Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 14, 2017.

Racial differences in crime[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) 23:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading and confusing, and something that should be a redlink so an actual article gets created. The target (which is up for renaming here because "Race and crime" is intolerably ambiguous) is not about the general subject of "race and crime" nor about the narrower but different one of "racial differences in crime", but is entirely about racial disparities and bias in the criminal justice system. We actually appear to have no article at all yet on alleged racial or ethnic differences in criminality; the closest I can find is passing mention at Statistical correlations of criminal behavior, and the academic discipline of biosocial criminology (i.e., trying to figure out if there even are any such differences). Last I looked, the scientific consensus was that crime rates are a socio-economic matter without any proof of a genetic component. Redirecting a title about whether such a connection exists to a page about minorities being prosecuted a lot seems very unwise to me, and could even be taken for some kind of "we can't prove it but they sure go to jail a lot, so it must be true" implication. Given the frequency with which people make race-and-crime connections – which has shot up recently along with the increase in the US, UK, Greece, and other places of jingoistic populism and white nationalism – we clearly need a WP:FRINGE-compliant article on the subject, not a bogus redirect to the wrong page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It's a confusing situation (see my comment at Talk:Race and crime#Requested move 6 September 2017) in that an article on "race and crime" really ought to address material that relates to "racial differences in crime", but the present article doesn't. The difference in meaning between the two phrases is a somewhat subtle one, but as the nomination suggests it's an area where it's worth being sensitive. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I would think one would find "racial disparities and bias in the criminal justice system" at Race and crime#Racial disparity, though I can appreciate that this area needs attention. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A reasonable search turn-of-phrase and the most fitting content to address it. The bigger issue is that readers likely intend to know about a specific locale—I added hatnotes in the U.S. section (Race and crime in the United States, Race in the United States criminal justice system) czar 22:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: The target article's content is all-U.S. and the page is likely going to merge to the U.S. article on the topic, so the keep rationales above will no longer be applicable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm quite disappointed to hear that. --BDD (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately, we have a "no consensus" ruling on the merge proposal, so for the purposes of this RfD, we can consider the target article stable. --BDD (talk) 20:56, 29 September 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.

Racial Socialism[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 Racist Socialism. Now that the obvious is out of the way, I find no consensus for Racial Socialism between keeping it at Nazism and retargeting to Creativity (religion)#Racial socialism. While those who favor retargeting point out that it's the only place that explicitly describes the term, others argue that Creativity isn't the only/most prominent usage of the term. -- Tavix (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "racial socialism" and "racist socialism" do not appear at the Nazism article, and even if they did, I'm not entirely convinced that it would be a good target. Both of these redirects were created by Cupacinosus; those two actions were the only edits recorded for this user. At one point, there was an article titled "Racial Socialism", but it was speedy deleted per G5 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial Socialism). The concept of "Racial Socialism" is discussed at Creativity (religion)#Racial socialism. Apparently, the term is used to describe the ideology of an individual named Ben Klassen (see also the discussion of the term in this book). Consequently, I propose we retarget Racial Socialism to Creativity (religion)#Racial socialism and delete Racist Socialism, but given that these are likely controversial terms, I think it's a good idea to get input from the community on these redirects. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep racial The term gets used in other books as well that aren't specific to Klassen [1] [2] [3] [4] and those are mostly in the context of Nazism. Delete racist socialism as that term is not used in those books. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Racial Socialism to Creativity (religion)#Racial socialism and weak delete Racist Socialism per nom. The only context that we currently have is in the section at the Creativity article, not in the Nazism article, and so the redirect should point there to give readers some information on what they're looking for. I feel that "racist socialism" might be fine as a redirect to the same target, but it's edging on POV. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus above to delete "Racist Socialism" but more discussion is needed regarding "Racial Socialism"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combined approach: Redirect racial socialism (create it, since this term isn't actually a proper name) and Racial Socialism to Nazism. "Creativity (religion)" is too obscure a topic to be the primary target of these, but use {{redirect|racial socialism|use in reference to white-separatist pantheism|Creativity (religion)#Racial socialism}}. Delete Racist Socialism.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:34, 23 September 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.

