Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 17, 2013.

Debut single[edit]

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. JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the rationale stated in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 9#Debut album, the target contains no information about debut singles or their significance. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:REDLINK. --BDD (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not discussed at target. I prefer no link to a redlink because I doubt there is scope for an article. Siuenti (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete probably better off as its own article in the future.--Lenticel (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2013 (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.

Debut Album[edit]

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 deleted by Metropolitan90. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale and result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 9#Debut album. Don't know if there's a speedy criteria for this since the only difference between the other nom is capitalization. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete This is identical to the linked conversation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Koavf. Doesn't exactly fit any criterion, but if Debut album hadn't been a redirect, this would redirect there and that would be a G8. --BDD (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2013 (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.

Former British Nation[edit]

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 deleted. G7: One author who has requested deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These countries aren't former British nations. They are sovereign and independent nation states. DrKiernan (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to British Empire. This shouldn't be about national pride or anything. The Commonwealth realm countries are both former British nations (or rather colonies, I suppose) and sovereign and independent nation states. That said, there isn't a one to one overlap between countries that are former British colonies and those that are part of the Commonwealth realm. The United States is an obvious exception, as are former Commonwealth realms such as India. So I think British Empire might be a better target for this term. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with G7 speedy deletion. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:English_in_the_Commonwealth/Archive_1 the creator wrote that he coined the term. However, I searched the Web with bing.com for "former British nation" and found ten instances on other sites, including one where it was used sarcastically (and with a capital "N") to describe England. The others were about former British colonies such as Australia. If this is kept, former British colony, former British territory, former British nation and formerly British nation and the irregular plural forms ("colonies," "territories") should perhaps be created: I haven't checked, but I suspect these are more likely search terms. —rybec 02:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Speedy Delete}} per creator (me)—for starters, currently unused. This redirect was coined for textual attempts to speak more eloquently, if you will, about countries which are former British Empire colonies but did not join the British Commonwealth of Nations; particularly references in a historical context—articles in-and-around the period of WW-II, iirc. In any event, like this page where I just tagged a Speedy-D, if the term hasn't gained traction and usages since 2007, no reason to keep it around.

It was, as I recollect like this other, an awkward work around in whatever article I was expanding at the time because an editor had complained about the accuracy of another term in those contexts. I vaguely recall the modified text including the redirect was later changed about a month later... by all means kill it! // FrankB 18:43, 20 December 2013 (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.

HAGGER[edit]

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. WJBscribe (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Harry Potter fan but I find this redirect quite implausible. Has been a vandal target in past so better leave it as red link. There is a single spike in http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/HAGGER for this - likely by some vandal activity - of course no human searches for this. jni (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy retarget to Hagger surname page, which actually explains the HP usage. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD. Was about to speedily close this until I thought I'd prefer to hear whether there are better arguments to leave it as a red link as Jni suggested. —Kusma (t·c) 21:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good that you didn't speedily close this, as Nyttend has expressed a preference in below comment to keep this intact, and NOT disambiguate like you and BDD suggest. I have nothing against re-targeting this to Hagger myself. jni (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, no true human uses the cAPS LOCK key, right?

I don't see the history of vandalism to the page (I did check the deletion log) but if there were, the page could be protected. Apart from the spike in traffic cited by the nominator, the page seems to get a few hundred requests each month (at least every January):

Perhaps the nominator is saying that the requests themselves are a form of vandalism? It's impressive that one person has been making these requests for six years (there were some in December 2007, for which only part of the month was logged), just waiting for someone to create a redirect and finally prove that Wikipedia is bollocks.

