Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 16, 2017.

Galvonic corrosion[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. -- Tavix (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling, but not recently created. Resulted from a page move to correct spelling SpinningSpark 23:03, 16 January 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.

'Tis the season[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) 21:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

For the second time, an RM asserting "Deck the Halls" as the primary topic for this phrase has failed, resulting in 'Tis the Season remaining as a disambiguation page. It stands to reason that a change in one letter's capitalization does not result in a change in that determination, so I recommend retargeting this to the disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the two requested moves cited by the nominator are at Talk:'Tis the Season. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'Tis the season (lower-case s in season) is primary topic, pointing to Deck the Halls, whereas 'Tis the Season (caps for S) should be for the dab page. This is like Cold case vs. Cold Case. The recent December 2016 discussion talking about moving 'Tis the Season (capital S) to the dab and that RM resulted in a not moved. I don't see a reason to mess with the lower-case s version. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep per WP:DIFFCAPS. There's no other lowercase ambiguous titles, so nothing to disambiguate (and also no WP:DABMENTION in any other entries at the dab). Also, since two uppercase articles were deleted since the last Keep RfD, failing to see the motivation for relisting. Widefox; talk 23:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the dab page or to Christmas and holiday season. Although there's no doubt that the phrase originated in the carol, it has since come to be much more widely used than that, as a general phrase denoting Christmas. A simple Google search for the phrase shows no deck the halls related results anywhere on the first page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:DIFFCAPS. Done. (first page of Google is not an WP:RS, and flawed logic - absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The lowercase phrase has RS and is in Wikt:'tis the season, and is correctly a {{R from quotation}} "This is a redirect from a quotation to its best-known source" as per multiple RS in Deck the Halls.) Widefox; talk 00:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of what WP:DIFFCAPS says, but it doesn't apply here, because there's no real meaningful difference between "Tis the season" and "Tis the Season". And the purpose of a redirect is to help readers. The majority of readers typing in "tis the season" will absolutely not be looking for the "lyrics" section of Deck the Halls. That link simply isn't there in popular usage in reliable sources any more, as my Google search of results and books more than amply shows. If you have any sort of solid evidence to the contrary, other than your personal thoughts, then please present it.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have hatnotes and a dab. Agreed? per DIFFCAPS When such navigation aids are in place, small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics. How does it not apply here? (DIFFCAPS is the correct place to take up that argument about it, and if you feel a Google search should be how we decide primary topics, then WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the place for that. As Google reacts to our primary topics (e.g. 'Tis the SeaSon was listed first after it was renamed), it's 1. logically flawed per above, 2. circular, and 3. based on the assumption that {{R from quotation}} isn't helpful for readers (again to be taken up there) 4. an assumption I don't agree with. No, instead readers using the lowercase get to the carol, plus content on modern usage of the lyrics with RS from 2016. We're not deciding which wikt definition is more popular, it's normal guideline based WP dab work, plus a judgement call on the uppercase which is offtopic here. In short, Google "Apple" and no fruit hits but we still have Apple.) Widefox; talk 03:05, 18 January 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.