V for Victory: Gold-Juno-Sword[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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Described to me by another user as a redundant redirect to a broken article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposed redirect to series is fine. Reverting a stub to a redirect then nominating for delete isn't proper either. AFD the stub if its no good. -- ferret (talk) 19:24, 14 September 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.

V for Victory: Market-Garden[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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Described to me by another user as a redundant redirect to a broken article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposed redirect to series is fine. Reverting a stub to a redirect then nominating for delete isn't proper either. AFD the stub if its no good. -- ferret (talk) 19:25, 14 September 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.

V for Victory: Velikiye Luki[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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Described to me by another user as a redundant redirect to a broken article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposed redirect to series is fine. Reverting a stub to a redirect then nominating for delete isn't proper either. AFD the stub if its no good. -- ferret (talk) 19:25, 14 September 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.

Bernie Sanders NPR interview[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 objection. -- Tavix (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this related discussion. Bernie Sanders has been interviewed by NPR many times, so this is likely to WP:SURPRISE. I was going to link to a few, but you can find many for yourself simply by plugging this phrase into your search engine of choice. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the section (#2015 Bernie Sanders interview) still prominently exists in Rehm's article, though I would think for due weight that it should be reduced (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 18:58, 14 September 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:FAKENEWS[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. I find consensus to delete has emerged after the relist, and that is further strengthened by some who prefer retargeting in some form also expressing a second preference for deletion. A few retargeting options were discussed, notably to Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Questionable sources, but neither of which has found favor among participants. -- Tavix (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So here I am looking over WP:NFRINGE, and surprise surprise, we have an essay on fake news? Well, no we don't; we have a strange XNR to Fake news.