Disambiguate as recommended by BDD and Kusma. —rybec 22:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC) leave it alone per Nyttend below[reply]

I couldn't find evidence of vandalism either. We don't delete pages just because they may be vandalized anyway; it would be easy enough to protect the redirect if that happened. I suspect most vandals aren't sophisticated enough to edit a redirect, though I'm sure some are. --BDD (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence of vandalism is at User:Troy_07/Sandbox/14/Vandal_pages (of course). It seems someone has mass-moved pages to various "HAGGER" misspellings. Someone might very well operate a web crawler that looks for red links from pages like that and periodically checks if they are created. Might be a good countervandalism technique - instead of salting - actually to have a bot monitor vandal targeted red-links and voice alarm to admins. Would not play well with WP:TOPRED of course. jni (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Who in the world is going to use all-caps to look for Kim or Lloyd Hagger? The only context in which I've found all-caps HAGGER is in references to Harry Potter, and (unlike down below :-) I strongly doubt that this usage is taken from any other source; it's not UK slang or anything like that. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What evidence you have that "HAGGER" is notable Harry Potter fan-speak? I only see ordinary kind vandal activity to Harry Potter wiki. jni (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the books, this almost always appears in all caps: the "name" is used by a barely-lexical minor figure to refer to Hagrid, and the figure characteristically shouts, so it's in all caps to emphasize the volume. The only exceptions are the extremely rare situations in which other characters discuss the minor figure's extremely limited vocabulary. Nyttend (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily doubt that a reader making a conscious decision to type HAGGER in all caps is looking for Hagrid. What I do doubt is that such a reader would have any trouble finding the Rubeus Hagrid article anyway; for example, Hagrid redirects there. Now, don't get me wrong. Sometimes I'll type in something just to see what happens. It just makes more sense to make this a typical {{R from other capitalisation}} redirect than favoring an obscure nickname for a fictional character. Maybe someone accidentally hits the caps lock key. It would seem rather silly to have such a hatnote: "HAGGER redirects here. For people with this surname, see Hagger. --BDD (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
R from other capitalisation seems more suited for things like Mcdonald's or LaFayette, either capitalisation errors or established variants. Something like this, where the allcaps version has a different typical meaning from the normal caps version, should be treated differently. I agree that such a reader would have an easy time finding Hagrid's article, but the point's different. Try to imagine the typical person who goes to this target: what is he looking for, expecting to find? I strongly suspect that the number of people thinking of Hagrid is far more than the number of people looking for an individual whose last name is "Hagger". In other words, Hagrid's the primary topic for the all-caps "HAGGER". Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would {{R from alternative name}} be the right template, since it's for nicknames? I looked through a list of account names provided by Δ (talk · contribs) and found that variations on "HAGGER" are popular, including
this list should be longer but I fail at regexes

Ahagger

An account name with the word HAGGER in it

B haggerstone

Bhaggers

Craighagger

Davidhagger

Dmhagger

Gdhagger

HAGGER.No.666

HAGGER13

HAGGER??

HAGGER???

Hagger

Hagger on Hoosiers

Hagger on Huffy

Hagger1234

Haggerdley Graupper

HaggerdlyOldMan

Haggerdoldman

Haggergagger

Haggerhaggerhaggerhaggerhaggerhaggerhagger

Haggerleases

Haggernaut

Haggers

Haggerston

Haggersville

Jake hagger

Jeanhaggerson

Johagger

Johagger78

Lhaggert

Matthewhagger987

Mhagger

Mjhagger

Stephenhaggert

Zonerzofhaggers
<E2><84><8B> for Hagger

However, that doesn't seem like a good reason to delete the redirect. —rybec 08:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to the beloved Hagrid character for Pete's sake per Nyttend. This is the clear intent of the creation, and as others noted, within the milieu sensible. {{R from alternative name}} is the best R template. // FrankB 18:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as Hagrid should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for an all-caps HAGGER... but I think stats.grok.se counts Hagger and HAGGER together so it's hard to determine anything (including whether HAGGER is seeing any real use) from the statistics it provides. Sideways713 (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2013 (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:Pipedash[edit]

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) 17:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect for construction template {{!-}} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Harmless, and this has been in existence for 7½ years. We shouldn't get rid of titles that are this old, unless we have good reason to believe that they're actually harmful in some way. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more descriptive than the coded version -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend and WP:RFD#HARMFUL. Sideways713 (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2013 (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:Close table[edit]

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. JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused construction template - duplicated by {{!)}} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep descriptive name, will come up in a search box sensibly. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IP. This name is a much more effective way of finding the template. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2013 (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:Bar[edit]

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. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect to {{!}} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator, I don't mind if it's deleted. Some templates call other templates, because originally the only way to run a very complex operation was to pass information to processing templates and then have the results call other templates, which is how the cite templates came to be such a big ball of yuck. At the time, there was some template which called another template and because of how the information was passed along, it seemed like this template needed to be used instead of the ! template. That's as much as I remember about exactly why I created the redirect. Likely won't be a problem if it's deleted now. Banaticus (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep descriptive name -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IP. Frankly, this is a much better name for the template than "!", but moving it would probably be too disruptive. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2013 (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.

