Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 23[edit]

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

Old law court of the order[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. --BDD (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, thus the connection is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is mentioned in many sources.Continentaleurope (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Okay, but it's not mentioned in the article. Is there an appropriate place to put the mention in the article with a reference? Steel1943 (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I do not see a remote connection to either of these titles. Even if there was a connection, it is an implausible search term. Aasim 23:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned in the target (or anywhere else in enwiki), so a reader following the link will find no information. Narky Blert (talk) 05:23, 24 August 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.

"Upcoming" no longer upcoming[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. signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer upcoming. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel that keeping old links intact ([1] [2] [3]) outweighs the occasional confusion of readers. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I bypassed all incoming links in the article namespace prior to this nomination, so the pageviews should almost disappear soon. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inaccurate due to being outdated. -- Tavix (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to make space for possible future films. Such outdated redirects serve no purpose other than accumulating bad links. Narky Blert (talk) 05:25, 24 August 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.

Wikipedia:Reprimands[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. signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Google, a reprimand is a "a rebuke, especially an official one." A ban is a hell of a lot more than a rebuke, so it's a bit misleading to redirect to the banning policy page. While this redirect is historical (2006), WhatLinksHere brings up one link, and that in an old arbitration request archive from 2013. Ironically enough, the creator was later banned. Since this is largely unused (1 pageview this year) and is misleading, I think there's a good case for deletion, despite its age. Hog Farm Bacon 02:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Reprimands are not mentioned in the "Banning policy" article. Seventyfiveyears at 12:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after fixing the link in the arbcom archive to point to the current target. Per WP:NOTPUNITIVE, bans are not reprimands. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I went looking into it a bit more and found the links in the Arbcom case where it's mentioned, and at first I restored the page below the redirect and was going to suggest keeping and marking historical. But then I realized that the comment referring to the (let's call it an essay) was written seven years after the essay was redirected to the banning policy. So there really is no need to keep this at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we had a page on admonishments (in the Arbcom sense), we could retarget there, but such a page doesn't exist. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised this doesn't target WP:ANI. This is the official place for the receiving reprimands, no? – Uanfala (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Enforcement, mirroring WP:ENFORCEMENT. Especially given the age, I can see value in sending this to a general place about bans, blocks, etc. --BDD (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are recent retargeting options that should be considered
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. (it's been a while since I've said that, it's got a nice ring to it.) -- Tavix (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A reprimand is not a ban, any more than a police caution is a court order. The latter are enforceable, the former aren't. Narky Blert (talk) 05:30, 24 August 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.