I get the history here. I realize some have taken serious issue with Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list, the original target, but this is just asking for people to drop WP:FAKENEWS in discussions as if there were a policy on it. There is no such policy, or essay, or anything, and the only place I can see this redirecting is RS, which itself makes basically no sense, since the two are basically perfect antonyms. If this isn't going to Zimdars' then I don't see any particular reason why it should exist. TimothyJosephWood 16:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! Notification very much appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WP:Zimdars' fake news list otherwise delete. I created this redirect under the hopes that Zimdars' fake news list would eventually develop into a community-driven list of "potential" fake news sites. I still think that's worth pursuing, especially if people are questioning the original list. Either way the XNR seems unhelpful and Zidmars' list seems like the only other fitting target — MusikAnimal talk 18:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list, which seems like a useful resource and is apparently the only discussion of the term in the Wikipedia namespace. The question of the utility of that page or the accuracy of Zimdars' conclusions is separate from the question of the utility of this redirect, so I find it hard to understand Guy Macon's March edit summary. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and strongly oppose any retarget to Zimdars (Stricken because I revoted in the relisting) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  • Zimdars herself has completely repudiated the version of her list that we have enshrined on that particular page. Her current list[5] has a completely different list of categories and organizations, and she has asked everyone to instead use her current list, which she says is more accurate.
  • Zimdars has publicly acknowledged that the list that we have made part of Wikipedia was just a handout to her students listing unreliable sources she came across in her students' papers. Seriously. That was her criteria for inclusion.[6]
  • Zimdars also said that the list "wasn’t intended to be widely distributed" and that "people are taking it as this list of 'fake' sites, which is not its purpose."[7] She also said "I see where it’s reported with the headline "List of Fake News Sites," and that’s a completely inaccurate headline. It’s a list that includes several fake-news sites, but also sites that do offer regularly good journalism but rely on clickbait-style headlines on Facebook or sometimes exaggerated descriptors to reel people in. But to lump all of those sites as fake has me worried"[8]
  • Zimdars offers no no real explanation of the methodology used other than "I looked at it and decided", nor is there any peer review of the list. Clearly Zimdars herself never intended to present it as if it was actual academic research.
So, one might ask, why don't we update our version? Because her old version was reproduced in the Los Angeles Times but her new version has received zero coverage from any reliable sources, and any such updated page would not survive MfD. The existing page should not have survived MfD, but it did.[9] Anyone feel like taking another crack at it? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given what Guy has just said, my first choice would be to delete outright... my second choice would be to create an actual (new) essay on the topic. I think it would be inappropriate to relink it to Zimdars list given that she herself has repudiated it . Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those who don't know, Guy Macon has argued against Zimdars' list in several discussions. While I've disagreed before, I find his arguments in this discussion reasonably convincing. Assuming that all the statements above can be backed up (such as the statement that Zimdars has repudiated the original list), I would probably support deleting WP:Zimdars' fake news list. But that's a separate issue from the discussion here. In terms of what to do about the redirect, I think it should be retargeted or deleted—keeping it in its current form is confusing and unhelpful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Zimdars repudiating the original list, I can confirm that what she deleted from public view is the list we have on our page. (I don't know of any archive of deleted docs.google.com material, but when I first checked the doc was pretty much a word-for-word copy of what is on our page. I checked it carefully back when I asked her to put a Creative Commons Attribution license on it so it wouldn't be a copyright violation, which she did.) Now it has been replaced with a new list at the same URL with new categories and many of the originally listed sites removed.[10] This article from the daily Dot[11] confirms that she deleted the original list and vaguely hints that she was working on what she considers a better version. The fact that she later uploaded that better version to the exact same URL where she had deleted the original list makes it pretty clear that she has repudiated the original list and would like everyone to use the new list. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question probably is: is any Wikipedian using one of these lists for their wikiwork, and would these people appreciate the existence or not of another redirect there? —Kusma (t·c) 16:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose re-targeting to Zimdars per Guy Macon and also because Zimdars lists The Onion as a "Fake News" site. (There's a big difference between fake news and satire, even if they sometimes struggle with Poe's law.) I also think the cross-namespace redirect is problematic, so count me down as a Delete with no bias toward somebody creating a meaningful essay in the future. It could also redirect to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources. ~Awilley (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It actually is listed as satire (category 4) — MusikAnimal talk 14:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the problem with calling something a "fake news list" when it contains 121 items, only 24 of which are labeled "fake news" (this is another strong argument for deleting the FAKENEWS redirect, BTW). Not that Zimdars' didn't label other parody sites as fake news; she lists creambmp.com, which has stories like "New York Mayor Approves Replacing Statue of Liberty with Giant Timberland Boot" and "Chris Brown: 'Everybody Worried About Rihanna, Nobody Ever Asked How My Hand Felt' ". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current situation is clearly nonsensical. This should probably redirect to an appropriate subsection of WP:IRS. Failing that, redirecting to Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list seems better than nothing (but we should have our own curated list of fake news sites). —Kusma (t·c) 09:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, redirecting to Zimdars' fake news list is worse than nothing. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we don't have a better list of fake news sites, using the flawed one with the appropriate caveats is better than nothing. —Kusma (t·c) 14:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey! I just had an idea! Donald Trump keeps calling various news outlets like CNN "fake news". Let's list them and redirect FAKENEWS to that list! After all, "using the flawed one with the appropriate caveats is better than nothing", right? Better yet, I think I have a list somewhere of sites that the Church of Scientology says should not be trusted... (...Guy M. ducks as everyone else throws things at him...) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no suitable target for this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have boldly redirected the page to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources since the cross-namespace redirect to Fake news was problematic, and because whatever consensus might be developing here doesn't seem to have emerged yet. I figure it's better than the status quo, and the redirect can always be deleted or redirected again when this is closed. ~Awilley (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with it. TJWtalk 01:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirect was retargetted to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources late in the discussion so it will be worth seeing whether there is consensus for this action (as the discussion prior to that point was heading towards no consensus). Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The current redirect ( Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Questionable sources ) is a big improvement on the former cross-wiki redirect, but "questionable sources" and "fake news" are different concepts. Better to just delete the redirect. The current redirect already has a perfectly acceptable shortcut (WP:QUESTIONABLE) and does not need another, more misleading one. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the redirect is currently targeting an article, but the recommended retargeting option is an essay of sorts. A shortcut with such a recognizable name should target a guideline or a section of a guideline. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to sway your opinion, but it looks like you're still under the impression FAKENEWS goes to Fake news? — MusikAnimal talk 22:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess? I don't see a compelling reason not to. I disagree that FAKENEWS is unsuitable for the current target. Fake news certainly constitutes a questionable source, no? :) Frankly however I have no strong opinions, it's just a redirect. What I want to see is a community-built list of sites that are questionable, misleading, satire, or outright fake, and categorized as such, just like Zidmars' did. Something like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Questionable sources (subpage, not a section). I understand there are some concerns with the original Zidmars list, which is perfectly understandable. So why not build our own? Let's do it the wiki way! This to me would be very useful and I can see it growing into a valuable resource for the editing community. If we do create it, WP:FAKENEWS I think would still serve as a logical and handy redirect, even though the list may contain more than just outright fake news. Maybe the fake news list would be it's own section...? I don't really care about the silly redirect, I was just excited to build off of the Zidmars' list but then it was shot down. It wasn't our list anyway, so that's fine :) — MusikAnimal talk 22:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources. FAKENEWS is a reasonable search term, and the current target provides information we want to show to editors. feminist 14:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maybe redirect to policy, since there's no other appropriate target. Take our old copy of the Zimdar list to WP:MFD, since it has been repudiated and serves no purpose. If this redir were kept at all, send it to WP:Verifiability, WP:Identifying reliable sources, WP:No original research, or some other page on sourcing reliability in general. I've suggested at WT:Fictitious sources that the essay be updated to also address fake news; that might some day be an appropriate topic. However, if we're not already directly addressing fake news in policy, we obviously need to do so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The meme "fake news" needs to be explicitly discussed. Both sides of the political divide use it about the other side's media. The project actually has no definition of "fake news" as policy - we have an article on it which cannot (as a regular Wikipedia article) be cited as an authority in other Wikipedia articles. It's time to decide whether or not WP:NPOV is an actual ethic or an advertising slogan. If we mean it when we say it, we need to either define "fake news" for policy purposes or deprecate its use in content discussions. loupgarous (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the arguments by Guy Macon and loupgarous. They certainly are different concepts, as Guy pointed out. It would be both confusing and harmful for editors looking for guidance on fake news to find guidance on dealing with websites and publications that aren't part of the public consciousness. And as our hairy, moonlit friend pointed out, redirecting permanently to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources would be a disservice to the glaring hole in WP policy that needs filling. We should try to make a PnG level page called WP:FAKENEWS that gives real, firm guidance on how editors should deal with fake news, both in terms of sourcing and coverage. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage essay creation, as this topic deserves a discussion in projectspace. Per Guy Macon, I oppose retargeting this to Zimdar's. – Train2104 (t • c) 11:44, 25 September 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.

