Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 7, 2017.

Wikipedia:Village guillotine[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has zero links whatsoever, and I think we just get rid of this, this was created in 2008 and I just don't see this as plausible, seriously, who will search for this? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as old and harmless. It got 38 hits last year, so it's not completely implausible for whatever reason. Although it was originally created as a redirect to AN/I it was retargette minutes later to it's present target. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, causing no harm and no valid reason for deletion has been presented. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I have stated that it is implausible, and I suppose WP:R#D 5 should apply for it makes no sense. So a reason for deletion has been presented. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I disagree that it's harmless. A guillotine is a device for beheading people, and that is not the kind of message Wikipedia should be sending. We can and should be better than this. -- Tavix (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an old piece of humour. Unlike other project shortcuts (like WP:ROPE), I can't imagine a context where this could possibly do harm. – Uanfala (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf: old and harmless. I do find it a bit strange that there's a sudden push to eliminate humour from Wikipedia's project space. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether this particular one is harmful or not I have yet to consider, but is it useful? I'd say that it certainly isn't plausible, seriously 38 hits in a year? That's nothing, there's no harm in deleting the redirect, I just don't see how this could possibly be used, the harm aside. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 20:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's 38 occasions when someone would have been inconvenienced by the lack of this redirect for no good reason at all. It's also an order of magnitude more than some redirects get, so far from nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect and tag as humour, as with other humorous but potentially offensive WP space redirects. Deryck C. 17:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fits the naming convention of Wikipedia as a village (cf. village pump, village stocks). Someone should probably create WP:Village Elders as a redirect to WP:Arbitration Committee and I'm sure there are plenty of other options! ;) Also, can we please trout the nominator for nominating a series of redirects simply on the grounds that they "don't see a use for them"? Surely we have something better to do than debate the merits of project-space redirects? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @HJ Mitchell: Well, if it is not harmful, this is just immature and offensive, people coming across these would think that redirects like these are appropriate in Wikipedia, like I explained in the below discussion, these are just useless, if not offensive and immature like the thousands of redirects created by Neelix (talk · contribs) in late 2015, it just isn't humourous. This may lead them to creating redirects like the Neelix ones. So it is harmful in this way. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Champion: Do you have any actual evidence of this, because it strikes me as extraordinarily unlikley that the existence of a small handful of redirects tht many, possibly most, people find unproblematic at worst would result in anything like that. It's also worth remembering that Neelix made a very large number of good redirects, many more that would not have been deleted had anybody else created them, and only a very few that were actually harmful - all on top of other positive contributions to the encyclopaedia. If we end up with another Neelix because of this redirect then the project will overall have strongly benefited overall. Thryduulf (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Thryduulf: I never denied that Neelix created a number of good redirects, but I am only referring to the initial set of arguablyy childish and inappropriate redirects that Neelix created in the comment above, see the thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904, there was overwhelming consensus that those redirects were inappropriate and unhelpful. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • You've missed my point completely. Yes Neelix created some redirects that there was consensus were bad, but overall his participation in Wikipedia was a significant net positive, so in in the extremely unlikely event this redirect results in an editor like him (which theory you have ignored my request for evidence to support I note) Wikipedia will have benefited. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't mean this will result in another editor completely like him, this is just as immature and inappropriate as the Neelix redirects referred to in the ANI thread linked above. Let's say that those redirects still existed, people coming across one of those will think it is okay to create redirects like those, and thus it is potentially harmful, and not only that, it can flood the backlog of the new pages feed unless the user is autopatrolled. I'm still not convinced that this is a likely or useful redirect, disregarding the Neelix analogy. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • The new pages backlog would only apply if someone were creating many new redirects quickly, which is completely independent of both the suitability of those redirects and the nature of this redirect so is another irrelevant argument. Disregarding that your only other argument is that you don't like it, as you've noted that you can't prove it's harmful in a conventional way in your reply to HJ Mitchell and have apparently conceded that your Neelix analogy doesn't actually stand up to analysis. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Just think, it is entirely possible for someone to create a whole bunch of similar redirects. Also, per WP:R#DELETE 8, this is a novel or obscure synonym. To reword my argument, people may come across it and be mislead into thinking the target is a place to behave in an immature and uncivil manner, for it does not give an indication of what the target really is, hence it is potentially harmful, as Tavix explained above, of course, I don't want to be pushing forward a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well the chances of someone finding this redirect before being familiar with the target are exceedingly remote, and in terms of informativeness about the purpose of the target if you are unfmailiar with it is no different to Wikipedia:Village pump. You still haven't given any evidence that this redirect is likely to lead to anyone creating a bunch of similar redirects, that all or most similar redirects would be bad, or that they would do so in a manner which is more problematic than any other creation of redirects inspired by ones that some editors dislike. You have said that it is potentially harmful, but you haven't given any evidence to support that, and the assertion has been rejected by multiple people - after all it was viewed by 38 people last year none of whom found it problematic enough to mention it anywhere, create a bunch of inappropriate redirects or chop off any editor's head. You may not intend to be putting forward an "I don't like it" argument but it's the only one you are doing which has not been refuted and/or shown to be completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                      • @Thryduulf: Well, maybe it isn't that harmful as of now, but should someone decide to link it somewhere for whatever reason, it makes it more likely that it may be harmful for editors will think that it is appropriate, it is no more appropriate than those several thousand redirects created by Neelix, for it is not like anything that an experienced editor will create (if you disagree, please explain how it differs). I just don't see why anyone could possibly be using this redirect to get to the target, or even the point of keeping this redirect in the first place, keeping it will only eventually encourage people to link it and thus, will send the wrong message that redirects like these are appropriate, I assume the pageviews are from people who have got nothing better to do than waste their time typing random things into the search box. Sorry, I'm not going to change my opinion on redirects like these and am seriously considering suspending my activities relating to RfD if this does not get resolved. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Any redirect can be misused. That issue is dealt with as it always has been and always should be - by taking appropriate action (words of advice, topic bans, blocks, bans, etc, depending on the circumstances) against the person misusing the redirect, not by deleting the redirect. We don't delete Dubya because someone may link to it in a way that was a BLP violation for example. Our fundamental point of disagreement seems to be that you think redirects which exist for reasons of Wikipedian humour that requires inside knowledge to understand are inherently harmful because someone might misunderstand them. On the other hand I do not think that these redirects should be treated differently to any other redirects - i.e. they should be kept unless there is evidence that it is harmful, misleading or nonsensical - and you've still not managed to provide evidence for any of these in this case. HJ Mitchell and others have explained why they feel it is useful, and frankly it doesn't matter at all why people use a redirect only that they do. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                          • @Thryduulf: In my opinion, I have not seen enough compelling evidence that redirects like these are harmless, what to do with a certain redirect or a certain set of redirects differ every time, which may or may not involve deletion, well, to clarify, I am in favour of any outcome except keeping the redirect "as is" or retargeting to an equally serious page, retargeting it to an actual humour page I would not mind either. I think the Neelix case is enough evidence, and I do not want to be providing more. I feel like this debate is not going anywhere, and I would rather be editing some articles instead. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:49, 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.