DWTD[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 disambiguate. Closing this discussion since the disambiguate votes seem obvious and clear. (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"DWTD" redirects to "Deal with the Devil (disambiguation)" on Wikipedia, but when I searched up "DWTD" on Google, it defaults the results as Dumb Ways to Die. Seventyfiveyears at 13:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be a valid redirect. Google's search algorithms results don't really matter on WP. But even on their results there are several other possible uses for this acronym.Onel5969 TT me 14:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep with hat note per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the only two articles on Wikipedia which actually mention DWTD right now are List of K-pop albums on the Billboard charts and List of ABS-CBN Corporation channels and stations (the latter being the target of DWTD-TV). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - If this page can not be kept, then a disambiguation page may be in order. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • With only two mentions and no article using this acronym, I don't see the point of a disambiguation page. Let the search engine do its job. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point is pretty much why we have disambiguation pages. Additionally, they are cheap. – The Grid (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply - On another note, DWTD should absolutely NOT be deleted, because the album by Joohoney is actually named "DWTD". I am open to retargeting to Joohoney#Discography. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Disambiguations are not cheap: they hide the search results (as Shhhnotsoloud notes below), and they fall out of date as new articles get created, making it much harder for readers to find those new articles until editors update the dab page. Search results don't have that problem. If the search results are useless or hard to navigate, a dab page can still be useful regardless of that disadvantage - e.g. Those, which only has two entries, but is far more useful than Special:Search/~Those. In contrast, Special:Search/~DWTD returns a small number of relevant results. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply - If the term is important enough, it will end up at the disambiguation page sooner or later. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect is ambiguous and may cause confusion, and it inhibits Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Shhhnotsoloud:, @59.149.124.29:, if the album by Joohoney is actually named "DWTD", why should "DWTD" not redirect to that? This would likely be standard practice for a redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Neither "deal with the devil" nor "dumb ways to die" are valid redirect targets, since they don't mention "DWTD" (and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor an acronym dictionary). There are, however, two valid topics for DWTD on Wikipedia, and I've drafted a disambiguation page at the title for them. -- 18:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHunterJ (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, with Dumb Ways to Die and Deal with the Devil (disambiguation) linked as well. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct readers to the article they are looking for. We are not an abbreviation dictionary, as we don't just tell readers what encyclopaedic topic the abbreviation refers to, but all about that encyclopaedic topic. These are used abbreviations, and I don't see why they should be ignored in a good dab page. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see MOS:DABABBR for the explanation: "it is important that each individual entry is referred to by its respective abbreviation within its article. ... If an abbreviation is verifiable, but not mentioned in the target article, consider adding it to the target article." -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I've added the two WP:PTMs to the draft as see-alsos. Narky Blert (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per above. MB 03:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. If the disambiguation route is taken, the {{redirect}} hatnote will need to be deleted from Deal with the Devil (disambiguation) to avoid a WP:INTDAB error. Narky Blert (talk) 10:34, 29 August 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.

Template:Flux[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. It's often unclear whether or not to usurp an existing redirect for a new use like this. Give it some time before renomination—it could be useful to see to what extent Template:Fluctuation formatter is used. --BDD (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has pointed to Template:Current since 2005 but has only 17 transclusions, so is essentially unused. I recently created Template:Fluctuation formatter with shortcuts {{Fluctuation}} and {{Fluc}}. To avoid having to place a hatnote at {{Current}}, I'd like to substitute out the very few uses of this and change the target to {{Fluctuation formatter}}. (I'd be happy to place a hatnote at {{Fluctuation formatter}} if you think anyone might still remember the old target, but that seems unlikely.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have a strong opinion here, but I'm more inclined to let that be deleted and save the name for potential future uses that may have something to do with the concept of flux, rather than use it for something different that has a similar name. – Uanfala (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not retarget per Uanfala. I have no opinion about the redirect being kept or deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uanfala. Seems misleading that this targets something different and I agree that it would be better to have this deleted. CycloneYoris talk! 23:49, 2 September 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.

Rogue Two[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 31#Rogue Two

Chung-kuo[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 all to Chung Kuo. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are supposed to be variant forms of the transliteration of the Chinese word for China, but I learned that from Google and not from Enwiki, because the terms don't appear to be mentioned. A redirect to China is confusing without knowing why I'm there. An alternative target, which would also require an explanation in the article, is Names of China. There is also disambiguation page Chung Kuo which has an entry "Chung-kuo or China", also not actually helpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirects @Shhhnotsoloud: The Wade-Giles romanization system uses "Chung-kuo" instead of Zhongguo. The article China in fact has a romanization table showing "Chung-kuo" for the Wade-Giles system to the right. I do think an issue with some RFDs is that the filers may be unaware of the romanization systems or why the redirects were created and people with specialist knowledge may not necessarily get to them in time (thanks to the decline in WikiProjects) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article China in fact has a romanization table showing "Chung-kuo" for the Wade-Giles system to the right - As far as I can see, China does not have such a box anymore. Names of China does, but ... the filers may be unaware of the romanization systems - in most cases, the alternative romanisation is actually present on the target article, but it's in the auto-collapsed portion of {{Infobox Chinese}}, so it doesn't show up when you Ctrl+F, so no one can find it. (The auto-collapse feature is mildly reasonable at Names of China due to the sheer number of romanisations; but in the majority of cases where there's only Pinyin and one other romanisation, auto-collapse just causes confusion.) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @WhisperToMe: and IP: thank you both. We have established that the term isn't present at China and is present in a collapsed box at Names of China (which is indeed why I couldn't find it). If you want the redirects to point to China, then since Wade-Giles is a relatively popular system, and since these redirects exist (others for other transliterations don't) could the translation right at the start of China include the Wade-Giles using the |w= parameter of {{lang-zh}}? If you want the redirects to target Names of China, then could the relevant boxes be un-collapsed (the page is long enough)? A simple keep action does not address my fundamental point that the current situation is confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Chung Kuo. The article about PRC is too big to be loaded to some users. I will change the dab entry for PRC. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to DAB page Chung Kuo per Soumya-8974 as {{R from ambiguous term}}. Narky Blert (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to dab, as above. CMD (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Chung Kuo per above. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:00, 25 August 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.

