Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 10

December 10

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 10, 2020.

Psychology of math

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, without prejudice to the creation of an article. Participants were about evenly split between deletion and creating a disambiguation page, but those favouring deletion were sceptical about whether a disambiguation page was viable and in the absence of a draft to asses I find those arguments to be the stronger. Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology of math → Mathematical psychology (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Mathematical psychology is the use of mathematical modelling in psychological research; the psychology of mathematics is not really, as far as I can tell, an existing field of study, but one would assume it would entail the use of psychological methods to understand how humans understand mathematical concepts and the like. (There does, however, seem to be a lot of research on the psychology of mathematics education.) The two terms are distinct enough that this redirect is more likely to cause confusion than to guide the reader to anything they're looking for. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a suitable target can be identified. Per nom, the redirect applies to the field of mathematics, whereas the current target applies to the field of psychology. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment numerical cognition, maybe? 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page with entries for Numerical cognition, Disnumeria, and whatever else comes to mind as within a vague "psychology of math" scope, and end with a see-also for Mathematical psychology. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DAB in concurrence with SMcCandlish, although the page should be moved to "Psychology of mathematics" with the current title as a redirect to it. BlackholeWA (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to encourage article creation. Unless my non-expert hunches are wrong, this topic should encompass both the small field of research on how mathematicians come up with mathematical concepts, and the much larger one on how these concepts are best taught to students. The nearest thing we had was the article formerly existing at Cognitive science of mathematics, but that has long been gone. I don't see any relevant targets – Numerical cognition is at best a subtopic (number is only one of many mathematical concepts), and disambiguation is not applicable – the term is not ambiguous and dab pages shouldn't be created just as repositories of links. – Uanfala (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A draft disambiguation page may help consider that course.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Uanfala. I'm very skeptical of disambiguation because I doubt there are multiple topics that could be referred to as "Psychology of math". WP:CONCEPTDAB, maybe. --BDD (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2020 (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.

Erik Tabery

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) (t · c) buidhe 18:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Tabery → Respekt (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is a redirect from the name of a Czech journalist, the current editor-in-chief of the magazine Respekt to the article about the magazine. I don’t think such a redirect is useful/proper, so it should be deleted (and potentially replaced by an article about the journalist). Mormegil (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as Tabery is mentioned at the target. I'm not opposed to the creation of an article about the journalist, but someone until someone decides to write the article (which can be done boldly and without an RfD discussion) the redirect is fine. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rosguill. As for creating a separate article about him, it should be mentioned that he does have an article about him on the Czech Wikipedia. ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 03:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. If anyone thinks that an article might be justified (the Czech article, cs:Erik Tabery, looks substantial), tag as {{R with possibilities}}. Narky Blert (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2020 (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.

Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir

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, without prejudice to a new nomination that encompasses all similar redirects that includes a clear rationale for some specific action. Thryduulf (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir → Dogra dynasty (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I am nominating this redirect to retarget to Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) as an opposite nomination of Maharajah of Kashmir and Maharajah of Kashmir and Jammu. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see why. Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) has hardly any content on the "Maharaja" and it is not likely to have much in future either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: Then why had you been opposing my proposed retarget of Maharajah of Kashmir to Dogra dynasty? --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to be obnoxious? I haven't "opposed" it. I have quizzed it. The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide a rationale. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soumya-8974, this really should have been in the same discussion as the similar terms you cited in the nomination. There's also Maharaja of Kashmir, which also targets Dogra dynasty, for a total of four redirects evenly split between two targets (possibly more—see the similar redirects to Dogra dynasty). I suggest withdrawing and creating a new discussion. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2020 (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.

List of Asexual, Non-binary, and Pansexual characters in television and radio

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 LGBT characters in television and radio. Not a very strong consensus, but in the absence of support for the status quo, redirect appears to be the best option. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asexual, Non-binary, and Pansexual characters in television and radio → List of fictional pansexual characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

List of asexual, non-binary, and pansexual characters in television and radio → List of fictional pansexual characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Someone could be looking for List of fictional asexual characters, List of fictional non-binary characters, List of fictional pansexual characters, or some combination of these, but it can only redirect to one (in this case, pansexual characters). This redirect doesn't seem useful in any way. Two twice^talk 16:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Someone could be looking for List of fictional asexual characters, List of fictional non-binary characters, List of fictional pansexual characters, or some combination of these, but it can only redirect to one (in this case, pansexual characters). This redirect doesn't seem useful in any way. Two twice^talk 16:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:XY. Redirect is likely to cause problems. lovkal (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear case of WP:XY. Pichpich (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree that this redirect makes little sense since there are now lists of pansexual, non-binary, and asexual characters which I created a while back. The OP is right to nominate this for deletion. I also think that the page List of asexual, non-binary, and pansexual characters in television and radio should be deleted as well.Historyday01 (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of LGBT characters in television and radio, a broader topic that links to all three more specific lists, and I'd expect some overlap between them (a non-binary person can be asexual or pansexual, for example). Since this is a former title, that's another reason not to delete, and XY isn't a problem when there's a logical place where all the topics are covered. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem, BDD, I have with your argument is that pansexual, non-binary, and asexual characters are not on that page. I know because the main editor on that page wanted it to only be focused on lesbian, bisexual, gay, and trans characters, but no one else, and I agreed to move them to their appropriate pages for the time being. That's the main reason I supported a delete in this case, as I'm afraid that the main title could cause too much confusion if someone is looking for it.Historyday01 (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, though the hatnote means we still provide readers access. However, "LGBT" is often shorthand for "LGBT ", which could include all three of these groups (and IMO it's a huge stretch to argue that LGBT excludes pansexuality by default). There are a couple of non-binary characters mentioned on this page anyway, and explictly a section on asexuality. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Note I've added an alternatively (and better) capitalised version, but it is important to note that these are redirects from page moves, the target is the result of a single article being split, they are probably required for attribution. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per BDD. Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per BDD. I was going to go with delete, because these three categorizations are not the same thing and the mashing of them together is arbitrary and basically a form of OR. But LGBT[ ], while even more generalizing, is a real-world and overwhelmingly common umbrella category (generally taken to encompass all these subcategories), so is permissible. (By way of analogy, "Native Americans and First Nations" is a real and very broad categorization, but writing an article like "Foo among Apache, Navajo, and Inuit peoples" [only] would be a bogus, novel sub-categorization.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there's no reason anybody needs to search for this particular term. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- @Naddruf: there is no reason why anybody needs to search for any term at all, which is why that's not a relevant argument. These are former page titles which makes the plausible search terms, they are required for attribution and we have an unambiguous target that covers all aspects of the title. Therefore there are valid reasons to keep and no valid reasons to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per BDD. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2020 (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.

