Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 15, 2017.

United States Department of Justice during the Trump administration[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't exactly tell readers what they are looking for. This search suggests that the searcher wants information about Trump's policies here, and staff beyond the AG.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete or rename as per above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As far as I can tell, there are no articles that talk about the Justice Department during the trump administration. The current target is not a good fit because there were significant developments in the Justice Department before Sessions took over (see Sally_Yates#Dismissal). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:08, 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.

Spanish Succession[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. (non-admin closure) feminist 14:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to War of the Spanish Succession, per Austrian Succession. --Nevé–selbert 08:40, 15 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.

French War[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 29#French War

Excecution of Marie Antoinette[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 14:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RTYPO. --Nevé–selbert 08:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. With 169 hits last year it's clear that this is a very plausible typo. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe that I created it because I personally misspelled Execution. Misspelling that word that way seems to be a very common spelling error. Furthermore, the execution of this figure is one of the most famous executions in history, if not the most famous. This means that when they misspell "execution", there is a good chance that they are referring to this subject. I am the creator of this redirect.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:49, 15 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.

British revolution[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 30#British revolution

NInth Doctor[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RCAPS. --Nevé–selbert 08:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A more useful rationale would be that this is typo (the "I" is capitalised) which is not being used and is not otherwise a particularly useful redirect to keep. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not apparently a title created in error and moved later. Not a useful or common typographic error. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not entirely implausible, but I still think we should delete per the above comments. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:13, 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.

William V of England[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) 16:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CRYSTAL. --Nevé–selbert 08:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Both are very likely to become kings in due course, in which case Frederik would almost certainly be Frederik X, but there's already an article Frederick X, Count of Hohenzollern. William will not necessarily be called William V, and if he is called William, he won't be "of England" unless the crystal ball also predicts the breakup of the UK :-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:38, 19 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.

Lord Wellington[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --Nevé–selbert 09:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Lord#Peerage, dukes are not correctly referred to as 'Lord (X)'. --Nevé–selbert 08:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (I created this redirect yonks ago.) They shouldn't be but Dukes sometimes are. Also the Duke holds several lesser titles that are referred to as "Lord Wellington"; several of which predate the Dukedom. Thus it's a natural search term. Note that this redirect originally pointed to the Dukedom rather than the first Duke but got changed when that got moved. Timrollpickering 08:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm I forgot that Wellesley was a Viscount before becoming a Duke. Withdrawing now.--Nevé–selbert 09:05, 15 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.

Mar.[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 29#Mar.

Elizabeth I of Great Britain[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 14:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She was not Queen of the whole of Great Britain. --Nevé–selbert 08:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (Standard response to all of these.) Redirects do not have to be technically accurate and often reflect potential search terms. The evolving nature of the United Kingdom and royal numbering can confuse and these are understandable search terms. Timrollpickering 08:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Timrollpickering. This is a good example of when a {{R from incorrect name}} should be used. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments as an understandable {{R from incorrect name}}. Similar to how United States Secretary of Justice → United States Attorney General. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I think the redirect is correct, but just pointing out that this could also be confusing with Elizabeth II who is the first Elizabeth to rule Great Britain. But I find that error somewhat less plausible. It's more likely a reader knows that there was an Elizabeth who ruled the same country (more or less) as the current Elizabeth, so types "Elizabeth I of Great Britain" to find her article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:06, 20 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.

James VII of the United Kingdom[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't even James VII of England, let alone the United Kingdom. --Nevé–selbert 07:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (Standard response to all of these.) Redirects do not have to be technically accurate and often reflect potential search terms. The evolving nature of the United Kingdom and royal numbering can confuse and these are understandable search terms. Timrollpickering 08:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Timrollpickering. If there is ever a James VII of the United Kingdom (which seems unlikely in my lifetime at least) then this can be retargetted, but until then the present target is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are a few Jameses around the Act of Union period when the various crowns of what is now the United Kingdom were not quite consolidated, who are numbered in multiples like this; these links are incorrect but highly plausible. While United Kingdom monarchs can choose any regnal name they wish upon their coronation and at least the next three in line are male, it's unlikely any of them would choose James, as the earlier English Jameses were Catholic or Catholic sympathizers, and James VII and II's descendants were pretenders to the throne for a time. It's more likely they would choose George, or their own names. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:39, 15 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.

Ehnry viii[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling. --Nevé–selbert 07:40, 15 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.