Lists of all Georgian monarchs[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) feminist 14:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect could be considered misleading, considering that it contains the word "all". If there is a monarch missing from any list, the redirect is then inaccurate. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The target is a list of lists, so we are not claiming to have a list of absolutely all Georgian monarchs any more than List of clouds is misleading because it does not list every single individual cloud or Territorial evolution of the World is incorrect for implying that the world has changed it's territorial borders. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But List of all clouds doesn't exist, so I'm not following the analogy. -- Tavix (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
List of clouds does not list clouds, it redirects to a list of types of cloud. Territorial evolution of the World does not have any information about the world, or an entity called "World", changing its territory. Those, like this redirect, take people using an inaccurate search term to related content. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting despite being involved to allow the 30 August page to be closed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, original page name that apparently tries to clarify that "all Georgian" means both "of Georgia" and "UK. monarchs called George". —Kusma (t·c) 15:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kusma. Note the numerous family trees linked at the bottom of the page which have multiple branches of the Bagrationi family ruling over different parts of Georgia concurrently, which would be another reason to justify the use of "all". ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:38, 18 September 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.

KP4[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 4#KP4

Desktop Stand[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 29#Desktop Stand

Foreigner (Person)[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) 21:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how this would be useful. feminist 14:29, 14 September 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.

Christ's sake[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 ... mixed. This discussion has been open almost 3 months now, so I don't see consensus becoming clearer any time soon. I'm going to give these two redirects different results based on the discussion below:
Christ's sake – Convert to disambiguation page
Christ's sakes – No consensus, but "default" to retarget to Christ's sake
Taking into account the discussion below, there seems to be a rough consensus that the base term is ambiguous, but no real consensus on what to do with the plural version of the term. For that reason, I do not see actual consensus for taking any specific action for Christ's sakes. However, to form consensus for action pertaining to the plural term, the plural term should probably be best discussed by itself, and thus there is no prejuduce for renominating Christ's sakes, but I would highly recommend nominating it by itself to avoid an outcome such as the one here.
Due to the complexity of this discussion, I hope that this close presents a path forward for future discussion and/or resolution regarding these terms. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't these target the same place? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a bit of a weird one. According to the principles at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, I would argue that the expression "(for) Christ's sake(s)" is primary over either the band or the film that have been linked. It's in far more common usage in more groups than either other subject. That said, it's clearly not sufficiently notable to have its own article and would ordinarily be a good candidate for redirection. I suggest that both of the above redirects retarget to Christ's sake (disambiguation) which would list the blasphemy, the band and the film. Hatnotes for the articles. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm ok with the proposed DAB. The curse is obviously the common meaning, and the band named themselves after the curse for shock value. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note, per WP:MALPLACED, that if a disambiguation page is made, it will need to be at Christ's sake. bd2412 T 01:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect both to Christ's SakeKeep Christ's Sake as primary, which has a hatnote to the film with "For" in it, and if you're really concerned about the original phrase, then add wiktionary boxes on both. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC) updated 03:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would work if the primary topic is that article, but it isn't even used as a primary topic example on the Blasphemy page, so Wikipedia favors pointing to subjects that have an article first. If you want to keep Sakes to the Blasphemy page, that would be fine too, since that isn't the exact name of the band and would favor keeping the phrase. An argument can also be made to redirect to Profanity. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, "chrissake" doesn't have an entry, although it is mentioned as quotes in multiple articles, and Jesus H. Christ has its own article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not target Blasphemy as that article can't reasonably be expected to accommodate hatnotes for the various blasphemous phrases that probably redirect to it. The band isn't the primary topic, it's the only one whose article has any claim to the title, and its lede could easily be expanded to say what the band's name means, for the benefit of those readers who use wikipedia as a dictionary. I see scope for a dab page only for For Christ's Sake, which is the name of several works mentioned in various articles. – Uanfala 12:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig at Christ's sake or For Christ's sake listing all the targets for both terms and redirect the other terms to it. The band article should have hatnotes to blasphemy and this disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting despite being involved to allow the 20 August page to be closed. An uninvolved closer may asses consensus at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 14 September 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.

