Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 3

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

August 3

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 3, 2020.

Email blast

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 Email marketing. signed, Rosguill talk 01:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These should both either target the same article, or both should be deleted. I have no preference on either option. Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I ask HP to send me announcements of new printers. They send e-mail about new printers and nothing else. That's marketing and solicited. The instant they send me announcements of scanners, it's spam, but as long as they restrict themselves to what they have permission for, the e-mail is not spam. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good explanation. It's not my experience at all, but it's a good explanation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Re]target both to email marketing, in light of Chatul's explanation. An email blast (and e-blast, for the other discussion) refers to the practice of mass-delivering marketing emails (probably more specifically, the content of a marketing email which is mass-delivered), and that's what we should target. The fact that a subset of marketing emails may be unsolicited (and thus spam) is not relevant to this description. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, as neither the
    talk) 04:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Email marketing. Cambridge associates the term with marketing, but not explicitly or exclusively with spam. --Bsherr (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Email marketing. I have never heard the term in reference to (non-marketing) spam, but the term is in common usage in the field of digital marketing. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:58, 4 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.

Lunar Module

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 01:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

  • But that's a space between words, an entirely different kind of animal. Upper casing Lunar Module to search for the Apollo Lunar Module seems a natural redirect, and has done pretty well since 2003. And I really want to commend you in a public discussion, so thank you, Soumya-8974, for recently creating the really nice page Lunar Module Eagle. I paraphrase what someone else said, and wonder "Why hasn't anyone written this article before?" It's the spaceship which a guy flew to land on the Moon by having to dodge craters and rocks with the help of his valued navigator. And nobody ever wrote an article about it before you. Pretty cool, thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:52, 3 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.