King who died with a hot poker up the ass[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. Per Newyorkbrad. Ruslik_Zero 20:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly vandalism. --Nevé–selbert 07:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely qualifies for a speedy.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the "Controversies" section of the article, "Accounts that he had been killed by the insertion of a red-hot iron or poker into his anus slowly began to circulate, possibly as a result of deliberate propaganda. [This story] became incorporated into most later histories of Edward...". Many people know this story, but not everyone will remember which king it was so this is actually a useful search term for those looking to jog their memory or verify whether the story they have heard is true. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've heard of the story, and don't know which king it happened to off-hand, but I question the utility of this redirect. It doesn't show up in search autocomplete until "king wh" is typed. People might just as likely search for "king killed by hot poker up the ass", "hot poker king", "king tortured by hot poker", etc. Should we make redirects for all of these? External search engines can deal with this far better than Wikipedia redirects. Plantdrew (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects like this help external search engines, and over 200 people used this redirect last year so however they are searching they are finding this redirect and being taken to the content they are looking for. I don't see any reason why we should make it harder for them. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit that I initially thought Thryduulf and Ivanvector were on crack cocaine when they voted to keep this redirect, but on further reflection their reasoning is not completely bananas, as the anecdote about King Edward II's death is arguably what most people know him for. My main issue is with the wording of this unprintworthy redirect. As "Ass" is a vulgar American term, one might argue that King who died with a hot poker up the arse would be more fitting. I wouldn't, as the term "arse" is also a vulgar British term. With all things considered, I would reluctantly support moving this redirect to King who died with a hot poker up the anus without leaving a redirect (such terminology would be more befitting of both a king and this encyclopaedia).--Nevé–selbert 22:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTCENSORED applies here - we do not bowlderise redirects just because some people find them vulgar. Those additional redirects can be created if you wish (although "rectum" rather than "anus" would be more anatomically correct), but this is a search term that people are likely to use. Further, WP:ENGVAR encourages the creation of redirects from one national variety of English to others as American English speakers will search for articles written in British English and vice versa. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a search term that people are likely to use at all, especially considering the odious terminology. Per WP:OR: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Are there any sources for "King who died with a hot poker up the ass"? Nope and nope. My proposal is not unreasonable, in that I am only proposing that we only change the last word. Most of the redirect will remain the same and readers will hardly feel the difference. I am assuming good faith but your refusal to compromise here is bizarre.--Nevé–selbert 23:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • 207 people used this redirect last year, so your assertion is unsupported by evidence. It's not a bizarre refusal to compromise, it's a perfectly valid objection to unnecessary censorship that is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Also, WP:V is a policy that relates to article content, not redirects (otherwise we would have to delete most {{R from incorrect name}} and {{R from misspelling}}, along with many {{R from synonym}} and {{R from search term}}). Redirects exist for one or more of several purposes, including enabling people to find the article they are looking for even if they use a search term that is different to the article title - exactly what this redirect did 200 times last year. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 207 hits/year to a target that got over 1,000,000 hits over the last year meets my definition of implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Denying 17 people a month access to the content they are looking for is completely contrary to the goals of Wikipedia, and it proves your WP:R#D8 assertion is incorrect - indeed it also proves that WP:R#K3 and WP:R#K5 are correct. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • In an effort to avoid repeating a conversation we just had, I will simply point you to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017 September 16#Fatally wounded. -- Tavix (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've replied there but to summarise, it is simply not credible to claim that a redirect used over 200 times a year is "implausible" or "unsused" and it is extremely difficult to believe that it is an argument made in good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for your opinion. I obviously disagree with it, but I'll leave it at that in an effort to deescalate. -- Tavix (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. If Thryduulf refuses to compromise, so will I.--Nevé–selbert 01:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:POINT. If this redirect is kept (as it should be) then I will personally create the "arse" and "rectum" redirects as they are probably equally useful. However WP:NOTCENSORED is a core policy that is not open to compromise. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not making a point, and to suggest that I am is really sanctimonious of you. Stop wp:bludgeoning this discussion.--Nevé–selbert 08:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neve-selbert Above you say that your main concern was with the vulgarity of the redirect, and propose several new redirects which are essentially the same as this one but less vulgar. Thryduulf correctly pointed out that WP:NOTCENSORED applies, and now you !vote delete because Thryduulf has "refused to compromise". Even if this doesn't technically meet POINT, this doesn't come across as a good faith !vote, since you already noted the potential utility a redirect like this would have. If I were you, I would also strike the first part of your comment where you compare two editor's reasoning to crack addicts.