Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 6, 2017.

Nichard rixon[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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a tlausible pypo. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

🥘[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 and refine to the newly added section. Noting that there is the related deletion discussion for Shallow pan of food. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Senseless Peter Rehse (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or retarget (but I'm not sure where). This is U+1F958 "SHALLOW PAN OF FOOD", so we should direct people to either an article about the character (it appears only in a table afaict) or about a shallow pan of food. I suspect that Paella is the primary topic for that, and other than Paella#Similar dishes (which deals mainly with similar recipes not necessarily cooked in shallow pans) I don't know of any other target. Cookware and bakeware (and Category:Cookware and bakeware) do not contain anything organised by shape. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The Unicode definition is rather vague. While most OSes implement this as a pan of paella, Samsung actually realised this as a Korean shallow hotpot which does fit the bill.[1] --Deryck C. 19:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I now think WP:FORRED applies and points towards deletion - this is a redirect from a title in Emoji, for which no topic on the English Wikipedia is a good match. This stands in contrast with "stuffed flatbread" below, where the set of food items described by that emoji is fairly well-defined and covered by a short list of articles. Deryck C. 17:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget as above. Wonder if Deryck Chan wants to another fabulous dab page? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 'Shallow pan of food' seems too unclear to me for us to concretely connect it with just the one type of dish. As mentioned above, similar kinds of meals exist. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Impossibly vague. How on earth could there be a primary topic for "shallow pan of food"? --BDD (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or refine to Paella#In popular culture, a section I just added. I've been torn on this for a while; I agree with Thryduulf's analysis that emoji primarily refers to Paella, but I share Deryck's concern. To alleviate that, I've created a section at Paella on the emoji, explaining that the emoji was proposed specifically as a paella emoji, and noting Samsung's rendering as a Korean hot pot. -- Tavix (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. Also, the Search Bar is designed for standard text rather than Emojis. Sure, my Firefox allows me to Copy and Paste this into the Search Bar anyway, but the safest assumption is that people are typing in the Search Bar with standard text. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's acutally an incorrect assumption. Many people do search by copy and paste, some platforms allow easy entry of emojis, and the internal search is only one of many ways people search and browse Wikipedia including following links from other articles and from external web pages. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The other food-related Emoji was Retargeted to a more well-known food. So I did the same here. It now goes to Pizza. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Subcomment: Why not? It is consistent with what was ultimately done for the "🥙" Redirect. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A pizza is not a shallow pan of food, it is not named for a shallow pan, nor are most types cooked in a pan (shallow or otherwise) so I strongly oppose that as a target. Thryduulf (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not everyone copying and pasting this character will have looked up the official Unicode description. In fact, I assure you that most users will not have done so. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • But (almost) nobody will be expecting to arrive at pizza because if they were using an emoji for pizza they'd use 🍕 (U+1F355 SLICE OF PIZZA). The use of this emoji is slightly ambiguous but pizza is not one of the likely meanings. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I totally forgot about that Emoji. Either way, "Paella" is rather obscure. There must be more well-known foods that fit this image. Maybe Lazagna would be a better Retarget? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • It doesn't represent lasagne either, so that's equally inappropriate. The aim is not to find a "well-known food that fits this image" but to determine what is the best target related to the meaning of the emoji. Given that this represents a shallow pan of food, the target should be either the primary topic among shallow pans in which food is cooked or the food cooked in such pans, or a set index or similar of such pans and dishes. My argument is that paella is that primary topic - and the national dish of Spain is far from obscure! Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Let's Retarget to the exact Unicode description "Shallow pan of food," which I created as a Disambiguation. This result would perfectly mirror what happened with the "🥙" Redirect earlier. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • That would work best as a hatnote from Paella I think, as when trying to expand your shallow pan of food page I kept finding the emoji termed as the "paella emoji" or "shallow pan of food (paella)" making it even clearer to me that there is a primary topic here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to section of paella per Tavix. older ≠ wiser 10:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Paella#In popular culture per Tavix, which explains other possible uses. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Paella#In popular culture per Tavix and per Patar Knight. That Section of that Article, by the way, was added after this debate opened. Also, I wasn't aware of the Section when I wrote my previous (now stricken) vote. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

