Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 23[edit]

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

Private aircraft[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 Private aviation. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 19:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Current target discusses only a small portion of private aircraft. Private aviation may be a better, more encompassing target, though that page is currently poorly developed with little discussion of aircraft. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:21, 23 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.

In-draftspace 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 delete. If editors want to continue the discussion regarding whether G6 is acceptable for draft space redirects, WT:CSD is a good place to continue. signed, Rosguill talk 21:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Looking for consensus on whether in-draftspace redirects can always, never, or "it depends" be speedily deleted under criterion g6, housekeeping. My own view is always: I have nominated many such redirects for G6 deletion, and many have been deleted thereunder, which is also why I have consistently suppressed creation of a redirect when moving pages within the draftspace. Recently, @Fastily: (whom I highly respect) has argued G6 does not apply to these, so I am nominating this smattering of examples here to try to get consensus. I believe the same answer would apply even if the in-draftpace redirect is subsequently retargeted to the mainspace because its original draftspace target is moved there, as in two of the above nominations. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks @UnitedStatesian for bringing this here. No opinion on whether these are ultimately kept/deleted. I declined the speedy requests on the basis that redirects created from a page move are not eligible for G6 (also, this is explicitly called out in R3). -FASTILY 23:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a different interpretation, since "pages unambiguously created in error" is specified explicitly in WP:CSD#G6 (and this becomes "pages with titles unambiguously created in error" at WP:PMRC#3, the pagemover redirect suppression allowed on that same G6 basis). UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These are unambiguously created in error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment (yet?) on these individual redirects, but the answer to the OP's question about G6 is very clearly It depends. Factors include whether the author(s) know about the move, whether the old title is plausible, how long it existed at the old title, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • My question is on your "how long it existed" point: I understand that can be a factor with mainspace redirects because sites outside of Wikipedia are more likely to link to them the longer they exist, but since the entire draftspace is NOINDEXed, I cannot see how length of existence would ever be a factor for draftspace redirects. And I'll ask a related question: can anyone recall an in-draftspace redirect being "kept" in a valid RfD discussion? UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure there has been at least one draft → draft redirect kept at RfD this year, but I can't remember the details off the top of my head. The age is about links, but they will mainly be from authors and anyone they have shared it with (e.g. I've been asked to proofread a draft written by someone else before). Also look at the editing history - if the author only edits occasionally (say at weekends) then it's best not to delete it until at couple of weekends have passed to give them the greatest chance of finding it. I'd also strongly recommend not deleting it between a G13 warning for the redirect title and the G13 date unless there is evidence the author is aware of the new location (if the target gets G13ed the redirect can be deleted under G8 anyway). In the majority of cases, speedy deletion is going to be fine - especially if the author(s) have been told on their talk page where the draft now is - however there are cases where it wont be so "it depends" is the only possible answer. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any author/contributor will still be able to find their contributions after the move, since all contributions follow to the new page title, and the only "author" at the old, now redirected page is the editor who moved it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:10, 31 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.

William Wall(U.S. politician)[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB, considering that William Wall (U.S. politician) exists. Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Malformed disambiguator. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An unambiguous error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, Unnecessary clutter. Narky Blert (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above, the correctly formatted counterpart exists and seems to get more pageviews per year. Regards, SONIC678 18:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useless to nominate or delete. The nominator cites RDAB – which has the passage (the capitalization and spelling errors portion only applies if (x) is an error variation of "disambiguation") and is part of an essay. That essay also has the passage [you can reduce the administrative burden by] not sending redirects to RFD, unless there is a serious problem that can't be solved any other way. There's hardly a comprehensive argument for deletion in this case. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Capitalization" and/or "spelling" ≠ "spacing". Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 29 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.

