Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 1, 2015.

The David H. Koch Fund For Science[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) 18:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that the fund exists (first 5 google hits without quotes fail to find it, and a google search in quotes fails to find it), or that, if it existed, it would be in "education". Not in target article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's listed on the PBS home page for NOVA. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ "National corporate funding for NOVA is provided by Cancer Treatment Centers of America. Major funding for NOVA is provided by the David H. Koch Fund for Science, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and PBS viewers." Sometimes Google isn't very good. --The Cunctator (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PBS is wrong about a lot of things. I suppose that's reasonable evidence that the fund exists, but it needs to be mentioned in the David H. Koch article, and there needs to be a source for its purpose other than PBS. Tentatively, if you can fix the Koch article, then the redirect would be reasonable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the idea that PBS would inaccurately report the name of one of its own funders is fairly far-fetched. But it's true that there are sparse Google hits and that the fund isn't mentioned at the target page. If it were to be mentioned anywhere, Koch family foundations would be more appropriate. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Iconic (Madonna album)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since Madonna's upcoming 13th album title "Rebel Heart" has recently been announced, this redirect isn't needed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ricky Byrd[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. As noted, the Joan Jett's band member is not the NN self promoter in question, a protected redirect should be sufficient. kelapstick(bainuu) 18:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless redirect to NN self-promoter. DBaK (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep And tag with {{R to section}} and {{R from member}}. The latter is especially germane, because this is the usual way of dealing with members of bands who are not independently notable. The redirect goes to the "Joan Jett & the Blackhearts" section, and Byrd was a member of that band. It's more common for a band to have its own article, but the same principle applies. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I've only just discovered {{R to anchor}}; I've been using {{R to section}} before now (commented at target, as above), which works but is less descriptive. This despite both templates' docs cross-reffing the other. D'oh! Si Trew (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They reference each other fairly contradictorily though; anchor says to use section if you're going to a section, while section vaguely says to use anchor (and others) "when more appropriate". Taken together, I'd still use {{R to section}} when it applies. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article has been full page protected (with this change), so the RFDNote didn't go on it. I've added one at the talk page. Si Trew (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic conversation about behaviour of "Article" tab on redirects
  • Somewhat off-topic. @Steel1943: incidentally, your comments re the software not unwontedly jumping through redirects. I went to Talk:Ricky Byrd to add this, then clicked on the "Article" tab at the top (I use Twinkle). Instead of going to Ricky Byrd, this takes me to its target. I don't know if that is a Twinkle bug (and if so how to report it) or more general. I don't think it makes a difference that the page is protected; I think it's because it hasn't the {{RFDNote}} on the page. e.g. Thingland (current here at RfD) has that and gets a &redirect=no at the end of the hyperlink for the "Article" tab. Any ideas? I realise this is off-topic and we should move this technical discussion to WT:RFD, probably (I didn't think it should be buried on your own talk page): sorry folks! Si Trew (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: I understand that. The bug is that for a protected redirect, clicking on the tab for "Article" on the ribbon (Article, Talk, Read, Edit, History etc) goes to the page for its target, not to the page for the redirect itself – "Article" should not jump through the redirect! Hovering over it, I see there's no &redirect=no in the hyperlink for the "Article" tab. I removed Twinkle but that seems to make no difference. I checked 4 or 5 other redirects in Category:Wikipedia protected pages and they all exhibitetd the same behaviour. Si Trew (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Si Trew, I believe that's standard behavior for all redirects, not just protected ones. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're right. An unprotected redirect such as King's Cross tube station, to pluck one at random, also has that behaviour. I still think it's a bug, though: switching tabs e.g. to the talk page and back to the article page shouldn't have that behaviour. I've never noticed it before, but then, few redirects have talk pages. Si Trew (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Si Trew, Ah, the dreaded "WONTFIX". I see your suggestion as helpful, but well ... eh, possibly it can be reassessed? I see your suggestion as helpful... Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That, and I think I know who the creator of that bug is on the English Wikipedia, if that helps answer any of your ... eh, our ... concerns. Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's been at the DAB page Richard Byrd since this edit of September 2008. Rick Byrd is a basketball coach, for whom a tentative infobox has (probably mistakenly) been drafted at Talk:Ricky Byrd by a one-contribution IP editor on 26 December 2014 (I filled in the {{unsigned}} there). Si Trew (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the rationale above "Meaningless redirect to NN self-promoter." is quite wrong. Ricky Byrd guitar player was not the self-promoter at all, but a separate non-notable Ricky Bonard Byrd Jnr who seems to be keeping trying to hijack the page to create an article about themselves. The redirect does not involve any self-promotion, the attempted deletion of the redirect and creation of a different article on this page is, so I would conclude, leave it as is, and keep it protected to prevent any further hijacking attempts. --nonsense ferret 18:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - discussed at target WilyD 10:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wilayat ar-Raqqah (ISIL)[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 delete per criterion G8 by CactusWriter. Steel1943 (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in a list of redirects and non-notable short article created in a way that furthers terrorist propaganda. See points made in the various successful deletion discussions below. No similar title has survived a deletion discussion.