Affectors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 28#Affectors

Redirects implying Bush's direct involvement on 9/11[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 as follows: after dismissing several arguments to delete for reasons which don't apply, there is general agreement that "Bush did 9/11" is a common phrase referring to 9/11 conspiracy theories, but not that it refers to controlled demolition theories specifically, so retarget to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Regarding the other two, various actions were suggested but none gained traction against the consensus to delete. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the discussion from June 2006, "Bush Knew" is unsuitable. However, this redirect was created in 2003 as a double-redirect to the now-deleted "Bush Knew". Therefore, newer discussion on the "Bush knew" (sentence case version) is needed. George Ho (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added two, BDD. George Ho (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional information I've gathered: On Wikipedia, "Bush knocked down the towers" is only mentioned at Bin Laden (song); "Bush did 9/11" at Humor based on the September 11 attacks and Tay (bot); in the context of 9/11, "Bush knew" only appears in the names of references, at Cynthia McKinney and Opinion polls about 9/11 conspiracy theories. "Bush did 9/11" is the only one I was really familiar with—it's a bit of a meme—and is alluded to at Killing of Harambe#Fall-out and Internet memes with "Bush did Harambe". --BDD (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - These are rather awkward, and I feel like it's best to just let people use the search engine. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Search for these terms on Google, and you'll see that these phrases, when used as discrete phrase, almost exclusively refer to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Except for the controversial song lyric, which has prominent links to 9/11 conspiracy theories, these redirects are taking people to where they want to go. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first two, but keep "Bush did 9/11" – The first is virtually unknown and the second is applicable to numerous topics; but "Bush did 9/11" is a pretty common expression regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories: Google shows about 17 million hits. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Wikipedia is supposed to collate human knowledge, not provide a reflection of google activity. "Bush did 9/11" has no place as a title in an encylcopedia, and when deleted, jumping to that title will invoke the internal search engine (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?itle=Special:Search&search=Bush+did+9%2F11&fulltext=Search). The search results contain the related topics in the first few hits, including the current redirect target. No reasonable reader should expect a Wikipedia article on this titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all WP:CRYSTAL. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 9/11 conspiracy theories aren't future events (which CRYSTAL covers). If you have concerns about the verifiability about the existence of these conspiracy theories, feel free to AfD the target articles. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Bush did 9/11" per BDD and the 2000 page views it received last year. Delete the others as essentially unused and per BDD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep "Bush did 9/11" as it's probable that people would be searching for that, although it might not be compliant with WP:NPOVVIEW, also, see the deletion log for Jews did WTC. Also, change the redirect of "Bush knocked down the towers" to "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories", and "Bush knew" to redirect to"September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories" ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 16:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories would seem to be a better fit for "Bush knew"—i.e., he knew the attacks were happening but didn't stop them for some reason–but the other two would probably be better pointed at one of the more general pages, since the implication is that he actually had them carried out. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Wikipedia is not the place for crackpot theories started by raving lunatics. KoshVorlon} 16:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no Wikipedia policy (I could find) regarding what you're implying, if that was true, every article on this list would have to be deleted (which IMO, having articles about conspiracy theories contradicts WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL), if you consider having Wikipedia articles about speculated, verifiable (that the conspiracy theory exists) content to be against WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL, you need to get outside, according to WP:N "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article..". Obviously there are notable conspiracy theories such as 9/11 and birther, but. Also, lunatics wouldn't be able to search for such articles, as there is no Internet nor humans on the Moon. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 17:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you truly don't think the target articles should exist, AfD them, and these redirects would go as well. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To make my leanings official: keep "Bush did 9/11" in some form. It seems to have enough cultural cachet that it shouldn't be deleted, but I don't care very strongly as to which of this constellation of silly articles it points to. Delete the other two as unlikely search terms. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "don't care very strongly as to which of this constellation of silly articles it points to" should mean you support either invoking the search function, or a disambiguation page, either to list the most likely articles desired by the reader. A redirect assumes only one likely desired article, or excessive hatnoting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a bad idea in general, but search results also sort of sends the message "we don't quite understand what you're looking for, but..." I think that's an appropriate response to "Bush knew" and "Bush knocked...", but not "Bush did 9/11". --BDD (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as unencyclopaedic; they are too general and ambiguous to be useful (too many Bushes, too many situations), or if they are specifically related to 9/11 then they are not neutral and we are having to choose pages over another. Just cull them as not useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bush Sr. wasn't president on 9/11, who else named "Bush" would people think "knew"? ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 12:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doing Google Searches on these redirects shows that the only time they are used as discrete phrases are in the context of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. If you feel the target is unencyclopedic, take the target articles to Afd. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference is to:
  • Hopefully just one more thing to add about "Bush did 9/11" from me: I only said it was "a bit of a meme", but it actually has its own page on Know Your Meme. It does a good job of tracking the phrase's origins and longevity. --BDD (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse Patar knight's comment. September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories adequately addresses whether or not "Bush knew" about the attacks (he didn't), "Bush knocked down the tower" is referred to in Bin Laden (song), and while I'm not too picky where "Bush did 9/11" goes, the main conspiracy theory article makes sense. -- Tavix (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse PatarKnight's Recommendation - it is correct for the correct reasons. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perhaps I'm missing something obvious here, but I'm more than a little confused by a number of "delete" votes that predicate their position on the fact that it's a crackpot notion to believe there was government conspiracy in the attacks. The fact that these clearly are crackpot theories seems more like an argument for having redirects or piping (or just naked internal links) to articles which present the consensus view that these are unabashed lunatic fringe conspiracy theory. If editors wish to object to even having mention of these theories in a given article, they should raise the issue over the prose at the talk pages for those articles. But their !votes to delete here seem to run in a completely counter-intuitive angle to the aim they are explicitly supporting here, in a way that I'm not sure they have thought through; to the extent that the editors of a given article decide to include reference to conspiracy theories, surely it only helps to point out that these are in fact conspiracy theories, not mainstream views. Again, am I missing something obvious here? And note that I recognize that only a minority of delete votes hinge on this issue; others are more pragmatic in my view. Snow let's rap 02:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be difficult to disentangle one's personal feelings from matters of policy and procedure. I ran into that a lot at the AfD for Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories. And I've certainly been guilty of this too. And I suppose I don't want to just completely dismiss this. There's a fine line between "This is a crackpot theory" and "Doing X will result in Wikipedia promoting a crackpot theory". But when we just report on what's said elsewhere, we rarely have to worry about the latter. --BDD (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per WP:BLP. I cannot think of a hard redirect target that doesn't imply that Wikipedia concurs with the opinion. Soft redirects may avoid that problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Arthur Rubin: Please see WP:RNEUTRAL. Redirects do not imply anything about Wikipedia's position on the matter - non-neutral search terms taking people to neutral articles is a Good Thing as it means we don't get articles at the non-neutral titles. Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 28 January 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.

