Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 22

October 22
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 22, 2021.

Dick helicoptering
 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  .  ✗  plicit  01:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Dick helicoptering → 3-Way (The Golden Rule) (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Delete per Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 4. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 23:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 23:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and consensus of previous discussions. This similar redirect needs to go along with the others. Regards, SONIC   678  00:15, 23 October 2021 (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.

High-density
 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.  Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * High-density → Disk density (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * High density → Disk density (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Overly generic redirect, see also. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 18:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as ambiguous and due to potential for confusion. Deletion to defer to more specific search terms seems superior to attempting to disambiguate a bunch of partial title matches. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: just added the unhyphenated version to this nomination. Please revert if that's a problem. - Eureka Lott 20:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Change into disambiguation page While the redirect is correct "as is" (and points to possibly the original meaning of "High Density" in the early 1980s) there are meanwhile other uses of the term as well, so let's change this into a disambiguation page (like in the German WP). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. These are ambiguous general terms, and the current situation may lead to confusion. I note Low density and Low-density are red. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Low density" is red because this is not a term ever used in conjunction with disk densities. The densities defined and commonly used in the context of floppy disks from the 1970s up into the 2010s are/were Single Density (SD), Double Density (DD), Quad Density (QD), High Density (HD), Extra-high Density (ED), and (not so common) Triple Density (TD), Very High Density (VHD) and Ultra High Density (UHD). So, the "High density" redirect as is makes perfect sense as these are the primary uses of these terms, deletion would be counterproductive as it would make it more difficult to navigate to the correspondening contents. What might be useful instead is a disambiguation page. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I think this is a WP:DIFFCAPS scenario where the uppercase versions are fine leading to Disk density, and would still lead users to the disk density page if the more generic lowercase versions are deleted. But you raise a broader issue, in that there are many such redirects at disk density that target now-extinct sections, and specifically the terms Very High Density and Ultra High Density are no longer mentioned in the article. These sort of ambiguous redirects can be okay if clearly mentioned and defined at the target so we make it clear they have arrived in the right place. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 *  Dabify - Create disambiguation page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as ambiguous. As far as I can tell, all of the items for a potential disambiguation page are WP:PTMs and wouldn't belong there. - Eureka Lott 02:37, 27 October 2021 (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.

Reeconstruction
 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  .  ✗  plicit  01:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Reeconstruction → Reconstruction era (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Appears to be a (arguably implausible) typo of Reconstruction. Either retarget there or delete. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as implausible typo. Negligible page views. Jay (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as implausible typo. Dimadick (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2021 (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.

Salah Uddin
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 29%23Salah Uddin

MiniTV
<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  . No prejudice towards creation of an article—quite the opposite, in fact. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * MiniTV → Amazon (company) (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a duly-sourced mention can be added. signed,Rosguill talk 23:05, 13 October 2021 (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.
 * Weak stubify per the text below the redirect (it doesn't make sense for a redirect to also serve as a stub here), which could potentially be expanded. It's meant to refer to a platform launched in India, as explained in the text. If that happens, we'd need to add a sourced mention; and if that doesn't work, I'm also open to deletion. Regards, SONIC  678  23:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or write article. TechCrunch has RS coverage, but again from the launch. Television Business International has a short analysis from June. Everything else from after May is primarily about a specific programme (that will be) featured on the platform, sometimes with a little background but adding nothing. Everything from before 2021 is about a variety of other products unrelated to Amazon. NMTV mentions a Norwegian "broadcast mobile TV via DMB" branded as MiniTV launched in 2009, no:Norges mobil-tv offers little more information. If the consensus here is something other than delete then the link at NMTV needs to be removed or changed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 10:53, 22 October 2021 (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.

English English girl name Fiona
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 29%23English English girl name Fiona

State of Takasago
<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  . There is consensus that this is a sufficiently obscure synonym, generally unused elsewhere, that this makes for an inappropriate redirect. ~  mazca  talk 20:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * State of Takasago → Taiwan under Japanese rule (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