Bitcion[edit]

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) 17:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious keep - exceedingly plausible typo, with no rationale for deletion. WilyD 16:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this is unnecessary, we might as well trash most of our "redirect from typo" redirects; it's very easy to transpose these two letters when typing. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "o" and the "i" keys are adjacent on some keyboards. This got 13 hits in September, 57 in October and 120 in November, parallelling the popularity of the correct spelling. —rybec 00:48, 18 December 2013 (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.

Jesus in Modern Day[edit]

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. JohnCD (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little-used redirect, which isn't surprising because who's going to use this title? You could send this to Kingly office of Christ, but that would be a bigtime violation of WP:SURPRISE. As far as I can tell, it was created as a way of getting rid of a very absurd stub without bothering with a deletion nomination. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is kept, I think Second Coming might be a better target than Christianity or Kingly office of Christ. A search engine confirms that "modern-day Jesus Christ" or "modern-day Jesus" are popular turns of phrase, but "Jesus in Modern Day" is not. —rybec 01:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be less unhelpful than the other two, but still not good: it's Jesus in Future Day, as opposed to Teachings of Jesus and Jesus in Modern Day respectively. The big issue is the plausibility thing that you mention at the end of your statement. Nyttend (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2013 (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.

Love & Girls (Linguafranc)[edit]