Paint chips

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 Product sample. It's unclear if hatnotes and/or content should be added there so I will leave that to interested editors. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, and ambiguous, as a look at the redirect's history somewhat amusingly shows. The term can either refer to promotional materials that show various paints' colors, or to "chips" of paint that fall off of walls or other surfaces. BDD (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete none of those are more than dicdef issues so no need for disambiguation, which was my initial reaction to seeing this listed --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the liberty of adding paint chip to this nomination. Please revert if you disagree. - Eureka Lott 20:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Product sample which mentions paint chips, and de-link it from that article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This brings lead poisoning and lead paint to mind for me, both of which mention paint chip(s).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A disambiguation page to Product sample and one of the articles that mention the chips that peel off surfaces could work. I'm not sure which article would be better though, and it's possible a stand-alone article could be written on the subject. I might look into it when I have some time. -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: Let me know if you start a draft, and wouldn't mind some collaboration, perhaps I'll chip in .— Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - Given the ambiguity, I feel like it's best to just let people search. The fundamental question is: 'Are these redirects really helpful'? I don't think that they are. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hatnote to Paint#Failure of a paint can be added to deal with chipping as with cracking and peeling. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify. Retargeting to any one of the two most likely articles would necessitate adding a hatnote, but in either case its text would absurdly specific (and somewhat surprising for readers to see at the top of the article). Deleting could be an option, but the search results seem to be pushing product sample way down the list, so I don't thinks this is going to be optimal. – Uanfala (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to product sample and hatnote to Paint#Failure of a paint. I couldn't find enough for an article, but I did expand Paint#Failure of a paint to include paint chips and link to lead poisoning#paint. However, when I did some research, product sample was definitely the primary topic. I had to use search terms like "paint peelings" to actually find worthwhile information on the other type. -- Tavix (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, my edit was reverted by JohnSRoberts99 and I somehow didn't get notified about that. -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 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.

