Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 30, 2020.

Kobe (basketball player)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 7#Kobe (basketball player)

You.[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 and hatnote. Opinions are very evenly split between keeping it and retargeting it to the disambiguation page. There are strong and reasonable arguments in both directions, and it does seem to generally come down to a matter of opinion as to (a) how obvious the punctuation mark is, and (b) how obviously this is the primary topic, given that punctuation mark. Leaving it at its current target but adding a hatnote to the disambiguation page, which has been suggested by multiple participants, seems to be the best way of splitting the difference here. ~ mazca talk 13:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this would be a likely search term for the current target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete. If you look at the illustration in the article, this is exactly how it was shown on the magazine cover so it's not an implausible search term for the current target. The question is whether it is also a plausible search term for other topics, and if so whether this is primary. I don't immediately know the answers to those questions, but whatever they are the correct course of action is either keeping or retargetting (to a different article or to the dab page). Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I've looked at every entry with an individual article at You (disambiguation) and exactly zero other entries are stylised with a full stop, meaning that this is almost certainly the only entry for which this is a likely search term. A link to the disambiguation page in a hatnote will resolve things for the very small number of people who want something else. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to You (disambiguation) as the punctuation is not so clear as to make it implausible that the searcher was looking for something else. Second choice is putting a hatnote at You (Time Person of the Year). — Bilorv (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Personally speaking, seeing "You." with the period instantly made me think of the infamous Time cover. Unless there's evidence of anything else at You (disambiguation) notably using the period, I think this is a good example of small details distinguishing between topics. -- Tavix (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to dab per Bilorv. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Bilorv. ~ HAL333 23:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a good case to consider the current target as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "You.". It's difficult to determine—as primary topics often are—complicated by the fact that search engines often ignore the full stop. Having said keep, I think a hatnote such as {{redirect|You.|You (disambiguation)}} would be useful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The above discussion makes it very clear that there is WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC for this redirect, and so it should be deleted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is a primary topic (which the evidence shows there is) then it should be kept, if there is no primary topic then it should target the disambiguation page. There is no scenario here in which deletion is the right answer. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Having non-primary punctuation variants such as this targeting their disambiguation pages would become WP:COSTLY. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:COSTLY gets things wrong far more often than it gets things right, and this is not an exception. Given the prominent usage on the Time magazine cover, people will use this search term and redirects from common search terms where there is a clearly relevant article or disambiguation page should only be deleted when there is a desire for a separate article on the topic. The maintenance burden of a redirect is tiny at the best of times (and mostly done by a bot in any case) and is far, far outweighed by the benefit to our readers over being invited to search and then taken to search results that might or might not list the article they were looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 23:52, 30 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.

Sikes, Benjamin[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 deleted by BD2412. --BDD (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommed that this redirect be deleted. This is a technical redirect (R from sort name). The correct name of the target article is Bartholomew Sikes, so this redirect is redundant. A new technical redirect can be created if necessary. Tevildo (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleted. Redirects from sortnames are a basic encyclopedic function. In the future, when the article is moved, the redirect should also be moved. BD2412 T 23:44, 30 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.

Chigger[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 7#Chigger

Mermaids the Body Found (TV FILM)[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 22:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNNATURAL phrasing. Dominicmgm (talk) 21:56, 30 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.

Go (Mermaids: The Body Found)[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 22:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Dominicmgm (talk) 21:55, 30 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.

ClockStone[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 22:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ClockStone also developed Avencast: Rise of the Mage, so this redirect isn't helpful per WP:XY. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:34, 30 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.

National Highway 45C (India)(old numbering)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 8#National Highway 45C (India)(old numbering)

Isnt[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) 21:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a highly unlikely way to try to search for the target, I think that deletion is appropriate here. signed, Rosguill talk 17:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They can presumably be retargeted to English auxiliaries and contractions#Negative contractions, but I really don't like the idea of having redirects for such a term – one among many – that's merely listed there. We shouldn't really try to duplicate an English dictionary here. Isnt, however, can be repointed to the target of ISNT. – Uanfala (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Isn't per nom, Retarget Isnt to ISNT per Uanfala. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. I didn't realize ISNT was itself a redirect, so no need to have a redirect from other capitalization that is potentially ambiguous anyway. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom, this is trying too hard to be a dictionary. I don't agree with retargeting Isnt to ISNT's target (Illinois Soil Nitrogen Test) - Isnt is a common misspelling of a common English contraction, albeit one we don't have a good article target for, and having it as a suggested search result for as obscure a target as that seems to be far more likely to confuse than help readers. ~ mazca talk 13:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to English auxiliaries and contractions#Negative contractions, where we have content on the term. While it's true we are not a dictionary, it is helpful to have a redirect from a common word where we have encyclopedic content on the word. I'll note there are several other similar redirects to the same target that can be moved over where appropriate. -- Tavix (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2021 (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.