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. WJBscribe (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. I don't see how anyone would ever type in this to get to the desired page: Love & Girls. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 03:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect's destination article is a single which contains the original release of two tracks, named: "Love & Girls" and "Linguafranc". Therefore, that article is the most appropriate place to wikilink to for each tack. The redirect allows each track to be wikilinked from the same source article, while both minimising hidden WP:OVERLINKing (by supporting adherence to visited-link colouration) and allowing maximal adherence to WP:NOPIPE.
I shall put the above in comments on the redirect's page.
The redirect is used on Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album) where the above is outlined in annotations across nearby edits (wl Linguafranc) [...] --overlinking (Love & Girls (Linguafranc) used throughout, for correct visited-link colouring). The second of these was in response to an edit by User:Raykyogrou0 – thus, Raykyogrou0 has been witness to "[...] this to get to the desired page".
Arguing the exclusion of a thing on the grounds of the absence of necessary is a double-negative argument – thus, inherently prone to false dilemma. This is for utility and quality improvement.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect is not necessary. If you want to link to Love & Girls, then link to Love & Girls like this: Linguafranc. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 04:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you wanted a redirect for the song, then Linguafranc (song) would be more appropriate.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 04:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the absence of necessary is a poor basis for argument.
Yes, I'd considered using Linguafranc (song), but think this Love & Girls (Linguafranc) redirect superior, because it avoids the hidden WP:OVERLINKing overhead, described in my o/p. Do you know of prior specific consensus on such trade-offs in WP?   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single policy stating that song articles should be titled as <name of A-side> (<name of B-side>). This can also apply to redirects; although redirects may be used to direct readers to the wanted article, I highly doubt anyone would type in Love & Girls (Linguafranc) for the song. What is your understanding of overlinking? Because this is over-linking to me. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not expected prior consensus on this on article about singles. Rather; a more general consensus about were article-A has items a, b, c; and how article-B might best link to those items.
Again, I am part of anyone and I typed it!
My understanding of overlinking includes, the like of: multiple nearby links to the same place.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OVERLINK. What exactly do you mean by "I am part of anyone"? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NB: I have [used] Linguafranc (song) redirect, whilst compound redirect, Love & Girls (Linguafranc), is under review.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, and no rationale has been presented to support deletion. WilyD 10:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That rationale being "no one would ever type in Love & Girls (Linguafranc) with the desire to look for the song 'Linguafranc' or 'Love & Girls'". Readers would just type in "Linguafranc" or "lingua franca". Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a rationale for deletion, it's merely an assertion that there's no rationale for keeping either. Given that the statement is ridiculously wrong, it's not really here nor there either. WilyD 16:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so since it is not a rationale for deletion when it is an assertion that there is no rationale for keeping either. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a rationale for keeping it - a reader could plausibly search for the term, and should be sent to the article, rather than find nothing. Or someone might wikilink it, and should be sent to the article, rather than told it doesn't exist. An editor who sees that the article doesn't exist might waste time creating it, rather than being directed to the right place where they can work on the existing article. There are several reasons to keep it. There just aren't any reasons to delete it. WilyD 15:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could see an argument made for Love & Girls (Love & Peace) as a redirect, where you have SongName (AlbumName) but nobody would ever type in Love & Girls (Linguafranc) or SongName (OtherSongName). Banaticus (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody clearly did type it in, so the assertion that no one would ever type it in is demonstratably false. WilyD 08:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, although these might be, at least partially, typed or Web-searched – their creation was driven by an urge to simultaneously maximise satisfaction of WP:NOPIPE and WP:OVERLINK (as my o/p, derived from a similar [[Stage Mononym (Born Name)]] technique, where performer/brand and writer, usually born-name, are both to be linked). If there's some consensus that's not a valid redirect motive – Where is it, pls? – it is in conflagration with the NOPIPE/OVERLINK combination, where one article's to link to multiple proper nouns/etc on another.
BTW: I have abandoned the redirect under discussion, in favour of Love & Girls, Linguafranc   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@DJ, please elaborate on how on earth Love & Girls, Linguafranc is any better? Not that this has anything to do with disambiguation, but if we were to disambiguate (i.e. if this article actually existed and another song titled "Lingua Franca" or similar also had an article) it would be at Linguafranc (Girls' Generation song) and not that. 05:52 (Talk) 05:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inspired by Banaticus; I think, it is contrarily to do with disambiguation! Vis, Love & Girls, Linguafranc's better than [[Love & Girls (Linguafranc)]] because the latter homesteads the disambiguation noosphere's  – [[concept (context)]]-ish – namespace, without being disambiguation motivated or otherwise necessarily adherent, i.e. like running the risks of a hipster/culture vulture's exploitation of a proxied culture, without understanding/honouring the exploited culture's core principles (as Snoop Lion is vilified by some longer-standing Rastas).
<⸮>Alternatively, from the perspective of the exploited culture, in the context of me playing other's music, I'm called DJ Scrawl Scrawl (disc jockey). Ordinarily, I'm only called DJ by punters, <⸮>who've not had the advisory pleasure of hearing the track "The Dj's Got A Gun (IAMX Shut Up You Dance remix)"YouTube</⸮> or, by close acquaintances, ironically (e.g. sometimes prefixed "hang the [...]" :/). Thus, when someone else calls [[Scrawl (disc jockey)| DJ]], is seems incongruously militaristic (like chef-nomenclature).</⸮>
<OT>Please be advised that, on WP I'm called (in reverse preference order): Ian (or when quoted/paraphrased/pinging, DjScrawl) and Scrawl.</OT>   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC) <n/p Girls' Generation – "Visual Dreams (Robotaki remix)" />[reply]
@DJ: Song articles are always at [[<name of song>]] (unless disambiguated), not [[<name of song>, <name of other song>]] or [[<name of song> (<name of other song>)]]. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Raykyogrou0: "@DJ"? It seems, one of:
  1. (Good faith), you accidentally indented inappropriately, and there's something novel/constructive in your post that I've missed, and you've mysteriously forgotten #I'm called (in reverse preference order): Ian (or when quoted/paraphrased/pinging, DjScrawl) and Scrawl (not DJ);
  2. or (sub-optimal good faith), you've failed to read my 11:21, 22 Dec answer, to your bombastic off topic question of 05:52, 22 Dec, following my 03:19, 22 Dec agreement with Banaticus, where at 08:55, 19 Dec he illustrated that [[Love & Girls (Linguafranc)]] is unfitting as a disambiguation-redirect (reasoning elaborated/deepened throughout). Thence (c)rudely reiterating what's agreed, with at least two logical faults;
  3. or something else.

