Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 8

December 8
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 8, 2019.

Wikipedia:RFD/2018 November 18
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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) 16:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * RFD/2018 November 18 → Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 18 (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:RFD/2018_November_18&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * RFD/2018Nov18 → Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 18 (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:RFD/2018Nov18&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This seems to be the only extant redirects of the form "RFD/date". It was only used 10 times throughout its entire existence, and not since 11 March. I would recommend deletion for lack of past and conceivable future utility (is there a need to search or link this arbitrary old log page like this?), as well as cluttering the search bar (making searches for shortcuts with "RFD" difficult). ComplexRational (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC) Added similar redirect to nomination; it only has five pageviews and none since 13 December 2018. ComplexRational (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created the redirect to allow concise linking to Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 18 in edit summaries for the thousands of AWB edits which I did to implement that RFD, e.g..
 * So deleting the redirect will break several thousand links from edit summaries.
 * In any case, I have long believed that we should have redirects of this form for all CFD, TFD and TFD daily log pages, and have been meaning for ages to propose that a bot do that. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per BHG, and agree with the sentiment to introduce redirects of this format for easier reference to past discussion results. Utopes (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per BHG. I can't immediately think of any downsides to this format being used more generally but want to think a bit longer before endorsing their routine creation. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment I would not object to widespread implementation of this format if it gains consensus; a bot could then create these redirects (at least for all days after 18 November 2018?). I also don't see any major downsides to this format; I expect usage (pageviews) would increase (though still be low) if it becomes a common practice. However, if such an idea does not gain support, I would be against keeping these singular redirects per my original rationale. Should a discussion about possible widespread implementation be held elsewhere? ComplexRational (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, discussion about creating these redirects routinely should be held at WT:RFD. If there is consensus in favour then discussion of a bot to create them would probably be at WP:BOTREQ or WP:BRFA. Going forward it would seem most logical for them to be created at the same time and by the same bot that creates the daily pages, but whether that bot is suitable for mass creation I don't know (bots aren't my thing). As for this specific redirect, there is and will continue to be future utility in retaining it regardless of a general consensus: not breaking the links in several thousand edit summaries (which do not show up on whatlinkshere). Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * regardless of whether any other such redirects are created, why delete these? That would break the links from thousands of edit summaries, to what benefit? --01:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
 * I still have my original concern about these redirects making searches for shortcuts such as WP:RFD/TODAY more difficult (seemingly random days popping up in the search results), but this is comparatively a minor thing. If this were common practice, such an appearance would not be a cause for debate or concern. I was not originally aware of this limit in AWB, so I suppose keeping (at least) these two to preserve edit summary links won't do any harm. ComplexRational (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.

User talk:Yaoeo/Samer
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 withdrawn  Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * User talk:Yaoeo/Samer → Samer Hassan (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yaoeo/Samer&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Delete per WP:RFD bullet points 5 & 6. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 21:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, perhaps I did a mistake. My intention was to "publish" the page on the main Wikipedia page. I've read somewhere that it is done by requesting a Move of the page, so that's what i did. Could you pleas let me know what's the right way to do it? :)
 * Keep. Hey there . I don't believe that this redirect meets either the 5th or 6th criterion for deletion. To start, this redirect does not meet the 6th reason to delete, because this criterion only applies to redirects IN the mainspace that are pointing OUT of the mainspace. In this case, this is an article in the userspace that was moved using Wikimedia's move tool into mainspace. Whether it meets the notability criteria and etc is a different story (I believe it does), but redirects from userspace to mainspace are perfectly fine. As for the 5th reason for deletion, this redirect makes perfect sense per redirect from page move. Utopes (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for the response. Please could you tell me where it says that about cross-namespace redirects? I presumed it was cross-namespace - between any namespace in any direction and not specifically from mainspace outwards. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 12:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, criterion 6 explicitly refers to cross-namespace redirects out of article space (It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace) barring certain exceptions; it does not call for deletion of cross-namespace redirects into mainspace. That said, keep per Utopes and as a valid R from move. Although most such redirects are from the user or draft namespaces, nothing is wrong with this one from the user talk namespace. ComplexRational (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * it says "such as". Doesn't mean it is only out of mainspace? Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I would assume the criterion refers only to those redirects out of mainspace; redirects from mainspace to user or project space are just examples of this. ComplexRational (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * the correct parsing of the criterion is "It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space. For example, a redirect in the article namespace pointing to a page in the User or Wikipedia namespace." The reason redirects from the article namespace to other namespaces are generally harmful is that they will confuse readers looking for encyclopaedia articles. This is obviously not the case for redirects in the opposite direction, and some pairs of namespaces have large numbers of good redirects between them (e.g. Wikipedia: and Help:). Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you, that makes sense. How can I withdraw this RfD - I now see why it shouldn't be deleted. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 21:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As nominator you can withdraw a deletion nomination that has no recommendations by others (other than to keep) by either clearly expressing a desire to withdraw it, or closing it as withdrawn. You've done the first of these, so I'll do the closing 'paperwork'. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.

Sorokko
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Soroko (surname). (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorokko → Soroko (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sorokko&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Redirect isn't used much with 2 pageviews per 30 days (according to Xtools at time of nomination). A Google search finds that "Sorokko" usually refers to other topics. UnnamedUser (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Soroko (surname), absent any evidence that the town in Benin is spelled this way. All the topics I see in a Google search are people with the surname (particularly Tatiana Sorokko and Serge Sorokko, both of whom are listed at the surname page). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Retarget per the IP. My research produces identical results to theirs. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Soroko (surname) as plausible spelling variant -- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.

Keyboard warrior
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 soft redirect  to keyboard warrior. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keyboard warrior → Keyboard man (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keyboard_warrior&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

The target article for many years dealt with both "keyboard man" and "keyboard warrior", although discussions at Talk:Keyboard man concluded that the two concepts were different and the article content was a synthesis of the two. Yesterday the very limited content related to "keyboard warrior" was removed, and the resulting stub prodded. This leaves this redirect pointing to a page that is not relevant to it (whether it is deleted or not). I haven't been able to find an obvious target article for "keyboard warrior" (the only mention is at Online hate speech which is too specific and links here for context), so I propose to soft redirect the title to keyboard warrior unless anyone wants to write an article or knows of a better target. Note: the content previously at this title was speedily deleted as a copyvio of Urban Dictionary, rather than any judgement about the title or concept. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support soft redirect original Keyboard Warrior concept dates back two decades at least and was what would be considered a meme (personalities of the interwebs artwork). Theres pretty much no reliable content to create something from as it's barely passing references. I prodded the delete in the "Keyboard man" for the same reasons. Koncorde (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.