Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 9, 2017.

Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate[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 convert to soft redirect and tag {{historical}} & {{humor}}, noting that in addition to those advocating this option outright, many supporting the deleting or keeping of the redirect stated that they would accept this option. This also reflects the nature of the page as a piece of Wikipedia history, whilst recognising that it is not a useful redirect. For what it's worth, knowing Radiant! there is no way that they meant "Violent" to mean anything other that "strongly held views" - I do not think there is any basis for believing that this was meant to be a reference to actual physical violence, or intended to make light of actual physical violence. WJBscribe (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Doesn't appear to have a lot of usage, delete. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; whether or not something gets usage isn't hugely relevant to retaining old titles. Nothing wrong with it, and as was previously noted at RFD, this is a permitted nickname based on the old name for this page, "Votes for deletion". Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Nyttend and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 7#Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Ugh, this is just awful. Who in their right mind thought this redirect was humourous, let alone appropriate. I'm sorry, but I can not and will not tolerate a redirect that promotes Wikipedia's processes as "violent". Just read WP:VIOLENCE to figure out that violence on Wikipedia is a real problem, and we should not diminish this by laughing it off with "humourous" redirects like this. That issue aside, if someone finds it appropriate to label one of our fora as violent, there's a case to be made about all of them, so it's technically ambiguous. Please don't marginalize this important issue. -- Tavix (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This redirect was created in 2005 by User:Radiant!, who has not edited in several years, as a backronym for the target's then name of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. I disagree completely that humour of this sort does anything to promote or encourage real world threats of harm, particularly when "violent" here is being used to mean "passionate" or "strident". Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're not going to get me to back down from this, it's a matter I take very seriously. I hope your cheap laugh was worth it, because violence is not a laughing matter for me. -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not my "cheap laugh" and I really rather resent the implication you make that I am laughing at violence. Violence is not a laughing matter, but this is not violence, it is not promoting violence, it is not encouraging violence, it is not trivialising or normalising violence (I'd be aruging delete if it were any of those things) it is simply a very old backronym created for presumably humorous reasons that happens to use the word "violence". Failing to make the distinction between the word and the action does the cause of making Wikipedia a better place more harm than it does good in my opinion - fighting battles over harmless trivia such as this reidrect distract attention and effort from fighting the battles that actually need fighting such as that against harassment (of all sorts and against all targets). We may have to agree to disagree about this though. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you really want to take a stand against violence, then !vote for the deletion of this redirect. Violence takes many forms, one of which that is popular on Internet sites like this one is Cyberbullying. If even one person sees this redirect and they even think for one second that AfD is a place where they could be cyberbullied or any other form of violence, then this redirect simply isn't worth it. It's that simple. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I really do not think it is remotely credible that someone will see this redirect and come to the conclusion that you seem to think they will, even in the extremely unlikely event that they come across the redirect out of all context with no prior knowledge of what AfD is. I'm sorry but I simply cannot the legitimising of reductio ad absurdum as reasons for deletion. I will defend to the hilt all constructive attempts to eradicate harassment in all its forms, but I will not condone the tilting at things two steps removed from windmills on the offchance that someone somewhere might find a way to be offended by it if they squint hard enough. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • On the other hand, "it's a funny joke, lol" is not a reason for keeping a redirect that labels a discussion forum as violent. That is NOT something we should be standing up for, and the fact that you are digging in your heels and calling my argument absurd for something like this is frankly ridiculous. -- Tavix (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Except it doesn't label a discussion forum as violent because it's a joke. It deliberately exaggerates the sometimes heated discussions that were more commonplace in 2005 than perhaps they are now (it's a while since I frequented AfD) for the sake of a backronym. You may like or not like the joke, it may be a good joke or a bad joke, but whichever it is does not change that I find your characterisation of it as supporting violence to be absurd. If I found the argument that this was harmful to the project and/or it's users credible then I would be supporting deletion (I have done so for at least one redirect in the past) but I simply do not. You have the right to your opinion, and