Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 28, 2015.

List of months by year: 1900-1999[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) 17:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirects. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the last three as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense, since the target is simply "2000s" and not the date range indicated by the redirects' titles. More Neutral on the first one at the moment. With respect, I've added the section links in the nomination above (I know Twinkle doesn't do that) for clarity. I note the difference between the last two is a hyphen versus an en dash. The first one actually was supposedly nominated for deletion way back in 2005 but that talk page was only added (by User:AnomieBOT) on 1 January 2014 so not sure what's going on there. The third and fourth ones also seem to have consensus on their talk pages (with a very small quorum), from 1 January 2014, that they should be deleted. Si Trew (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Without prejudice, I've marked the last three with {{Rfd}} notices, and added {{R to section}} to them. Si Trew (talk) 04:31, 29 May 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.

Hafsa Sultan[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, restore previous article and split the page history. – Fayenatic London 17:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is completely similar with my previous request below. These women were also sisters and two separate historical figures. They weren't a person who had two names. They also had different mothers. One of these sultanas was the wife of a minister (Şehzade) and the other one died at a very young age (Hafsa). A user moved Hafsa Sultan to Şehzade Sultan and changed the whole material except creating a new article for Şehzade Sultan and caused this problem. I think this redirect should also become deleted. Keivan.fTalk 13:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the cedilla on the S (if that is the right name for it)? That's not English. So if you are going to move it, do it properly. I'd be inclined just to Revert it back to where it was. Sezhade Sultan, without the cedilla, is red: but if we keep it should be created as an {{R from title without diacritics}}. Si Trew (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: The cedilla on the S is completely normal. It's a Turkish name and it should be written in that way. Even the names of Turkish actors and political figures are written like this in English Wikipedia. However, I'm not here to discuss about Turkish alphabet. Actually I see no reason for keeping Hafsa Sultan, but if you think it should be kept, then it should redirect to one of her parents' pages. Unfortunately there's nothing about her in Selim I and Ayşe Hafsa Sultan's article. So keeping this redirect page has no meaning. Keivan.fTalk 06:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f: thanks for explaining that. As far as I remember, and I am just going off the top of my head, Attaturk changed the Turkish Alphabet from Arabic to the Latin Alphabet in 1922, which must have been a bit of a surprise, but it is useful to remember that: I had never seen this little lodge before. I agree with you it should go Delete per WP:RFD#D5, makes no sense, and perhaps WP:NOTENGLISH but that is more the target than the redirect. I doubt an English-speaing user on an English keyboard could possibly type the target, but the redirect itself doesn't have any diacritics. Si Trew (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: About the target, I don't see that much problem. When I search "Sehzade Sultan", I get the result. Try and you'll see. Actually, I don't agree with changing the formats and ways of writing Turkish names. Many Turkish names have such Latin letters. For example Kıvanç Karakaş, Bülent İplikçioğlu, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan,..... For more examples see Turkish people's category. Almost all of their names have such Latin letters. But when you search these names without those letters, you'll get the result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keivan.f (talk • contribs) 14:03, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree in principle. Our job here at RfD is to help people get to where they want to go. Sometimes that means a delete because the redirect gets in the way of the search engine and people end up in the wrong place. But if not, it tends to be kept as harmless, however few hits it gets. Kivanc Karakas exists but not Recep Tayyyip Erdogan nor Bulent Iplikcioglue. I think that it is pretty standard procedure to create the {{R from title without diacritics}} (I do it if I create a translation from French which has an accent, for example), but don't want to do so before we get consensus here about what we do with these, as that's just making more work for each other. Si Trew (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I just wanted to mention that Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Bulent Iplikcioglu both exist. You made a mistake when typing them. Keivan.fTalk 15:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did try searching, by the way. I am nothing if not thorough, as most here will tell you, and yes, i got that result. The problem is there are lots of different ways of searching and we don't want an R to "block" the search, that is a difficult call to make because we don't know what the search would do without it but have to guess. Fun, isn't it! Si Trew (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with below, this should be reverted to the status quo ante. --BDD (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: I think this article's situation is different from the one below. When this one was moved from Hafsa to Sehzade its material also changed. But Hatice Sultan was moved to Fatma Sultan without any changes in the article. I think Hafsa's page should become restored if she was notable and if she wasn't it should become deleted. I also think we should keep Sehzade Sultan's article. Keivan.fTalk 13:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably call for a histmerge then... --BDD (talk) 15:04, 22 April 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) 14:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not sure the status quo ante is much good, though, (you mean, "what it was before", I presume: we have an article status quo ante bellum which i have not checked but what I would translate as "what it was like before the war"). The thing is we need to set an obiter dicta → obiter dictum on these things so they are not created unnecessaily. R's are cheap, sure, but the problem is they hurt people trying to search for information: that's our job isn't it? Et in arcadia ego. Si Trew (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's translated at that article as "The state existing before the war", but I think mine is more colloquial. Si Trew (talk) 21:48, 24 April 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, Deryck C. 21:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Instead of letting this rot in the old logs or closing this as no consensus, I'd like to see a fresh set of eyes on this discussion. I've informed WP:OTTOMAN and WP:TURKEY about these two discussions and hopefully they can help us reach consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tavix | Talk  16:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Sorry, I am confused by the discussion that occurred above. Though, what I see in the article is someone arbitrarily referred to as "Hafsa" without explanation of their relation to the subject. They might be the sister of the subject or maybe even the subject herself. There might be a connection, but it is not very clear. The article should receive some cleaning up here, including potentially removing mentions of "Hafsa", and subsequently deleting this redirect here. It's confusing to me and confusing to the readers. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:14, 29 May 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.

Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III)[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, restore previous article and split the page history. – Fayenatic London 17:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I realized that Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) redirects to Fatma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III). Actually they were sisters and two separate historical figures. They weren't a person who had two names. Even their mothers were two different persons One of these princesses was the wife of a prime minister (Fatma) and the other one died at a very young age (Hatice). A user moved Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) to Fatma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) and changed the whole material except creating a new article for Fatma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III). I think this redirect should become deleted. Keivan.fTalk 13:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that, thanks for it. I was unaware of that template, but the more specific the better. Si Trew (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But I think it's harmful. Imagine Prince John of the United Kingdom redirected to Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. It really makes people confused. When I searched Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) and except that I found an article about Fatma Sultan I got confused. Hatice Sultan should redirect to one of her parents' page not her sister's. I was thinking about creating a new article for Hatice and for doing that, these two pages should become separated. Keivan.fTalk 06:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you create the page, presumably as a {{bio-stub}}, it will soon be closed here as a procedural close as an R converted to an article, and I very much encourage you to do so. I haven't the knowledge to do it myself, but have done so in the past on engineering topics, and I think one was closed yesterday in the same way. That's just making the encyclopaedia better. If I can help with any copy editing etc please let me know. Si Trew (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Thanks. If I need your help, I'll tell you. But the problem about Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) is that she was only one year old when she died. Thus no special and important information can be found for her. I think like Hafsa Sultan, we should delete this one too. Keivan.fTalk 13:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well then surely this goes Delete under WP:N, not notable, I would have thought. Just because you are the daughter of someone does not mean in your own right you are notable. Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is not notable because she is the daughter of King George VI of the United Kingdom: She is notable in her own right. Peaches Geldof similarly is notable not because she is the daughter of Bob Geldof but because she hit the press for various naughties. I think we have a policy on this but struggling to find it: WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay but well-established. Si Trew (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that simple. You cannot overlook the Paula Yates syndrome. 176.92.183.71 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. That is exactly what we must do. Paula Yates is notable in her own right, not because she was the sometime wife of Bob Geldof (perhaps I picked the worst example possible). These daughters are not notable in their own right. Any woman except Eve is the daughter of someone, but we don't have articles for every celebrity's daughter (partly because they are entitled to their privacy): if they choose to put themselves in the public eye, that's a different matter, but we don't have an article on Kathryn Blair], for example, the daughter of Tony Blair and Cherie Blair, because she is not in the public eye and not notable in herself. (She is in Cherie Blair's infobox: actually it Rs to the DAB at Katherine Blair, but she hasn't an article: as gnoming I'll check if that is tagged properly.) Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I marked the R at Kathryn Blair as {{R from incorrect name}}. I am not sure it even belongs on that DAB because it just says "daughter of former prime minister Tony Blair" so I am not sure that is very useful. We don't have Paula Yates Syndrome. Si Trew (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, in Tony Blair's infobox the children are not linked, and are listed only by first name: In Cherie Blair's, they have surnames ("Blair"). I think my point is proved, though, and I don't want to fix that while this discussion is open (and not sure which way I would fix it: children of famous people are entitled to their privacy; but the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages is a matter of public record which anyone can look up, and genealogy websites generally do). Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Unfortunately I discovered a new problem. User:Retrieverlove is the person who moved Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) to Fatma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) and changed the whole material of this article. Actually Hatice Sultan didn't die as a one-year-old girl (that was my mistake). Actually she had a political marriage and was influential. Take a look at the history of the page. I don't know what to do now. Should we make two separate articles for these two individuals? All of these happened because of that user. He always move pages and changes their material without discussion. Then I'll report the situation to an administrator to make those articles separated. There are warnings on his user page telling him to start a new article for a new individual except moving the pages and destroying their material. Of course he hasn't made this kind of problem since a few months ago. Anyway we have to decide what to do with this redirect page. Keivan.fTalk 18:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I'm really confused. When I read the page's history before moving I understood that he just moved the page and changed the name from Hatice to Fatma. I think we have to ask him why he did this? Maybe the