🥙[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 stuffed flatbread. -- Tavix (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

senseless Peter Rehse (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment all assigned unicode characters, outisde the private use space, should be articles or redirects as people will encounter them and look them up. This is U+1F959 which has a (possibly provisional, it's unclear) designation of "Stuffed flatbread". While the display I see (Firefox 51) does look like a kebab in a flatbread I'm not certain this is the best target. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • SIA at Stuffed flatbread. I thought hard about this and realised that the English Wikipedia is somewhat unorganised about this category of food. Items to go into the DAB:

--Deryck C. 16:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can it please be a WP:CONCEPTDAB instead? -- Tavix (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish. As long as it functions as an index of/disambiguation between the relevant articles people might be looking for I don't have strong opinions on what it should technically be called. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Draft:Stuffed flatbread for my draft SIA. Now I'm hungry. I might actually get one of those for dinner. I don't mind changing the tag - would prefer something more specific than {{dab}} though. Deryck C. 16:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Deryck. (That's a great draft: see what good comes from RfD!) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

4664[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 4-6-6-4 (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does 4664 have to do with Nelson Mandela? This number doesn't show up in his article, at least that I could see. I found it because I was going to propose that someone start it as a redirect to 4-6-6-4. I think it would be better if it were re-targeted there. 208.95.51.115 (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 4-6-6-4. The current page is a "typo" of Mandela's prison number - 46664, but nonetheless, an unnecssary redirect. There is a hatnote on 46664 linking to Mandela's page. But I can't imagine anyone typing "4664" trying to get to Mandela's page. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that the current target is not suitable, but equally I don't think that this is a likely search term for the locomotive wheel arrangement either - I've never seen Whyte notation written without separators of some sort, and none of the articles about other arrangements I looked at have redirects from pure numerical strings. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the nominator, just using a different network. The issue is that most locomotive wheel arrangements, if written without hyphens, will have names conflicting with years. For example, 4-4-0, minus the hyphens, talks about things that happened 1,577 years ago. If the locomotive has/had two sets of drivers, ten or more drivers in a single set, or no leading wheels, it won't conflict with years unless we're talking about the 2102 or the 2104. If you hear about a four six six four, and if you don't know about locomotives, will you know to put hyphens between the numerals? 2601:5C6:8301:32B0:51C0:A583:643D:88B4 (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 5th millennium. Pppery 01:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 4-6-6-4 per the IP. It's a common enough arrangement (and one of a preserved, operational locomotive) that someone who doesn't know Whyte notation would plausibly search for. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 4-6-6-4. Online news searches without the hyphens just go to random articles where the number is used as a phone number, but having it go to the train article is useful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Verdurous[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 soft redirect to Wiktionary. -- Tavix (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue what the correct target for this Neelix redirect is, but I'm pretty sure that this isn't it. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is usually means a green fertile field. Redirect to wiktionary maybe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to wiktionary nonsensical redirect; if we must retain, then redirect to wiktionary. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The metaphor makes it a very bad candidate for a redirect in an encyclopedia that is supposed to be informative. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wiktionary. Four settlements (three in Greece, one in India) and a county in China are described as Verdurous but obviously none of them make a good target for the redirect. The overwhelming number of uses of the word on Wikipedia are in relation to Gargantia on the Verdurous Planet, a 2013 Japanese anime, but I can find no evidence of this being known solely as "Verdurous" so it would not make a good target either. The redirect got 140 uses last year so it is something people are looking up, we have no relevant content so we can best serve these people by pointing them to Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hijr-e-Ismaaeel[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 Hajr Ismail. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Target page irrelevant, need page space for other purpose Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 20:59, 19 February 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, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Singam (film)[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 Singam. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user 42.111.169.217 retargeted this redirect to evade a G8 speedy deletion, which I do not think is right. Singam (disambiguation) was deleted per WP:CSD#G5 as a creation by a blocked user. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singam (film) → Singam (disambiguation)
...and should continue to be tagged as an incomplete disambiguation.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  11:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the first film is the primary topic for "Singam", then it ought to be primary topic of "Singam (film)" as well. Deryck C. 16:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cinema (TV-channel)[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. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to page histories, this was a Scandinavian channel owned by Modern Times Group and closed down in 2004. But it is not mentioned in that article now, if it ever was. Delete. — Gorthian (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment is there anything in the page history or talk history worth keeping? Delete the hyphenated one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of category additions and removals; nothing substantive. — Gorthian (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sevastopol'[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. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the apostrophes (one is straight, the other curly) make these unlikely search terms, and therefore unnecessary redirects, but I'm not sure. I know the apostrophe is a transliteration of the "soft sign" (ь) in Ukrainian and Russian (see WP:UKROM and WP:RUROM). But whether or not these are useful redirects is what needs to be decided here. — Gorthian (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - They are highly unlikely to be used as search terms as they aren't used in the Anglophone world. The WP:COMMONNAME is Sevastopol, and these are transliteration technicalities. I don't see any comparison between Rus and Rus', for example, as the apostrophe (soft sign) has become part of common usage in scholarly texts. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible search terms. The English-language name is Sebastopol or Sevastopol. I've never seen either written in a Latin alphabet with an apostrophe for the myakiy znak. I agree with Iryna Harpy's point about Rus/Rus', which is another matter altogether. Narky Blert (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first one as it's the most common way of transliterating the Ukrainian/Russian name, and as such is a likely search term (over 90 views last year), even if it doesn't see use in proper publications. – Uanfala (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. They may not be the official transliterations but they are sufficiently common that they got 94 and 40 hits from humans last year. I see no reason to make it harder for people to find the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Vinay Gupta[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 13#Vinay Gupta