I have an equal right to think that it is way off base (just as you do with my opinion). Unless you have new arguments to present it's probably bests to leave it here as I don't think it likely that we will agree on whether this is, as I believe, a harmless in-joke from earlier times (in which case it should be kept) or an inexcusable promotion of a Wikipedia process as haven of violence, as my interpretation of your arguments implies is your belief (in which case it should be deleted). Thryduulf (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to soft redirect and mark as {{historical}} - @Tavix and Thryduulf: I think a good compromise here would be to treat this like WP:STALK, WP:VANITY, and WP:AN/K. It is potentially confusing, especially as the target is now named AFD not VFD, another reason why deprecation is a good way to go. A {{humor}} tag could also be considered.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do that for redirects that get use and have a lot of links that would be broken. This redirect isn't like that and it isn't worth that trouble, just delete it and remove all official connections between this redirect and AfD. This is not an issue I will compromise on. The only way this will be solved is via deletion. - Tavix (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with either the soft redirect idea. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that this necessarily merits deletion, but the concerns Tavix brings up are real if users are redirected without any explanation. I feel that soft redirecting and tagging as historical is a sufficient solution, though I wouldn't be opposed to deletion, since it's not linked much. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: Okay, but that still leaves an official connection between a redirect that labels one of our discussion boards as violent. Do you really think that's a good idea to have that connection? -- Tavix (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a redirect, even if not explicitly marked as humorous, puts any "official" labels on its target. – Uanfala (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does. Anyone typing "Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate" will be taken to AfD. Why is that a good idea? -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thruduulf's comments above. Moreover comparisons to "wikistalking" terminology is invalid, because that term was formerly very widely used, but this redirect has only five incoming links. By the time anyone finds it, they will likely be an experienced user who understands the humor, not (as with STALK) a frightenable newbie. BethNaught (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BethNaught: Just so I'm understanding you correctly, you think labeling AfD as violent is humorous? -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it is a joke. Whether it is humorous is a matter of personal taste. BethNaught (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect and tag as humour. A bit of dark humour is allowed, okay? Deryck C. 17:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to say soft redirect and tag as historical, but... five incoming links, really? That's one link from here, one from the previous RfD, and one RfD notification on the user's talk page. No one even uses this! No wonder: the "humor" or allusion is obscure, since we haven't had "Votes for deletion" in many years, and the acronym itself seems pretty tortured. I don't share Tavix's concerns that this will promote real violence, and I have no problems with WP:ROPE, but honestly, this is just a trivial little thing that one person thought of one day. Some people will vote to keep anything! --BDD (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MADEUP is a content guideline, so it only applies to articles. Also, redirects are cheap. BethNaught (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I know the context of MADEUP, but I believe the same spirit applies here. Every sort of meme is "made up" at some point, but we usually only call it such when it doesn't catch on, as was the case here. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find Tavix' reasoning that this "simply isn't worth it" convincing, although I will note that their linked page VIOLENCE doesn't really say much about the extent of violent behaviour on Wikipedia. Mihirpmehta (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Our responsibility for maintaining a civil environment is far more than doing any less than deleting it. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an old in-joke from years and years ago. It's not doing anybody any harm, nor is it inciting or promoting violence. This, and a recent spate of RFD nominations to delete old, harmless in-jokes strike me as extremely POINTy and ridiculous. Aren't there some more important things that need doing? —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - harmless joke. No benefits from deletion so the default is to keep. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd imagine in 2005 it wasn't a very big place like it is today so it's no wonder it's not linked anywhere, We should preserve everything around the 2005 era - not delete it, There's no benefits to deleting something that's been here for well over 10 years. –Davey2010Talk 18:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:COSTLY There is no need to redirect from obscure terms, which this is, keeping this just encourages creation of other similar redirects, I simply don't see how this could be useful. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP, The redirect isn't hurting anyone and as I said we should preserve things like this - Deleting this just means we're deleting a part of history - This may well have been widely used when VFD was around but either way it should be preserved. –Davey2010Talk 15:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may well have been widely used when VFD was around. FWIW: it wasn't. -- Tavix (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said "This may well have been widely used when VFD was around" - Ofcourse it's not going to be linked now because VFD doesn't exist however my point was it could've been widely used when VFD was around, On the otherhand it may not of been used at all, No one knows really. –Davey2010Talk 21:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: Upon further reflection, I think I understand what you were getting at. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, strongly: its extant links are all from meta-discussions about deleting the shortcut, other than Radiant!'s original tongue-in-cheek suggestion to rename VFD which could easily be piped, and an entry in Ritchie333's list of shortcuts which already includes redlinks. It was never used by Wikipedians as a reference to the policy page at all, ever, and it has had a total of 37 hits recorded over the entire period that the new stats tool maintains data, prior to its nomination here. There's no good reason to keep it at all, and there is a very good reason to remove it as Tavix expressed above. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, for the reasons I've given above, that Tavix's comments represent a good reason to delete this redirect. To summarise, there is no actual evidence of harm having been caused by this redirect, or any evidence that it is plausible such harm would occur in the future. There has been plenty of time for someone to find and present this evidence if it exists, but nobody has actually done so. We don't delete redirects because some people don't like them. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A specific potential for damage to the project has been identified, and I'm disappointed by the repeated characterization of such things as "I don't like it". I don't like that our dollar-sign glyph uses one horizontal rule instead of two and you can go ahead and dismiss any argument I make based on that wacky opinion, but when an editor identifies specific harmful language on the project we have a duty to give that due consideration, and not to wave off that concern by saying "oh you just don't like it". The harm is that any future use of this shortcut has a chance of characterizing one of our most important content review venues as one in which violence occurs or may occur, and the potential for users to be dissuaded from participation as a result. You argue this is implausible and I tend to agree. The thing is, we normally weigh potential for harm against benefit to the project in these situations, and in this one there is a tiny prospect of harm weighed against no benefit at all. Every use of this shortcut to date is a self-reference: it's not referring to the policy, it's referring to that one time an editor used it in a discussion. And it was one time. Every future use will be a self-reference (because VFD no longer exists and this doesn't make any sense as a pseudoinitalism or backronym or whatever for AFD) and will also carry with it that implausible chance of some new editor being turned off by it. All of these little implausible things add up; it is better for the project to remove them. As far as "preserving history", pipe Radiant's original link and then the entire useful history is preserved: there's a record (the same record, actually) of that one time someone called VFD the "Violent Factualizing Debate" forum without needing the redirect to actually exist, nor really without the redirect having needed to exist at all in the first place. There's no chance of breaking old discussions here, like there was when we deprecated WP:VANITY and WP:STALK and when we keep talking about deprecating WP:ROPE, because there aren't any old discussions that used this. Not even a single one. This should be an easy decision. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist purely to allow Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 17 to be taken off the main RfD page. I have already participated in this discussion; any uninvolved editor may close this discussion without waiting another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why Radiant! created this Redirect on July 13th of 2005 is not entirely clear. The reasons finally to delete it on February 13th of 2017 are much clearer. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I don't object to including humor and levity in discussions. Still, this doesn't seem funny. It seems just pointless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend--5 albert square (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment was asked to put vote here by Tavix to explain fully my reason for closing as keep.--5 albert square (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still seeing this as an otherwise totally harmless redirect, but the discussion here does furnish an example of the redirect actually causing harm – by funnelling editor time into this discussion and away from other, more worthwhile wiki tasks. – Uanfala (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And it'll be brought back here in the future, wasting even more editorial time, unless we take a stand against this redirect now. -- Tavix (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: That sounds like you plan not to respect the consensus of this discussion if it is not closed the way you think it should be, and to disrupt Wikipedia to make your point. I hope that is not your intention but that is the clear message I'm getting from your statement and your reopening this discussion after it was closed. Thryduulf (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2017.