Kretzulesco

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Kretzulesco

Wikipedia:SPEAKENGLISH

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. On the only question before us—the suitability of this redirect—there's clear consensus to delete. Any discussion of similar redirects or the underlying policy must happen separately. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The phrase "Speak English" is often used as a racist term to keep people from using their native language in other countries. While it may be semi-appropriate here as this is an English language project, not a country specific one, it still keeps those racist undertones; can prevent people from discussing articles related to their country in their language; and is mostly irrelevant now due to automatic translation tools like Google Translate. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I wholeheartedly agree that this redirect is racist passive aggression and should be retired immediately. Smirkybec (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree that this redirect carries uncomfortable undertones. I think that
    WP:ENGLISHPLEASE is a more suitable shortcut for this guideline. If a consensus for deletion is found, the closer should make sure to change the shortcut listed at the target (or at least remove it). I do want to rebut one point made by nom, however, which is that the underlying guideline that we should use English is appropriate, and Google Translate, while a useful tool, is not sophisticated enough to remove all language boundaries. signed, Rosguill talk 20:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC) 16:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. Utterly inappropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pejorative connotation not conducive to editing environment Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What "race" speaks English? All of them? English is both a lingua franca and the language employed by this project. If an editor cannot speak English, how will they contribute, and if they can contribute, how will they maintain a collegial relationship with English-speaking editors? Elizium23 (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this discussion is less about suggesting that editors don't have to speak English, and more that this specific phrase is commonly deployed as a xenophobic epithet elsewhere and is unnecessarily offputting. signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like Elizium, it doesn't come across to me as racist in the context of Wikipedia. Its imperative tone perhaps is impolite. But what's the solution for the fifty pages that use it as a link? Break them and forget it? --Bsherr (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    With so few pages affected, I'm not sure that a solution is needed, but if that's a significant worry, I imagine we could correct those 49 links by hand, being sure to pipe the links in the case of signed comments. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It could have also been used in edit summaries and log messages, which can't ever be corrected. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it'll be pretty obvious what those editors meant, this isn't an opaque initialism. signed, Rosguill talk 03:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any evidence of this being the case, Jackmcbarn? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in an easily-accessible way. Special:WhatLinksHere doesn't keep track of links from edit summaries. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that it seems unlikely that this page would be linked in an edit summary and that there's fewer than 50 references to it outside of edit summaries, I think the burden of proof would be on you to show that it has been linked in an edit summary. I'm sure that the technology to make that determination exists, seeing as there are per-user edit summary search engines.
    Frankly, the argument you are raising here would seem to be a red herring. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a red herring. It's an explicitly required consideration. See
    WP:RFD#KEEP #4. I'd also be interested to know if there is a way to search edit summaries, as I am not aware of it. --Bsherr (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It is indeed a required consideration. It is only reasonable, however, to believe that the risk is negligible given what evidence we have. So in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is most certainly a red herring. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence to the contrary is that it is a nine year old redirect with over 50 links. We're not usually in the habit of calling that "negligible" here. --Bsherr (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may have misread me, Bsherr. I was referring to the risk of there being a link to the redirect in an edit summary as negligible, not the links to the redirect outside of edit summaries. (The latter can be easily corrected, as you noted below.) 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think correcting existing links to piped links would be a good solution if the redirect is deleted. --Bsherr (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    " it doesn't come across to me as racist" Well, that's lovely for you. But the issue is not how it appears to you; it is how it is likely to come across to others. That, and the fact that we have equally serviceable alternatives which do not have racist connotations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pigsonthewing: I said it doesn't come across to me as racist (as opposed to saying it's not racist) so as not to devalue those who encounter it differently. (Personal attack removed) and think I were appointing myself the sole arbiter of the issue. (Personal attack removed) --Bsherr (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the English Wikipedia. Speaking English is in fact required on the English Wikipedia, and this redirect entirely validly makes that point. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you'd read the section to which this benighted phrase is redirected, you would have seen that English is not in fact, required on this project. Nor should it be. But that is not the point, and if we want to ask people to use English, there are better tool available with which to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: Look at this page. I used a combination of Bengali and English in that page, and none advised me to use English only. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – In general usage, the phrase has pejorative overtones and this is further evidenced in the
    WP:ENGLISHPLEASE is more than sufficient. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Per Pppery, and also just because Google Translate exists doesn't mean that it's okay to make everyone else use it to understand you on the English Wikipedia. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It takes very little research to determine this is a phrase with racist connotations in certain cultural contexts. That it can also have a non-racist literal meaning, especially in other cultural contexts, does not mean this should be an acceptable phrasing in Wikipedia. I would expect most Wikipedians who use this do not have racist intentions. Regardless of their intentions, though, they should not be led into using a term that could be understood in a racist way by the people they are directing this term at. We should not permit a shortcut like this which could reasonably be perceived as a racist insult, especially by a new non-native-English speaking editor who may have life experiences of racism. Dominic·t 02:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for political reasons per nom. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 04:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that the verb chosen is "speak" instead of the more likely "write in" or "use" makes it clear that it is deliberately copying the dull complaints of xenophobes. Tdslk (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as racist/xenophobic. Narky Blert (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Dominic, Tdslk, and common sense. Gamaliel (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons outlined by Mike Peel. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because regardless of whether it is racist or not it seems redundant to have this redirect when we have an official shortcut which has more widespread usage and is more polite. This is a shortcut someone would be unlikely to just stumble across if they were looking for the right shortcut as WP:ENGLISHPLEASE is listed on the talk page guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NK1406 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The challenge in fixing the issue of redirects that exists in different pages (which indeed puts burden on volunteers) is not why a phrase that is historically used as a racist remark should continue to exist. With that logic, all colonial and racist terms should be allowed as it puts burden on many to fix what is written -- in fact most things indigenous are oral whereas most things documented have a contribution of colonialism. Why a shortcut has to remind a non-native speaker the impolite and racist remark that they would have received at some point in their life? Why it is not possible to find an alternative without a baggage? Why technical issues will be treated above humans? --Psubhashish (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not helpful and promotes
    WP:BITEy behaviour. --Slashme (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per everyone above: carries xenophobic undertones, not particularly appropriate for the target, negligible use. – Uanfala (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless we also delete the text it redirects to. The racism and bigotry many of the above complain about really is there. If we want to deal with it, we need to delete racist bigoted statements in policies, not just helpful redirects that allow people to find them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
    [majestic titan] 02:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom and their brethren. @
    WP:ENGLISHPLEASE." Which part of that do you consider a racist bigoted statement what needs to be deleted? --GRuban (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • If you consider that
      WP:ENGLISHPLEASE
      is either racist or xenophobic - then you should delete the policy (i.e. all those words).
    • But if you think that the policy is OK, then deleting a redirect that helps people to cite the policy, is extremely stupid.
Either delete the redirect and the policy, or neither.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not at all the case, a redirect can be offensive while pointing to a perfectly good policy. Just imagine
WP:ENGLISHPLEASE, this is about WP:SPEAKENGLISH.)--GRuban (talk) 15:16, 13 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.

Template:Uw-error4im

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) 19:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other series at

WP:UTM have redirects at the 4im level. The reason is there is a conscious decision that "only warning" user warnings not be used for these issues. Same should apply with the uw-errorX series. Bsherr (talk) 19:38, 3 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.

