Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 1[edit]

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

Arabic alphabet (writing of the hamza)[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. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a rather implausible way to search for hamza. Fried Gold (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess I created the redirect because it happened to be a redlink somewhere. I should have changed the link instead. There doesn't seem to be any edit history worth keeping, so it's ok to delete it. --dab (𒁳) 08:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as author requests deletion above, about to tag it. --Rubbish computer 14:41, 2 October 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.

Jesus as above all angels[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 12#Jesus as above all angels

Man from Heaven[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 11#Man from Heaven

Lamb of Tishri[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 10#Lamb of Tishri

New Muslim[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 14#New Muslim

Castellation[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) 15:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A castellation is a collection of stars, it is not essentially a battlement, if it were, it would be a collection of castles, such as the Four Ports or the Maginot Line.. R maybe to astronoy, but I bet others have better ideas.constellation is an aricle, so perhpaps {tlx|R from misspelling}} I got my second inerview this evening so all who wished me luck thank you for it. Si Trew (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • wikt:castellation says it's "the act of making a building into a castle" or "the addition of battlements to a building". So perhaps Castle makes just as much sense as Battlement for a target. Constellation could go in a See also section as a misspelling, but I don't think retargeting there makes sense. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Si, I think you confused this with constellation as a collection of stars, or it's one of your misspellings. BDD has checked the definitions already. Good luck on your second interview. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. --Rubbish computer 21:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is the construction of fortifications or addition of crenelated parapets to structures. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not sure that it is, which is why I offered it. Sure I was confused with constellation but I was wondering if others searchers would equally be slow, however that is not our job to show them the error of their ways. But I am not sure it is really a battlement. Fortification might be better? I don't think their being crenelated is essential (lovely word though). Si Trew (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've drafted a dab under the redirect, but I want to emphasize that it's for consideration only. I'm not advocating disambiguation, at least not necessarily. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that disambiguation is really necessary here. Battlement discusses the application to castles (with a wikilink) right in the first sentence of the lede. The definition isn't "building a castle" exactly, it's more like making an existing building into a castle, by adding battlements. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:38, 2 October 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.

Mohammed and Mohammedism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 13#Mohammed and Mohammedism

Barack Obamaca[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) 15:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, implausible typo with no significant use. -- Tavix (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not likely at all. My Google search for ["Barack Obamaca" -wikipedia] only yielded 157 hits against 166,000,000 for the real spelling. This yields a probability of 0.000095% chance of this typo occurring, putting it well within the realm of "implausible" -- Tavix (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix and WP:XY; this redirect could also be a mispelling for someone looking up "Obamacare". Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I first saw this as a portmanteau of Obama and macaca (term), though I'm not sure that's the actual intent. The redirect's creation has the cryptic edit summary "typo mentioned on thread", which I'd tag with {{which}} if I saw it in an article. Google returns a hit in Romanian; would this be a Romanian declension of Obama's name? "Obamaca" is absent from ro:Barack Obama. (Just wondering; that certainly wouldn't make it worth keeping.) --BDD (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 21:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix and others. I got different results, but let's deleete it while we can. Si Trew (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix --Lenticel (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it doesn't seem particlarly likely to occur to anyone as a typo and while it doesnt to be doing any harm it doesnt seem to be doing any help either, if that makes snse. Just to note I was the one who original made the redirect and honest it's been so long that I am not sure what my reasoning was any more. it's possible there was a typo like this once but clearly there is no reason to keep it if it really was a one-off mistake and not something that many peoples doing. User:Smith Jones 12:45, 4 October 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.

Heathen[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 move over redirect. Yes I agree this strictly falls outside the jurisdiction of RfD, but traditionally we've been a helpful bunch and acted on any issue involving a redirect (or soft redirect), unless a parallel discussion is already underway in a more appropriate forum. In the absence of another discussion on this issue, I'm enacting the consensus below to move Heathen (disambiguation) to Heathen. Deryck C. 21:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the past few weeks, this redirect has been subject to an edit war, between redirecting to Heathen_(disambiguation) and Paganism#Heathen. I personally believe that Paganism#Heathen is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but I will put this up to community consensus here. Also, if consensus says that the dab page is correct, the dab page should be moved over the redirect, per MOS:DABPAGENAME. Natg 19 (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natg 19 (talk), thanks for drawing my attention to this dispute.

