Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 17, 2020.

In the butt[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 17:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Targeted section was removed from the target article in 2014, the removal does not seem to have been contested. This phrase is rather ambiguous, it could refer to anal sex, or a variety of other things being inserted in that orifice. Hog Farm Bacon 20:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ambiguous. Could refer to "in the butt", among other things. Narky Blert (talk) 13:13, 18 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.

Up the butt[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 17:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Target to a section that was removed in 2014, the removal has not been contested, that I've seen. More like to refer to anal sex or butt plugs or the like, rather than a blooper from this program. Hog Farm Bacon 20:33, 17 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.

Tonsil tennis[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 17:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be a common term for the subject. Hog Farm Bacon 19:42, 17 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.

Draft:Kung Flu[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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created as a redirect from the draft space to the articlespace, there is no page move in the history. Not a useful redirect. Hog Farm Bacon 19:36, 17 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.

Cash loans[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 17:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cash loan is a type of payday loan, but "cash loan" also frequently refers to a loan in which the debtor gets cash. Ambiguous. Hog Farm Bacon 19:32, 17 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.

Lung rocket[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 17:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current target does not seem to be the most common meaning of this [1] Hog Farm Bacon 19:26, 17 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.

Gas masks in conflict[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 17:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A artifact leftover after a series of page moves a few days ago. I don't see this being a plausible search term given the "in conflict" requirement doesn't seem well defined in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no affinity for it, but I think it's harmless. Sometimes it's a good thing to hang on to remnants of title disputes like this. BD2412 T 18:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BD2412: I get that ... but I sort of see this title having WP:REDLINK potential for some sort of nonexistent article or section of the target article. So ... I suppose may want to delete this to promote expansion of the subject as defined in this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see much in the way of potential for an article separate from the topic already at Gas mask. If we did have something more specific (e.g., on gas masks in World War I), it wouldn't be at this title. BD2412 T 18:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see any actual use for this title, and even if there was, it's named wrong. If meant to be about gas masks in combat situations, then it should be "conflicts" -- plural. As singular, it actually reads as the masks themselves conflict with each other. Do their colors clash or something? --A D Monroe III(talk) 03:27, 18 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.

King of Rock and Roll[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. Applying Wikipedia policies for primary topic determination consistently can mean some titles have primary topics while other titles don't. No prejudice against individual discussions on the merits of any or all of these. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some inconsistency currently in the redirects. Queen of Soul and King of Pop are currently redirecting to their WP:PRIMARYTOPICS Aretha Franklin and Michael Jackson, while King of Rock and Roll and Queen of Pop are both redirecting to Honorific nicknames in popular music. It is clear that the WP:PRIMARYTOPICS for King of Rock and Roll, Queen of Soul, Queen of Pop, and King of Pop are Elvis Presley, Aretha Franklin, Madonna, and Michael Jackson respectively. To make things consistent, we need a consistent target for all redirects. So, we have the following options.

  1. Redirect to the above WP:PRIMARYTOPICS.
  2. Redirect to the disambiguation pages King of Rock and Roll (disambiguation), Queen of Soul (disambiguation), Queen of Pop (disambiguation), and King of Pop (disambiguation).
  3. Redirect to Honorific nicknames in popular music.

In addition, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Queen of Funk is Chaka Khan. We should also create the disambiguation page Queen of Funk (disambiguation). Then we should follow the above procedure while creating the redirect Queen of Funk. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Regardless of how one feels about a need for consistency (although Wikipedia is not always consistent and treats some cases differently), I oppose redirecting the terms to disambiguation pages. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:49, 18 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.

Altas[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#Altas

Madison Stone[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 16:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a redirect to a redirect. The second doesn't seem to make sense, surely there must be multiple actresses named Madison? Gjs238 (talk) 10:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore Madison (actress) to this version of September 2019 and take to WP:AFD. That article was originally under the name Madison Stone, and was moved in June 2016 (a very bad idea - there are 14 actresses with articles in Madison (name), 2 of them (Kelly Madison and Madison Young) also pornographic).
If Madison (actress) falls at AFD, Madison Stone will go with it. If Madison (actress) survives, it should be moved over the top of Madison Stone without leaving a redirect, because Madison (actress) is ambiguous. The edit history at Madison Stone is trivial. Narky Blert (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing at the suggested restoration point but a dead link, a blog, and AVN pages for "citations". An Afd would be bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Zaathras (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We could do what Narky says, but this redirect has existed for long enough for it to have been reverted by anyone who objected to the blank and redirect and I don't think we're subverting process by deciding to delete here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Restoring the article for the sake of WP:AFD would bring into question the verifiability of the origin behind the piercing's name. A deletion seems to be the outcome regardless. – The Grid (talk) 02:13, 18 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.

