Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 23

January 23
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 23, 2020.

Wikipedia:Glitch Techs
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 speedy delete  . kingboyk (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Glitch Techs → Draft:Glitch Techs (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Glitch_Techs&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Unnecessary redirect from Wikipedia namespace to Draft namespace. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominated for speedy deletion as "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace" - left over from a mistaken-and-reverted page move. Please close associated RfD if page is deleted..  if you do a mistaken page move and revert it, you can add  or some version of  and skip the discussion. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for nominating for speedy deletion. I did look at CSD criteria to see if there was a criteria that would apply, but I didn't notice that option/didn't read closely enough. This is great to know for the future, thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.

2030 United States Census
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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.  --BDD (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 2030 United States Census → United States Census (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2030_United_States_Census&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This is too soon. The redirect is misleading because the target offers no information on the 2030 Census. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree, too soon. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  21:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.

Daddy Mann
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 speedy keep  . Justification provided, withdrawing nomination. signed,Rosguill talk 21:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Daddy Mann → Arthur Henry Mann (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daddy_Mann&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not mentioned in the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed,Rosguill talk 20:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Apologies I meant to add a mention when making the redirect but seem to have got distracted. It's there now. Pontificalibus 21:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.

Platycorynus garambaensis
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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.  --BDD (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Platycorynus garambaensis → Proliniscus garambaensis (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Platycorynus_garambaensis&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Request delete: This redirect was the original title of its current target page. Based on the revision history of the target page, I believe this old title to have been created in error. (The target page was moved to its current title only a minute after its creation on 26 July 2016.) Additionally, there is no evidence I am aware of that there has ever been a species named "Platycorynus garambaensis", for that matter, let alone one linked to the species Proliniscus garambaensis. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete article/redirect creator was creating articles on Chrysomelidae species, working alphabetically through a source. They had just created articles on 8 other Platycorynus species prior to creating this one see here, and moved it to the current title in their next edit. Pretty clear this was a simple error by the creator. Wikipedia doesn't need redirects for nonexistent binomials. Plantdrew (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. I too cannot find any evidence for Platycorynus garambaensis outside WP. Wrong binomials are bad enough in the sources (and I've seen some); let's keep new ones out of WP. Narky Blert (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.

Epigynous berries(false berries)
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 main issue raised in this deletion discussion was the typo, not the nature of the disambiguator or the suitability of the target. signed,Rosguill talk 22:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Epigynous berries(false berries) → Berry (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epigynous_berries(false_berries)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Both Epigynous berries and False berries exist and target the same target as this redirect. For this reason, I'm not seeing a useful reason to retain this redirect with a disambiguator spacing issue as outlined in WP:RDAB. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. No need for misspaced disambiguation, when redirects exist for both terms. Plantdrew (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete mainly because of the unhelpful and improper missing space. Also note that the properly spaced Epigynous berries (false berries) does not exist, so it is questionable if any disambiguation is even necessary. ComplexRational (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect all forms to Berry (botany) or Berry (botany) per the 2010 merge of Epigynous berry with Berry and the subsequent split of Berry into Berry and Berry (botany) per this discussion in 2015.  This includes all redirects listed here which are talking about true and false berries under any name.  Other redirects created before August 2015 should be checked to make sure they point to the right page.   Once the redirects are fixed, open a new discussion to delete those which contain no page history that must be kept and which are not used much or which are implausible. This page or others listed at Web statistics tool can show which pages only get a few hits a month.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  20:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to create Epigynous berries (false berries) then and target it to that page. The nominated redirect still has the disambiguator spacing issue with a good amount of precedent to get it deleted for that reason alone. Steel1943  (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Planet-sam
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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.  --BDD (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Planet-sam → Planet (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planet-sam&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Doesn't seem to be an alternative name for its target. And when searched for on third party engines, most results are for a blogger named Planet Sam. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. While it does have a non-redirect version, that version is basically what Planet would be if it were a newly-written stub by someone experimenting with Wikipedia, which I suspect is the case. The account appears abandoned. Nothing of value would be lost by deleting this page.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Escaping the Earth
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Escape velocity.  MBisanz  talk 22:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Escaping the Earth → Planet (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escaping_the_Earth&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

