Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 19, 2014.

Alfred I[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 retargeted by Againme. --BDD (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Alfred the Great. I'm on a bit of a sticky wicket here, since there are no incoming links and both Wikipedia search and Google search put Alfred I du Pont above Alfred the Great, and "Alfred I" does not seem to be used much if at all in article text, but I can't help feeling this is the more likely desired target. (I do appreciate that there is no King Alfred II, therefore Alfred the Great is not correctly titled Alfred I.) Alfred I, Prince of Windisch-Grätz already has his fair share of redirects (8 excluding this, at time of writing). Si Trew (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget as suggested, and provide hatnote. The Austrian is a relatively minor figure. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi! I created the redirection. I agree to redirect it to Alfred the Great, but we would need a dab hat note citing the existence of Alfred I, Prince of Windisch-Grätz. Thank you! --Againme (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done! per consensus. --Againme (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget looks like the creator is okay with the proposal.--Lenticel (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2014 (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.

Alfred I, Fürst zu Windisch-Graetz[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. The closing administrator of the previous discussion has no objections so this appears to be just uncontroversial cleanup, Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was nominated for deletion at previous RfD (Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_23); consensus (of two editors including nom) was to delete, but this seems to have escaped. No incoming internal links; unlikely search term – mix of German ("ü") and anglicised ("ae") spelling. Si Trew (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the consensus of the previous AfD. I think the closer, Amorymeltzer, made an honest mistake not deleting this one - probably mistaking it for a different one in the long list of very similar redirects (and I really can't blame them for that!). Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I imagine so too. Si Trew (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no earthly idea, seems like a reasonable theory. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, either as consensus to deleted but never actually deleted (g6, {{db-xfd}}) or recreation of deleted page ({{db-g4}}). This discussion is not actually necessary in this case. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2014 (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.

Alfred Fürst von Windisch-Graetz[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. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect seems to have been created (on 6 December 2011) solely to satisfy Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/ADB 53 (created and last edited 4 December 2011) where patently the article was not missing. Strange mix of accents (Graetz anglicised but not Fürst). See previous RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_23 where consensus (of two editors, including nom) was that an explosion of redirects to one subject was unhelpful (there were 33 at the time), with prejudice to those with mixed German/English spellings ("ü" versus "ae"). No incoming internal links. Unlikely search term. Also genuinely ambiguous since it might equally target Alfred III, Prince of Windisch-Grätz Si Trew (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2014 (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.

Alfred Candidus Ferdinand Furst zu Windisch-Graetz[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. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely search term. See previous RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 23; this was created since, on 5 June 2010 (in good faith by editor probably unaware of that RfD). Consensus of previous RfD (of two editors including nom) is that an explosion of redirects to same subject was unhelpful; at that time Alf had 33 redirects. Redirects already exist at Alfred Candidus Ferdinand Windischgratz and Alfred I Candidus Ferdinand of Windisch-Grätz (and did at the time of that RfD and were nentioned there but not proposed for deletion). Nothing links to this within WP. Si Trew (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2014 (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.

Toy Story 4[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 13:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toy Story 4 will not be produced as confirmed by film director so why need a redirect? UBStalk 12:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article mentions Toy Story 4 and if someone is searching to see the status of 4 it will send them to the right section. GB fan 12:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Whether it exists or not isn't the point; it's whether it's a reasonable search term. Ravenswing 13:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - discussed at target, no reason for deletion. WilyD 15:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. The retarget doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL anyways.--Lenticel (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2014 (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.

Larry Moberg[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) 17:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term; subject was an assistant coach for this Tier II youth league team for a single season several years ago (who fails WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG going away). One of a very long list of implausible redirects by the creator. Ravenswing 10:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Implausible search term. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as above. Si Trew (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Implausible search term. Resolute 01:19, 22 January 2014 (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.

Clark Minken[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) 17:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent connection between redirect and target. According to the Internet Hockey Database, a player by this name played a handful of games over three undistinguished seasons for a Division III college team, which would fail WP:NHOCKEY, but there's no record of him playing in this Tier II youth league. Ravenswing 10:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a reasonable redirect since there is no apparent connection and even if there was its unlikely people typing that name would expect to go to the page of a league he might have played in. -DJSasso (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as above. Si Trew (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Implausible search term. Dubious veracity. Resolute 01:19, 22 January 2014 (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.