Which is it, pls?   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DJ: As long as you agree that neither Love & Girls, Linguafranc or Love & Girls (Linguafranc) are suitable redirects. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 04:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (half a vote) – I have abandoned [[Love & Girls (Linguafranc)]] usage (the redirect proposed for deletion). I agree Banaticus's point about disambiguation cruft (unobstructive) – however, I assume we have bots for sweeping-away cruft – bringing my vote to a weak delete. Meanwhile, the proposer has repeatedly failed to provide a positive rationale, in such a way that I has formed an impression that the proposal is little more than reprehensible not invented here anti-innovation filibustering (thus, IMO, also abuse of this forum), bringing my net vote to weak keep.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love & Girls (Linguafranc): 7.75 days (3:04, 17 Dec – 22:07, 24 Dec)
Votes 1.5:2 (keep:delete): No strong consensus

Over one week after proposal (assuming the the proposer votes delete, and proposers votes are counted), four editors have votes – giving a totals: 1.5 to keep, and 2 to delete. I think this would be described as "no strong consensus for action".   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I (at least partly) understand the creator's intention in making this: to be able to write something like "In June 2013, the band released a single called Love & Girls, with Linguafranc as the B-side" with both song titles linked, and when someone follows the Love & Girls link, the Linguafranc link will turn purple, because both links went to Love & Girls (Linguafranc). DjScrawl also wants to avoid piping as much as possible. However, the punctuation in "Love & Girls (Linguafranc)" isn't a natural way of writing in sentences; to write my example sentence, both links would have to be piped:

In June 2013, the band released a single called ''[[Love & Girls (Linguafranc)|]]'', with ''[[Love & Girls (Linguafranc)|Linguafranc]]'' as the B-side.

which is rendered as:

In June 2013, the band released a single called Love & Girls , with Linguafranc as the B-side.

Without redirects, we could do

In June 2013, the band released a single called ''[[Love & Girls]]'', with ''[[Love & Girls|Linguafranc]]'' as the B-side.

which is rendered as:

In June 2013, the band released a single called Love & Girls, with Linguafranc as the B-side.