Wikipedia:T[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 21:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this again because I was requested to nominate each item separately. I think this should be retargeted somewhere. Possible targets include Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Teahouse. Pinging Sdkb for his input. Interstellarity (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is a very longstandng redirect (created 2004, originally to Wikipedia:Tutorial before that was renamed) with over 4000 links and over 3000 page views a year. Any change to this, however well intentioned, that leads to something other than a tutorial or something functionally equivalent (e.g. the current target) will be astoundingly disruptive for minimal (at best) gain. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Like it or not, there are elements of Wikipedia which are effectively set in stone because they are long-established and it would he hugely disruptive to change them. This is one such.
(I have a particular detestation of WP:TITLECASE, which seems to have been dreamt up by a closed-shop union of sadistic anal-retentive compositors to keep apprentices and outsiders in their place. The idea of trying to change it isn't worth even a moment's consideration.) Narky Blert (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and previous consensus, this redirect's been at its current target since June 2004. We don't need to astonish readers by directing them to a different page. Regards, SONIC678 14:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I must've been looking at the wrong target (the original one). Thanks for pointing that out. Regards, SONIC678 22:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch in an ideal world but keep in this one per Thryduulf. I appreciate the efforts to tidy up these redirects, but unfortunately, handling 4000 past links is just not possible without causing more disruption than the change would be worth. When we develop time machines, we should give a stern warning to early-2000s Wikipedians about the dangers of path dependency.[FBDB] {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, and I'm fine with either talk pages or templates, which are the most common "T" abbreviations in Wikiworld. Since Wikipedia:Tutorial no longer exists, it no longer makes sense to have WP:T target a page that doesn't begin with T. As I explained at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 10#Wikipedia:9, most links to single digit letters and numbers were created via User:TomasBat/Welcome, which links all single letter shortcuts without any context, so it doesn't matter what the target is. For anybody that may end up confused where they end up (which I believe would be at least an order of magnitude less than Thuyduulf would have you believe), a hatnote should be employed to point to the introduction page, along with the other targets the nominator suggested. -- Tavix (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The actual status quo is for it to target Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical), since that's the page it targeted before April 2020. I wouldn't be opposed to that; since we're keeping around WP:T mainly for legacy reasons anyways, it can go to a legacy page. I'd also be fine with disambiguation here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab: It historically referred to WP:Tutorial, and could also refer to other WP namespace articles as mentioned above. However, i would also support keeping the redirect in its current state and creating a separate disambiguation page, then adding a hatnote on Help:Introduction that says something like this:
    "Wikipedia:T" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:T (disambiguation)
    the ultraUsurper 05:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @UltraUsurper: If we're going to keep it for historical purposes, I'd suggest Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical) instead, so that WP:T when linked to in old discussions would take you to a page that looks like what it used to be. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @King of Hearts: I don't have an opinion on which page WP:T should redirect to, but i do think the disambiguation should be created, and the hatnote should be there on whichever page it redirects to the ultraUsurper 05:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that i think of it, i support a Retarget to Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical), a disambiguation, and a hatnote on the page taking you to the disambiguation. the ultraUsurper 06:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical) target per King of Hearts. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the intention is to accommodate the large number of existing links, then the only logical solution I can see is to retarget back to the page that all those existing links were pointing to and that's currently at Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical). That page should then have a hatnote for whatever is the current introductory page for Wikipedia (and that's for reasons independent of the existence of this redirect). The other two options: retargeting somewhere else or disambiguating, would only make sense if the shortcut continues to be used in practice. I've had a quick look at the incoming links and I'm struggling to find any uses in recent years (let alone in the recent months since the tutorial page was marked as historical). I may be particularly partial to disambiguating, but we would still need some evidence of conflicting usages for that to make sense. – Uanfala (talk) 11:31, 31 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.

Woman-killer[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 31#Woman-killer

Caesar's wife must be above suspicion[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 per WP:Oops Defense (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase is not mentioned in the article. It should either be deleted or made into a new article. See treker's comment below, and then my response to that for updated reasons. Ghinga7 (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the article and the phrase is clearly stated and explained there.★Trekker (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! That's what I get for skimreading. I think an article on the phrase itself would still be useful, or otherwise link to the section it's mentioned in. I know I'm not an admin, but I still think Wikipedia:Oops Defense applies here. Ghinga7 (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been planing on making an article there for a while, but havn't gotten to it as of now.★Trekker (talk) 20:12, 23 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.

Chris manning[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. Deryck C. 18:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is not helpful, "Chris Manning" is also the name of a (likely notable) Stanford CS/linguistics professor. Readers would be WP:ASTONISHed to find information about an obscure attorney who is mentioned in passing in the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:29, 23 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.

DoQmentaries[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 List of programs aired by Q/GMA News TV. Good suggestion from AngusWOOF, I see no reason to leave this open further. If disputed, this close decision can be treated as a bold edit signed, Rosguill talk 23:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article. A suggestion to redirect from this title to the target was raised in the AfD for an article at this title, which was closed as ...delete. No consensus about redirect; all are free to create it and then to contest it at RfD. I would lean towards deleting, but would have no problem keeping the redirect if a duly sourced mention can be added to the target. signed, Rosguill talk 17:39, 23 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.

