This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 2, 2020.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 10#Neo FIlms
Draft:Untitled Harley Quinn project
- 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. If there were any future untitled projects that could fit these descriptions, I suspect we'd quickly get consensus (if these titles weren't just BOLDly usurped). --
BDD (
talk)
22:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
Delete just like in the mainspace, once films/albums/other created works get a title, any redirect with "Untitled" is misleading and should be deleted.
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
20:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
Rusted AutoParts
20:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep all since they are all redirects which target pages in the "Draft:" namespace, the "Draft:" namespace is set up to not be indexed by third party search engines (should not show up in their search results), the "Draft:" namespace is not intended to be used as a search mechanism for "live" pages, and these redirects could potentially prevent duplicate articles and/or drafts being created at these titles since 1) they redirect to the most applicable draft and 2) it gives editors a warning box if they try to create articles with title matches of pages in the "Draft:" namespace.
Steel1943 (
talk)
20:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete alll Redirects are costly and not what the draft namespace is for.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
23:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep all per Steel1943. Redirects within draft space are probably the very opposite of costly.
Thryduulf (
talk)
11:01, 26 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. Thanks to Uanfala for drafting it! --
BDD (
talk)
22:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
Tied may be a possible typo for tide, but is probably more likely an intentional search term for the past tense of tie. The current redirect is
WP:ASTONISHing, and should be avoided. Suggest either re-targeting to
Tie, or deleting.
Paul_012 (
talk)
19:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep or retarget to
Tie (draw). "Tied" is not a reasonable search term for any of the uses listed on the extensive disambiguation page except, possibly,
Tie (draw) so if it is retargetted anywhere it should be there. However I disagree that the current target is more or less astonishing than any other typo or homonym, especially as we regularly redirect those but don't regularly redirect other verb forms.
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keeping is definitely out: misspellings can't take precedence over correct forms. The other target noted by Thryduulf is definitely plausible, but there are other targets as well, and I can't see a primary topic even if I squint. Disambiguating looks viable, but it will be tricky to do with the NOTDIC and PTM issues. Articles like
Tied house,
Tied cottage,
Tied aid should probably be included: they look like
partial title matches, but in each of those three cases you can discern a specific meaning of "tied" that's not exclusive to these particular phrases: you can also talk for example of a pub, a contract, or a loan being tied. –
Uanfala (talk)
13:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Disambiguate. This redirect is too ambiguous. There are a lot of titles containing "Tied". Seventyfiveyears (
talk)
15:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
reply
- @
Seventyfiveyears: Simply having a lot of titles containing the word is not enough for disambiguation, there would have to multiple titles that are actually fully known as "Tied". See
WP:PTM for more details. Which articles did you want to include in your proposed disambiguation? --
Tavix (
talk)
15:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. This is ambiguous and any redirect to any target may cause confusion (especially the current target). Let Search do its job uninhibited.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
16:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to DAB page
Tie as {{
R from ambiguous term}}. Knots are tied.
Narky Blert (
talk)
09:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
Retarget to
Tie dab page, add it to the Wiktionary link on that page, and add a couple of "See also" links to "look from" and "in title" for "Tied". Too many uses -
tied cottage (home linked to job),
tied house (pub committed to brewery), knots, etc as well as sports. If anyone feels strongly about the typo for "tide", add that as another "see also".
Pam
D
10:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
- I've drafted a dab page below the redirect: if the term is to be disambiguated at all, then it definitely should be at its own title. Redirecting to
Tie is out of the question because the overlap between the two terms is infinitesimal: only three, maximum four, of the 36 entries at
Tie are relevant for "tied", and many of the meanings of "tied" are not relevant for "tie". I don't have very strong objections to deletion, but a separate page is probably the most helpful solution; retargeting anywhere else (except maybe Wiktionary) will be as good as useless for our readers. –
Uanfala (talk)
23:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Disambiguate as set out by
Uanfala: thanks for your work. Perhaps add a gloss "... is the past tense of the verb to tie"? We may need to
WP:IAR slightly for this set of PTMs, but it looks the solution which will be the most helpful to the most readers. I've removed a duplicate entry and added the "in title" and "look from" searches.