Wow, that's a horrible bad-faith accusation out of you. Literally all I'm saying is that this redirect will be brought back to RFD again in the future if this isn't closed as delete this time around. I'm really disappointed in your conduct in this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this is kept it will be the second time it has been to RfD with that outcome, so saying it will be back here again if we don't delete it seems very similar to saying "I will renominate this if the outcome isn't the one I want". Thryduulf (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor has that right, as Wikipedia:Consensus can change. -- Tavix (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Presidential and Vice Presidential March[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 Honors music. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:WORLDWIDE aside, there is no "Presidential and Vice Presidential March" in American politics. As such, this would be a textbook WP:XY between Hail to the Chief and Hail, Columbia. -- Tavix (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget I think it perfectly plausible that someone looking for this would not know that there are different marches for the president and vice president, so it is a useful search term. The current target though is not good, per both WP:XY and WP:WORLDWIDE, but we do have Honors music which lists the marches and (other pieces of music that are not (called) marches) for various presidents and vice presidents. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Good find, Thryduulf. -- Tavix (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I had closed it as withdrawn and retargeted to honors music, but I have opened it back up by request. -- Tavix (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (restore original target) after the DRV was closed and this speedily reopened, see this, for example, which is why I created the redirect. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you found a mislabled YouTube video with barely any page views and thought that was good enough for a redirect? With no other usage, this is solidly in "novel or very obscure" territory. I think you and Thryduulf are on the same page that this could be a useful search term, but I would strongly oppose keeping it as is per WP:WORLDWIDE. At least honors music solves both issues I mentioned in the nom... -- Tavix (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also [1], note that video was auto-generated, presumably from this album. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: I did ping you on my talk page and since you did not respond, I have decided to open a DRV myself. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to make it explicitly clear, I strongly object to keeping the page redirecting to the original target. That page is linked from Honors music so users looking for it (and not any of the other pieces of music it could equally refer to) will still get there. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think the iTunes connection is a bit too obscure to merit a redirect, since the redirect title doesn't seem to be a widely attested alternative name of the song. With other things potentially competing for the same title but no other topic on Wikipedia whose formal name is this title, deletion is the appropriate thing to do. Deryck C. 23:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not the formal name of anything but it is a likely search term for any of several marches, listed at honors music, that people do not necessarily know the title of. Retargetting sends people to a page listing all the songs they could be thinking of directly, rather than scrabbling around with search results (which they may not get to directly) that do not show them all the relevant articles. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Georgia capital[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. It looks like a large enough proportion of editors would think this particular redirect is useful, even though most other titles of this format are currently red. Deryck C. 23:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a G7 request. I created this redirect without knowing that most "[country] capital" redirects don't exist. Should this be kept? feminist 15:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. To me at least, "Georgia capital" is not the same as "Capital of Georgia". "Georgia capital" would be the amount of capital in or held by the country. I can't recall hearing a capital city being referred to as "[country] capital". Maybe "[country] capital city"... -- Tavix (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For most US states, and for most countries, "X capital" is unambiguous and helpful, and the only reason this one is different is that Georgia is ambiguous. Since Capital of Georgia exists, this is a convenient reformatting. I've never heard "capital of X" referring to the amount of economic capital, aside from the joke in which Ireland's the richest country in the world because its capital is always doublin'; no reason that phrase can't be used, but it's rare compared to the use referring to the capital city. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend. This seems like hairsplitting, but I might expect that at "Georgian capital", not here. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the 'n' matters. Using the adjectival form "Georgian capital" would simply be (more) grammatically correct. "The Georgian capital is centrally located." Are we talking about the capital city being located in the center of the state or would it be where one might find the state's capital goods? -- Tavix (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose "Georgia capital" is grammatically wrong for either topic. But it seems a likely enough search term, and at the risk of sounding super condescending, someone using an ungrammatical search term like this probably has the more elementary query of "What's the capital of Georgia?" as opposed to "What sort of economic capital does Georgia have?" --BDD (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect to a dabpage, even when it might be a typo. George Ho (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sean Sphincter[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 20#Sean Sphincter