Air speed velocity[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This quote actually is mentioned at the target, rendered as "air-speed velocity", but I really don't think that this is an appropriate redirect given that the reader may be looking for an article related to aerodynamics. Air speed velocity of an unladen sparrow would be ok in my book. I would suggest either redirecting to Airspeed or deletion, as my understanding is that "air speed velocity" is redundant or incorrect from a physics perspective. signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as tautological/confusing/WP:XY. What's the difference between air speed, air velocity, and air speed velocity? Air speed usually means speed through the air, air velocity usually means velocity of the air relative to something, air speed velocity feels like a Graham Chapman joke from Part I of the Cambridge Natural Sciences Tripos. We don't need redirects from every obscure Python line. Narky Blert (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. The Airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow link already exists. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig (or something similar that's not technically a dab page to protect the sensibilities of those who care about such things) given the existence of the very famous Monty Python quote people will be searching for this term and we should explain that it isn't techinically a thing and point them to air speed, air velocity, the Python article and anything else relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a quote. For de-confusion, the target article could have a hatnote. Also, the fact that the redirect did not exist before this recent creation, says that there was no need for, aerodynamicsally spoken. -DePiep (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As overly vague, since it does not mention swallows at all.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even its usage in the film is about a speed concept. We have airspeed, which is unfortunately missing biological and other natural meanings. -- 70.51.44.93 (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The MP line is "What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?", so this fragmentary and misspelled redir seems unlikely. If it were kept, it should go to airspeed. (And, yes, "air speed" is a typo. The speed-of-flight measure is airspeed. If it were a thing, air speed would refer to the speed of (not through) air. The measures for that are well-defined flow and windspeed units, depending on context; none of them are called "air speed".)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Air speed" while incorrect is a massively plausible search term for "airspeed" and so air speed correctly redirects to Airspeed. Accordingly no weight at all should be given to the spacing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Narky Blert. "Air speed velocity" is in fact an incorrect reduplication if the literal meaning is intended. For the Monty Python meaning it's too short a quotation and missing some punctuation. Deryck C. 18:56, 31 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.

Shakesbeard[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, my guess is that this is a minor plot element. An internet search turned up a novelty beard-care company as the main search result. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also seeing product for this and random usernames. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:03, 23 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.

Work (book)[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. Deryck C. 18:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no mention of a book called Work at the target, and without an adequate mention the redirect may cause confusion because it is ambiguous (e.g. Work: A Story of Experience). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:50, 23 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.

Birkby, Cumbria[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 Procedural close. Article has been created. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 19:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birkby, Cumbria + Crosscanonby are two distinctive hamlets either side of Crosby, Cumbria, a redirect to Crosby, Cumbria makes senses, one to Crosscanonby does not. This redirect needs deleted + Birkby, Cumbria needs its own wikipedia page, it’s a notable hamlet in its own right. Devokewater @ 11:21, 23 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.

Mono Kbron[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. Deryck C. 18:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article. Google search yields no indication as to how this applies to Hamilton. Nominating for deletion as nonsense.
SSSB (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All I could find was a Facebook page with user handle Mono Kbron (which includes a bit of C/P from Hamilton's website). Narky Blert (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Devokewater @ 14:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; save for some earth-shattering breakthrough, no evidence this is of any use. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing about Mono Kbron. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It looks like the user who created this redirect has only ever created nonsense redirects. I will nominate the others for deletion as well. A7V2 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now listed the others. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 25#Giro del pepino. A7V2 (talk) 01:18, 25 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.

Dakow[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. Deryck C. 18:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling (more likely to be a misspelling of Dakowy). However, in my opinion it should be deleted as it's also a surname, the name of a company (Dakow Ventures), and a neighborhood in Vietnam, some of which might be notable. (t · c) buidhe 01:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the Vietnamese neighbourhood is properly spelled Đa Kao. I'm not sure if anyone besides Graham Greene ever used the spelling "Dakow"; if the spelling is to be mentioned, it probably belongs at The Quiet American#Plot rather than the neighbourhood article. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:MADEUP-looking and inaccurate phonetic version of Dachau (we don't have redirects like Munick or Owschwitz, for example). No other mention in English WP; two mentions of Georgi Dakow in Polish WP, but they have no article. Narky Blert (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 11:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The Polish WP even calls it Dachau, so it's not a translation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab: Could refer to several things, and I don't think deleting is the solution here the ultraUsurper 05:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed my mind. Delete per above. the ultraUsurper 05:28, 24 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_23&oldid=970614927"