Ryan Beliveau[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) 17:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the most pointless redirect in the history of Wikipedia. Glancing at the target article, the subject's claim to recognition is that he was a "Logo Contest Winner" for this obscure collegiate fringe sport's association back in 2002 ... or so the target claims, except that the target article hasn't been sourced since its creation, seven years ago. More implausible than this would be tough to imagine, barring outright invention. Ravenswing 10:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Implausible search term and I doubt anyone looking for this player would expect to end up at that page or the reverse. -DJSasso (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as above. Si Trew (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Implausible search term. Resolute 01:19, 22 January 2014 (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.

Marc Bouffard[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) 17:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completely implausible search term; subject was a wholly undistinguished college hockey player (who fails WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG going away), whose distinction in the college tournament in question, as with the McMann RfD earlier, seems to be limited to that he scored a goal in the one game in which he played. One of a very long list of implausible redirects by the creator. Ravenswing 08:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Implausible search term. -DJSasso (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as above. Si Trew (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Implausible search term. Resolute 01:19, 22 January 2014 (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.

Keven Cann[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) 17:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completely implausible search term; subject played in a low-level junior hockey league (who fails WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG going away), whose sole distinction seems to be that he won a team sportsmanship award once. One of a very long list of implausible redirects by the creator Ravenswing 08:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Implausible search term. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as above. Si Trew (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Implausible search term. Resolute 01:19, 22 January 2014 (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.

Brent McMann[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) 17:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completely implausible search term; subject was a wholly undistinguished college hockey player (who fails WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG going away), whose distinction in the college tournament in question seems to be limited to that he scored a goal in one game. One of a very long list of implausible redirects by the creator, who seems more interested in buffing up his edit count than anything else. Ravenswing 08:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Implausible search term. -DJSasso (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as above. Si Trew (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Implausible search term. Resolute 01:19, 22 January 2014 (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.

Mike Bussoli[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) 17:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completely implausible search term; subject was a wholly undistinguished college hockey player (who fails WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG going away), who achieved no distinction in the tournament in question. One of a very long list of implausible redirects by the creator, who seems more interested in buffing up his edit count than anything else. Ravenswing 08:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Implausible search term. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as above. Si Trew (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Implausible search term. Resolute 01:19, 22 January 2014 (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.

Taylor MacDougall[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) 17:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absurdly implausible search term; subject played in junior leagues, without any distinction, and fails WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG by a country mile. Ravenswing 07:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never know what to do here, since I thought a redirect is not an article, so A7 wouldn't cover it, and presumably WP:AFD would volley it back here on those grounds. But then CSD A3 starts "Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects to Wikimedia sister projects)..." which, since the exception proves the rule, implies that a redirect is an article. Si Trew (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, but I could see an argument that a redirect couldn't indicate notability, because it has no content. Certainly turning RfD into notability debates wouldn't work well; the remit of RfD, as I see it, is to determine whether a search term is plausible for the target and warranted. I'm happy to take these to RfD rather than to CSD. Ravenswing 08:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are indeed not articles. The "A" CSD do not apply (otherwise we wouldn't have separate "R" criteria), and notabilty is not really relevant (other than a notable term for a subject normally being a good redirect). The key standard is that a redirect must be plausibly useful (usually as either a search term or for history retention, but there are other possible reasons too); should not be misleading or violate the principle of least astonishment; and should not be discouraging the creation of a desired article. Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree there's no point playing pass-the-parcel with it, and it's not worth it (for me) to try to change the wording at CSD A3 to make clear redirects etc. are not articles.
Of course there is the issue of whether this should even be a redlink at the target (which has plenty of others); a redlink implies that the article is worth creating (i.e. the subject is notable), so simply deleting the redirect is not sufficient; the linking should be removed at the target. Whether other redlinks in that target are to people who are notable and deserve articles, I am not qualified to comment.
But there was an AfD of August/September 2007 for this player and several others; the result was "delete". Of course times change and two of the players on the list there have perfectly acceptable articles now: Luke Adams and Timo Pielmeier. A third, Pat O'Keefe, has an article but about a boxer and presumably a different person. But this page has since been recreated as a redirect (on 20 September 2013), as have others on that AfD:
Could this RfD encompass those with the same rationale?
As a PS, with this edit I also removed from my "Delete" !vote above the words "per nom", since the nom (Ravenswing) did not propose deletion and I shouldn't put words in another's mouth. Sorry about that. Si Trew (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am proposing that the article be deleted -- for what else would I be nominating this? As far as the Welcher and Filler redirects, I likewise believe them -- as with many other of Dolovis' redirects -- to be specious, implausible terms, and I share with a number of editors the view that he's creating them solely to plump up his edit and articles-created counts. (Heck, I'm one of the Delete voters in that AfD, as to that.) I just figure there are only so many RfDs I ought to be filing in any given day. Ravenswing 13:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RfD is Redirects for Discussion, and proposed retargettings are also common nominations. As for bundling nominations, yes it can be done (see the instructions at the top of the page) but it's best restricted to cases where there is a common rationale, similar circumstances and you think it unlikely people will have different recommendations for the bundled redirects. It's less good to add redirects to the middle of an existing discussion though as it can be unclear whether people are commenting on them or only the original nomination. Spreading lots of nominations over a few days is a good idea so you don't overwhelm either people or the system. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was clear I was only bringing those other redirections to light, not per se tagging them on as nominations. However, it does seem to me that these hockey players are best dealt with by bundling into one nom, for the reasons you state: common rationale, similar circumstances, unlikely people will have different recommendations. Where there are individual exceptions that need sheepdogging out, that is easily done as part of the discussion. Si Trew (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible search term. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Si Trew (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As to the above discussions, I would probably leave the CSD out of it unless there is an obvious reason - vandalism, BLP, etc. But in cases like these, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to group some that have similar characteristics into one nom. i.e.: players who are redirected to a former team. Just in small groups, like four or five per nom. Resolute 01:22, 22 January 2014 (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.