Previously deleted through AfD, RfD or various speedy deletion criteria

  1. Wilayat Homs (ISIL)
  2. Wilayat Haleb (ISIL)
  3. Wilayat Fallujah (ISIL)
  4. Wilayat Baghdad Al Shamaliye (ISIL)
  5. Wilayat Baghdad (ISIL)
  6. Wilayat North Baghdad (ISIL)
  7. Wilayat Salah al-Din (ISIL)
  8. Wilayat Nineveh (ISIL)
  9. Wilayat Al Janoob (ISIL)
  10. Wilayat Al Barakah (ISIL)
  11. Wilayat Al Kheir (ISIL)
  12. Wilayat Al Badiya (ISIL)
  13. Wilayat Homs (ISIL)
  14. Wilayat Idlib (ISIL)
  15. Wilayat al-Sahel (ISIL)
  16. Wilayat Fallujah (ISIL)
  17. Wilayat Haleb (ISIL)
  18. Wilayat al-Anbar (ISIL)
  19. Wilayat al-Sina (ISIL)
  20. Wilayat al-Sinai (ISIL)
  21. Template:Wilayats of ISIL
  22. Wilayat al-Dimashq (ISIL)
  23. Wilayat al-Furat (ISIL)
  24. List of Caliphs of the Islamic State
  25. ISIL Caliphate
  26. List of Islamic State Wilayahs
  27. Wilayat Hama (ISIL)
  28. Wilayat Barqah (ISIL)

Closed as delete AfD and RfD Deletion Discussions

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_al-Dimashq_%28ISIL%29
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Barqah_(ISIL)
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Baghdad_(ISIL)
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Kirkuk_(ISIL)
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Hama_(ISIL)
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Nineveh_(ISIL)
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_24#Wilayat_Homs_.28ISIL.29
  8. Plus many speedy deletes under various criteria

