Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 22, 2020.

Shitlord[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) 18:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exists only for the purpose of bluelinked personal attack. It is not mentioned at the target, and so fails as a justified redirect. It has no mainspace occurrences, and no appropriate uses elsewhere on Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect to wikt. I can't find another mention of this word in Enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; let's not facilitate personal attacks by keeping dubious redirects up. Hog Farm Bacon 14:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Term does not appear in the target article so let's not send readers on a wild goose chase. Haukur (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 20:23, 26 October 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.

Kimmelot[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 31#Kimmelot

SKA Films[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 Marv Films. --BDD (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:33, 22 October 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.

Solar eclipse 2017[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 2017 eclipse. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this redirect page? It became useless since early 2020. We also don't have the redirect for "Solar eclipses in the 21st century". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither "2/26/17" nor "8/21/17" seem to be valid targets. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 2017 eclipse. Seventyfiveyears, you're asking the wrong question. Well, sure, I guess Wikipedia could do without this redirect, but that would lessen the user experience for anyone trying to find one of the 2017 solar eclipses by using this search term. I'm also not sure what you mean by your third sentence. Are you pointing out one of our redirect deficiencies? That's an easy fix. -- Tavix (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. -- Tavix (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix. There were two solar eclipses in 2017 and that target provides a quick link to both of them. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 27 October 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.

Project X Entertainment[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. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The two are connected (https://projectxentertainment.com/#team) but I don't think it's reasonable to redirect the name of the company to an article about one of several company officers. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Project Xdisambiguation which has an "entertainment" sectionWeak keep Add James Vanderbilt and other production companies to disambiguation if his article mentions it. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC) updated 19:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be mentioned now on Vanderbilt's article. Switching to keep. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per AngusWOOF. Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Huh? What entries at Project X could plausibly be called "Project X Entertainment"? -- Tavix (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The two other officers don't have Wikipedia pages at the moment so Vanderbilt's page might have to do for now. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that it's mentioned. Thanks! -- Tavix (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:31, 22 October 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.

C'est tout ce que j'aime[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. Normally a vote count this close would merit a relist, but this appears to be a clear cut case of WP:RLOTE. signed, Rosguill talk 21:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French McDonald's slogan, but not mentioned in article, and McDonald's (a US company) has no strong national ties with the French language Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I believe it should be kept like the other language versions (there are redirects of the Spanish, Japanese, German, Russian, Chinese and more), but the redirect should be more precise - namely to the Current campaign section where the slogan is talked about.Less Unless (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, however deleting just one would be rather unfair (I have no preferences here, however I believe it should be treated equally). Do you think the other language versions should also be nominated?Less Unless (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I agree that this isn't a great result as a one-off. Either nominating the others or adding language variants to the article would be fine. (N.b., Don't delete the German version, for reasons that will be obvious upon reading the article.) --BDD (talk) 18:18, 30 October 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.

Comparison of one-click hosters[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) 18:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected twelve years ago. There are no comparisons of "one-click hosters" in the target article. Anarchyte (talk • work) 04:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Comparison of one click hosters (without hyphen) added. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no comparison of such services at the article and other adequate redirects exist. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:40, 22 October 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.

Servilia (2nd century BC)[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) 18:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were several women named Servilia during the 2nd century BC. This redirect is therefore confusing. ★Trekker (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Isn't this ambiguous with aspects of the Servilia gens in 2nd century BC? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article was moved from this ambiguous title over three years ago, and has no incoming links from other articles. It's not a likely search target due to its ambiguity. P Aculeius (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the disambiguation at Servilia. This gets a surprisingly large number of hits so deletion would be harmful, but it is ambiguous so retargeting to the dab page is the perfect solution. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's a relatively obscure figure and an improbable formulation, the "surprisingly large number of hits" without any incoming links is presumably due to the fact that the redirect pops up in the search window. Eliminate the redirect, and that problem goes away. This would also apply to the absurd "Antonia, daughter of Antonius", which nobody would think to search for. P Aculeius (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely search target. Avis11 (talk) 13:56, 28 October 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.

Antonia, daughter of Antonius[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 29#Antonia, daughter of Antonius

November criminals[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) | free Thailand 05:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should target the dab page November Criminals rather than the article, which is a related topic to one of the possible uses of this term. I'm not a fan of DIFFCAPS in general, and in this case, all of the options are usually written in uppercase in English.[1][2][3] (t · c) buidhe 04:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget - Not sure about the target usually being referred to with an upper-case C the same as the other two entries in the disambiguation page since 3 out of 4 uses of the term "November criminals" in the article have lowercase. In any event, I agree that the disambiguation page is probably a better target. At the very least there should be a hatnote to the disambiguation page at Stab-in-the-back myth. A7V2 (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, and move the disambiguation page, per BDD. Others are right that Stab-in-the-back myth is the primary topic and hatnote has been corrected. A7V2 (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:DIFFCAPS (like it or not). The problem here is with the hatnote at Stab-in-the-back myth and the disambiguation page November Criminals, both of which I have now changed. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But I share the nominator's concerns with DIFFCAPS, and in this case, it makes sense to move the disambiguation page to November Criminals (disambiguation) and retarget the base title to Stab-in-the-back myth. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per BDD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stab-in-the-back myth is definitely the primary topic for the term, compared to a fairly obscure novel and film based on it. Support the page move suggested by BDD though. Hut 8.5 21:06, 27 October 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_October_22&oldid=986454579"