Phoenixes[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. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this should point to Phoenix (mythology), not Phoenix the DAB page. If it weren't for Phoenix, Arizona, the mythology page would certainly be primary topic, and obviously Phoenix, Arizona cannot be plural. If you look at the DAB page, very little of it consists of things that can be used plurally. When someone says "phoenixes" it's likely they mean the bird. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Phoenix (mythology) for the reasons already given. Narky Blert (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Even List of sports teams named for the phoenix somehow does not include any called "Phoenixes". – Fayenatic London 13:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The word "phoenix" refers to a variety of birds in the mythologies of various cultures. Many of them occur in the plural. Retargeting to Phoenix (mythology) gives the Greco-Roman phoenix undue bias. Deryck C. 16:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Deryck Chan. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In the nomination very little of it means some of it: there's no reason to change Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Our articles about similar birds in the mythologies of other cultures aren't entitled "Phoenix"; they have names such as Simurgh and Firebird (Slavic folklore). If our articles don't have "Phoenix" in the title, those articles shouldn't affect this discussion with its dependence on matters of primary use. Nothing on the disambiguation page appears be both known as "phoenix" and available to be pluralised, aside from Phoenix (mythology) and a few minor uses such as Phoenix (grape). Nyttend (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the dab page is a good starting point for any of these possibilities, whether it be the mythical birds or the birds/plants, the cars, or the sports teams. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very common for the phoenix analogues of other cultures to be called phoenixes as a term of convenience. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