In my opinion, Heathen_(disambiguation) is the proper redirect since Heathen has several meanings, not all of them religious.

To be fair, I am actually opposed to using "Heathen" to refer to the religion. Germanic neopaganism is the more neutral term. In the United States, where I leave, "heathen" mainly means lazy, ignorant, and immoral. --ThorLives (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not see any clear primary meaning to Heathen. I believe it should be the either a redirect to the DAB page or preferable the DAB page with Heathen_(disambiguation) redirecting there. -- GB fan 21:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refuse jurisdiction. If it is in an edit war, it will probably still be in an edit war. The edit war need not continue here, keep it there in its own warzone. When there is something reaching WP:CONSENSUS there, it can be discussed here, not before. Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's not how it works. RFD does the opposite of what you say. You go to RFD to gain consensus, not confirm it. -- Tavix (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is edit history from 2005 that was merged away, before it became a redirect. I suggest that that be separated from the edit history of the redirect, and moved to Heathen (religion) and redirected to the disambiguation page. That was we don't have to deal with a messy redirect with merged contribution history. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the definition of Heathen at Heathen_(disambiguation) needs to be changed. My personal understanding of the word, along with what I've gathered from several sources is basically: an unconverted or irreligious person or group (sometimes characterized as uncivilized) not adhering to an Abrahamic religion. The definition currently there (i.e. One, inhabiting a heath (heath-piece of land with numerous shrubby plants, many of them having beautiful flowers)), perhaps drawn from the root of the word, doesn't seem to be its common defintion.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Godsy: It seems the definition at wikt:heathen is closer to what you're thinking. -- Tavix (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That definition ("one inhabiting a heath") seems to me like vandalism, and I've reverted it. Natg 19 (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Indeed, that was one of the places I glanced at. @Natg 19: That seems like an appropriate course of action; I didn't notice that it was added so recently, or I might have done the same thing.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I checked my woodware, only the Collins Shorter, the Oxford Shorter, the Chamers Shorter and whatnot, with etymologies, and heathen is not one who inhabits a heath. That is unsound, etymolbologilaccaly. The -en should be a cloe that it is OE and ME, as in brethren (an article referrring to various religious groups), cousen (red but used in Shakespeare I think), cousin), "My dearest Coz or Cos"),blacken. See -en formation, if we had one. It is used as much in late ME as the diminutive, which still kinda survives in littl'un, big'un and so on. WP:NOTDIC, and Wiktionary is silent on the matter, though this is where it belongs. Si Trew (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Heathen (disambiguation) over the title. (Don't retarget there—see WP:MALPLACED.) It seems quite clear that there's disagreement and confusion about what this term should refer to. That's what we have disambiguation for. --BDD (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:07, 1 October 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.

Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2016[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 for now, without prejudice against article creation. The discussion below has shown that this title could point to many different articles, none of which was overwhelmingly better than the others. It has been pointed out that some of the speculations of a Biden presidential bid are notable, so I'm deleting with prejudice against redirect recreation but without prejudice against article creation. Deryck C. 00:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete per WP:XY, and somewhat WP:CRYSTAL. As of right now, there is no such campaign. Biden's interest in running is discussed at the target article, but also Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016 and Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, both of which would seem to be more logical places to target. BDD (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This redirect serves a purpose and can always be expanded if appropriate. The redirect is doing no harm and people may happen to use it. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on why United States presidential election, 2016 is a better target for it than the other options listed above? --BDD (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with a retarget. I just didn't see the point in deleting the redirect. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you delete one you have to delete the other. I don't see the point in doing either. Obama has been, in my opinion, a bloody good president and has done more for the US in international relations than maybe people in the US realise or get told of. However, his two terms are up and US citizens get a vote. I don't. I think the more we inform people of the candidates the better people can make their decision. The worst thing to do is to have a vote and not use it. Si Trew (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's CRYSTAL to suggest that there is an extant Biden campaign. --BDD (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. I'm still leaning delete, but this is the best target yet. The other pages mostly just say "Biden might be interested in running", whereas this comes closest to describing an actual campaign. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep I'll go with that, whoever this Jobe Iden fellow is. Si Trew (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should redirect to the 2016 campaign article. Significant speculation exists, and reports are saying he may very well run. No reason to delete, especially if it might be used in the comings weeks.   Spartan7W §   00:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The first step to there being a "campaign" is for a candidate to announce that they are running for the office of the presidency; Joe Biden has yet to do that. Steel1943 (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; there is currently no such campaign. If he enters the campaign, WP:REFUND is thataway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? I see BDD's and your point of it being CRYSTAL, but surely the rumours (rumors) of him running for president are in thesmselves notable whether he has declared or not? Not sure about this, but does not seem WP:CRYSTAL to me, on the other hand WP:NOTNEWS so I can see both sides of both sides. I think I might change my name to Job Iden just to annoy him. Si Trew (talk) 04:26, 2 October 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.

