Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 29, 2019.

Urbanology[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 6#Urbanology

Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus twerked in MTV Video Music Awards[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 18:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PANDORA –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete what a stupid and absurd redirect. Praxidicae (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems reasonable to me. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a redirect that is overly-precise do a point where as a search term it is implausible and unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ...FWIW, I'm not a fan of WP:PANDORA existing either or being used as a rationale for deletion and honestly wish it could be removed, but of course, I see an unrelated reason to delete this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless. WP:PANDORA is so laughably wrong as a rationale, especially for this redirect. Nobody looks at that redirect and thinks "I'm going to go create several more just like it!" And even if that did happen, so what? If they're bad redirects, there will be a valid rationale for deletion, and if they're good and/or harmless, Wikipedia is improved by those creations. -- Tavix (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix and Steel1943: I fully admit that I phoned in the deletion rationale for this one. I was tagging about 100 redirects as {{R from meme}} and just wanted to put whatever down for a nomination to get it out of the way. The real reason for nomination I would say is because it would never be expected as an article name due to its construction as a full sentence. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The full title as it is written is not a likely search term. Utopes (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect has never gotten any significant views, and it isn't that likely of a search term to begin with. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Utopes. I understand the desire to have some access to this content, and we'd need a descriptive phrase in absence of a set name for it. That gives us a lot of leeway, but I just don't see this one. "Twerked in"? Even something like Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus twerking I could accept. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 6 January 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.

Rapist Search[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) 15:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in WP:BLP article. Not sure I understand nor do I want to. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Apparently based on a meme that shows the guy presenting a report featuring a suspect sketch that looks like him. Enlightening discussions (in both quality and association) in places like this. The kind of flash-in-the-pan crap we ought not to dignify with topical redirects. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources have appeared to have covered this and the meme has been removed from the article for over 4 years without being readded strongly indicating that this was never relevant to being with.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per User:Elmidae --Lenticel (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2019 (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.

Pokémon with the "poke" and the "mon" and the thing where the guy comes out of the thing[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. Editors make the darndest redirects! --BDD (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unhelpful and unlikely search term. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:42, 29 December 2019 (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.

Xbox 1080[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 18:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. Not called the Xbox 1080 in any capacity and googling it just brings up results relating to Xboxes working on 1080p displays. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete outside of resolution talk I’ve found a Facebook group, a rumour that the Xbox 1 was going to be called Xbox 1080 (the article did mention it could be an April Fools prank), and an unofficial concept for what an Xbox handheld could look like that was crested in 2009. None of these are viable targets.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible {{R from incorrect name}} for consistency, considering that Xbox 720 is a redirect that targets Xbox One. Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The big difference is that I at least remember people referring to the XB1 as the 720 informally before the official name was announced thought based on my search it doesn’t appear to have happened with this console. I also did a quick Google search (not necessarily the best source granted) which strongly indicates that the 720 name was in far greater use regarding what we now know as the Xbox 1 than 1080 being used for the Series X. In short the 720 redirect isn’t anywhere near as relevant as it first appears.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: The XB1 has been referred to as the XB720. [1] [2]. The same cannot be said for the XBSX. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once again agreed, the only source I could find regarding Microsoft naming their console 1080 was an article that mentioned that the Overclockers Club leaked in April 1st 2011 that Microsoft’s next console would be called Xbox 1080 (the Xbox 1 not the Series X) because every game would have a 1080 resolution and that it would be announced at E3 2011.[3]. So ironically due to a 7 year old April fools joke the XB1 has more of a claim to this redirect though nowhere near enough to make that a viable target.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We're a few Xboxes past the 360 now, so it's unlikely that people would extrapolate past the nonexistent Xbox 720. <RetroCraft314 /> 23:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:CHEAP. I can imagine a curious college student who hasn't played video games in a while to search this term. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 6#Nintendo 512. Besides, if this naming scheme continued, wouldn't the pattern be *2 rather than +360? -- Tavix (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is silly, and roughly equally plausible for any post-360 Xbox model. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 6 January 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.