Wikipedia:¬[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, logically. -- Tavix (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Only two links before this nomination, both of which are relating to an old RfD, I just don't see a use for this. It does not seem to get a lot of usage, and also I don't see why anyone would think of typing this. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems to me like a pretty neat shortcut. The negation sign has its key in the British keyboard layout, so for many editors it's not difficult to type. – Uanfala (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination reasoning has a strong resemblance to IDONTLIKEIT and the symbol has widespread use in mathematics. Mihirpmehta (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Unafala. It got 141 hits last year which is a pretty decent amount for an unadvertised shortcut. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW I just advertised the shortcut at the proper place. Mihirpmehta (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Completely harmless. These kind of nominations strike me as rather aimed at proving a point than resolving an actual problem. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Right now there are four advertised shortcuts on the page itself; the single-word WP:NOT, the initialism WP:WWIN, the computer-science single-character WP:!, and the logic single-character WP:¬. WP:ALPHABETSOUP lists three more, a mixed-initialism WP:WWPIN and two two-word redirects WP:ISNOT and WP:ALSONOT. There's no policy governing which and how many shortcuts should be put in the lead message box, but I assume everybody agrees it shouldn't be more than, say, a million and five. There needs to be a consensus about when enough is enough. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There can be redirects that aren't listed on the page itself. The page should advertise common, known shortcuts like WP:NOT but need not advertise obscure or rare shortcuts like WP:¬. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Which shortcuts are advertised on a page is entirely a matter for the talk page of that page and independent of whether a redirect is good or otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 8 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.

