This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 26, 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. --
BDD (
talk)
14:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
Presumably this is meant as a jab at the Japanese video game company SNK. However, this term is not discussed in the
Engrish article, nor at the article
SNK. Without any discussion of "SNK-glish" to be found, there is no reason to have this as a redirect.
50.248.234.77 (
talk)
23:47, 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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 3#Planet killer
- 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
Walpurgis Night (album). There's no consensus to delete, but retargeting to the album is a helpful improvement over keeping as-is. --
Tavix (
talk)
15:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
GFriend's new album Walpurgis Night is a studio album and not an EP. The creator of that page didn't wait for the confirmation and made a redirect explaining something false. This can then cause confusion to the readers. So I believe that this redirect should be deleted.
HDORS (
talk)
19:53, 19 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.
- 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)
14:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,
not a dictionary. Also an acronym redirect that targets to the
DAB page. Seventyfiveyears (
talk)
18:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - The Ipswich supporters page is mentioned at the current target. "TWTD" is clearly a valid search term for "Those were the days" unless there is something else this can stand for? Not sure I understand the nom's justification as that relates to articles and their content, not to redirects. I don't see that any of the
reasons to delete apply. If others feel it justified, I don't have an issue with retargeting to
Ipswich Town F.C. with a hatnote, but that should only be done if mentioned there.
A7V2 (
talk)
23:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete ambiguous --
Devokewater
(talk)
10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. This is another poor rationale by
Seventyfiveyears so I'm explicitly separating myself from it. While it may be true that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, that has nothing to do with this redirect. A redirect from an initialism to a target that uses that initialism is definitely a plausible search term, and those redirects should be kept. In fact, {{
R from initialism}} (and the sister {{
R from acronym}}) are used on thousands of redirect pages. That being said, I don't see a significant enough connection between "TWTD" and the disambiguation page for
Those Were the Days. My searches confirm the Ipswich Town usage is probably the most significant. However, there is no mention of the term at that target and as a result I have removed that entry from
Those Were the Days. --
Tavix (
talk)
14:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Search will get you to Ipswich Town if that's where you wanted.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
16:47, 1 November 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 November 10#Teqvoly
- 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
Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests. --
BDD (
talk)
14:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
Doesn't make any sense
DemonDays64 (
talk)
02:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests, which would be the page one would be looking for if they are wanting "new features". It includes
Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests#Software deployment schedule, which explains when new features are deployed, as well as a link to the deployment schedule so one can see what features have recently been deployed as well as upcoming features to be released soon. --
Tavix (
talk)
02:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Implausible target.
Aasim (
talk)
05:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests per Tavix. Having an implausible target is not a valid reason for deletion. This redirect can still be useful if a new target is assigned.
CycloneYoris
talk!
08:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget per Tavix. I'm also a little mystified that "New features" would redirect to a page that was marked
historical over a decade ago. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist
(Speak quickly)
(Follow my trail)
15:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget per Tavix. @
Zeke: the target feature wasn't historical in 2005 when this redirect was created (by a page move).
Thryduulf (
talk)
16:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - this title seems to have been created as a sort of early village pump, but only ever attracted one proposal to allow blocked users to edit their own talk page. It was moved three days later to
Wikipedia:Blocked user edit exceptions, and another two days later to the current title. Readers are clearly not looking for new features (or anything else) at this title: the page has had 81 hits in total since mid-2015. It's plausibly a shortcut for what Tavix proposed but just as likely to really any of the extant village pumps, and if nobody has seen fit to point it to a more appropriate target in fifteen years it's not likely to be useful.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
19:11, 19 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.
Administrative divisions of Kuwait
- 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 keep. This is not a valid delete reason for a project-space redirect. –
bradv
🍁
14:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
reply
This redirect is not mentioned at the target. I also found a film named "
Late Night" and
some other related stuff. Seventyfiveyears (
talk)
13:41, 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.
New York Giants Depth Chart
Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Bummer Vacation
- 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)
14:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
This is not the real title of the book, nor an alternate title; it started as a hoax and returns almost no search results. Since the start of the year, this redirect has had only 13 visits in 10 months. I nominate this for deletion.
Scrooge200 (
talk)
06:50, 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.
- 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.
(non-admin closure)
CycloneYoris
talk!
20:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
reply
Unable to find any reliable sources for her existence. Only mentions of Alice Morgan appear to come from books on ghosts.
Greyjoy
talk
06:33, 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.