Taxobox[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 Infobox. --BDD (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page was originally an unreferenced article, appropriately deleted y user:Enochlau at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taxobox in 2005. In 2007 it was re-created as a WP:CNR to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#Taxoboxes by user:Bendzh. In 2011 user:Pigsonthewing changed the redirect to the current target.

I have created wikt:taxobox as it is now an attested part of academic literature; I do wonder if the editors of that book are also Wikipedia contributors ;-). There are over 100 pages of taxoboxes or references to taxoboxes in the chapters and index pages. The Insects: An Outline of Entomology. P. J. Gullan, P. S. Cranston. John Wiley & Sons, Jul 13, 2010. p. 641-565. The book is a staple of many university units, resulting in lots of course notes, etc referring to taxoboxes. See about some relevant results, esp. this and that.

It is also used on http://saltwateradvice.com/clown.html which doesnt immediately appear to be a copy of Clownfish.

In light of it being used in the real world, I think this should redirect to a mainspace page with a {{hat note}} preferably to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life#Taxoboxes as that page is more descriptive. taxon looks like a good target. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • A minor point, but hatnotes to project pages should use the {{selfref}} template, not {{hat note}} (or similar), so they can be easily stripped by mirrors that only use our articles. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget with a hatnote. Taxon does look a good target but I'm not opposed to other suggestions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Infobox, with a a hatnote as suggested. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow; that is a much better target for this and the four that follow. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxobox is integral to the articles. If someone mirrors the articles but doesn't want the template, or wants to rename it, this redirect won't be their biggest problem. It will be the 238,000 [1] pages that use the template.

Template:Taxobox briefly says what a taxobox is, and links to Wikipedia:How to read a taxobox which has a longer explanation; Infobox does not mention the term. The term, if not Wikipedia-specific, may have originated with Wikipedia. Apart from the photo, Infobox is entirely about Wikipedia. Having a hat-note so people are routed through the Infobox article (perhaps stopping to look for information that isn't there) will just waste their time. Putting four hat-notes atop the Infobox article will be clutter for those who really want to read about infoboxes in general.

Wikipedia:How to read a taxobox may be a better target; Infobox as it stands is not. —rybec 22:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rybec, the issue with namespaces is not the rendering - the problem is the page selection criteria. A mirror, such as a Wikipedia app, will 'somehow' select which pages will be included, and then uses a complete rendering environment to render them all. Template:taxobox will be included in that complete rendering environment, but wont be viewer app, especially if it is a mobile app like kiwix. ('somehow' usually equals namespace=0, with some filters applied - sometimes they remove all redirects, as 'is a redirect' is a field of the page table - some mirrors exclude pages in 'category:unprintworthy redirects' as that is not difficult, but that is rare from what I have seen.) John Vandenberg (chat) 01:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned taxobox on Infobox, and left a note on the talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:20, 22 January 2014 (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.