Pam
D
18:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Disambiguate per multiple editors above, seems to be the best solution for this. A draft has already been created below the redirect anyway.
CycloneYoris
talk!
23:23, 9 September 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.
Bangkok International Airport
- 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. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
This was a disambiguation page until 2015 when
User:ZJOEY redirected the page to
Suvarnabhumi Airport. While Suvarnabhumi inherited the IATA code BKK from
Don Mueang International Airport in 2006, it has never been officially referred to as "Bangkok International Airport", which was Don Mueang Airport's official name up until then. (Before being officially named, Suvarnabhumi was referred to as "New Bangkok International Airport".) Both are currently international airports serving Bangkok. I suggest the disambiguation page be restored.
Paul_012 (
talk)
18:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Restore DAB.
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs tend to collect bad links, and JHJ's research has shown that this one indeed does.
Narky Blert (
talk)
09:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Disambiguate per nom. While neither of Bangkok's two operating international airports is officially named "Bangkok [International] Airport", readers will be looking for something at that title, and it's possible (though not very likely) that old articles, histories, and mirrors host ambiguous links originally intended for the old official title for Don Mueang. Disambiguation is the best way to handle these, and hopefully prevent creation of new ambiguous links.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
13:29, 8 September 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
17:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
While there is content about
Giant enemy crab on enwiki, I'm not convinced "giant enemy crap" is a plausible search term for that meme.
Hog Farm
Bacon
15:09, 2 September 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.
Soysauce-Warrior Kikkoman
- 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
17:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
Looks like an obscure or novel synonym of the target, which is one of the
WP:RFD#DELETE reasons for deletion. A Google search, at least on my device, is mostly bringing up various BBQ and hot sauces claiming to be "for real men", as well as a bizarre
internet challenge involving soy sauce and testicles.
Hog Farm
Bacon
15:03, 2 September 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
17:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear.
Steel1943 (
talk)
04:48, 26 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 retarget to
Wikipedia:Offensive material. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
Doesn't seem like a completely logical redirect. It's old (2008), but only has one link, and it's an old user talk archive that's basically an announcement this redirect has been created.
WP:CUSS links to
Wikipedia:Offensive material,
WP:SWEARWORDS links to
Wikipedia:Civility, and
WP:SWEARING links to
Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. I guess this redirect could point to any of those, but the no legal threats target seems to have, by far, the weakest connection to "bad words", which usually means
profanity.
Hog Farm
Bacon
14:04, 2 September 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 September 9#AmaNdebele
Orbital maneuvering system
- 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 see strong arguments on both sides, and little reason to think a relisting would change things. I suspect Jimbo Wales himself expressing an opinion would tip the scales, but he hasn't been active in a bit. --
BDD (
talk)
16:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
I do not understand why this page redirects to that user page. Also, I feel like if anyone made an account using this username, they would not expect this redirect. Seventyfiveyears (
talk)
12:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: Also check
User talk:Jimbo →
User talk:Jimbo Wales - doing this before a separate RfD is filed.
FMecha (
to talk|
to see log)
13:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: There is even
a user going by this name on trwiki.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
13:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. As the creator I naturally think the redirect has value to prevent disruption and confusion. Impersonation should be blocked.
User:Jimbo Wales is a significant enough editor that his nickname should be reserved for him alone across all Wikimedia/Wikipedia platforms. (BTW, the talk page was already a redirect at the time I made this one.) --
Valjean (
talk)
15:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
Wikipedia:Unified login, since there's a user who's registered this name on trwiki. If they were ever to edit here,
User:Jimbo would be there userpage on enwiki. I don't see why this redirect should stand in the way of the single-user login. Heck, this could even be eligible for
WP:U2, right?
Hog Farm
Bacon
15:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. This redirect is widely used.
