This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 17, 2020.
- 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
- 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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Redirect to the above
WP:PRIMARYTOPICS.
- Redirect to the disambiguation pages
King of Rock and Roll (disambiguation),
Queen of Soul (disambiguation),
Queen of Pop (disambiguation), and
King of Pop (disambiguation).
- 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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#Altas
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 25#Neo FIlms
- 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
- 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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#Pakistan Zindabad (song)
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#SucKIT
- 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
- 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 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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.