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          If my crack about crack offended anybody, of course I take it back (per WP:RUC). Regardless, I stand by my delete !vote.--Nevé–selbert 05:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't take offense personally, though the statement is probably offensive to those struggling with drug addiction. My vices of choice are alcohol and cake. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Tavix, among others. NOTCENSORED is a smokescreen here; this is implausible as a redirect, and I frankly don't see any purpose of cackhanded attempts to duplicate Google's ability to type a question in. Ravenswing 15:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Our internal search engine is incredibly bad at parsing this sort of search. Out of curiosity I tried several variations on this search term to see how high up the target article would appear in the search results:
Results for most of these searches are entirely useless. The benefit to readers of having a redirect of this sort, when they have Javascript enabled (which is most readers), is that if they start typing "king who" the search tool automatically populates the rest of the search, and they find the article they're looking for (presumably). Of course Google does this better (every single one of these searches brings up hits for Edward II, not necessarily our article) but we have to work with what we've got. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And following I have a kind of abstract example, to show how our search tool ought to work if the redirect didn't have the RfD banner on it (so technical tools think that it's not a redirect). The not entirely accurate example I have is I'm Looking For a Guy Who Plays Alto and Baritone and Doubles on a Clarinet and Wears a Size 37 Suit, the long title of a song which redirects to its performer Ozzie Nelson, but with no mention of the title in the article. Here are our search results for:
So actually the search engine does a pretty good job of parsing these searches, when a redirect exists to guide it. So a reader doesn't need to know the exact title of the song, as long as they know a few words from the title the search engine puts out a useful result, thanks to the existence of the redirect. I know this isn't the redirect we're discussing here, I'm only pointing out how the search engine works better when these sorts of redirects are created. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf and Ivanvector. The story of how Edward II died via hot poker insertion is very well known (Times Higher Education calls it "arguably the most famous in English Royal History), but we can't expect everyone to know which king it applied to, making this a useful search term. I wouldn't mind creating the other redirects as well, since they're also likely to be helpful. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it's a fair re-direct. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Putting aside any other issues, we don't usually create redirects by describing the article subject, especially where the description could be worded in dozens of ways. For example, we don't redirect King who had six wives to Henry VIII or British King who got his head cut off to Charles I. (Admittedly there are rare exceptions, such as First President of the United States, but there the description is unambiguous.) If we were to create redirects based on such descriptions, their number would be virtually unlimited. The graphic nature of this particular redirect should not be a distraction from the fact that this just isn't the way the redirect system usually works. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think "the way redirect system usually works" is completely missing the point of redirects like this, which is to enable people to find the articles they are looking for (and this redirect is clearly doing that job) - including (as Patar knight eloquently explains above) assisting the search engine. Looking at your examples, "King who had six wives" should work a search term because there are many articles about Henry VIII with "six wives" in the title and/or lead (e.g. Henry VIII and His Six Wives, List of wives of King Henry VIII, The Six Wives of Henry VIII (BBC TV series), The Six Wives of Henry VIII (documentary)) but doesn't as I note the Henry VIII article is not in the first page of results so I'll create that as soon as doing so will not be a WP:POINT issue. "British King who got his head cut off" is even more in need of a redirect as there are no relevant results in the first three pages. Yes, there are a great many potential redirects that could be created like this, but that simply indicates that we have work to do in helping readers navigate the encyclopaedia rather than providing a reason to make things worse. Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was Ivanvector who noted how it helps the search engine. I merely noted how this incident is one of the most famous deaths of a British monarch. I would support the creation of the redirects since they would both appear to be WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs for their field. Alternatively, you can distinguish this one from those, since while there is AFAIK only one king notable for being allegedly killed with a hot poker up the ass, many kings have had six wives, and many British kings have gotten their heads cut off (if you include early English kings and Scottish kings – wasn't Macbeth beheaded or was that just Shakespeare?). In either case, they're not analogous to this redirect here. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • All of that having been said, I do understand the point about vulgarity, notwithstanding WP:NOTCENSORED - the guideline directs us not to censor necessary vulgarity, but also not to be offensive for no reason. I think search results and autofilling would work just as well if this redirect were moved to "arse" or whatever, and if doing so resolves the debate then I support that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Newyorkbrad. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Newyorkbrad. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:18, 26 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.