Ra`s

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. The second relisting has not generated any additional comments in the best part of three weeks, so relisting again is unlikely to assist further. There are equally strong opinions in favour of retargetting and deleting, and while keeping it as did get some support it is clearly the minority opinion so defaulting to "keep" seems unfortunate. To that end I will retarget this to Ra's, but only as a normal editorial action not in my capacity as the administrator closing this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) Back-formed from Raʾs. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, now we're transliterating punctuation?! Mind you, Eubot did that with en and em dashes too. I shouldn't really be surprised. Si Trew (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, unlike a US keyboard layout, the ` symbol is not easy to type on a UK keyboard layout. On a laptop layout, usually it is very hard to find. I imagine that is one of the reasons that Wikipedia favours straight quotes in Wikitext. Si Trew (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The "punctuation" referred to is actually the Arabic letter Hamza. The grave accent is actually used to represent ʿAyn, though it seems possible that inexperienced readers might confuse the two and incorrectly substitute the grave accent here. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's possible that people would confuse the two per Paul 012 above, then I would !vote to keep it. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. This seems as plausible an error for Ra's as Resh by way of "Raʾs". On most keyboards, this would be a difficult search term to type and doesn't seem plausible anyway. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not seeing how "Raʾs" relates to Resh. Can someone help me out? Additionally, it seems like all of entries at Ra's are WP:PTMs, so if Ra`s is plausible for Resh, it'd think it best to just redirect Ra's to Resh as well. -- Tavix (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems like an ASCII way of writing raʾš, which, according to the article, is the reconstructed Proto-Semitic root of the word that ultimately lent its name to the character.
    Good question. Is this a plural of a spelled-out version of the letter, like "zees"? --BDD (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ra's, failing an answer to my query. I still doubt the usefulness of the disambiguation, but since it exists retargeting this redirect there seems harmless. -- Tavix (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also fine with deletion, especially if it helps form consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Retargeting to Ra's would be redirecting from a typo form that uses a less common punctuation to a correct form with more common punctuation. So we're running into a situation where a title is a typo of two different things but the correct name of neither, hence delete. Deryck C. 17:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing it as entirely as an accent-vs-apostrophe issue. I don't know what's normally done with these, if they get deleted, then delete, and if they get kept then retarget to Ra's, which already links to the current target. Noting that the first two entries in the dab page probably aren't PTM's – these are two adjacent villages, whose names translate as "Southern Ra's" and "Eastern Ra's" respectively, so it's quite conceivable that each of them, or the two as a whole, might be referred to as "Ra's". – Uanfala (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 16 January 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.

Elena (video game character)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 27#Elena (video game character)

Draft:MNYNMS

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. No rationale has been given. -- Tavix (talk) 18:32, 16 January 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.

The Meaning and Culture of Grand Theft Auto

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. This redirect already targets Grand Theft Auto#Related media, and has been during the entirety of this nomination. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect and IMO unlikely search term. Lordtobi (✉) 17:13, 16 January 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.

Criticism of Grand Theft Auto

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO unlikely search term; weak delete. Proper redirect Grand Theft Auto controversies exists. Lordtobi (✉) 17:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as "Criticism of" redirects are somewhat useful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: This is a common wikipedia titling convention, and someday if there is enough content for a stand-alone article, this would be the title used. Montanabw(talk) 01:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AngusWOOF and Montanabw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.1.161 (talk) 13:55, 18 January 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.

Grand Theft Auto wanted star system

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) 16:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Correctly titled redirect wanted level already available. Lordtobi (✉) 17:09, 16 January 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.

Grand Theft Auto(series)

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. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo, as redirect is not disambiguated (primary article). Lordtobi (✉) 17:08, 16 January 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.

Capitalistic democracy

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 Capitalistic democracy; no consensus for Communistic atheist; delete Communistic manifest. -- Tavix (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neelixistic nonsense terms that are unlikely to be likely and helpful. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would delete all of them with the exception of "capitalistic democracy", which I would keep since it seems to occur in print many times (see these books as an example). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep first two For Communistic atheist, the search for Communism and atheism also goes to that page and so it makes a likely search term for folks who want to see the connection between the two. Delete Communistic Manifest The last one is unlikely; someone typing for communist manifesto would not add "ic" and drop an "o" and expect it to go the same term. No such usage of this phrase variant in news articles or books. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:56, 16 January 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.