Currently 494 uses are registered. --
Valjean (
talk)
16:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Mark it doppelgänger account per above comments. The Turk user will notice that their enwiki uses pages are created to avoid impersonality with Mr. Jimbo Wales. --
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
17:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Delete per
1234qwer1234qwer4's findings. Since the user name is used for a global account unrelated to the target, this redirect should be deleted per the purpose of
WP:SUL.
Steel1943 (
talk)
18:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Updated to "strong" after my findings in my response to
Hog Farm. Looks like this user name is reserved specifically for the editor who has edited on "trwiki" since the
WP:SUL for "Jimbo" was assigned to them. I'd even go to the extent to say this redirect should be deleted per
WP:G6 since its existence has the potential to cause technical issues that conflict with
WP:SUL.
Steel1943 (
talk)
18:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
- You know, at this point, I'm just going to ask the editor themselves for input in this since they are still active and probably know more about this first hand than me:
Power~enwiki, is there anything you may know regarding your own experiences with the enacting of
WP:SUL which may help with this discussion?
Steel1943 (
talk)
18:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
- I don't see how SUL is relevant here. All the renames were done in 2015 (including that of a blocked account at enwiki from Jimbo to Jimbo~enwiki) and nobody's username is going to change now.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
19:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as the overwhelming primary topic, given that
Jimbo~enwiki is blocked and the Turkish Jimbo hasn't edited since 2011.
Jimbo Wales is more likely than any other user to be searched by those who know who he is but may not know the username. --
Tavix (
talk)
19:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
- @
Tavix: I understand this stance, but I'd like to present an alternative. So, for the page
沙盒, deleted via an RfD, I created
Template:Editnotices/Page/沙盒 which appears on the page when anyone attempts to create it. Would having such a edit notice at the top of the page, possibly stating something like "User:Jimbo does not exist. You may have meant User:Jimbo Wales, the account for Wikipedia's founder" suffice? That way, readers will still be directed to where they may possibly intend to go, while at the same time leaving this title free since it belongs to an account authenticated via SUL that has nothing to do with Jimbo Wales? (Even though yes, the odds of them using their account are rather low since they have both never edited on the English Wikipedia and haven't edited at all for about 9 years?)
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, per discussion about the years-last-edited it's a clear 'keep'.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, unless Jimbo Wales himself owns this account it should not redirect to his userpage
🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (
talk)
22:53, 7 September 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)
15:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
Double redirect (from a page move) for a PPV that isn't yet happening (target currently redirects to
WWE Hell in a Cell).
FMecha (
to talk|
to see log)
06:36, 2 September 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.
Return of the Killer Windshield
- 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)
15:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned anywhere on enwiki, it's a rather funny one-panel gag in the comic strip, but definitely out of scope to mention anywhere.
Hog Farm
Bacon
02:43, 2 September 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)
15:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
Improper use of the draft: namespace, it was created as a redirect from the draft space to the article space.
Hog Farm
Bacon
02:23, 2 September 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 the first six, retarget
Snow Elves to
Elves in fiction. --
BDD (
talk)
15:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
The target article has a very large number of incoming redirects for sundry in-game entities, but these ones here are probably among the most obscure. There's no content about them anywhere on Wikipedia, and I can't imagine there ever being added any. And because of the presence of either generic or short words in some of these names, the redirect are likely to interfere with searches for other topics. There's nothing useful in the histories of those redirects:
Battle of Ionith was created in 2006 as a short article about the event, but was then promptly redirected; similar was the beginning of
Sigil Stone in 2007. The rest have remained redirects since their creation:
Gaiden Shinji in 2007,
Thras in 2013,
Dark Brotherhood Sanctuary,
Snow Elves and
Reman Cyrodiil in 2014. –
Uanfala (talk)
00:29, 2 September 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.
Jackson Pollock (longevity claimant)
- 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)
15:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
reply
As far as I can see, the only relevant name listed in the target is Jackson Pollard, not Pollock.
Hildeoc (
talk)
00:21, 2 September 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.