Communitarian socialism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 12#Communitarian socialism

Shirtgate

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Shirtgate

M$ Windoze

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 Criticism of Microsoft Windows. signed, Rosguill talk 17:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not used as an example in the article. Since this doesn't seem to be used by reliable sources, this should be deleted. Hog Farm Bacon 20:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to
    Windoze redirects to Criticism of Microsoft Windows and while the term is not mentioned there, it is clearly what anyone using the term is doing or referring to, so has the more directly relevant content so I think it would make a better target. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:49, 3 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.

Challenger Spacecraft

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) (t · c) buidhe 21:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Ambiguous. Could also mean Apollo 17 LM Challenger. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 12:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the shuttle is overwhelmingly the primary topic for this phrase, both when searching generally and with the exact phrase. A hatnote to the Apollo lunar module can be added. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Challenger (disambiguation); ambiguous per nom, and not the proper name for this target. Plus, this target is more likely the Challenger shuttle, an aerospace vehicle, while the lunar lander is a purely space vehicle. -- 70.51.44.93 (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely the primary topic. I went through the Google scholar results for "Challenger spacecraft" looking for any mention of vehicles other than the space shuttle and gave up after finding nothing in the first 4 pages. signed, Rosguill talk 19:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at current target, as the current target appears to be the primary topic. A hatnote can be added pointing to the other target. Hog Farm Bacon 20:10, 3 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.

Ask Why

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) 12:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. That this was Enron's slogan in mentioned at Enron scandal, but a Google search indicates that this is not the primary topic for this phrase. Hog Farm Bacon 15:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the slogan was stylized as "ask why." so perhaps we can do away with these other contenders and create this entry as a redirect after including the proper citations in Enron. QRep2020 (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These redirects are ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:37, 4 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 13#⨾

2019–2020 outbreak

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. signed, Rosguill talk 01:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too ambiguous, could refer to several different things; the user who created this redirect had to add a hatnote distinguishing COVID-19 from the 2019–2020 vaping lung illness outbreak, showing that this redirect actually makes navigation more difficult. Spicy (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't think it's possible to use this phrase devoid of context to refer to anything else right now. No hatnote should be required. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947 above. I suppose it’s rather obvious what these redirects both refer to, considering other outbreaks such as the
    2019-2020 vaping lung illness outbreak have been far less notable. CycloneYoris talk! 01:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. These redirects are ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but make another disambiguation page of "2019-2020" outbreak. The 2019-2020 outbreak is mainly the COVID-19 pandemic. I found more results that contain "2019-2020 outbreak", like
    2019-20 Philippines polio outbreak, and others. So I suggest that we could make the disambiguation page of this if it's possible. Seventyfiveyears at 22:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • A dab page with COVID as the primary topic seems sensible. Spicy (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • A dab page on COVID already exists, I'm referring to "Category:COVID-19" and "Category:COVID-19 pandemic". What Seventyfiveyears mean is making a disambig titled "2019-2020 outbreak" or "2019-20 ...", linking articles that has the words "2019-2020"/"20", and articles that happened during that period. This totally makes sense, and I upvote for that to be the result here. GeraldWL 09:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sceptical about such a PTM redirect. Are those outbreaks really referred to as "2019—20 outbreaks". If I were speaking about the 2019—20 Australian measles outbreak, I would absolutely rather leave out the year than the illness. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:36, 5 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.

Elise Zaavan

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. I hesitated to close since I was the previous closer, but both discussions have been unanimous and this one has been open for a bit. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. This is the name of a LoL character, but they don't appear to be directly associated with K/DA. A redirect at this title that pointed at League of Legends was deleted following an RfD discussion in February, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 18#Elise Zaavan. signed, Rosguill talk 14:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and per previous RfD discussion. No trace of any character with that name at target article, and no evidence of notability whatsoever. CycloneYoris talk! 04:00, 12 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.

Aelig

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 per
(non-admin closure) Hog Farm Bacon 03:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

??? Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Aelig. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved August 3 2020 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Aelig
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.

AmericA

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 as effectively a withdrawal by the nominator. This is not the forum for complaining over
(non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

See the RfD or

America. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:00, 3 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.

Tysk

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Tysk

Independence of Pakisatn

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 17:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap, but this one is a typo and therefore unnecessary. Very unlikely that someone would search for "Independence of Pakistan" with this misspelling. Therefore, I propose deletion. Mar4d (talk) 06:41, 3 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.

Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL

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
(non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Propose retargeting to

WP:RSPS. By retargeting it to the link I am suggesting, we solve both of these problems. There was already an RfD back here, but I think consensus may have changed in a year and a half. Aasim 06:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't see the 2018 RfC being a source of confusion since editors are generally aware that old discussions may not reflect current consensus or include the full body of discourse, but adding a
WP:RSPSOURCES link to the RfC archive would be a way to address that concern without affecting existing links. –dlthewave ☎ 16:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with Guy Macon that a retarget is fine as long as the old links are fixed, don't have a strong opinion either way. –dlthewave ☎ 16:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (As I was pinged.) I'm inclined to think that the best way to resolve confusion without creating different confusion is probably to just keep the link the same, and add some type of ad hoc hat note. GMGtalk 16:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems somewhat ridiculous to not want to retarget purely over concerns about old links to the RfC. It's fairly common for shortcuts to specific discussions to get retargeted to general policy pages a few years down the line, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail includes links to all of the relevant RfCs. I think reducing confusion to new editors who are trying to learn why The Daily Mail is banned should be a higher priority than reducing confusion for experienced editors who are digging through old talk page archives. The latter is likely to understand how redirects and RfCs work and that the shortcut was retargeted, the former significantly less so. Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, making it a disambiguation page is always an option as well, though that seems to me to be kind of overkill since it would more than likely just be linking to the RfC(s) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail, and the latter already has clear links to each of the RfCs. There really isn't any good reason to essentially duplicate the existing page on a shortcut. Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. The existing target causes confusion by linking to a point in time rather than the current consensus, which includes that point in time but also other valuable context. If you want to reference the status of the Mail, which is the most likely ongoing use, then RSP is the place to go. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. A WP: shortcut to a disucssion archive is confusing and there's no way to immediately tell whether the outcome is still effective. Retargeting to RSP not only helps that but also gives context as to what it means for a source to be "deprecated". Nardog (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. Since the last redirect discussion,
    JWB, and I can help out as well. — Newslinger talk 00:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Added "how the community interprets" for clarity. — Newslinger talk 01:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That is not true. The actual RfC, which Newslinger referenced improperly, was "RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from WP:RSPDM summary". The closer excluded the idea that this was a change that affects WP:DAILYMAIL. Notice how useful it is to be able to look there at what the closer actually said, instead of interpretations like Newslinger's. But that is why it is a bad idea to refer to anybody-can-fiddle-it stuff in an essay-class page, instead of the actual RfC result. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:08, 10 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.

Best president

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 those with "ranking", delete the rest. There appears to be a weak consensus that presidential rankings are primarily associated with the US and that those redirects should be kept in the absence of any other president-ranking article on Wikipedia. There is a strong consensus to delete the other redirects that do not mention rankings. signed, Rosguill talk 23:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that President is a dab page, I don't see why these should target to a US-centric page. Hog Farm Bacon 05:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Not all tagged yet. It's too late where I am to deal with that all tonight, I'll do it tomorrow if I remember. Hog Farm Bacon 05:12, 3 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.

Lirean war

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) CycloneYoris talk! 03:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

A quick search on Google instead redirected me "to correct search term" - Korean War, meaning it has no notability context O/S Encantadia sphere. For War of the four Gems, there's no mention of it O/S Encantadia sphere. Both are also per @Narutolovehinata5:'s insight on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Encantadian War. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
    War of the four Gems nomination merged here from 4 Aug. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @JWilz12345: Use Twinkle to nominate the one with the narrative; then use Twinkle to nominate the 2nd, this time with a blank narrative; then edit the RfD page to remove the intermediate signature and header, and voila! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – both of these terms are mentioned at the target article, so the redirect seems appropriate. Subjects don't need to be notable to get a redirect (in fact, generally they must not be notable, as otherwise they would get an article), a simple mention is usually enough. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rosguill. Given the position of keys on a standard keyboard, it's not strange that Google might suggest "Korean War" for "Lirean war", but that should have little bearing here (cf.
    WP:RTYPO). --BDD (talk) 17:42, 11 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.

Kasai rex

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 17:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Supposedly a "dinosaur" someone saw in Africa in the 1930s. I don't see a home for this here. Hog Farm Bacon 03:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If this is a thing, enwiki has nothing about it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Kasai Rex was listed in the list of cryptids I would say keep but it is not. It should also be said that an article for Kasai Rex was deleted back in 2016 on the basis that no reliable sources were found even suggesting the possibility of existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NK1406 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_August_3&oldid=973285247"