Warbox[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) 13:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR created in 2010 that is obscuring both existing and potential content. See Robot Renegades and special:search/Ashley Beedle Warbox. It is also used for other products, and in literature. One of the uses is to refer to a supply of items needed in the case of an emergency, such as a war.[2] John Vandenberg (chat) 02:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete undesirable WP:XNR per nom to pipework. Cannot be used on its own without filling in content, therefore not usable as a navigation point either. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Isn't "a supply of items needed in the case of an emergency, such as a war" essentially a war chest? That may be a suitable redirect target; although its larger metaphorical meaning of being monetary savings may preclude that.
  • Hubbard, L. Ron. The Western Collection. Google Books. p. 239. Retrieved 19 January 2014.
has a good mention in context at the top of the page; Google can't seem to find the book in print. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to War chest. No prejudice to a standalone article if one is relevant and distinct, but I don't think a redlink is desirable here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it OK for me to edit the proposed target to include the reference I gave? (So the lede starts "A war chest or warbox[1]...)? I don't want to put the cart before the horse, but it should be mentioned at the target if we are to retarget it. Si Trew (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: agreed it should be added before this is a suitable target; but we need to find a non-fiction source for that. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any, even as a DICDEF. Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang has "War House" (here) to refer to the British Ministry of War with "cf. WAR BOX" in its definition, but the definition of "War Box" would be on the preceding page (p. 350) which Google Books doesn't have. (Why not? Because it would contain "wank"?) Partridge has "War Box" also with the same meaning, here. All my books are packed for moving house so I can't check offline, but it seems if anything "warbox" is an invention of L. Ron Hubbard's in the sense of "war chest", the meaning of the two words separately is different, and we're not in the business of inventing meanings for words.
So, I think it better to retarget as per your suggestion for Geobox etc. Si Trew (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. The use of the term as a synonym for War chest appears to be too obscure to be very helpful. --BDD (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't understand. Very roughly, REDLINK says eep a red link if a useful article might be made of it some time. In my opinion,War Box might make at least a redirect to War_Department_(United_Kingdom), but Warbox is, in my opinion, a nonce word that is not at all likely to have a redirect when it has one use in a work of fiction and was never heard before or since. Ia would like it to be deleted but I am not sure that REDLINK covers it, can you elaborate? Si Trew (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's (apparently oblique) RfD for WP:RFD#DELETE #10—to create a redlink to encourage creation of the appropriate article. --BDD (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my typos. Succinctly, War box and Warbox are two different things and should be discussed seperately. Si Trew (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. CNR from mainspace without proper prefix: not helpful for anyone. Confusing readers of the encyclopedia. Compared to Infobox: this is a Wikipedia-internal code word, not a word from real life, so it is a non-content target. -DePiep (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2014 (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.

Navbox[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. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR which was recreated in January 2011 after being deleted by user:Black Falcon at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 March 19 (so is technically eligible for speedy deletion, but it doesnt hurt to re-evaluate this). Like geobox below, google:navbox is the name of companies, products, etc, especially navigational software/hardware. Please see Google Book results. It is also used generically to refer to a navigational aide on a website[3], so we may find a suitable target down that alley. If a suitable target cant be found, the redirect should be deleted per WP:REDLINK as we do not have an article about any of the likely uses of 'navbox'. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete undesirable WP:XNR per nom to pipework. Cannot be used on its own without filling in content, therefore not usable as a navigation point either. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2014 (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.

Geobox[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 31#Geobox

Retard[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 Retardation. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 13:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

s.b. Retardation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.175.135 (talk)

  • retarget to the dab page at retardation per the nomination (assuming "s.b." means "should be"). The first link there is to Mental retardation which is a reidrect to the present target. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget per nom and Thryduulf. Si Trew (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • note I've just added the RfD tag to the redirect page. It is fully protected so the nom was unable to do themselves. For future reference, the best way to get a tag put on a page you can't edit is to put an {{edit protected}} template on the talk page and/or mention in the nomination that you couldn't add the notice due to protection. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect per above. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the retardation dab page per Thryduulf.--Lenticel (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2014 (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/2014_January_19&oldid=1138579631"