Under Nomination for Deletion or now Redirected

  1. Wilayat al-Raqqa (ISIL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_al-Raqqa_(ISIL)
  2. Wilayat Algeria (ISIL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_29#Wilayat_Algeria_.28ISIL.29
  3. Wilayat Algeria - redirected away from the ISIL linked Algerian terror group as its a real place, a province of Algeria
  4. Template:Provinces of ISIL Jan 1 creation, requested speedy delete Legacypac (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not for any arguable non-neutrality (Rs don't have to be neutral anyway), just that it's a recently-created, unlikely misspelling (ar- not al-), WP:R3. The target is at AfD, but even if that survives, this can go. Si Trew (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Yandi Sofyan[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 delete per criteria A2 and R3 by Anthony Bradbury. Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to another non-English version of Wikipedia. MbahGondrong (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • While not technically a "cross-namespace" redirect, I think this might fall under WP:R2 (it's worse, in fact) and I've tagged it as such. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - where an article exists on another language version, redlinking to encourage creation makes the most sense to me. WilyD 08:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have proposed in the past that this should be a speedy deletion criterion, and I still hold that opinion (the discussion fizzled out without conclusion iirc). Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with all above. Othwerwise it's open to subversion simply by copy-pasting the text from the target into the R page, then marking for CSD as WP:A2 (or WP:A7WP:G7). Which is a pointless subversion, or unnecessary makework, depending on one's point of view. Si Trew (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Start div col[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These template redirects were created last april, and they serve no usefull purpose, but their creator has steadily been replacing the non-redirected template calls, which will only confuse (new) editors, as they think they found yet another column template. The around 300 transclusions for both should first be cleanup up with a bot. (Templates not tagged because they are in use.) -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as harmless. No need to replace them in existing articles, though. Si Trew (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand retaining old redirects for backward compatibility, but why create additional names for existing templates? It only adds confusion and ambiguity... That is not harmless. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've argued that several times myself, but consensus seems generally to be that creation and deletion are not symmetrical: we wouldn't create them, but since they exist, harm can be done by deleting them, more than is done by retaining them. It would be nice to have {{Deprecated}} or something, though. Si Trew (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Si Trew, do you mean {{Deprecated template}}? Steel1943 (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Or, do you mean a template that would be titled something like {{R from deprecated}}? Steel1943 (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I mean the latter, more {{R from deprecated name}} as some kind of {{R from other name}}. But I didn't know {{deprecated template}} existed, either. Not just for using on templates but also other redirects, e.g. when a company changes a product name, or a standards organisation changes terminology (e.g. in the IET regulations there is no live wire (electricity), but "phase"). How does one go about proposing such a template? It's not a question of writing it, it needs a category, doc changes, etc. i.e. consensus. Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I see we have {{R from former name}} and {{R to former name}}, but they're only for use in article space. Si Trew (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Concur with Edokter that newlyvery recently created redirects make for redundancy and dilution. --  Gadget850 talk 16:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Last April" is not "newly created". Si Trew (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that {{div col}} was created August 2007‎, the the redirect is pretty darn new. --  Gadget850 talk 17:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Edokter, I tagged the redirects since Template:Rfd now utilizes Lua in a way that allows the nomination tag to not be transcluded with the transcluded redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that could already be done, with <noinclude> and <includeonly>. Si Trew (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are referring to transcluded templates, not transcluded template redirects. If I recall, the problem with that method on redirects was that if an editor looked up the nominated redirect, they would be forwarded to the redirect's target without being stopped, which is a primary purpose of the purpose of the nomination templates. Somehow, the Lua conversion allows the redirect to still function properly when transcluded, but also stops someone from being forwarded in the event they directly look up the redirect's title. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as noticeably/notably useful. The name "Div col" does not indicate that its (primary) use is as a template creating the start of a section, i.e. a template that requires a complementary end/close template. "Start div col", however, does – and, with the word "Start" at the... start of the name, it can serve as a reminder to include the end/close template or to check for this template while debugging/reviewing/etc code. (Its complementary template name, therefore, is, as above, "End div col".)
Ditto templates such as {{startflatlist}} / {{endflatlist}} and {{startplainlist}} / {{endplainlist}} – although perhaps these should include a space after each "start" and "end"..?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And that is why every time I do a cleanup run on a template, the first pass is to standardize the name so I can maintain a sane regex. --  Gadget850 talk 20:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intriguing use of the word "sane". If it's beyond your regex's handling abilities, though, how about renaming the templates "Start/End div col" to retain the advantages above? Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We already have {{Div col start}} as a redirect (which follows {{Div col end}} naming), so these are completely redundant. One redirect is enough; each added redirect makes article maintenance harder on an exponential scale and makes maintaining template links a nightmare. Besides, the documentation's instructions are clear enough. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"We already have {{Div col start}} as a redirect ... so these are completely redundant..."
If redirect B has advantages that redirect A lacks, why should redirect A prevail? This project surely can't need to be that rigid..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point... There are too many. Tracking their use becomes increasingly harder with each added redirect. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered that you might be missing "the" point? Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Eliminates the need of the contributors racking their head as to what they've written wrong. Purely useful utility. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? We cannot account for every spelling mistake an editor makes, especially with technical matters like templates. That is not what redirects are for; they are for common misspellings in article titles. The documantation is clear enough on how to use a template. There is no added value in creating additional redirects to existing templates. It only causes contributors to rack their heads in figuring out that all those different template names actually point to the same template. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not about spelling mistakes – as I believe you know – nor assuming you understand other contributors' points of view or that your characterisations and assertions are accurate or correct. Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed it isn't. In my past experiences, there have been times when I couldn't remember what is the name of the license tag for GPL version 2 images: GPL2, GPL-2, GPLv2 or GPL v2? I initially mistook {{Section link}}, {{Sectionlink}} and {{link section}} a lot before realizing they are not the same thing.
In addition, Edokter's argument is an all-or-nothing argument. We can't account for all? So what? One is already accounted for, and wisely so. I say leave it alone.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and while we're at it, let's also create
...and I am bound to have missed a few... -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A fabulous idea indeed, although I think spelling differences and space-less versions need further justifications. But why do I sense resentment in your message? Was it supposed to be reductio ad absurdum? Maybe because User:FleetCommand once threatened that if deletion of Windows 9 redirect was not successful, he'd create "Windows #" redirects with numbers going up to 30. I needn't have dissuaded him. But I think you and FC are different classes of users who need not act like one another. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was being sarcastic, but the underlying message is real: Where do we stop accounting for variable template names? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I go by a simple rule: The right to create utility redirects given to me is one that would use for the comfort of content creators and won't abuse. (1) I won't create a utility redirect unless I feel it is absolutely necessary. (2) I won't delete such utility redirects when they have over 50 transclusions. 137 + 47 transclusions fits the bill for bearing the comfort of the content generators in mind.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've cleared all (but a few userspace) transclusions. That should clear up any potential confusion. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]
    • As this action pre-empts the outcome of this discussion, I request this discussion closed as subverted and the previous status quo maintained/restored. (I am about to restore those pages affected; cf Special:Contributions/Edokter around 09:40 to 10:10 today.) Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I already did at some pages. And count me in for a Keep.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How disruptive can you be! There is nothing wrong with restoring the previous template names to accomodate for a potential outcome. I have therefor rolled back all your edits. You had no valid reason to revert! 15:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edokter (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per Si Trew, Codename Lisa and others. These are highly plausible names for the templates/functionality and "redundant" is not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf, et al. Plausible names for a template, etc. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to above votes which state that this redirect is useful. (However, I would not have reverted Edokter's edits; though I have seen votes to keep redirects in the template namespace due to transclusion counts, I don't see that as useful ... rather, synonymous terms are useful. Also, in transcluded templates' cases, I personally prefer to have the template directly transcluded rather than one of its redirects, but see template redirects super helpful with substituted templates.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I like to transclude the template proper, but (per User:Codename Lisa) redirects are useful for finding them. I suppose transcluding a redirect makes the template's elaboration slightly longer, but only by a gnat's crotchet, and only when that page is re-rendered after a purge. Si Trew (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Boston Christmas Tree[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 converted to an article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably better redirected to Boston–Halifax relations, while the Explosion article does touch on the giving of the tree in 1918 and beyond at the end of the article, the relations article covers the tree and tradition in greater depth. kelapstick(bainuu) 13:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

