This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 19, 2023.
Universal Sprout
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.
Deletion; 100% false name for network created by a children's network hoaxer since blocked; speedy declined by a drive-by IP, so here we are for seven days of discussion on both redirects listed. Nate•(chatter)18:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dislike the assertion that I'm just some driveby editor, and when you took the discussion to ANI the prompt consensus was that your arguments and aspersions were entirely meritless. The redirect most likely exists because the creating editor made a mistake and was trying to provide assistance for future editors who might make that same error. Since for example Sprout (TV channel) and Sprout (TV Network) redirect to Universal Kids as a result of being prior names the mistake is understandable. Whether or not the mistake is likely enough that this redirect should be retained I will leave for others to decide but similar template redirects from incorrect names in the media topic area are not hard to find such as Template:Viacom International Media Networks The Americas. That alone is enough that a discussion is appropriate, but I have nothing against slow deletion if this misnomer is thought sufficiently improbable. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BC60:456C:73AE:CD73 (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I politely disagree. The editor was blocked for hoaxing so it should be self-evident these rds need to go; the one you mentioned at least was a name for the company at one time (Paramount Global changes their division names seemingly on whims and we can't control that). This was never a name for Universal Kids or Sprout at all, and you are getting annoyed about a template redirect with no incoming links which was immediately caught as someone trying to vandalize the encyclopedia, along with someone trying to set up a move to write corporate fanfiction once they got autoconfirmed, and I'm tired of having to take obvious hoaxes to AfD and here just to waste a week of mine and other editor's time. Just let it go. Nate•(chatter)21:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this. All vandalism is disruptive, but not all disruption is vandalism. They were blocked for disruption not vandalism. Competence is required and I do not disagree with the block. However just as we would not automatically delete Template:R from typos just because the creator was later CIR blocked for being unable to avoid introducing typos, we are not going to autodelete redirects from incorrect names if they are useful. CSD are only for narrowly defined circumstances, this redirect is not eligible, and your attempt to argue otherwise on ANI went nowhere. You don't like the way the policy is written, then go to WT:CSD and get it changed, but don't tag incorrectly because you disagree with policy, that is also disruptive. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:D9:B4FE:FAA3:6652 (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I...was told to take this to RFD as a solution at the close. That's exactly what I'm doing. Again, you're getting bent out of shape over an implausible redirect (and just because someone was blocked for one reason doesn't clear them of another possible blockable offense; they're blocked, period), and I'm going to cease discussion with you because I have better things to do like patrolling and dealing with vandalism as I was attempting to do here. Nate•(chatter)23:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to discuss then the solution is to stop posting. Either way if you continue to tag incorrectly I will continue to revert you and if it ends up back at ANI then so be it. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:D9:B4FE:FAA3:6652 (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both - I recognize the disruptive circumstances around these. However, As Universal does now - and had in the past - content related to "Sprout", I don't think that these are unreasonable search items/redirects. - jc3700:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: the creation of these redirects may well have been disruptive, but that might not necessarily fully outweigh any search-related reasons to retain. At the very least, though, the mainspace version should probably be tagged as an {{R from incorrect name}}. WCQuidditch☎✎00:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Universal Sprout as not unreasonable per jc37, and tag as incorrect name per Quidditch. Delete Template:Universal Sprout as a recently created unused template with an incorrect name. Jay 💬07:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Universal Sprout, weak delete the template redirect. No need for an unused template redirect from an incorrect name to remain in existence – admittedly, I don't think it really harms anything, but I don't see any positive use coming out of it, and given the disruptive creation I lean towards deletion. The incorrect name seems plenty plausible to keep around, though. Skarmory(talk •contribs)04:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus to keep the first one, but should the template redirect be kept or deleted? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk16:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mainspace redirect because reasonable search term. delete template redirect because... does wikipedia do templates redirects under any normal circumstances? - Darker Dreams (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
2-cycle
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.
Comment: is there a WikiProject whose members might have knowledge on the subject matter of this redirect which could be notified of this discussion? A smart kitten (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and hatnote the target for the cyclic permutation article. Google for "two cycle" gives 1.9B results; "2 cycle" gives 3.38B. "2-cycle permutation" gives 7M; "2-cycle +math" gives only 2,400. Two-stroke motors are the primary topic over the niche mathematics topic by about four orders of magnitude. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
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.
There is nothing in the current article to indicate why this redirect exists. There is a very old version of the page which gives it as an alternate identity, but it is unsourced and was duly removed. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only possible connection I can find is that someone named Robert L. Brock published a book by an author named Ben Weintraub. Looking further, it is possible a case of mistaken identity. News articles from the 1990s discuss a "Robert L. Brock" who was a prominent Holocaust denier (see, e.g., [1]). There doesn't appear to be any sources suggesting that Holocaust denier Brock and businessman Brock are the same person. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 19:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
El ganador se lleva todo
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.
Nonexistent translation of song. The Spanish version performed by Il Divo is titled "Va todo al Ganador", not "El ganador se lleva todo". The latter only appears on Spanish Wikipedia in 2016, when it was added by an IP editor. ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It seems that there are some spanish sources that call the song "El ganador se lo lleva todo", but not found in reference to ABBA from my research if the word lo is omitted. TartarTorte13:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
Kurze Oktave
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
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.
Keep I'd make an exception to WP:RLANG here. The rationale for the creation of this redirect was One of our maps uses this term for the Black Sea.[2] I'm not sure which map this referred to; I think it's to some map in a different article, because none of the maps that were in the Black Sea article at the time (February 2013) used the German name. Given the number of foreign language maps on the English Wikipedia, it is conceivable that this was (and still is) the case.