correct title for this article is Fatma Sultan and she was married to Ibrahim Pashsa not her sister Hatice. It's really confusing. Someone has to ask him why he moved the page. Keivan.fTalk 19:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f:} we can work together on this. My Arabic is not very good, but Wikipedia is kinda "blocking" the search engines so that every time you try to look this up you go round the houses to end up where you started. We'll sort it out by working together, yes? Si Trew (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment making a start, "Sultan" is not a name you ever have as a first name in English but Zoltan is a very popular name in Hungarian. Excuse me for doing the working-out here but we'll get there. Si Trew (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so what you're saying is Hatice and Fatma are two different people. In that case, there is no point linking one to the other, that is just misleading. I think that is what you are saying. Si Trew (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I have checked the sources. They're two different individuals. They're sisters. The things that I don't know is that was Hatice married to Ibrahim Pasha or Fatma? Was Hatice and influential figure during his father's reign or Fatma? I don't why that user moved this page. We have to ask him. I don't want to make false statements about two historical figures. We have to make sure. Keivan.fTalk 13:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like the simplest solution for now would be to undo the move and change of article scope. That never should've happened, regardless of the notability of either of these figures. From there, we could AfD Hatice or write a new article on Fatma as necessary. --BDD (talk) 19:22, 21 April 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) 14:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query @Keivan.f: is it at all possible they were both married to Ahmed III? That seems rather incestuous but it happens. I believe, and I may very well be mistaken, in Islam one is allowed to have four wives, but he was Christian surely, although no mention of his religion is at the target. According to theottomons.org he did seem to like to collect wives. God only knows why, one is enough trouble.Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Si Trew: No they're his daughters and I'm sure that he was a Muslim, not a Christian. But you're right. Under the Islamic law you can just have four "wed" wives. Ottoman's harem system seems to be confusing at first but I can explain it now. Above the all women of the harem was valide sultan, mother of the sultan. After her, four wed wives of the sultan had the highest positions. They were called haseki sultan or kadınefendi. Then came daughters and sisters of the sultan and finally there were many concubines who were called hatun or hanımefendi. Women were called hatun (instead of sultan) and valide hatun (instead of valide sultan) before Suleiman the Magnificent's reign. He created the titles valide sultan and haseki sultan for his mother, Ayşe Hafsa Sultan, and his principal wives, Hürrem Sultan and Mahidevran Sultan, and the title hatun remained for lower ranked wives and concubines. After 1650s kadınefendi and hanımefendi were used instead of haseki sultan and hatun. Keivan.fTalk 06:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • thanks for that. This is all useful information and I learned a lot, we should probably link into the article, which doesn't even mention Harem except in a reference. The reason I assumed he was Christian was just the picture on the external link I gave appears to show (in my eyes) him wearing a mitre but I guess it is some other kind of titfer. I think poor old Ahmed needs quite a tidy up then, but don't like to do so when it's related to an open discussion. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This screen keeps moving things around. Fed up with it. My question to @Keivan.f:, who is obviously the expert on this one and am inclined to go on that expertise: My question is, do you think that Hurrem Sultan and the Harem of the Sultan could possibly be confused (to an English-language audience): and if so how would we disambiguate that? Si Trew (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We do have Imperial Harem and I suppose the Sultan was the Emperor of the Ottoman Empire, it is not about what is right but what is useful. Si Trew (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Actually Hürrem Sultan won't be confused with the Harem of the Sultan, that's because she's known to the west by her nickname, Roxelana, and is known to the east by her royal name, Hürrem Sultan. Keivan.fTalk 08:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f: Thank you once again for your expertise, a true credit to Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: You're welcome ;) Keivan.fTalk 08:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, still not sure on that. Because in my southern British accent we tend to use elision a lot, which seems lazy to others but is not laziness it is part of my accent or dialect, so a "hat" becomes a "a" with glottal stop each side which actually is harder, if you think about it, than just saying "hat", but there's loads of H dropping and whatever, and our vowels are all over the place. I have trouble living in hungary because the vowels are very precise and I can never hit them right cos in English they are dipthongs whereas in Hungarian they are pure vowels. Si Trew (talk) 09:01, 26 April 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, Deryck C. 21:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh God. When I added these redirect pages for discussion, I didn't except a long discussion without any result. I think we made our statements clear. Let's see what the other users think. Keivan.fTalk 15:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Instead of letting this rot in the old logs or closing this as no consensus, I'd like to see a fresh set of eyes on this discussion. I've informed WP:OTTOMAN and WP:TURKEY about these two discussions and hopefully they can help us reach consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tavix | Talk  16:30, 28 May 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.