Halo 04[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! 18:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could also refer to the video game Halo 4. Dominicmgm (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve notice that the target article doesn’t mention the term Halo 04.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In-universe the "Installations" are "Halos". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.26.89 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. If they are familiar with the games I think they would more likely want the space station instead of the game, if they are not familiar with the games I don't think they'd use a preceding 0. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IP. Seems reasonable to me, and a rather unlikely search term for Halo 4. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2021 (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 Witcher (upcoming U.S. TV series)[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) 16:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This TV series has existed since December 2019, so its no longer upcoming. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Series has been out for almost a year so the redirect is misleading as the series is no longer upcoming. It got 6 page views in the last 90 days, so clearly is not being used. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:53, 30 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.

GameCrate[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 6#GameCrate

/opt/google/chrome/chrome[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) 16:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone realistically search for this? According to the Pageviews website it's had just 1 view in the last 90 days. I don't see the point of this redirect at all. – numbermaniac 12:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's apparently the installation location of chrome in Linux? Extremely unlikely search term. The creator of this redirect was indeffed for vandalism after creating a huge number of similar implausible redirects. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need redirects for file locations. Dominicmgm (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is so absurd, I think it's almost in G1 territory (almost...). Thegreatluigi (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is nowhere near G1. Note WP:CSD#G1 concludes with In short, if it is understandable, G1 does not apply. and while this is not a useful redirect it is very clearly understandable. Thryduulf (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair point. I guess that was rather an exaggeration. Should I strike out that vote and write something a bit more reasonable? Thegreatluigi (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2021 (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 Incredible Story of Rose Island[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 Rose Island (film). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 18:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of a film title that is no longer in production and is not mentioned by destination list of films BOVINEBOY2008 12:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Rose Island (film), as the English translation of the Italian name. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per IP. Reasonable enough search term, with some usage outside of Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2021 (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 180[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 6#Xbox 180

Template:Arabic[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) 16:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1. The present redirect is very much not obvious. 2. From some 10 templates with language names I checked, most didn't exist (like Template:English, Template:Russian or Template:German), and those that do exist, like Template:French and Template:Spanish redirect to a template about the language, not a notification that a script is needed. We could of course redirect to Template:Arabic language, but I think that simply deleting this redirect will be the easier change. 3. There were only 16 transclusions, and I have replaced them, as well as a few relevant links. Debresser (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this since a choice for retargeting has been presented by the nom, and to allow the Dec 22 log page to be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is potentially a useful page title but it's inherently very ambiguous and not really good for its current use. In the absence of a real better idea, I think deleting it is the best option particularly now it's not directly linked. ~ mazca talk 14:04, 31 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.

LBJ (basketball player)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 05:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like a good precedent to encourage redirects that need disambiguators, (basketball), of less popular nicknames. Disambiguators are fine for WP:COMMONNAMEs, but LBJ is not his common name. There is already an entry at LBJ (disambiguation) for LeBron James. Recommend deleting the redirect. —Bagumba (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it's not a partial name match, unlike "(The) Donald (Trump)" or "(Donald) Trump". Only "Agent Orange" out of those you mentioned would be similar to this case. Also, just because it already exists does not mean we need to encourage creation of more, just not deletion of what's already there. (which is also something that is mentioned in other RfD discussions). And of what you mention, "The Donald" in some form, probably should exist as a redirect, considering it is a common nickname of DJT. And Trump (politician) already exists -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The same creator also created redirect Kobe (basketball player), which redirects to Kobe Bryant. The redirect is also ambiguous, requiring a {{redirect}} hatnote that clutters the page so that it can also point to another basketball player Kobe Paras. I still maintain that the problem, as with LBJ (basketball player), is the creation of disambiguated redirects of non-WP:COMMONNAMEs.—Bagumba (talk) 05:51, 22 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 17:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unlikely search term. By the off chance that someone looks for James and types LBJ, they can go to a disambiguation page, since it's highly unlikely they will type (basketball player) after LBJ. Geschichte (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is accurate, plausible and harmless so there is no reason to delete it. If I heard someone talking about a basketball player called LBJ it is quite likely that I'd use this redirect to find the target as I wouldn't have a clue what LBJ stood for, I know they wont be the primary topic for LBJ and I expect the disambiguation page to be pretty long. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, LBJ (disambiguation) isnt long.—Bagumba (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unlikely search term using unnatural disambiguator. MB 22:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except it's neither an unlikely search term or an unnatural disambiguator - I explained in detail above why this is useful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:43, 31 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.

Zoadis[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. It's clearly not a common alternative name, but also clearly has been used, and no participants have suggested any potential harm this redirect is causing via ambiguity or otherwise. ~ mazca talk 13:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence suggesting that this is an alternative name or spelling, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked to from a book on Wikisource that uses that medieval spelling for it. So it was an alternative spelling at one point - and it would be nice to keep so people like me don't need to invest effort into figuring out who the heck the medieval author is referencing :) Peace.salam.shalom (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The same work on Wikisource (The Book of the Knight of the Tower) is the only thing I found on a Google Books search too. But absent other uses, I'm pretty sympathetic to the experience of coming across archaic forms of proper names and trying to make sense of them. Might be nice to incorporate this into the article to avoid a {{R without mention}}, though. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per BDD and Peace.salam.shalom. CycloneYoris talk! 18:27, 6 January 2021 (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_December_30&oldid=999770948"