Monarchs of the United Kingdom[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The United Kingdom did not exist until 1801. --Nevé–selbert 07:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all (Standard response to all of these.) Redirects do not have to be technically accurate and often reflect potential search terms. The evolving nature of the United Kingdom and royal numbering can confuse and these are understandable search terms. Timrollpickering 08:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per {{R from incorrect name}}. These are all likely search terms, and most are well used (both Georges of the United Kingdom got about 2500 hits last year for example) so they are clearly serving a purpose in directing readers to the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per above. In addition to what Thryduulf said, confusion with the crowns in the 17th century or so may make some of these accurate in different contexts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:07, 15 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.

Anne I of the United Kingdom[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The United Kingdom did not exist during Anne's reign. --Nevé–selbert 07:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (Standard response to all of these.) Redirects do not have to be technically accurate and often reflect potential search terms. The evolving nature of the United Kingdom and royal numbering can confuse and these are understandable search terms. Timrollpickering 08:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Timrollpickering. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 15 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.

James the Shit[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty NSFW nickname. I propose we retarget this to List of monarchs by nickname#S. --Nevé–selbert 07:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The nickname is either NSFW or not, and the target is irrelevant to that. Per WP:RNEUTRAL applies here in that non-neutral redirects should point to the correct target, and in this case the current target is correct as it has (in the War in Ireland section) mention of the nickname in context and with more information than the list of nicknames. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Maybe retargeting to the specific section at James_II_of_England#War_in_Ireland might be preferable, but in any case, there's no reason why it shouldn't point to the current target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As may be, but being NSFW isn't a valid deletion ground. Ravenswing 04:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: That it is NSFW was not meant to be my rationale for deletion, as I am not proposing deletion. I am striking my proposal of retargeting to List of monarchs by nickname#S, as I agree with Patar knight's proposal of retargeting to James_II_of_England#War_in_Ireland, as that is where the offensive nickname is referenced.--Nevé–selbert 22:34, 20 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.

List of accolades received by the Spider-Man franchise[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) 16:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that this redirect was the former name of List of accolades received by the Spider-Man film series. However, seems the page was renamed since it was about the original film series, and not the Spider-Man franchise as a whole. However, the subject of the redirect is not mentioned or referenced in the target article, the article about the character itself. In fact, I'm not able to find a franchise article for Spider-Man. Steel1943 (talk) 05:29, 15 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.

Kepala[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) 23:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. Heads do not have affinity to Malay or Indonesian. Steel1943 (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This page was originally created when Kepala Batas was moved to this title, but the person who did that also moved the same page to a bunch of other titles that were clearly vandalism. Kepala Batas is a disambiguation page, but I can't find any evidence that any of the subjects listed there are referred to as just "Kepala". Everything else I've found would be similarly a partial title match too. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:42, 15 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.

Girth Of The Chest[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 24#Girth Of The Chest

Bust bodice[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 History of bras. (non-admin closure) feminist 14:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Per searches through third-party search engines, the subject of these redirects seems to be an article of clothing independent and possibly unrelated to their current target. So, it maybe best to delete these redirects per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per WP:REDLINK. My research suggests that this is an item of clothing dating from the Edwardian era and which could be considered an evolutionary step between a bodice and a bra, but this is not my area of expertise. I'll ping the Fashion and Women's History projects (the ones who've tagged the Bodice and Bra articles) about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to History of bras. Searches show the term used for some historical clothing. [1] some show it is the predecessor to the bra [2] [3] and the term "bust bodice" is mentioned in the Edwardian era section. Delete proper noun version. If that isn't suitable then bodice would be preferred. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:07, 15 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.

Brassière or bra[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. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect's usefulness is questionable since it uses the word "or". However, Brassiere does currently redirect to Bra (though Brassière does not exist), but if that ever changes, this redirect would definitely have a WP:XY issue. Steel1943 (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Very implausible search term. Ravenswing 06:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - 9 hits in 30 days is reasonably high for a redirect that's not linked from anywhere. XY doesn't really apply since both targets are the same; it's probably harmless. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd be willing to wager that nine hits on this precise search term involves someone clicking on one of the autofill results as he begins to type in "Brassiere" than on any sense that any human being was intending to type in "Brassière or bra". Ravenswing 00:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No notable use of "X or Y" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Possible search term for someone who might be confused about the proper name to use. If one of the terms in a redirect is the name of the target article, and the other is the name of another redirect that points to the target article, then it's not really a WP:XY issue, since both parts of the search string refer to the target article. This has also gotten 400 page views since July 1, 2015, which is a hit every two days. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:01, 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.

Reggipetto[edit]

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

Bigtits[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) 16:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete per precedence at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 9#Big tits. Steel1943 (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Aye, I'm not seeing an obvious association between the terms. Ravenswing 06:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete noting that the linked discussion closed as "delete all". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:19, 15 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.

Bra brand[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 List of lingerie brands. (non-admin closure) feminist 14:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no list of bra brands at the target article, nor am I able to locate a list of bra brands on Wikipedia. (Note: This redirect is a {{R from history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:18, 15 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.

Terry Christensen[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect could be considering the biography of living person that does not have its own page in mainspace. Was G6 but the tag was removed by @Kusma: speedy deletion declined. AaronWikia (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The creation of an editor who eventually received a community ban from creating redirects, due to the creation of hundreds of absurd ones to bolster his edit count. This one, like so many others Dolovis made, fails WP:XY; the subject's two seasons as general manager of the Firebirds does not make it a more obvious redirect target (for example) than the six seasons he spent coaching at Michigan State University, the five he spent as head coach of the Tallahassee Tiger Sharks, or his numerous other posts. Ravenswing 04:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of these possible listings, the Tiger Sharks one is the only article that mentions his name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classic case of WP:XY a reader would not expect to go to any one specific team a player played on if they were searching. Better served as a redlink. -DJSasso (talk) 15:48, 16 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_15&oldid=1136448011"