Wikipedia:HAPPYPLACE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 17#Wikipedia:HAPPYPLACE

Template:Request denied[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague. Pppery 22:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would Template:Not done be a more appropriate target? --BDD (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Template:Not done per BDD. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Template:Denied as that's closer to the language of the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This has been in use for more than five years and it's likely there are editors out there who use it as a shortcut (and we can't tell how often that happens was because the redirect's target, prior to last month's merge, was a template that seems to have been meant to be substituted). I've just placed a notification at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy, where the redirect's likely users are probably found. If we don't receive any further input from there, I'd be happy for it to be deleted or retargeted. – Uanfala (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it turns out it's unlikely there are editors who'd be using this as a shortcut to the recently merged template. No opinion on what is to be done with it. – Uanfala (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had never heard of this until the post at the blocking policy, and I doubt most other admins have either. Why would you use a shortcut to call a template when the appropriate code to generate your reply is already on the page and all you have to do is copy/paste it? That being the case, I don't think we need this and don't believe it is used much, if at all, as a substitute for the normal template and there is little value in redirecting it either. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect title is ambiguous and just as long as the correct title. With 0 transclusion count I think we can delete it. Deryck C. 12:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:14, 7 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.

Pindas[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 Pinda (riceball) and hatnote. -- Tavix (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially related to Dutch, we have Pinda as a dab page. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing some usage of pindas as part of Pinda Sweda to refer to herbal bags or balls as used in massage: [1] [2] [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Uanfala: as it can refer to multiple things there I would suggest adding it to the dab page. I still think Pinda (riceball) is the primary topic but with a hatnote to the dab those seeking peanuts and legumes can still find them. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 8 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.

Chinese region[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 China (disambiguation)#China region and Regions of China List of regions of the People's Republic of China (double redirect), respectively. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what "region" refers to, this could equally refer to topics like Sinosphere etc, per the below discussion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Quick note: the "below discussion" referenced in the nom is now at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 6#China (cultural region)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Uanfala: There are 5 entries on the dab page at China (disambiguation)#China region and four others is too many for hatnotes. The first paragraph of the current target talks only about the "Greater China region" and makes no indication that "China region" is ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thryduulf, two of the entries on the dab page are Taiwan and an article about the relationship between PRC and Taiwan, I can't imagine any of these as ambiguous with "Chinese region". That leaves two articles: Mainland China (mentioned in the first sentence of the current target) and China proper (mentioned in the third paragraph), and it seems to me that the current article has the broadest scope and is the appropriate place to contextualise the other two topics. – Uanfala (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article does not describe any of the other targets as being referred to as "China region", whereas I find it very likely that someone seeing a the term used in an external source coming to Wikipedia to find out what it is referring to and we should not state that the current meaning is the only possible one when I find no evidence for it even being primary. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that it's unlikely to be a primary topic, but it's what comes closest to a broad-concept article and it contains contextualised links to the other relevant articles. I understand this is still not optimal and I wouldn't oppose creating a new dab page at Chinese region, or retargeting to China (disambiguation)#China region if that section is reorganised so that it lists only the relevant entries. – Uanfala (talk) 01:03, 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.

IPhony[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. Without the term mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, and with disagreement as to where it should point, I find the delete argument most convincing. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:14, 7 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.

John Thayer (Disambiguation)[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. 19:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (housekeeping; no blame): unnecessary capital in the disambiguator; no incoming link. Redirects are WP:CHEAP, but several hundred thousand like this wouldn't be. NB John Thayer (disambiguation) exists. Narky Blert (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete housekeeping. (Disambiguation) should not be capitalized in almost all cases unless there's some weird book or film series by that title? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If John Smith (Disambiguation), fictional protagonist in not-yet-notable Disambiguation (TV series), ever gets written up, we can worry then about any issues which may arise. BTW User:DPL bot tags links through a (Disambiguation) page (with cap "D") to a DAB page as errors (and IMO is correct in doing so). Narky Blert (talk) 00:04, 10 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.

User:Gehaner[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 (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. User did redirectify the userpage before leaving the site. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. There is no problem at all with a user redirecting their user page to their talk page, regardless of what other edits they have or have not made. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:USERPAGE If you prefer to put nothing here, then you can redirect it to your user talk page for the convenience of other editors.. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:26, 7 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.

Nimbu[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) 19:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe retarget to Shikanjvi per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 11#Nimbu pani, but not sure if it means the same thing. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It's the Hindi word for "lemon". I don't particularly like the policy about removing redirects from foreign-language words, but it's quite probably applicable here. Mihirpmehta (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's mentioned at the target and this brief mention could conceivably be expanded to something more substantial given that word's relevance to the etymology of the English word "lemon". – Uanfala (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's a particular historical and social connection between Indian agriculture and the popularization of lemons in world cuisine, as mentioned in the article, and I feel like that creates a special circumstance different to redirects deleted in the past. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:11, 13 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.