Mike Humphrey

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) 16:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Humphrey → Only Love (Shaggy song) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Ambiguous; multiple people with this name; see search. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there any notable people named Mike Humphrey on Wikipedia? There do appear to be a few Michael Humphreys, but I'm not seeing any person named Michael with the surname Humphrey. I'm wondering if it would be right to perhaps redirect to Michael Humphreys. I'm leaning against it because the surnames are slightly different, but I figure I would throw it out there. Otherwise my opinion would be to delete it. ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 04:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name is mentioned in the article but nothing else about this person. Discogs links this to Mike Humphries (no Wikipedia article) but Google search suggests this is Mickey Humphrey - apparently the same person as DJ Montay but not mentioned there. Peter James (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uninhibited Search is better for readers. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2020 (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.

Maharajah of Kashmir

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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maharajah of Kashmir → Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Maharajah of Kashmir and Jammu → Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

N.b., This would have to mean retarget to Dogra dynasty, though we could tag them with {{R avoided double redirect|Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir}}. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is, Dogra dynasty is an article narrower in scope as compared to the princely state article. Since the maharaja held the entire princely state, the current redirect is fine. Mar4d (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mar4d: With your argument, then retarget Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir to Jammu and Kashmir (princely state). --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Soumya-8974: You've been told several times now that each redirect is evaluated separately, and that WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are not valid nor do they serve any purpose in a discussion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mar4d. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2020 (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.

Suryoyo language

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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suryoyo language → Syriac language (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Could also refer to Mlahsô language or Turoyo language. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turn into dab Both Mlahsô language or Turoyo language have "Suryoyo" as valid alternative name in the lead. I don't see which is the primary topic, so a neutral dab listing all three languages looks like the default solution. –Austronesier (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig per Astronesier. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per above. Narky Blert (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2020 (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.

198444 B.C.

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) 16:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

198444 B.C. → Timeline of human prehistory (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Very unlikely redirect, should have been deleted when it was CSDed in 2007. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way too specific to be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable media to use this specific date. I was expecting something like what 802,701 was to The Time Machine. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an obviously notable date to be a plausible search term.Less Unless (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2020 (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.

Gay frogs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 17#Gay frogs

Quintus Caecilius Metellus II

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 (praetor), delete the rest. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quintus Caecilius Metellus II → Quintus Caecilius (adoptive father of Atticus) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Quintus Caecilius Metellus (III) → Quintus Caecilius (adoptive father of Atticus) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Quintus Caecilius Metellus III → Quintus Caecilius (adoptive father of Atticus) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Marcus Caecilius Metellus II → Marcus Caecilius Metellus (consul 115 BC) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Marcus Caecilius Metellus (II) → Marcus Caecilius Metellus (consul 115 BC) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Marcus Caecilius Metellus (praetor) → Marcus Caecilius Metellus (praetor 206 BC) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Marcus Caecilius Metellus I → Marcus Caecilius Metellus (praetor 206 BC) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Marcus Caecilius Metellus (I) → Marcus Caecilius Metellus (praetor 206 BC) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete all. No source and nobody at all uses numbers to distinguish each, and most or all appear to have been created by a banned user. The first man was also not called Metellus. Marcus Caecilius Metellus (praetor) should too be deleted because Marcus Caecilius Metellus (consul 115 BC) was also a praetor. Avilich (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget Marcus Caecilius Metellus (praetor) to the disambiguation page Marcus Caecilius Metellus. It doesn't appear to have been created by the banned user either. No opinion on the others at this point. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as BDD suggests. There are several people who could easily be confused for each other in these redirects. Retargeting to the disambiguation page is the best way to reduce confusion. ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 03:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but the praetor, and retarget that one. None of the others are natural or probable search terms. As for the retargeting, send it to the one who wasn't subsequently consul; it's unlikely anyone will search for a consular using his praetorship, and a hatnote will resolve the confusion if anybody does. P Aculeius (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget the praetor one to Marcus Caecilius Metellus per BDD, as the three men listed on there were praetors at some point, and delete the rest per P Aculeius and the consensus of this discussion. These kinda smell like the odd way iMDB disambiguates between similarly named people, which isn't needed in this context. Regards, SONIC678 03:19, 13 December 2020 (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.