The page has already been recreated. This is why it should have never been deleted in the first place. It serves a purpose... ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for information's sake. Since speculation on his candidacy has increased in the last week and it's mentioned in his bio, it's probably fine now. If you want to renominate it, go ahead. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coronary[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 convert to set index as drafted by SimonTrew. Deryck C. 21:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky one here. The current target is about the coronary system in general, but in most cases, the use of "coronary" seems to refer to a disease or surgery of the coronary system, such as Coronary artery disease. Is this the best target due to the words use? Should a disambiguation page be made? Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think it's fine as-is. In all of those additional usages, "coronary" is just a modifier: "coronary surgery" is surgery of the coronary circulation system, "coronary artery disease" is a disease of a part of the coronary circulation system, and so on. If someone searches "coronary" looking for coronary artery disease, we can't reasonably predict that, and if someone were to create wikitext like "coronary artery disease" then the link would need to be fixed anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard to say. It definitely sounds like a partial-title match to me. I suspect "coronary" alone refers to certain things in medical jargon, which may be good enough for a redirect or disambiguation page. Otherwise, a Wiktionary redirect or search results may be more appropriate. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to Set Index? can we do that here? I can't find a good primary target to this redirect but I'm sure it can pertain to various medical articles --Lenticel (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would have thought it was mostly colloquial to mean heart attack, a small one of which I had yesterday, but not very serious. Sorry this keyboard is giving me some gyp. 05:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Convert to set index per Lenticel -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I am happy with that but I think heart attack, which redirects to cardiomycal infarction or something, should be there at that index. I am not sure what this keyboard is doing whether it is my end or Mozilla, I think it seems to be moyilla or some add in, cos it generally works then abruptly stops working (the mouse too). Could be my end. Si Trew (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be my end, I dropped some tobacco into it and a key got stuck. This is not the first time, usually they last about four months. Si Trew (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to set index per Lenticel. Rubbish computer 13:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to set index is fine by my rationale as well. Si, you're thinking of myocardial infarction, which I've also heard colloquially referred to as "having a coronary". Also, you can buy washable and/or spill-proof keyboards these days. It might be something to consider if you're only getting four months out of them, I haven't bought a keyboard in about a decade. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You probably dont smoke roll-your-own over your keyboard then. Gets everywhere. I'll start on the draft for the set index, for y'alls consideration. (I wish British English had a word for "you, plural": Tyne accent has "yous", what"s wrong with that, but I am not from around there and sounds stupid coming out of my mouth. As if anything sounds sensible coming out of my mouth.) Si Trew (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not tobacco, no. And generally not over keyboards. And I think proper usage would be "all y'all's consideration". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm would it not sure. Is Y'all technically a singular, probably is, but "Yous" is plural, I think. Cup of coffee and I get started on this set index, I have not done one of these before. Si Trew (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry I have another keyboard spare in the background for when this one dies. The next one is a Belgian one and I can do Éven mŐre obtuse diactrical marks than I can Ön this stűpid Hüngarian óne. Si Trew (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: "Siafy" sounds good to me. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've made a Draft:Coronary for your consideration. It's not a set index but a DAB cos I don't know how to do set indexes (or indices) but I think we have most of what we need there. "Siafy" threw me, I was looking up what that meant, but I assume it means "do it how Si does it" (I kinda like that, can I keep that, to siafy something is quite pleasing to me), so I just went semi bold and knocked it in for your consideration. Si Trew (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh poo, I just realised that by "Siafy" you mean (I assume) "turn into a set index article" not necessarily "Do what Si does". And there I was thinking suddenly I had become one of those Household Words, like "slop-bucket". Si Trew (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that, for that usage, we from now on declare that an article is "out of Trew". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oi, I never touched that article! :) Si Trew (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've observed before "set index article" is something we kind of just made up. It's the thing that looks like a dab and quacks like a dab but Is Not A Disambiguation Page. A dab consisting of only partial-title matches would not be appropriate. Is this another one of the rules we bend for SIAs? Could someone point me to a parallel example? I'm not comfortable with this being the first, but if this already established practice, so be it. --BDD (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • history merge with Si Trew's fine draft. It may not be a 'proper' disambiguation, but it is a useful navigational aid. If it helps the encyclopaedia, we want it. It helps - Nabla (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any significant history that needs to be preserved. If there's consensus to disambiguate, the draft can simply be moved over the redirect. --BDD (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
fine by me, it is only redirects; but it is also a simple operation so... whatever the closing admin decides is ok - Nabla (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kinda not entitled to !vote having created the draft, but it kinda looks OK to me, although I should like to add some entries and fiddle with it a bit. I am reluctant to do so while it is for consideration here, but that seems the way it should go. (Yeah what a !vote this is!!!!). Si Trew (talk) 04:38, 2 October 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.