MeGUI[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) 17:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this title redirects to MEncoder but I know that these two are barely related. I perfectly know MeGUI. (MeGUI is a computer program with a notoriously complex user interface that acts as a frontend for 60 pieces of different other individual tools, including x264 and ffmpeg but not MEncoder.) I am afraid I doubt that MeGUI is notable for Wikipedia, regrettable as this fact may be. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thingland[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) 17:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot find a link between redirect and target, possibly either WP:A11 or WP:G3. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this redirect makes no sense. Google search did not provide substantial results. --Lenticel (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to The Lord of the Rings Online: Rise of Isengard#New Areas, where "Thinglad" is described as "The southernmost fortification of the elves of Lórien". I could see, it being a geographical area, someone might mistakenly think "Thingland". That being said, Thinglad itself is red. Si Trew (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it also seems to be the birthplace of Baggy Brown, a teddy-bear, in young children's stories by Mick Inkpen. Unfortunately we haven't got that, either, and maybe it's not WP:N. Si Trew (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inkpen, Mick (2008). Baggy Brown. Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 978-0340932315.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Low-wage job[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 18#Example of low wage job. At that discussion, Example of low wage job was deleted while there were votes to retarget it to McJob, the current target of the nominated redirects. Since the deleted redirect and these nominated ones are so similar, they should all probably have the same fate for consistency: delete. Steel1943 (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree, this and "Example of..." should stand or fall together. That will leave three articles (Working poor, Health insurance coverage in the United States and Underemployment) with "broken" links: tough. We couldn't think of a better target last time, and seeding would not be appropriate. I note Low wage job (without the hyphen) is red. Si Trew (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia's discussion of jobs which pay poor wages and have poor job security and poor prospects for advancement is listed under the title McJob; this redirect is appropriate. Note that Low-paying job targets here. Renaming the target article may be worthwhile for a separate discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, twice) I'm not sure renaming the target (presumably to "low-wage job") is a good idea; despite the assertion in the lede it does mostly concentrate on McDonald's, and doing so would be WP:UNDUE. Casting the net wider, living wage is a possible target, as are a lot of things in its "what links here" (but I wouldn't like to choose). Nice find with Low-paying job (Low paying job is red). Si Trew (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all three as someone who voted to delete Example of low wage job. The key difference is that the former consists of a mangled half-sentence that could never be incorporated into running text and is highly unlikely to be typed in the search bar, while these are all actual phrases which someone might use in the article and/or search for. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are plausible synonyms --Lenticel (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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/2015_January_1&oldid=1141906211"