Return of the[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 18:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous title with no clear target. Delete. - Eureka Lott 17:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This one's tricky. Normally the # would go to an article "Return of the" as with "Point #1" going to Point (disambiguation) but there isn't any disambiguation for this, as everything in such a list would only be a partial title match. Would using a {{technical reasons}} followed by a {{lookfrom}} be better? I don't see where they can put a lookfrom in a hatnote. I put the example in the redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete vague at best --Lenticel (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Useful redirect for linking and searching since Return of the #1 Suspect leads to it. I don't see anything else that could plausibly be referred to by this (people don't randomly omit words while looking for articles); thus, the current target is the clear one. Glades12 (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. I now want to listen to "Return of the Mack". Steel1943 (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Now neutral since discovering that Return of the #1 Suspect does indeed look up Return of the due to technical restrictions. In fact, due to this and the fact that many have stated that this redirect is unhelpful due to this title being a WP:PTM for many titles, I wonder if a disambiguation page is an idea? Thinking about it though, the primary issue with such a disambiguation page is that unless there are not titles that match that exact string of technical issues ("Return of the #..."), then the current target would be the only title listed, and the only other possible entries would be the {{Look from}} and {{In title}} templates... Steel1943 (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a workaround for a technical restriction. This redirect ensures that people who type the correct name of the album actually get to their intended destination. If there are other articles this title could refer to, we can link to them with {{technical reasons}}. Reach Out to the Truth 03:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Return of the No. 1 Suspect is viewed rarely (average 3 times a day), and I have my doubts it would survive an AfD. This says to me very few people would expect Return of the to point to it, especially because outside of the technical error, it's not known by that name at all. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I fully support AngusWOOF's proposed solution here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Reach Out to the Truth. I think it's fair to say that there's nothing known simply as "Return of the", and thus nothing we need to disambiguate against. Nohomersryan's point about the article's dubious notability is well taken, but AfD is a separate question. If it's deleted and the redirect is subsequently speedied, so be it. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 6 January 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.

Range Rover SVR[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. Rocknrollmancer, I think you should feel free to remove the supporting statement in the target article. Of course, be open to having it added back, or this redirect recreated, if the idea of this model can be supported with reliable sources. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a bogus redirect - serves no purpose other than to cause disappointment and frustration - readers need to look elsewhere. The target article contains no information on Range Rover SVR, other than an Original Research statement in the lede: "On 11 August 2014, the Range Rover Sport SVR was announced by Land Rover at Pebble Beach. The model sports a number of aesthetic alterations and performance improvements. This vehicle was introduced for the 2015 model year.". Additionally there is one Range Rover image and a mention as part of a caption to SVR logo. The majority of article content is devoted to Jaguar, with no other Range Rover content. The same editor who created the redirect created all the target article content. Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - as a post-script just to confirm there is nothing existing at Range Rover, and no worthwhile content at the target article, so nothing citated to merge/retarget is inappropriate.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:22, 29 December 2019 (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.

Jacques Désormeaux[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 7#Jacques Désormeaux

Johhny Brittain[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. Rough consensus that this typo warrants a redirect because of its history and relatively common occurrence. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. Page was moved to the correct title after being created at this title by mistake. Jalen Folf (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirects are cheap. This discussion will use rather more resources. We do not normally delete redirects from page moves within article space. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Over 11 years old, and harmless. 84.236.27.55 (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, considering that Johhny doesn't exist and never has. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Nohomersryan. Johhny may not exist, but this nominated redirect existing makes sense for the same reason I created Lada Gaga years ago: It is a commonly-used typo by third-party sources. Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I get hundreds of results for "Johhny Brittain" on Google, so I don't think this typo is particularly implausible [4] [5] [6] [7]. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2019 (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.

Windows Janus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 6#Windows Janus

Cent Jours Avant Le Lendemain[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 19:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect related to a non-notable fanwork. Was created by a sockpuppet who is known for adding cruft to franchise pages. ★Trekker (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2019 (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.

The Exhibitionist[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 19:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reliable sources confirming that this is the title of the subject's upcoming album, it seems to just be a rumour at this point. If this discussion is closed as delete, it would be nice if The Exhibitionist (album) and The Exhibitionist (Ava Max album) were also deleted. Vaporgaze (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all 3 - as per nom. Currently not mentioned at target, and no reliable sourcing.Onel5969 TT me 10:52, 29 December 2019 (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.

Third hand[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 6#Third hand

Wikiclinic[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 19:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate cross-namespace redirect to a joke page – very unlikely to be useful to readers or editors. I would recommend deletion. ComplexRational (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2019 (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.

War journalism[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 19:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This could also conceivably point to Peace journalism, where war journalism is described in some detail (despite the title). The current target is more geared towards war journalists, but I could see this going either way. ComplexRational (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After some consideration, Keep. War journalism is a big subject (there are dictionaries and encyclopedias of war journalism out there), and a full article is likely to be forthcoming. Redirect to Peace journalism will be misleading to readers. It's akin redirecting black to white, because white is explained by contrasting itself with black... 凰兰时罗 (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2019 (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.

Bath toy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 6#Bath toy

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_December_29&oldid=934647485"