Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 11, 2020.

Sockpuppet redirects[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 redirect with space to toy, without space to Internet concept. I'm interpreting the "Sock-Puppet" as a case of the toy, as while one editor weakly suggested deletion I don't see a consensus for that outcome. I'm also going to go ahead and swap Sockpuppet and Sockpuppet (Internet) to address the naming concerns signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is related to a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry to rename that page to remove the space in "sock puppetry". We have two articles, Sockpuppet (Internet) the form of online abuse, and Sock puppet the children's toy, with a mishmash of redirects pointing to both targets. I've found that some of these date back to a time when the Internet article was located at Internet sock puppet; it was renamed to its present title in 2006 but existing redirects were not updated, and many of them now redirect to the toy article. We should be consistent. Off the top of my head I propose that all redirects with a space should point to the toy, and those without should point to multiple account abuse. There are already hatnotes in place at both articles to handle misdirects and pointers to the Wikipedia policy. Except delete Sockepuppet, it's an unlikely typo that's had only 26 hits in the last 5 years. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nominator - i.e. those with spaces to the toy, those without to the internet term. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the ones with spaces to Sock puppet and the ones without to Sockpuppet (Internet) to maintain consistency. However, delete Sockepuppet and Socketpuppet as unlikely typos; and also weak delete Sock-Puppet, while it might be useful when searching in an Internet searchbar and it got a slightly decent number of pageviews since July 2015, I'm not sure people would deliberately search for the topic like this. Regards, SONIC678 17:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that in the past (e.g. this 2007 version) the term "socket" was listed as another name for an online sockpuppet, and I'm sure I've seen this written as "socket puppet" as well but can't find it now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In spirit, I agree with retarget as proposed. However, in practice, there is a question of whether redirecting Sockpuppet to Sockpuppet (Internet), a parenthetically disambiguated version of itself, is acceptable. Generally, articles should not be at parenthetically disambiguated titles unless the base title is a disambiguation page or has another topic as the primary topic, with notable exceptions like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) and WP:MUSICSERIES. So the following choices are compliant with baseline WP:AT/WP:DAB policy: 1) Sock puppet is an article on the toy, Sockpuppet is a redirect to Sock puppet, and Sockpuppet (Internet) is an article on multiple accounts; 2) Sock puppet is an article on the toy, Sockpuppet is a disambiguation page, and Sockpuppet (Internet) is an article on multiple accounts; 3) Sock puppet is an article on the toy, and Sockpuppet is an article on multiple accounts. In order to apply the spirit of what the nominator is trying to do in a technically compliant way, option 3 is the way to go. However, that could lead to confusion, i.e. whether the presence of a space is enough to distinguish the topics based on WP:SMALLDETAILS. It's possible to go WP:IAR and say that Sock puppet and Sockpuppet (Internet) (with a redirect from Sockpuppet) are the ideal titles for those articles, but then you are implicitly claiming that Sockpuppet is too ambiguous to be a title for the Internet terminology but not too ambiguous to be a primary redirect to it. I personally am undecided on this point, so I'd like to hear others' opinions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points. Typically such a thing comes down to which (if any) is the primary topic. My search results are definitely going to be skewed for this, but I get 700k ghits for "sockpuppet toy", 10.8M for "sock puppet toy", 440k for "sockpuppet doll", 1.08M for "sockpuppet troll", 2.7M for "sock puppet online", 9.8M for "sock puppet account", 1.0M for "sock puppet vandal". I think that suggests that the title with the space reliably identifies the toy, versus without the space reliably identifying the online account, and I really wasn't expecting the distinction to be that clear. I do wonder how these results would look for someone who hasn't been patrolling SPI for four years, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I agree with you that the online abuser is the primary topic of Sockpuppet (though I'm open to disambiguation as well). My question is whether it is ever acceptable to redirect Sockpuppet to Sockpuppet (Internet) without an explicit exception in our naming conventions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see what you mean and I agree. I wasn't sure if a space was enough of a detail to disambiguate on but SMALLDETAILS seems to say that it is. I guess that's a matter for a move request at Talk:Sockpuppet (Internet) likely after this discussion closes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devokewater (talk • contribs) 18:42, July 11, 2020 (UTC)
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.

Flossie Page[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 Haven, Kansas#Notable people. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of person at target. —Bagumba (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for attribution of merged content Retarget per Thryduulf below but ensure history is kept. She was removed from the list when she died in 2016, but content in the page history requires attribution. Actually I don't know why she was removed, there are many deceased supercentenarians listed with their birth and death dates. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Haven, Kansas#Notable people where she is mentioned (I've just expanded that mention a little). If retargetted there her name should be unlinked to avoid a circular redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Haven, Kansas#Notable people and unlink her name per Thryduulf, but keep the history per Ivanvector. The existence of this redirect isn't tied to whether or not she continues to live. Regards, SONIC678 17:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Haven, Kansas#Notable people where encyclopedic content exists.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:46, 12 July 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.

