern Chios, and then changed again when a double redirect was made. The all-caps title is not useful. Pokechu22 (talk) 18:42, 5 March 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.

Discography: Summer[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Target article is not a discography, nor does one exist either as a standalone article or as a section at Summer Watson (the artist is question only appears to have released the one album). Nor does it appear to be an alternative title for the album, nor is it a page in "Discography" namespace. Also potentially ambiguous with other artists. PC78 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 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.

Sweetener[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting of this article disturbs interwikis. Most of labels and interwikis of D:Q626292 actually mean D:Q4368298. Honey and maple syrup are also sweetener. Sharouser (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sugar substitute is the primary use of this term. Polyamorph (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect. Sweetener and sugar substitute are the same thing. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per both above and Talk:Sweetener (album)#Requested move 22 August 2018 where there was near unanimous agreement that Sugar substitute is the primary topic for the term "Sweetener". Since then there have been two (I think independent) articles at this title, but both were unsourced duplicates of the sugar substitute article (one was actually a copy and paste of that article by a banned user!). If interwikis are wrong then fix them - which can and should be done without inconveniencing readers of the English Wikipedia looking for an encyclopaedia article in English. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sugar substitute is the encyclopedic term and the redirect works for those who only know the word sweetener from the world of commercials. MarnetteD|Talk 19:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - disturbing interwikis is... well, disturbing. But not a valid rationale not to follow Wikipedia guidelines. There is already a valid article on this subject, and this is a valid redirect to that article. Onel5969 TT me 20:19, 5 March 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.

Portal:EU treaties[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Useless portal redirect with no meaningful inbound links (basically from comprehensive lists) A very unlikely search term given it is in portal space Legacypac (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While I can easily imagine this being a useful subject to have a portal on, we don't currently and the Treaties of the European Union article is not organised in such a way that someone looking for a portal would find what they wanted (in fact I can imagine a lot of people struggling to find what they are looking for in that article, it's not one of our best). Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 5 March 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.

Romantic (architecture)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 15#Romantic (architecture)

Bassena[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 15#Bassena

Blackwashing[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#DELETE reason #8

This term is not a synonym for Color-blind casting (CBC). CBC has no info about "blackwashing". It appears that "blackwashing" is meant to be a counter to whitewashing, but whitewashing would not be the same as CBC which is when race/ethnicity does not play a factor in casting.

Moreover, there are no RS I can find that support the existence of "blackwashing". Rather all the sources I see are basically saying it doesn't exist and is just a term used to "refute" whitewashing (c.f., "alt-left"). EvergreenFir (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 07:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if this exists, and I'm not sure it does, it is some kind of opposite to whitewashing which is not particulary tied to movie making. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's certainly used by reliable sources (here's a book and here's a 20-year-old Economist piece) but the complication here is that most modern/internet usage seems to be 1. mostly in reference to the film/tv industry; 2. used contra white-washing; and 3. are unreliable or forums, many borderline racist. We don't really have a ton of content like we do for Purplewashing or either of our Pinkwashing articles, so while a tad tenuous, I think the arguments at the AfD hold well enough here, as basically the best we got. I should note that Blackwash redirects to Wisden_Trophy#1984.E2.80.9386_.22Blackwash.22_series, a racist creation from Whitewash (sport), and which is decidedly a noun not a verb. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I looked this term up. Here's what I got: a bunch of gaming forum posts (*eye roll*), this entry in Merriam Webster, a video by NowThis News, an entry on wiktionary:blackwashing, and Urban Dictionary. No WP:RS use the term to my knowledge besides Webster (which includes no reference to color-blind casting; to them it means to color with blackwash or to legally defame someone). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm certainly not suggesting we have an article on it. A redirect only needs to be useful and get people to content that might help them, say, understand a headline they just read. We've got the material that is relevant for the apparent common usage of this term, so we might as well point to it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:00, 16 March 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.

Wikimedia In Memoriam 9/11[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 16#Wikimedia In Memoriam 9/11

Bibliography (Climbing)[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no Bibliography in the target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If we had an article about notable books on climbing or a society dedicated to climbing literature or something like that they might be useful targets but I've not been able to find anything relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 5 March 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.

The Fatted Taft[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No clear connection to Donald Trump DannyS712 (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - A reference to William Howard Taft perhaps? "fatted calf again into our midst is to stop kicking the fatted Taft Administration" was printed in the New York Times in 1911. The aside, the creation summary is French for "salt crust." — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google search suggests that this is made up, so not a likely or useful search term. PC78 (talk) 17:05, 6 March 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_5

Leave a Reply