Los Santos, San Andreas

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) 20:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Andreas is located in Los Santos, not the other way around. Fictional cities should not be treated and disambiguated like real cities (see example below). Proper redirect Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto) exists. Lordtobi (✉) 13:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This rationale is incorrect; In the Grand Theft Auto series, "Los Santos" is a city in the state of "San Andreas". Steel1943 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, seems like I got that wrong. Regardless, we should not handle it like an actual city disambiguation, e.g. West Hollywood, California. Lordtobi (✉) 14:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a perfectly reasonable way to search for the fictional city, since there's plenty of real Los Santos, it's reasonable to differentiate by the fictional state just like many other articles on cities. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per my comment above, and since Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto) is a redirect that also targets Grand Theft Auto#Setting. Steel1943 (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated my comment to "weak" since San Andreas is a disambiguation page and the subject of the redirect is a fictional city, making the "city, state" naming convention potentially vague or misleading. However, that alone is not enough for me to advocate deletion since the redirect is not ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See above comment-reply. Lordtobi (✉) 14:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It might be wise to sync it with the other San Andreas redirects. San Andreas (Grand Theft Auto) and similar point to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas#Setting. -- Tavix (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The target location has the most information about this setting. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the San Andreas one could be mainly confused with the game title, the Los Santos one seems to be mentioned in multiple games so the franchise article would be appropriate. City, state redirect is a plausible format. I also want to note that the city names are bolded so that implies other cities would be redirected there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per other Keep votes. 122.104.1.161 (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was the one who moved it originally from Los Santos, San Andreas to the (Grand Theft Auto) disambig precisely on this rationale using examples such as Port Charles (fictional city) as reasons (fictional cities that don't have a real-world counterpart are still disambiguated via the universe where they originate). That being said, I am very skeptical few people would actually fully search that title (city, state). "San Andreas" is usually used to refer to the 2004 game, while the cities usually stand alone. hbdragon88 (talk) 09:35, 21 January 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.

Liberty City (future)

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) 03:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "future" Liberty City in the contexted entity. Else WP:CRYSTAL. Lordtobi (✉) 13:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is no content specifically about a future Liberty City or about the future of any of the Liberty Cities mentioned at Liberty City (disambiguation) that I can find. If the GTA city is set in the future (relative to when?) then this is not made clear at Grand Theft Auto#Setting - I would not object to a retargetting there if it were. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto) already handles this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. Too close to WP:CRYSTAL for comfort as well --Lenticel (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. 122.104.1.161 (talk) 14:10, 18 January 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.

Maibatsu Sentinel

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) 03:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article. Lordtobi (✉) 13:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can find no mention of this phrase anywhere on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as unmentioned and per WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds very WP:NOTWIKIA and not a major enough concept to be covered in the game's franchise article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The stated manufacturer in the redirect title is not even correct, as the car in the Grand Theft Auto series is manufactured by a fictional company called Übermacht, not Maibatsu. Aside from this, my reasons are per WP:NOTWIKIA and nominator. 122.104.1.161 (talk) 14:19, 18 January 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.

GTA VI

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 all to Grand Theft Auto#Titles. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL Lordtobi (✉) 13:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominations with identical targets and rationales merged by Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak refine to Grand Theft Auto#Titles, as there are more than 6 titles in the series, and someone may look for this to find out if there is a 6th in the series - they will learn that there isn't a game with this name (yet), but will find the game they were thinking of if they were mistaken about the number. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have merged Grand Theft Auto 6 and Grand Theft Auto VI into this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per Thryduulf. Good point about there being multiple side titles. If the franchise is not continuing anymore then it can go to that section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per Thryduulf. Definitely don't delete - its a plausible search term about something that will likely exist someday. Shouldn't be an article, but a search term? Sure. Sergecross73 msg me 19:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per Thryduulf. I do agree. --SimmeD (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per Thryduulf. 122.104.1.161 (talk) 14:22, 18 January 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.

All gta games

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 Grand Theft Auto#Titles. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad redirect name. Lordtobi (✉) 13:14, 16 January 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.