.NET Rocks![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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 23:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a podcast, but it's not mentioned anywhere at the target, and the only other mentions I've found were as references. It appears to be notable from a cursory search, so I think this would benefit from WP:REDLINK deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Alternative set of procedures[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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 23:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target does quote a CIA official referring to an "alternative set of interrogation procedures", but the phrase really loses something without its most important word. Unlike "enhanced interrogation" itself, this is not a general euphemism for torture related to the War on Terror, or torture generally. Delete as a novel or very obscure synonym. BDD (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Professional interrogation technique[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 22#Professional interrogation technique

Microwave refrigerator combo[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. Deryck C. 23:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Target provides no information on a "microwave refrigerator combo", and it's WP:XY since it can just as easily redirect to refrigerator. -- Tavix (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete XY. This means the two appliances are physically attached to each other but there isn't one where the same chamber doubles as both a fridge and a microwave. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cazeneuve[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. Page is no longer a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This probably needs to be turned into a disambiguation page. There are numerous entries for Cazeneuve. --Nevé–selbert 18:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:JUSTDOIT. Nothing is stopping you from doing so. -- Tavix (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said it probably needs to be, I'm not certain. We could retarget this redirect to the French prime minister, as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT.--Nevé–selbert 19:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either way, there'd need to be a disambiguation since there are "numerous entries". -- Tavix (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dab page is done. Rich Rostrom (Talk) 21:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Revolver (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 retarget to Revolver (disambiguation)#Albums. -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be retargeted to Revolver (disambiguation)#Albums? Note that Imagine (album) redirects to the dab, in correspondence with Imagine (song) and the outcome of this RfD, however Thriller (album) remains a redirect to Thriller (Michael Jackson album). There is an inconsistency surrounding these disambiguator redirects that needs sorting somewhat IMHO. --Nevé–selbert 18:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. The status quo breaks naming policy, and only results from a close RM predicated on a then-new change to policy that was ultimately short-lived. --BDD (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of the four albums in the dab, the Beatles one is the primary topic for the spelling presented, the Lewis Black album is titled after the Beatles one. However, RevolveR and RevolveЯ (evolve in all lower-case) is mostly claimed by T-Pain, and rEVOLVEr (EVOLVE in all caps) have been claimed by both T-Pain and The Haunted. Hatnote to the dab page would help in these cases, which currently exists. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't keep the status quo as it breaks titling and disambiguation policies. AngusWOOF is correct that this is the primary topic so the target should me moved over the redirect. However, the status quo is the result of a requested move, endorsed at Move Review, based on WP:PDAB being a guideline. Despite it never apparently having consensus to be a guideline, and having been downgraded to an essay, there was very significant opposition to applying the WP:PRECISE policy when I proposed to correct Revolution last month, so I strongly suspect a requested move for this will get nowhere. I would not be too unhappy with disambiguation as a second choice though. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Revolver (Beatles album) to Revolver (album) – The Beatles album is clearly the primary topic. M.Clay1 (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambiguation page. I don't think the primary topic is strong enough this time either. Deryck C. 23:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

FATCA privacy Controversy[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 as proposed. Deryck C. 23:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor (99.254.120.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) placed a PROD tag on this redirect with the rationale "no controversy actually exists, redirect based on a news headline." Because redirects are not eligible for deletion via PROD, I removed the tag and I am now nominating the redirect for discussion at this forum. I recommend we retarget this to Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act#Criticism, which discusses issues relating to privacy (for more information about the FATCA and privacy concerns, see this article from The Economist). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Journalist hoax[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 both. Deryck C. 17:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is too vague to be useful. Journalists are notorious for perpetuating hoaxes. -- Tavix (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I would expect this to go to an article about a hoax by a journalist, not as in the incident referred to a hoax about a journalist by someone who wasn't (the person making the edit worked for a delivery company in Tennessee). Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Fake news now that this is the catch-all term for journalism with hoaxes. Delete US Journalist hoax, as that's still too vague to be useful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. There are a number of plausible targets, including yellow journalism, hoax, Fake news websites in the United States (for "US journalist hoax"), etc. Given this ambiguity, I think it's best we delete these. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Notecardforfree. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - As stated above, the wording is far too vague. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Vg[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 to Template:Video games by The Mysterious El Willstro. -- Tavix (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect, and I doubt we need to link to {{Vince Guaraldi}} so often that we need a shortcut to it. Avicennasis @ 22:05, 29 Tevet 5777 / 22:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Template:WikiProject Video games per Steel. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Steel1943 and Notecardforfree, wouldn't Template:Video games make more sense than trying to match the template space to a WP shortcut? That's if this is to be kept at all—I've seen many similar template redirects deleted here as ambiguous. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BDD: I have no opinion on that. Either way, your suggestion is related to video games and the video games WikiProject, so your suggestion fits my thoughts, at least. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BDD:, after considering this further, I think you are correct. Template:Video Games would make more sense, but I also agree that this could be ambiguous. I don't know if people use WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for templates, but I think "video games" would likely be a leading candidate for the "VG" acronym. However, I also appreciate the fact that there are other potential "VG" templates (e.g., Template:Vector Group, Template:Vince Gill, etc.). I am fine retargeting to Template:Video Games or deleting this, and I have struck my previous vote. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I took the liberty of Retargeting this to Template:Video games per the above discussion. I am, however, not an Admin, so if the consensus is to keep this Retarget than an Admin should close. If not, by all means discuss other possibilities. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Second Lincoln Administration[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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

There has only ever been one Lincoln administration, running continuously for four years. We don't have First Clinton Administration or First Obama Administration. --Nevé–selbert 18:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The comments the last time this was discussed make it clear that the present target is where this redirect should point if it exists, and given that it does exist and there is an unambiguously correct target for it I see absolutely no benefit in deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is entirely plausible that readers may think a president's second "term" could be called their second "administration." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to be cautious because the previous RfD showed disagreement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Staatiline elekter[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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-english redirect, but I'm unsure if it fits under speedy deletion criteria. I'm unsure how to proceed. TheDragonFire (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FORRED, the title is Estonian. This was created as an article but the entire contents was "Staatiline elekter (static electricity)" and could/should have been deleted per WP:CSD#A3 (no content) as a rephrasing of the title and/or WP:CSD#A10 (Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic). However it is not speedy deletable as a redirect, as it is neither cross-namespace nor implausible. It is not worth transwikiing to the Estonian Wikipedia - as the Google translate of the pink box on et:Staatiline elekter indicates that a longer article was previously deleted as having insufficient information. It is not a dictionary definition in Estonian so et Wiktionary is extremely unlikely to want it, and the English Wiktionary already has this translation at wikt:static electricity and it gives too little information about the word (e.g. other forms, inflections, etc) to be a useful entry for the Estonian term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED and Thryduulf. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:FORRED. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Vandalismo[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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need for foreign language redirects in project space. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Offside (football)[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 Offside#Sport. -- Tavix (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retargetting all to the disambiguation page Offside. There are several codes of football with offside rules. —Ketil Trout (<><!) 07:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Offside law would be {{R from ambiguous page}}. -- Tavix (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Offside (sport) rather than the general Offside dab page since the sport dab has all the variants. I have not seen offside law apply to computers in news articles, only to association football and rugby. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above. GiantSnowman 18:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. It would make things more consistent and clearer. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Aveilim (mourners)[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 discussion merged with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 6#Aveilim (Mourners). Thryduulf (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As before, this is a redirect that will never be typed into the search bar. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dance Dance Revolution MegaMix[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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as for Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME Plus!: This is a non-notable bootleg modification that is no longer mentioned in the target article.

The following capitalization variants currently exist:

-- SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reslisting as the alternate capitalisations were not tagged. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2017_February_9&oldid=1088107464"