It's unclear why this redirect targets its target, and it's unclear what a reader could possibly be looking for if they were to search this term. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I thought escape velocity might be a suitable target for one searching this term, but there is no section there (or anywhere else AFAIK) dealing specifically with Earth's escape velocity, which could instead confuse readers. ComplexRational (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. A search turned up Escape from Planet Earth and Escape from Earth as near-matches, and no exact matches. This redirect is just confusing. Narky Blert (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Retarget to rocket launch. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 14:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment and recommendation A Google search for "Escaping the Earth" pre-pends the results with "See results about: Escape from Planet Earth (2013 film)." The first real result is the Wikipedia entry for "Escape velocity - Wikipedia".  In light of this, I recommend pointing this to Escape velocity and putting a hat-note at the top of that article saying "Escaping the Earth redirects here, for the 2013 film, see Escape from Planet Earth".  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  19:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Escape velocity. Yes, it's possible to discuss the escape velocity from almost any celestial body, Earth's is by far the most relevant. While there isn't specifically a labelled "Earth" section there, there's plenty of discussion of the escape velocity of Earth, and even the specific mathematical equation for it. I could easily see this as a search term for someone who only vaguely recollects the phrase but knows "escape" is involved. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Narky Blert. signed,Rosguill talk 22:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Use of ocean resourses
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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.  --BDD (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Use of ocean resourses → Ocean (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Use_of_ocean_resourses&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Unlikely search term where both the information is not necessarily in the target article, and the word "resourses" is misspelled. Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:R3. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 14:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:R3 would not apply, considering this wasn't recently created; it was created in 2006... Steel1943  (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Former island
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 30%23Former island

Historical territories of China
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Speedy delete.  R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. Non-admin closure. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  20:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Historical territories of China → Draft:Historical territories of China (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_territories_of_China&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

At Article for Deletion this Article was Moved to Draft. Jungguk (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete I tagged this for R2; this is standard practice when one moves a page to draftspace but cannot suppress the redirect. If anyone has a suitable target in mind (which I do not), feel free to revert my tagging. ComplexRational (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As a technical note, the RfD template on the redirect's talk page wound up on the draft-article's talk page. I moved to where it belongs.  It will be deleted when the redirect is deleted.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  20:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

French reform
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 24%23French reform

Greenlander(s)
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Greenland. Honestly it's a toss up between the various redirect targets, so no prejudice toward further discussion of that issue. However, retargeting to something is clearly a better close than a no consensus that defaults to keep without further action, so I'm going to pick Greenland due to it having more votes. signed,Rosguill talk 22:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Greenlander → Greenland (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenlander&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Greenlanders → Greenlandic Inuit (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenlanders&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