BD +20deg307[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot). The article calls this "BD+20307" when it doesn't use a degree sign. There are plenty of other redirects to this target such as BD +20 307 (but not BD+20307 which the article actually uses, strangely), so I don't think it would be missed (not a good enough reason) and if it is a WP:RFD#D8 "novel or obscure synonym" (a perfectly good reason). And I wonder if this substitution is ever valid in this context. I realise that the degree sign is somewhat hard to type, but within this field of astronomy I am not sure people are going to reach for typing "deg" instead, are they? Evidence seems to suggest they just omit it, or replace it with a space. I'll ping Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy. Si Trew (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: this seems a very improbable search term. The typical alternatives to a Durchmusterung catalogue names such as "BD+20°307" are "BD+20 307" or "BD +20 307". I.e. a space rather than a degree symbol. Clumping the degree value with the identifier is a bad practice: is it BD+20°307 or BD+2° 0307? I edited the article accordingly. Praemonitus (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd and a highly unusual notation, but it's not actually wrong. The degree symbol in BD numbers does indeed refer to degrees (of declination). I don't see any harm in such redirects to BD articles existing, but I wouldn't encourage generating more of them either. WP:NBDF? Modest Genius talk 22:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 7 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.

St. Johns--Iberville[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, noting that Saint-Leonard--Anjou and Yukon--Mackenzie River have also been closed as "keep". -- Tavix (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot). WP:RFD#D8. It doesn't make sense to replace an em dash with two hyphens like this. The search engine is insensitive to hyphens/en dashes/em dashes, and we manage happilly without St. Johns-Iberville or any other redirect to this target. No internal links, 1 hit in 90 days (on 25 November). We deleted another (more complex) one like this, I seem to remember User:Ivanvector, who is Canadian, said these forms are a bit strange. Delete. Si Trew (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 13:48, 7 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.

Bjoerk[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 per nom. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOT EUBOT!. This is a weird one as it goes to a name article at which the only person listed doesn't have the name "Bjoerk" or "Bjørk" but is Björk Guðmundsdóttir, that is to say, the artist Björk. I'm rather surprised this hasn't come up for discussion before; but it would seem if we are going to take it anywhere it is most likely that people are going to want to find Björk, We have Björk (disambiguation) and Björk (name) – in the artist's case it's not a surname but a patronymic.

All a bit of a mess, then, to list an artist at the "wrong" name article and is probably not where people want to go. It did indeed go to Björk from its creation in 2004 until its retargeting in 2010 by User:Bjoerk who made three contributions on 20 and 21 March 2010 creating Bjørk, the second three minutes later retargeting this redirect to it, and the last the next day fixing a typo ("of" to "if") in the target, and has made none before or since.

It gets a steady trickle of hits (24 in 90 days) but that's no guarantee people are being targeted to where they want to go (though it's only a click away). I suggest we retarget it to Björk, and do whatever tidy up is necessary at Bjørk: its content could probably be combined with that at Björk (name) and retargeted there, or perhaps it's best to retarget it to Björk (disambiguation).

I found this by way of the redirect Greatest Hits (Bjoerk album) which I'll list separately. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Björk (name) to Björk (disambiguation), retarget Bjoerk to the consolidated disambiguation page, and add Bjørk to the disambiguation page. Deryck C. 19:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would go against the current practice of keeping surname articles distinct from disambiguation pages, see MOS:DABNAME. – Uanfala (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. If any merging is to happen, it's Bjørk → Björk (name). -- Tavix (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Uanfala and Tavix: MOS:DABNAME depends on the length of the disambiguation list: For short lists of name holders, new sections of Persons with the surname Xxxx or Persons with the given name Xxxx can be added below the main disambiguation list. In this case I think the lists are short enough that merging makes sense, but I wouldn't feel too bad about having a different dab scheme. Deryck C. 11:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that they can be added doesn't entail that they should. The difference is fundamentally not about size, but scope: a disambiguation page serves different functions from those of an article about a surname. – Uanfala (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • In my opinion, any time there's more to say about a certain name than simply "here's a list of people with the name", that's a good indication that the name index should be separate from the disambiguation. WP:DDD shows just how strict disambiguation pages have to be, it's solely for linking to other articles. They don't allow for giving the etymology, history, popularity, etc. of a certain name. Splitting name pages allows that content to flourish. -- Tavix (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Bjoerk to Björk as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Tavix (talk) 21:30, 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.