First Shadow Cabinet of Harold Wilson[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) 20:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. --Nevé–selbert 23:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as there are similar redirects for other Shadow Cabinets and that there is the potential for a full article on this subject. --Sam11333 (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:RED: It is useful in editing articles to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow. The said Shadow Cabinet isn't even mentioned at the present target.--Nevé–selbert 23:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cultured Code[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. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No page links to this title and its page view statistics are next to nothing. Codename Lisa (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's the name of the company that made the app, and the website points to this name as if they were synonymous for now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (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. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, is an article and not a disambiguation page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This used to be a disambiguation page, and is now somewhere between an article and a set index but it isn't a dab. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. After further thinking and with regards to the other (disambiguation) redirects nominated recently, I feel that because the target is acting as a set index/list that people searching for this term will find exactly what they are looking for at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a dab page, and not needed. Ajf773 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless since the target article doesn't need a dab. --Lenticel (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Technically not a DAB page, but readers should not be expected to know the intricacies of what DABs/SIAs/BCAs are on Wikipedia. Most of the target page just lists various SPCAs around the world, and functionally serves as a DAB page. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any redirect with "disambiguation" in the name must target a dab page. That sort of redirect is created only so that hatnotes and "see also" sections can deliberately link to dab pages; other links to dab pages are errors. In this case, people can freely link to (or search for) Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Nobody is going to search for "Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (disambiguation)". The redirect has served its purpose and is now obsolete; let's put it out of its misery. — Gorthian (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes people do search for "title (disambiguation)" redirects because experience teaches them that such search terms will lead to lists of articles that are not the primary topic for the title, which is what they want when they know what they are looking for is not the primary topic but don't know what title it will have. The originally intended purpose of these redirects was as you describe but they have gained an equally important function in addition to that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this isn't even a SIA or a list or surnames or name list, unless a disambiguation page can be restored, I stand by this decision. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not marked as at set index article, but it is acting as one - there is a short introduction followed by a list of societies with this or similar names. A disambiguation page would be less useful as it would have to exclude partial title matches like Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and a set index article would just duplicate the list. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although such a long title looks very unusual as a search term (and the potential for use as a search term is the argument for keeping such redirects), surprisingly, it receives a few hundred views a year, so apparently readers do use it. – Uanfala (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nigerian prince[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 all The consensus to keep was clear after the first relisting, so this didn't need a further relist. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Nigerian traditional rulers, advance-fee scams are an allusion to the traditional rulers in Nigeria. People looking up a specific title like "Nigerian prince" is probably looking for information about the exact thing. Prisencolin (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur - retarget. Rossami (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget while people pretending to be a Nigerian Prince is popular version of this type of scam I'm confident that people looking this type of scam up would be far more likely to type something like Nigerian Prince scam.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per the IP above. A hatnote or link from the article can be added if desired, but I don't have a strong opinion whether the former is justified or not (and no opinion at all about the latter). Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all per nom. Nigerian princes(ses) really are traditional rulers, and seeing that these emails feature all kinds of fake dignitaries, it's not helpful to single out the princes(ses) redirects for "special" treatment; a hatnote will suffice as an acknowledgement of the scam as a minor meaning. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Nigerian prince scam already exists in case people want to find the scam. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most. If any Nigerian traditional rulers are called princes or princesses, the article doesn't say so. "Nigerian prince" is a pretty clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and a better known term for this sort of scam than "advance-fee". I might just search "Nigerian prince scam" if I were looking for the topic, but I would certainly use "Nigerian prince" before "advance-fee scam". Works on the scam predominate even in Google Books and Scholar searches for the phrase. "Nigerian princess" is obscure enough that I don't feel as strongly about what happens to it. --BDD (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as per the others above, it just isn't appropriate to redirect these actual titles to a scam. Someone searching for the scam would most probably search for "Nigerian Prince Scam". Anyone searching for "Nigerian Prince", is hoping to see actual related articles on Nigerian Princes.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Jamie Tubers: a user wanting to find out about the scam is very unlikely to just type "Nigerian prince". Although "princes" aren't mentioned at Nigerian traditional rulers, this is a possible synonym and a reasonable search term. Also adding that only about a half of the results I see on google books have to do with the scams. – Uanfala (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, quite strongly in fact for the "prince" redirects. My searches that include News and Books overwhelmingly result in the scam being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Nigerian Prince". -- Tavix (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Travix. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the "prince" per Tavix; retarget the "princess" one The hatnote is sufficient for readers who want the article on Nigerian rulers. Princess doesn't seem to have that usage though, so it should be retargeted---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC) (updated 16:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. The article about Nigeria's traditional rulers doesn't have "prince" or "princess" as titles for rulers --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix and BDD. Part of the mythos of the well-known advance-fee scam is that there never have been princes of Nigeria, and indeed the title is not mentioned at all at the current target except in a hatnote to the scam. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Speaking as just a reader, today I searched for "Nigerian prince". I definitely was NOT looking for Nigerian traditional rulers. The primary topic here is clearly the scam. Sro23 (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nu Rave (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 page deleted. This could have been requested as a WP:G6 technical deletion. wbm1058 (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping, delete. After deleting a deleted article from the target, it became a one-entry DAB page which I turned into a redirect. Narky Blert (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_6&oldid=1088106618"