These should target the same place. Glades12 (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and you tempted me to try a non-admin closure as IP, but that would require IAR, and I reserve it for serious cases. Please apply on the singular . –84.46.53.207 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * plural or both for the following 3rd idea, consistent is clear, but I had no reason to ignore the Danes. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be bold and immediately retarget one or both, but the problem is that I am not sure what the most appropriate target is. Greenland is mostly about the country and not the people, and Greenlandic Inuit only covers the island's Inuit population (note that other ethnic groups such as Danes also live there). Maybe Demographics of Greenland would work, but it is probably best to let discussion decide when you're not certain. Glades12 (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is clearly consensus for retargetting, but no suggestion where they should be retargetted to. It would make sense to close as "no consensus", which would leaved it open for any editor to retarget to an article they see as suitable, but we may as well allow a little more time for more discussion if anyone has anything to suggest.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 10:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is clear consensus to retarget both to either Greenland or Demographics of Greenland, but in the presentation of rationales for both, relisting to allow the discussion to settle on one.
 * Target both to Greenland. Demographics of Greenland is dryasdust, but Greenland is full of information about the various ethnic groups. (Gud catch, BTW.) Narky Blert (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Target Greenland specifically, I think it should target Greenland. That way the readers get the content at Greenland, but can quickly access Demographics of Greenland from the hatnote. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Retarget both to Demographics of Greenland as that seems to have more content on the people than Greenland. Don't think 'Greenlander[s]' will refer to the ethnic group alone when people search it up. Edit conflict with Wugs; I considered his option before his post but I think it is best not to infer that readers will click on the link and my target IMO is a better option. Also, Greenland#Population will probably be made its own section so I believe Greenland#Demographics would be a better option if the sub-article is not to be ignored.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  21:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ComplexRational (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment on the relist: I believe a "no consensus" closure would be better at this point. Deletion process states that "if the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable", and the previous relister only asked for a little more discussion, not another relist. Glades12 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A "no consensus" close, at this point, is improper since no one has advocated that either of these redirects should target or remain targeting Greenlandic Inuit. This relist is perfectly acceptable, and since this has not been relisted twice yet (see WP:RELIST; the high bar for relisting starts with the third relist), I would have also relisted this discussion. Steel1943  (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * One thing is for sure: both Greenlander and Greenlanders should redirect to the same target. That issue cannot be left up in the air. Narky Blert (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Retarget both to Greenland davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  15:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure I agree with the nom's rationale that these redirects should target the same location. We have the same redirects with different capializations target different places. One could be appropriate in the current target, and another could be retargeted. Or, both could be kept. I have no position on whether keeping or retargeting one or both is best, but wanted to make this comment. --Doug Mehus T · C  15:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Demographics of Greenland. If the demographics section of the main Greenland article covers the topic better than the dedicated article, that's a problem in its own right that should be fixed. --BDD (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note I have updated Greenland topics to include List of Greenlanders and some other lists of notable people in Greenland by topic. I've also added the template to the pages I added to the template. If this winds up being redirected to a Greenland-related topic, at least there will be a template at the bottom of the page that includes links to lists of well-known people from Greenland AND to the demographic groups within Greenland.  I call that a win-win.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

David Robert Hayward-Jones
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . signed,Rosguill talk 22:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * David Robert Hayward-Jones → David Bowie (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Robert_Hayward-Jones&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Request deletion: I cannot find any credible evidence that Bowie was ever known by that name, as opposed to David Robert Jones, his original real name. The Anome (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I found several sources of varying degrees of unreliability calling him David Robert Hayward Jones, with or without the hyphen; examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; but nothing at all that I trust. His DNB entry, link, which I do trust, suggests how the error may have crept in: his father's given name was Hayward. We don't need to perpetuate what looks like an error. Narky Blert (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a redirect, so I'm not sure I agree we'd be "perpetuat[ing] what looks like an error." As you noted, this may well be correct. Nevertheless, the user is gently guided to the target article where (hopefully) authoritative information will substantiate David Bowie's real name and provide the needed clarity. If more authoritative sources emerge that clarify this is the correct birth name, then that can be updated on the target article. In short, I see redirects as predominantly for navigation, to get the reader to the most appropriate article or listing of articles that include the most likely articles being sought. We have all kinds of non-neutral name and incorrect redirects, so factual accuracy doesn't apply to redirects. --Doug Mehus T · C  15:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Even the Internet Broadway Database claims his birth name is "David Robert Hayward Jones" .  Other sites also list it this way, with or without a hyphen, according to a recent Google search.  This makes the both the hyphenated and unhypenated forms plausible redirects even if they are not correct.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  19:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Redirects don't necessarily have to be "correct", which is why we have redirect templates for incorrect names, misspellings, and unprintworthy titles. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, with an rcat added r from real name, possibly R from birth name? There is some question as to whether or not the hyphen is correct, but this can be potentially solved by adding R from modification or R from misspelling, perhaps? Doug Mehus T · C  15:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read the template and its documentation before you use or link to it. If you did, you would know that R from real name is not to be used. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. You're right, I haven't read that off-hand, but part of the problem is, I have no way of previewing the link when I use the "tl" template. Doug Mehus T · C  15:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Type out your post, then click "show preview", then open the link in a new tab, then read what it says. If it still makes sense in that context after you have read and understood it, then you're okay to use it. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, that's true; I've been trying to be more systematic about using "show preview" and right-clicking on my links, but I will make a more concerted effort. The funny thing is that in regards to the WP:FORRED RfD, Narky even mentioned depreciating in a manner similar to R from real name, so I should've known that. Does this call for a Doug Mehus  T · C  15:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.