Redirects to "Zaria"[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 Disambiguate Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Zaria" is a city in Nigeria. I can't find that these spellings are used for this city. These redirects are part of a series of random redirects requested by 47.151.26.64 (talk · contribs) that seem to be pulled out of a baby name book, and point to random destinations without regard to the topic of the destination. (ie. "Kayson" once redirected to the cargo ship "Cason" ) -- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Unrelated to destination page. — JFG talk 07:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete misleading. Legacypac (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create name-based article for Zariyah and have Zaria (given name) and Zariah redirect there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a given name article per AngusWOOF. It should contain links to Countess Zaria of Orange-Nassau, Jonkvrouwe van Amsberg, Zariah Avana and Zaria Mimano. The redirects should be retargeted there as alternative spellings, which seem to be in use only for the name and not for the city. – Uanfala 17:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given Hydronium Hydroxide's findings below, it seems the city's name was indeed formerly spelt like that and so disambiguation seems like a better solution: I don't think the given name is a primary topic and there are only three name bearers (presuming the spelling variations are indeed variants of one and the same name and not different names that happen to look similar, the uncertainty in this regard making a given name article even less desirable). – Uanfala 17:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Zariah to Zariah Avana, standard {{R from given name}}. Delete Zariyah, no one notable with the name. -- Tavix (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB or SIA: Zariyah was an old spelling for Zaria. Zariah appears to be a rare variant ([12], [13]). Given the use in given names as well, either implement 1/ a DAB, or 2/ a name SIA with a See Also section which provides a link to Zaria that also lists the two older spellings. DAB is probably cleaner? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There doesn't appear to be consensus for deletion here, but should there be a name article, a disambig or a set index and at which title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate all of it on one page. Deryck C. 13:11, 2 October 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.

Chewable vitamins[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 objection. It seems that an article on the subject would be desired, and WP:REDLINK deletion might encourage one to develop. There's no prejudice against recreation as a redirect if a target has information about "chewable vitamins" in the general sense. -- Tavix (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "chew" or any variation is not located in the target article. The subject of the redirect may be notable enough to be mentioned in at least a section of an article, but it doesn't seem mentioned at its target. Steel1943 (talk) 06:07, 14 September 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.

Natural or Synthetic Vitamins[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. 14:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this redirect does not seem to be mentioned in the target article. Also, the use of the word "or" in the redirect makes it seem like a WP:XY issue anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 05:45, 14 September 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.

Fuel molecule[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target page. Steel1943 (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this redirect was previously a stub article [14] before being boldly redirected. With not much effort that old revision could become a decent set index if it is thought that this is a useful term (my guess is that it might be used in situations like introductory-level biology teaching). Complicating that is that google suggests it's also used in discussions of biofuels and fuel cells, so maybe it needs to be an index of two different sets? Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete GBook searches present a splattering of hits in widely divergent fields, particularly wrt fuel cells as well as for metabolism. "Nutrient" is obviously wrong in that much of what we think of as nutrients (proteins and vitamins) are not primarily used for metabolism. Fuel is a poor target because it is concerned entirely with non-biological energy. I just don't see anything that isn't going to end up as incomplete or a dict def. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 14 September 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.

Bad Court Thinggie[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 29#Bad Court Thinggie

Template:Current events[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 replace since there's been no objection to this after almost a month. Matt Fitzpatrick, I'll leave the replacement to you since you mentioned there's no deletion involved. -- Tavix (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replace without deletion. I'm planning to replace this redirect with the contents of Template:Current events/sandbox, which is a mobile-friendly redesign of Template:Current events header with added accessibility features. The redirect currently has no transclusions, and some links from non-mainspace pages, but I wanted to ask here first, to make sure this is safe. Note: the page history must be kept for attribution, due to a merge to Portal:Current events/Sidebar. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question. Have you discussed this with the current events project? I'm reluctant to support this unless they do, but if they think the redesign is a good idea then I don't really a reason to object. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion's at Portal talk:Current events. Getting good feedback about the redesign, but waiting to hear from bot maintainers to make sure I don't break them. I'll ask there too if it's okay to clobber this redirect. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:08, 14 September 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_September_14&oldid=1138582115"