Bon viveur[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#Bon viveur

Mail Boxes Etc. (MBE)[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 as pageview test. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. A person would use either Mail Boxes Etc. or MBE, but certainly not both or with (MBE) in parentheses for unnecessary disambiguation. Senator2029 “Talk” 08:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this is a special-purpose redirect used to measure outgoing page view traffic at the MBE disambiguation page. The title is intentionally implausible so people are unlikely to find it any other way than through the dab. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:44, 11 July 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.

Vereinigtes Königreich[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 18#Vereinigtes Königreich

Verenigd Koninkrijk[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 18#Verenigd Koninkrijk

Royaume Uni[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) feminist (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to France–United Kingdom relations a la Tiongkok (Indonesian for China) → China–Indonesia relations. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • Oppose The title is "United Kingdom" in another language. Redirecting to our main page about the United Kingdom seems quite reasonable. If it works, don't fix it. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Therefore, retarget Tiongkok to China. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep this has been discussed three times previously, most recently in March. Consensus will not have changed since then. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Those RfDs were discussed whether we should delete redirects like this. However, this RfD can be narrowed to either retarget or keep. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not retarget - if someone searches for the name of a country they are looking for information about that country, not relations between that country and another country (possibly one of several) that happens to speak that language. French is the or an official language in 28 countries and 11 dependent territories in addition to France. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful --Devokewater (talk) 12:47, 11 July 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.

Regno Unito[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 18#Regno Unito

Reino Unido[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 18#Reino Unido

Dumb fucks[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 18:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for this redirect to exist. ZimZalaBim talk 03:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not mentioned in target, and too generic to really point to one place. Apparently this redirect pointed to Wikipedia administrators at various points in its history. Hog Farm Bacon 05:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In case anyone doesn't know, the redirect is a reference to this. But the redirect is, well, dumb, because the phrase is no longer mentioned at the target and this was never the primary usage of it. Nowhere else for this to target, so delete. Spicy (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, commonplace expression which doesn't apply exclusively or even predominantly to Facebook. I suggest WP:SALTing. Narky Blert (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. The vandalism in this page's history was all the result of a single user who was blocked in 2019 so I don't see a need for salting. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete should never have been created n the first place. --Devokewater (talk) 12:49, 11 July 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.

UFC Fight Night: Kattar vs. Ige[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! 03:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have this redirect deleted because this event will take on ESPN next week. Therefore, it is another UFC on ESPN event and not another UFC Fight Night event.

  • Keep - the redirect is getting 3,500+ hits per day, clearly it's useful, and it redirects to the page where readers can now find information about the rescheduled event. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:23, 11 July 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.

UFC Fight Night: Whittaker vs. Till[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! 03:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have this redirect deleted as well, also for the very same reason.

Simply put, keeping these redirects would be inaccurate and could potentially mislead other users now. — 29cwcst (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the redirect is getting 2,800+ hits per day, clearly it's useful, and it redirects to the page where readers can now find information about the rescheduled event. Rather than misleading, these redirects help users find the information they're looking for, particularly if they're not aware the event has a new title. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:24, 11 July 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.

Hogs Gone Wild![edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 18#Hogs Gone Wild!

W-word[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 18:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rather ambiguous. A Google search brings up usages of "whore", Words With Friends cheats, and an Urban dictionary entry stating that this term is what "gay cowboys and incels" use as a euphemism for the word "woman" Hog Farm Bacon 02:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ambiguous. Spicy (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to W (disambiguation) which lists many cases of W being used as a word and so may assist the reader. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've added W word to this discussion as it seems unlikely they should target different places. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ambiguous --Devokewater (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These redirects are ambiguous and may cause confusion. A redirect to a disambiguation page would only be helpful if articles Wigger, Prostitution (for "whore"), and perhaps Wanker had sourced mentions of "W-word". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ambiguous. Kaldari (talk) 16:50, 20 July 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.

Redneck wigger[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 18:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No real good target, especially since Redneck and Wigger are their own articles. A merge was suggested in the old page history, but since that was in 2005 when such things weren't recorded, I can't tell if it actually occurred or not. Otherwise, the page history looks completely useless. Hog Farm Bacon 02:04, 11 July 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_July_11&oldid=968661495"