Bob l'éponge[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 between "no surprises" and "there is traffic" on the keep side, and WP:RFOREIGN on the delete side. Default to doing nothing. Deryck C. 09:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. SpongeBob is not especially Spanish or French. Tavix | Talk  04:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete SpongeBob is a English-language creation from the U.S.A. so no affinity for any language except English -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Hits above noise level. Second one especially: 140 times in April: 432 times in the last 90 days. First one more marginal. (The first one I assume is French and the second Spanish.) Si Trew (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. No inherent connection between the subject and Spanish or French, or coverage of Spanish or French versions at the target article. --BDD (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to what they're looking for. No reason has been suggested for deletion, nor do I see any. WilyD 17:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WilyD: You are wrong yet again. There is a reason suggested for deletion: WP:RFOREIGN. You might not agree with it, but it is still a valid reason for deletion. If you look at WP:RFDO#Foreign-languages, you can see that foreign language redirects with no connection with that language are deleted all the time. If you want the redirects kept, just say that it "directs readers to what they're looking for." That's ALL you need to say. The second part weakens your argument with that ridiculous statement. Tavix | Talk  17:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't a reason for deletion - I can't agree or disagree with it, because it's a complete non sequitur. It's not that I particularly want the redirects kept or not, but that I want to suss out whether they should be kept or not. Highly relevant to that is the reason(s) that have been presented for that - here that the redirects have been nominated for deletion, but no reasons has been given is important to trying to suss out what's going on, and what to do about it. WilyD 12:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can't agree or disagree with "it" (not sure what "it" is) then why !vote for delete rather than just stay neutral? As Tavix says, a reason has been given: WP:RFOREIGN (WP:FORRED), in the nomination. I don't understand how that is a non sequitur when that essay discusses what has been consensus in previous foreign-language redirects, unless you are totally rejecting the idea of precedent and think everything must be discussed ab initio. Si Trew (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WilyD: Not only that, but this page covers ten reasons for deleting redirects. One of which, WP:RFD#D8, covers a redirect that "is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name" and specifically uses foreign-language redirects as its example. Tavix | Talk  15:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all unreasonable to think that, on the English Wikipedia, a reader searching for "Bob l'éponge" or "Bob Esponja" is looking for something other than SpongeBob SquarePants. They could easily be looking for specifically foreign media related to the show, for example. --BDD (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that too. I'm actually surprised that the Spongebob Squarepants article doesn't have an international section, especially since it's a good article. Tavix | Talk  15:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - inappropriate foreign redirect as described at WP:RFOREIGN. How many years now has WilyD been robotically repeating the exact same content-free argument? 86.28.151.70 (talk) 14:01, 2 June 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:ConvertMass[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) 17:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused, WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense, since the target converts lots of things other than mass. Si Trew (talk) 12:20, 28 May 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.

Lu Zhen Chinese translation of the Bible[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) 17:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The author's name of this translation version of the Bible is "Lü Zhenzhong" (呂振中, or Lu Zhenzhong/Lu Zhen Zhong). It has nothing to do with "Lu Zhen". Iokseng (talk) 11:05, 28 May 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.

Ritual wine server (guang), Indianapolis Museum of Art, 60.43[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) 17:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nobody will search this way. WP:CONCISE. Si Trew (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I have a hard time guessing how people will search for this, but the redirect is a plausible guess (more plausible than the actual title, for instance). WilyD 08:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the whole. This was the original article title, auto-redirected after a move. These are always best left imo. Does WP:CONCISE have any bearing here in fact? Johnbod (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per WP:R#KEEP #=4, "[...] redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. [...] " and the old title was created 22 May 2012. Christian75 (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This looks like a catalog listing in any case, and those are reasonable search terms, since the searcher might have nothing but the catalog listing to search on. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 16:07, 28 May 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.

Qantas Domestic[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) 17:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading target, as people would expect to look for something like Qantas destinations or something else, I can't seem to find a better target. - TheChampionMan1234 04:48, 28 May 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_May_28&oldid=1138580627"