Utoob[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. signed, Rosguill talk 17:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not mentioned in the target. It's also implausible. Seventyfiveyears at 14:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to YouTube as a phonetically plausible misspelling. Similar to Youtoob, which I erroneously nominated for deletion more than a year ago. CycloneYoris talk! 23:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and mention at target as an alternative spelling seen in WP:RS [4]. Note that "Utub" is already mentioned at the current target. Do not retarget to YouTube. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 59.149.124.29 as a reliably attested variant name of the target. I wouldn't argue there's a particular need to add a mention of it to the article as it's a completely predictable variant spelling of a term that is already there. Retargeting to Youtube is not an option: correct names always take precedence over misspellings. – Uanfala (talk) 21:43, 24 August 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.

Awards and nominations received by Kian[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 speedy deleted per G7. -- Tavix (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I request that this redirect be deleted, I accidentally created it whilst attempting to create a redirect with a similar title. "List of..." is standard practice on Wikipedia, whilst "awards... received by..." isn't. – Sean Stephens (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC) (Note: Please ping me when you reply)[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.

User:Sean Stephens/sandbox/Great Gable (band)[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 speedy deleted per U1. -- Tavix (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created this redirect just over a month ago thinking that such redirects are necessary when moving content from sandboxes, but have since discovered that it violates WP:CNR. I wish for this redirect to be deleted in accordance with WP:CNR. – Sean Stephens (talk) 12:27, 23 August 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.

Tennessee floods[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 30#Tennessee floods

Wikipedia:Babak Badkoobeh[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 speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced main space article Captain Calm (talk) 09:07, 23 August 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.

SDFU[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 30#SDFU

Bodies in the space environment[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 Effect of spaceflight on the human body. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Studies like this began way before the ISS was launched. Therefore, retarget to effect of spaceflight on the human body. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:54, 23 August 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.

Dummy Mag[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. signed, Rosguill talk 17:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created by a sock in 2016. I don't think these are the same magazine. Dummy Mag ([5]) is still going strong, and Jockey Slut does not mention "dummy" anywhere. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:58, 23 August 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.

Microshaft[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 speedy keep. Erroneous nomination, not a misspelling of Microsoft. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling. Sysages (talk | contribs) 05:34, 23 August 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.

Hymnographer[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 speedy retarget to Hymnwriter. Don’t see the need to prolong this since consensus is quite clear. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should redirect to Hymnwriter instead, as they are the same thing. Aza24 (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @1234qwer1234qwer4: Shoot, I was under the impression that RfDs are always required, I'm assuming for a case like this they're not then? Aza24 (talk) 23:37, 23 August 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.

P:UKR/NEW[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. signed, Rosguill talk 17:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was fine when it pointed at Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements, but that's been redirected - and rightly so; it hasn't had a substantial edit since 2014. That leaves this shortcut as a mismatch for its target, pointing from the main namespace to a non-content namespace that we normally don't tolerate cross-namespace redirects to, and redundant to WT:UKRAINE (which isn't technically in mainspace, like this is). —Cryptic 02:45, 23 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_August_23&oldid=976545726"