State of Takasago=ja:高砂国  Konno  Yumeto  11:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Taiwan. The disambiguation page for Takasago defines State of Takasago as the name Japan called Taiwan during the Edo period (1603 to 1867).  Therefore it should link to the article on Taiwan. It's misleading to point to the current target because that suggests the name applied specifically when the Japanese ruled Taiwan Province in 1895. I suggest adding these redirect category templates: ja  and R without mentionCoastside (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and struck your !vote above, since you apparently voted twice. <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 17:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Takasago. I agree Taiwan under Japanese rule is wrong. Wiktionary says this is an "archaic" Japanese name for Taiwan. This says the term goes back at least to the 1500's, so it may not be exactly correct to only associate it with the EDO period on the dab page. But it's not mentioned in Taiwan, so that would cause confusion unless it's added. The foklore website also says "Between 1895 and 1945, when Taiwan was colonized by Japan, Taiwan’s indigenous peoples were collectively referred to as the “Takasago tribes” by Japanese anthropologists and colonial authorities" - which probably explains the current target. I don't think adding an obsolete Japanese name for Taiwan into Taiwan is warranted, so handle with the dab. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 04:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * If you simply redirect to the disambiguation page, the only relevant entry is the entry for State of Takasago, which would then be a self-referential (circular) redirect back to the disambiguation page. If you delete that entry, then there would be no reference to Taiwan at all on the disambiguation page.  What would you suggest doing with the dab page if you redirect this title to it? Coastside (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would change the entry to Takasago, an archaic name for Taiwan. This is better than redirecting directly to Taiwan. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 20:17, 25 September 2021 (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.
 * Retarget to Taiwan under Japanese rule. That section seems to mention the name and that is just the background information of the Japanese rule and not necessarily refer it to the main idea of Taiwan under Japanese rule. Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 06:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Retarget to History of Taiwan. I think this is the same logic as above, i.e., that it mentions that Takasago is the Japanese name for Taiwan and it's just background on Japanese rule. The difference is the redirect points to an article on Taiwan, which is a more suitable topic for "State of Takasago" vs. redirecting to Taiwan under Japanese rule. Plus History of Taiwan makes sense since Takasago is a historical name. Coastside (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I should have also mentioned this, but the section's main article is Taiwan under Japanese rule which made me hesitate. I wouldn't disagree to retarget to History of Taiwan if others also think that is a more suitable redirect target. Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 15:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 18:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is tough. I'm thinking aloud here. Are any of the following assumptions wrong?
 * "Takasago" is a Japanese term for Taiwan, though it has other meanings (per Takasago), and is no longer used to refer to Taiwan today.
 * Per History of Taiwan, "Japan had sought to claim sovereignty over Taiwan... since 1592". This is slightly before the Edo period (1603–1867).
 * Per Taiwan under Japanese rule, Taiwan became a dependency of Japan in 1895, almost 30 years after the end of the Edo period.
 * But this discussion is about "State of Takasago", not just Takasago. Can we say with certainty that any political entity in present-day Taiwan was specifically called "State of Takasago"? Especially if we can't, I'm inclined to retarget to the disambiguation page per MB, along with some updates to the disambiguation page accordingly (those should probably happen regardless). Just wanted to show my work here in case I missed anything or made incorrect assumptions. --BDD (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2021 (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.
 * Delete given the extremely minimal off-Wikipedia usage of this name. The sole Google Books hit for "State of Takasago" is a taxonomy dictionary (i.e. not a WP:RS for history topics) which pretty clearly copied its definition of "State of Takasago" out of Wikipedia, there are no Google Scholar hits for this phrase either, and a regular Google Search with Wikipedia excluded gets a grand total of five hits . It appears that Wikipedia is the only place anywhere that chooses to translate as "state" in this name. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per 61.239. Redirects should follow usage, not create our own, and there is no external usage here. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 07:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the case has successfully been made that is a novel or obscure synonym (for whatever). --BDD (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What is not clear is if this is deleted, what do we do with the dab entry at Takasago? We cannot go with Takasago, an archaic name for Taiwan per MB, as there is no mention of Takasago in Taiwan. Takasago koku is mentioned at History of Taiwan though, so we need a cleverer dab entry. Jay (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and remove the "State of Takasago" entry from Takasago. What entry to put up as a substitute ("Takasago koku" ?) can be listed at Talk:Takasago. Jay (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - whoops, not sure what my intent was when I created this one. As for the dab entry on Takasago, I think linking to Taiwan under Japanese rule could work but we don't really need to figure that out here. ansh. 666 10:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not particularly relevant, but I was looking a bit further into this and realized that I created this to fill out a redlink added in 2007 to Takasago by (who hasn't edited in 10 years). Just some background. ansh. 666  19:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you are off the hook  Jay (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion is ripe for closure from an uninvolved admin. I have requested one at WP:CR. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:55, 22 November 2021 (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.