Ammu-Nation

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) 03:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article. Lordtobi (✉) 13:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can only find mentions in passing that do not educate the reader about this at all. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as undefined and per WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If this is specific to a game title, like a particularly notable gang, redirect it there and add to setting. It's the in-game ammo store name across multiple titles. Consider keeping only if it's added and explained in the setting. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC) updated 20:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't really see the need for it. I share AngusWOOF's view. --SimmeD (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943. 122.104.1.161 (talk) 14:33, 18 January 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.

Collars & Cuffs

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 Collars and Cuffs. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article. Lordtobi (✉) 13:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Collars and Cuffs, a 1923 film. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Add note about GTA if it specifically got the name of the gang from the film. It looks like this was the name of a store in GTA Vice City. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC) updated 20:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf - It is much more likely that a user using that search term will be looking for the film, not the game series. I believe that this fits the definition of WP:SURPRISE. If a user wanted information on the fictional store in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, they would be more likely to use the GTA Wiki or other dedicated wikis or fansites. 122.104.1.161 (talk) 13:23, 18 January 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.

Complete the Look

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) 03:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article. Lordtobi (✉) 13:14, 16 January 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.

Eris (Grand Theft Auto)

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) 03:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article. Lordtobi (✉) 13:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Our articles about GTA do not appear to include even a list of characters that mentions an Eris, so someone searching for this will be disappointed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a brand that parodies Nike, however, this isn't notable to any of the game titles to be mentioned in their settings as with Duff Beer AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per preceding comments. 122.104.1.161 (talk) 14:52, 18 January 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.

Events concerning the Grand Theft Auto series in 2004

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) 03:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article. Lordtobi (✉) 13:13, 16 January 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.

GTAGaming

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) 03:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article. Lordtobi (✉) 13:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is the name of a fan site for the game, which was declared not notable enough for an article in 2005 as "Gtagaming" and 2006 as "Gtagaming.com". The only content I can find out it is that at Casey Mongillo where he is noted as "one of the co-founders of the Grand Theft Auto fan site GTAGaming.". If he were the sole founder and/or there was content about it in his article, I would consider a retarget there but there is a least one other person who also co-founded it (no idea if they have an article, but WP:XY regardless I think) and what I quote is all the information about it there anyway, which is very unlikely to be helpful. FWIW, a talk page discussion implies that it's not regarded as a reliable source, so it's not likely someone will be searching for information about this having seen it used as a reference on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete per nom as unmentioned and per WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:FANSITE Also not official website link. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has nothing to do with the official game. --SimmeD (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per preceding comments. 122.104.1.161 (talk) 14:58, 18 January 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.

Grand Theft Auto Serials

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) 03:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article. Also, there never were any Grand Theft Auto serials. Lordtobi (✉) 13:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete. From google search results, it seems that at least two games in the series (IV and V) have some sort of "serial key" used as a copy protection method, but what this is and how/where to find it is apparently not obvious to many people who have legitimately purchased the game. There are of course also people looking for this who are trying to evade the copy protection. Whatever reason people are searching for this phrase, it's not something that Wikipedia will ever be able to help them with as it doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion as an example on an article about copy protection mechanisms which is the only place it would be encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. and WP:RFD#DELETE Item 2 (causes confusion). Serials implies some kind of special media as with Serial (literature) Serial (publishing) and Serial (radio and television), but not for video games series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AngusWOOF. 122.104.1.161 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 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.

Heat 'Q'

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) 03:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article. Lordtobi (✉) 13:12, 16 January 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.

List of GTA games

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 refine to Grand Theft Auto#Titles. -- Tavix (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect. Lordtobi (✉) 13:12, 16 January 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.

List of Grand Theft Auto characters

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 31#List of Grand Theft Auto characters

Pay 'n spray

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) 03:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article. Lordtobi (✉) 13:11, 16 January 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.

Unique Stunt Jump

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) 03:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article. Lordtobi (✉) 13:11, 16 January 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.

Well Stacked Pizza Co.

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) 03:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article. Lordtobi (✉) 13:11, 16 January 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.