Roegnvald Kali Kolsson[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, unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(slipped, different target)

(All eubot) Another one for which perhaps the multifarious redirects would be considered plenty without the need for Eubot to create an "oe" variation for each "ö", especially considering that we don't even have obvious English-language redirects such as Saint Ronald or St Ronald or St. Ronald, I'm presuming this is not a name that is regularly dropped where Norse scholars foregather. Leaving all that aside, the name is attested various ways and R's reflect that, such as Rǫgnvaldr Kali Kolsson, Earl of Orkney, Rognvaldr Kali Kolsson, Ragnvald III and Rögnvaldur Kolsson (among others), so I really don't think we have to go making "oe" permutations of them. It's difficult to find that these are used in sources. None is linked beyond RfD. They appear on various of Champ's Eubot lists (one on two lists, for some reason) and they get a nugatory 1 hit each in 90 days, each on 1 November 2016. Gsearch gives me precisely 0 results for these exact terms. Delete all as WP:RFD#D8. Si Trew (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see I've sorta slipped and combined one with a different target, Rögnvald Eriksson. However I will leave it combined for now (we actually have three articles about Rögnvalds), because really it's the business of back-forming "Roegenvald" from a name variously spelled but, apparently, not this way that is the trouble, not the surname and affixes. "Roegenvald" generally is used by one Tumblr account (as "roegenvald-r"), and shows up in one genealogy search at www.mytrees.com/ancestry-family/ro000181-2092-3537/Roegnvald-Eysteinsson-Born-830-in-Norway.html; the rest (if not the genealogy search) seem to be Wikipedia scrapes. Si Trew (talk) 06:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 13:44, 7 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.

Broes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot). Weak delete. The target lists Bros, Bross, Brus or Bruss as alternative spellings, in the first sentence, but not this. A Gsearch brings up a few (not many) Dutch and Flemish uses of this spelling, but not meaning the same thing, and even if they did this cheese from Piedmont has no particular affinity to the Low Countries. Piedmontese language isn't Germanic and no mention of the letter/diacritic "ö" is made at that article; the only IW link is to it:Bruss; that doesn't use either spelling and says the Piedmontese is bross, the Ligurian brussu, and sometimes in Italian as bruzzo. A Gsearch for "Brös" gives me mostly links about Märtini Brös.

Is the target's name/title just plain wrong? There's no evidence of a page move, but the picture captions say "Bruss" and it's not used beyond the opening word, one (non-defining) use in the "History" section, and a link to it:Brös (formaggio) in the "References" which shouldn't be there anyway (Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and not its own source) and in any case is just a redirect to it:Bruss where, as I've said, it's not spelled this way. Si Trew (talk) 10:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. I'm seeing all sorts of different things in google results for this, one of which is "bros" with the meaning "brothers" but there are so many other possibilities that are not suited to that dab page that a retarget to there will not help most people on this occasion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Bros (disambiguation) as that dab page seems to cover all the plausible destinations of someone searching for this title. Deryck C. 19:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. My search doesn't show anything that's on that disambiguation page. Maybe Broe as in multiple people with the surname. I've added Broe to the see also so I'm not strongly adverse to a retarget there, but it just doesn't feel right to me. -- Tavix (talk) 19:42, 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.

Th (set theory)[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. 19:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. I really don't think that we can transliterate Greek letters used as mathematical symbols in this letter-for-letter way: more commonly, we use the name of the letter: Theta (set theory), Lambda calculus, Pi (number), and so on. See also #L calculus, above. Si Trew (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Using th for Θ is conceivable, but combining this with the addition of a parenthetical disambiguator makes the whole thing somewhat implausible. – Uanfala (talk) 13:02, 7 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.

Region of Queens Municipality[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 wrong forum. Per the instructions, see WP:RM if a redirect is preventing a page move. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect to make way for the move of Region of Queens Municipality, Nova Scotia to Region of Queens Municipality. The provincial disambiguator is unnecessary. There is no other topic in the world that could compete for primary usage. Hwy43 (talk) 07:45, 7 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.

Fox War Channel[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 17#Fox War Channel

LooSE TV[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, without prejudice against recreation if relevant information is added to a related article. Deryck C. 19:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a TV channel related to the London School of Economics. The target article, Student television in the United Kingdom, does not even mention the channel.

Should be deleted per WP:R#DELETE§10: "the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains [literally] no information on the subject." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_7&oldid=1088107233"