Delete. Directly violates RLANG in word and spirit. If we can’t even find a single instance justifying the supposed exceptional rationale, then it definitely isn’t one. —MichaelZ.14:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we can’t even find a single instance justifying the supposed exceptional rationale -- I gave one example in my vote. If you want ten more, I can give them, but I don't see what that would change. Renerpho (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I guess I misread the last sentence.
Anyway, that is still against RLANG. Infinite place names each in hundreds of languages might appear in a map for our readers to use, and every single one of those should be replaced with an English-language map. We should not accumulate permanent redirects for an open-ended list of ephemeral labels that most of our readers can’t use like Schwarzes Meer, ᱦᱮᱸᱫᱮ ᱫᱚᱨᱮᱭᱟ, or ጥቁር ባሕር. —MichaelZ.03:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for those maps to be replaced is unreasonable. Many of them are user-generated, like the one I linked above. Those maps are often very specific and not easily replaceable. By the way, if you can show a map on the English Wikipedia that's written in Santali, I'd like to see it. Maps in German, on the other hand, are quite common here... Renerpho (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you even talking about? Of course all foreign-language maps with labels meant for the reader should be replaced, sooner or later. This is not English-and-German-language Wikipedia. —MichaelZ.15:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And we can wait until this replacement has happened and delete this redirect then. Keeping it now doesn't mean keeping it forever. —Kusma (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be snarky; I honestly appreciate that you worked on the map to the right. But this doesn't solve the issue I was trying to illustrate by giving that one link, to illustrate an issue that affects maybe a couple hundred images in total. Renerpho (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a principle that there will always be improvements to be made. I’m not going to bother quoting the relevant pillars, principles, or guidelines, but “asking for those maps to be replaced is unreasonable” seems to go against them.
And it implies another false principle, that everything that might appear on a map should be a redirect. But RLANG is written with our principles in mind, and it says no.
(I also find somewhat objectionable the idea that some languages like German should be considered more important than some other ones like Santali. The principle is that non-English, especially but not only non-Latin-alphabet text harms accessibility, and cannot be considered good enough.) —MichaelZ.23:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mzajac: You had asked about that other false principle already, to which I answered "no" below. Please don't attack straw men! I never suggested that everything that might appear on a map should be a redirect, nor that some language should be considered more important than another. What I asked for was to make an exception to WP:RLANG here, for a specific term and a specific reason. I also put that into a wider context; namely, that there are a lot of maps on the English Wikipedia that are in German specifically, and that there's nothing we can do about that. That's why I called the idea to replace all those maps unreasonable. You gave examples of languages (like Santali) that, to my knowledge, don't present the same issue (yet another straw man). Renerpho (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My intent with the example was to show that foreign scripts prove that foreign-language text is in principle completely inaccessible to most of our readers, even if some of us personally can make sense of some German. I could have used a Chinese, Arabic, or Cyrillic-script name to make the same point. IMO that (if) we have more German than Chinese or Santali maps is immaterial: every one is a shortcoming that we fully intend to correct, and weighing down our infrastructure with workarounds that favour German, contrary to the word and spirit of guidelines like RLANG, is counterproductive. (I freely admit I have killed this little horse now.) —MichaelZ.15:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mzajac: In case it helps: I have no intention of creating lots of foreign language redirects. Schwarzes Meer is the one that jumped out as potentially useful to me.
By the way, I think German maps aren't the worst. They use the Latin script, after all, so any user of the English Wikipedia who sees such a map and wonders what "Schwarzes Meer" means would have no trouble typing that. There are a lot of maps on the English Wikipedia that are in Cyrillic, and those are much less useful IMO. If you are serious in your intent to correct this shortcoming, I suggest to start with those. I have yet to come across a single map on this site that's in Chinese or Arabic, but I'll keep my eyes open. I don't disagree with your intention, in principle, to have all foreign-language maps replaced. Renerpho (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ephemeral labels that most of our readers can’t use like Schwarzes Meer -- The redirect Schwarzes Meer is accessed about 10 times per month on average, about 1,000 times since 2015.[14] That's enough to justify keeping it as potentially useful. Renerpho (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Black Sea is accessed over 72,000 times per month.[15] The redirect Schwarzes Meer has 0.01% of the hits of the target.
Do the guidelines say what is a useful threshold for keeping a redirect?
If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
Thankfully, Duckmather gave another good reason to keep it. The guideline you quote says that it is unlikely to be useful under those conditions. The rest only applies if the subject is unrelated to a culture that speaks that language. That's not the case here. It is also worth looking at WP:R#KEEP whenever you cite R#DELETE: Avoid deleting such redirects if ... 5. Someone finds them useful. If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do.Renerpho (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
Schachmatt
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 27#Sugar Bunker
Done.
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Luwian_Language_de_V2.svg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caucasus_1490_map_de_alt.svg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karte_des_Kaukasischen_Isthmus_-_Entworfen_und_gezeichnet_von_J-Grassl_-_1856.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deutsche_Siedlungsgebiete_in_Osteuropa_1925.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Germans_in_Bessarabia.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_R_49_Bild-0705,_Polen,_Herkunft_der_Umsiedler,_Karte.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Die_%27gro%C3%9Fz%C3%BCgigste_Umsiedlungsaktion%27_with_Poland_superimposed,_1939.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ROMANIA_Fizic.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://www.bahnsport-info.de/bahnsport-info-wikipedia/langbahn-team-weltmeisterschaft/?rdp_we_resource=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3ARizMap09.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RizMap10.jpg){kind=link}