Since both links point to the same place, the "visited-link colouration" works as intended. There is a bit of an Easter egg, but only one pipe.
Was the intention to use it in tables or infoboxes? The parentheses would be more natural in those contexts. The redirect isn't being used right now. Could the creator provide a specific example of how it would be used? If there's no intention to use it soon, it may as well be deleted, because the parentheses make it an unlikely search term. The same goes for the one with the comma, Love & Girls, Linguafranc. It's not unlikely for someone to search for both titles; it's just the punctuation that makes it improbable. —rybec 23:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep @Rybec, except your second implementation critically contra-WP:NOPIPE (most so of options under considered). Leaving a compound redirect (e.g. [[Love & Girls (Linguafranc)]] or Love & Girls, Linguafranc) or per-(song) redirects. The one of these two implementations used on Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album) has been milling about in WP:BRD for over a week, with the latest around here (quoted below) and per-(song) redirects being most stubbornly reverted – Thus, stat's are skewed.
Quoting from my talk, those two's visited-link colouring adherence is modelled below, for a typical path of reader visitation.
[...] sometimes (mostly) article A is WP's primary entry for more than one item of info, within the same anchored block: a1, a2, ... – and article B's to link to individually to each. This is the situation with Love & Girls (L&G) being linked from Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album) (L&P), with each linked about 3 times (will assume this here). I've little concern with the per-item repetition (don't think I've ever attempted refinement of that). On that basis, the L&P article displays 6 linkages to L&G – a reasonable bending of WP:OVERLINK:RPT, so far. Analysing the experience of a typical reader, a 1st time visit of either A (L&G) or B (L&P) ...
Step Reader activity a1 links show visited after activity? a2 links show visited after activity?
1 Arrives B No No
2 Visits a1 and returns to B Yes Yes if Love & Girls, Linguafranc redirects.
No if per-(song) redirects.
3 Visits b1 and returns to B Yes Yes
... we see the part in bold is more bending of WP:OVERLINK:RPT that optimal, as for the duration of 2, 3 linkages of b1 show the they're unvisited, which is misleading baiting.   – Ian, DjScrawl(talk) 16:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I hope that's clear. I do not intend to use [[Love & Girls (Linguafranc)]] for this purpose (as stated several times in earlier posts).   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look at a revision of Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album) where DjScrawl used the redirect with the comma. I noticed three uses, all piped. I see the concern over how visited links are coloured (especially with repeated links), and I already acknowledged that Easter egg links—which in my second example would only be used when referring to the B-side—are undesirable, but a redirect that doesn't help searches and would usually be piped seems a bit undesirable too. However, it seems to pass the "someone finds it useful" test so it should probably be kept. —rybec 01:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the WP:EASTEREGGishness perspective – which, I guess, did not specifically occur to me due to considering such to implicitly be a graduation of WP:OVERLINK breakage by way of repetition (refer to as WP:OVERLINK:RPT, above), i.e. a repeated link with misleading visited colouration is more contra-WP:OVERLINK with a orthodox colouration. Also, examining the WP:EASTEREGG/WP:OVERLINK overlap, the part of WP:OVERLINK:RPT within the overlap is the greater crime.
Meanwhile, WP:NOPIPE has an implicit graduation sinfulness, with a Notwithstanding suffixes, does the verbatim display text appear in the unpiped link? being most crucial (again distinguishing an example's being in WP:EASTEREGG overlap, or not, especially for sight-impaired and/or slow-connection readers, and others who tend to notice of what's in their browser's status bar, when considering clicking navigation. (Another truth table in there.)
It seems that this identify an area of the inter-WP:EASTEREGG/WP:OVERLINK/WP:NOPIPE guidance landscape which is determinedly implicit, yet not stated explicitly.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably R3 eligible, and more importantly, it's misleading, naturally implying a song called "Love & Girls (Linguafranc)." --BDD (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, counterintuitive and confusing. Siuenti (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2013 (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.

Snog[edit]

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 Making out. I'll add a sentence to the lede there mentioning snogging as an alternate term, but I'm American too, so do correct me if I'm wrong. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I miss my guess, "snog" and variants refer to kissing, especially passionate kissing, but not necessarily to French kissing, n'est ce pas? Retarget to Kiss. Cnilep (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Isn't "snogging" closer to making out? I originally redirected snog based on the hatlink that was on the page I moved, but I think the intention of whoever added that was that "having a snog" implies more than a simple kiss, more of a "kiss and a cuddle". The closest other term I can think of is necking, which also leads to making out. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection to targeting it to making out. Cnilep (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that snogging closer to making out. However, the first half of the 'making out' article is on etymology that's irrelevant to most following a 'snogging' link. At a minimum, I think, the 'making out' lead should be enhanced to state 'snogging' usage.
  • Question Shouldn't these be redirected to something Harry Potter-related, since they're from that series? Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL "Snog" is a normal English word, although obviously more common in the UK, just like "shag", "telly" or "loo". Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 04:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Never heard the term in any context other than Harry Potter. Is it simply UK slang, or is it basically everything-except-USA slang, or something else? Nyttend (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment I think "making out" is probably a better target than french kissing. Since dialect may be relevant, I speak Canadian English. WilyD 10:15, 17 December 2013 (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.

Simon Cheong, classical guitarist[edit]

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 procedural close. I've performed a history split, so this title now has an article at it. It's about to become a redirect, as I'll move the article to a slightly different title, but it's now going to be redirecting to an article about a classical guitarist. Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Random and misleading - our article on Cheong is not about a classical guitarist and doesn't mention it. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 02:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert back to an article using this revision. A SPA over-wrote the musician with the businessman. Most likely the musician is not notable but correct procedure should be used to delete it not by overwriting. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2013 (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/2013_December_17&oldid=1136448314"