A Bunch Of Tools

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) 03:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article. Lordtobi (✉) 13:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as undefined and per WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently vague. GTA isn't even the primary topic for this phrase (that's various memes substituting the word "tools" for "fools", none of which are notable). Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per preceding comments. 122.104.1.161 (talk) 15:22, 18 January 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.

Maggie (prime minister)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 24#Maggie (prime minister)

Mr. Margaret Thatcher

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 23#Mr. Margaret Thatcher

Plo Koon (Jedi Master

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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB. Plo Koon (Jedi Master) exists.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:35, 16 January 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.

Israeli intervention in the Syrian Civil War

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 23#Israeli intervention in the Syrian Civil War

Make America White Again

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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, used in a few citations but that's about it. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's more useful for Wikipedia to only keep the snowclones that are discussed in articles or have their own media title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt as an WP:ATTACK title. — JFG talk 02:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's one thing if a negative, NPOV title for something gets traction and gets put into print publications as well as other sources, but this seems like something without the kind of substantial reliable source coverage that we need. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Attack redirect that isn't particularly useful.LM2000 (talk) 04:06, 20 January 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:Source[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 deprecate. Thanks to Steel1943 for implementing this and all those who worked on incoming links and transclusions. A few remain, but few enough in my opinion that we can close the discussion. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template is misused. I corrected the errors done by other editors. Not sure what to do with transclusions in non-mainspace pages. Also, we don't know which "source" refers to. Does it refer to template:refimprove, template:citation needed, template:citation, or what else? Otherwise, if the template is unneeded, then... change it to template:code or something in other pages, and delete. George Ho (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC); edited. 10:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Per Steel1943, I'll concede to converting the page to an error template and then deprecating it. George Ho (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete after orphaning, due to ambiguity, or could refer to {{reference}}, which redirects to {{reflist}} and other redirects. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Template:Syntaxhighlight (see original 2011 discussion at Template_talk:Code#Display problem). That target is a template wrapper for <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight> AKA <source>...</source>, so having a template wrapper redirect at {{source}} makes sense. A large number of template names are potentially ambiguous to various people, but they are documented and that is sufficient; the article naming convention WP:PRECISE does not apply to the template namespace. We also don't delete templates or redirects to them on the basis that 5 or 6 people have used them incorrectly (otherwise we would have no templates left).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mind if I fix the bolding, Stanton? George Ho (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. One downside of Chrome in Mac OS is that bold is barely distinct from regular text.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per SMcCandlish. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do we stand with the current links and transclusions? How much work needs to be done for this to be retargeted? --BDD (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to {{citation needed}}. Similar redirects to {{cn}} include {{source?}} and {{fact}}, where this redirect would fit in. -- Tavix (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even with a re-target it is too ambiguous. And this redirect has a history of being misused. Avicennasis @ 07:04, 6 Tevet 5777 / 07:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate then delete. Enough people have been using this, thinking the template did something else, that we should avoid having a template redirect at this title. Deryck C. 17:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or convert to error message and deprecate. Deryck C. 18:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the outcome, do not delete. It's a title that will be used by others trying to locate a template, but what template that is ... not sure. Maybe a landing page like {{IMDb}}, {{OTRS}} and {{R from real name}} is necessary here. Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate and keep per Steel1943's proposal. If it's kept or retargeted, it will continue to be misused. If it's deleted, someone will recreate it and we're back where we started. We need a landing page that says "You're using the wrong template. Which of the following did you have in mind?" – Uanfala (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The lack of stagnation makes another relisting potentially productive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deprecate" draft created. I have created a draft of how the page could appear if the "deprecate and keep/convert to error message" is established as consensus for this discussion. The "draft" has been created below the redirect. (Also, I have added appropriate "noinclude" tags to ensure that the draft doesn't affect current transclusions of this redirect. For non-technical folks, to enact this draft without breaking anything after this RFD is closed, restore this revision.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate per above arguments. More useful to have an error message with an explanation for a plausible template than to just have a redlink. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:56, 6 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_January_16&oldid=1146664702"