QutubeAllahabad[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. I'm closing this as "no consensus" instead of "keep" in the event the term becomes unmentioned in the target, which would possibly change the rationale from "keep" as presented in this discussion. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target page(Muhibullah Allahabadi) had no reference about the alternate name(that is the redirect -QutubeAllahabad), until it was added by the page creator of QutubeAllahabad here, without any suitable reference. The page creator lists here a website, but its a user-generated website which does not seems to be reliable and independent to be accepted as a ref. I tried searching for a ref, but all I was able to find was content on ugc websites. Zoodino (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoodino, QutubeAllahabad is still mentioned at the target. I feel like generally the procedure is to remove the dubious mention, see if it is contested, and then proceed to RfD. signed, Rosguill talk 21:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:31, 17 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.

Neo FIlms[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 25#Neo FIlms

Template:Monocle[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. My understanding is that the replacement is a hypothetical future navbox to be created, so I'm taking no further action other than deletion here. signed, Rosguill talk 16:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Used once. Replace and delete with actual navbox? Tom (LT) (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While template redirects that are currently only used once may kept as having possible future wider uses, I can't see that happening here. A monocle is eyewear, and nothing else is a monocle. If we've gone to the trouble to review it here, it's already consumed far more editor effort than any possible benefit could ever justify. --A D Monroe III(talk) 22:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete per above, just to make sure there's consensus. -2pou (talk) 16:15, 20 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.

Pakistan Zindabad (song)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#Pakistan Zindabad (song)

SucKIT[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#SucKIT

Indian space programme[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 Department of Space. signed, Rosguill talk 16:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian space programme is not entirely contained in ISRO. However, it is entirely contained in the Department of Space, parent agency of ISRO. Therefore, retarget. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. -2pou (talk) 16:16, 20 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.

Doll customizing[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. No consensus prior to the relist, and no further comments after the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of customization at the target, which seems to largely deal with manufacturer re-issues of toys with different paint jobs. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing links to "Doll customizing" and there doesn't seem to be a reason to keep, per nom. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article talks about artists taking pre-existing dolls from companies and removing the factory paint to customize the dolls themselves. I've have cited some articles talking about artist who customize dolls like Monster High or Barbie. These customizing also can also inclue re-rooting the hair, changing the body and making clothes, but the articles mainly mention the repaint on the dolls faces. I would prefer we keep the redirect and mention the term "Doll Customizing" in the article. Pago95 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:37, 17 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.

Elliptical[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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elliptical trainer dominates Google web, news, and image results, with book results split fairly evenly. Article titles are generally expected to be nouns, so I think someone searching for "Elliptical" is at least as likely to want the fitness equipment as an article on Ellipse. Disambiguate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. As a term to link, ellipse is probably the most likely target (there are a lot already), but as a search term, I suspect the trainer is. At least keeping it as a DAB will cause accidental linkings to get noticed and fixed much more easily than incorrect links to the machine. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. It's the adjectival form of ellipsis as well as ellipse.
Deacon Vorbis' point is well made: all WP:PTOPICs (and WP:SIAs) collect bad links which rarely get fixed unless an editor runs a campaign. See User:Certes/misdirected links for several hundred of them. Narky Blert (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Rosguill's 2nd option to what is clearly the new primary target Elliptical trainer, and add hat to the dab page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. It is true that nouns carry more weight in deciding targets, but it is also true that long-established, common meanings take precedence over more specialised and recent ones. I can't see a primary topic among the three main uses (a draft dab is available below the redirect). Retargeting to Ellipse (disambiguation) is not optimal as that page has a lot of entries for things that "elliptical" does not refer to. The remaining question in my opinion is where exactly we should be disambiguating Elliptic: at the same page as "Elliptical" (as there's significant overlap), or in a dab page of its own (as the overlap is not complete). – Uanfala (talk) 16:34, 18 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.

List of cars[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect is misleading, the Lists of automobile-related articles is much more than the list of cars, and obviously we don't have a list of just cars as it would be too long and a pure catalog. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The current target is in effect a disambiguation page for automotive lists. I would imagine that what a user searching this term was looking for is one of the articles on that page. A7V2 (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A7V2. The title itself is ambiguous, so redirecting to a disambiguation page for automotive lists works. OcelotCreeper (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In lieu of any whole "list of cars", the link goes to a reasonable end page that a user searching for "list of cars" would expect. --Masem (t) 03:27, 19 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.

Crunch enhancer[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 16:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enwiki has no content on this subject. It's a line from the film, but not a particularly prominent one. I'm not seeing a strong enough connection here to target without a mention, or enough importance for a mention to be due coverage. Hog Farm Bacon 01:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This redirect is confusing without a mention in the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is confusing in general for me because i haven't even watched this film yet. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:00, 18 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_17&oldid=974926248"