Windows XP Pirated Edition[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) 15:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere is the term mentioned in the target. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no official or properly-titled "Pirated Edition" of Windows XP. Alternatively, delete per WP:XY as this could refer to multiple versions of the software. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 18:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. The Windows XP article talks about piracy but does not point to a particular edition--Lenticel (talk) 23:18, 2 October 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.

תפוח-אדמה[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) 15:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Hebrew. Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:56, 1 October 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.

IsLam[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) 15:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a CamelCase redirect, even though it is tagged as such. Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, is from CamelCase and contains oldest version of the Islam article. No reason to destroy almost fifteen year old history. —Kusma (t·c) 10:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is CamelCase, though an unusual format. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it really isn't that unusual if you have any familiarity with UseModWiki. See WP:UuU. -- Tavix (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I'm used to seeing single-word CamelCase written out like IslaM. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above points. --Rubbish computer 18:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realise I am being deliberately obtuse, but if someone was searching for what is lamb would they not get a a WP:SURPRISE that it do not go to lamb]? Is Lamb is red, as is IsLamb. Si Trew (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is clearly a camelcase redirect, and just as clearly, from the era where very mixed capitalization was required for linkage -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. It just one typo so I guess we can this one some leeway --Lenticel (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it contains an early version of the article Islam and is therefore more than just a redirect from a weirdly capitalized title. Harej (talk) 19:26, 4 October 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.

Apple slate[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 10#Apple slate

Town Square[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 town square. Deryck C. 21:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion on #Public Square below. I am hesitant to telescope these but don't mind if someone else does. The WP:DIFFCAPS does not make this useful, makes it only a WP:SURPRISE, because Town square discusses, er, what a town square is, and I don't think "dibs" or "I got their first" or whatever you want to call it really matters much here, it is what would be useful to our readers. Si Trew (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would be to me, Tavix. You gotta admit, Vatican City does have a nice town square out the front of the church though. Si Trew (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's still the WP:DIFFCAPS question, so someone might still argue it to be at Town square. I'm not a meteorologist, so I'm just going to let this one play out for now. -- Tavix (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. So says Saint Bob of Dylan, anyway. Si Trew (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - almost all of the refs in the article are dead links. I don't have time at the moment to check archive.org for them but I will later if nobody beats me to it. It seems from Googling that the proper name of this shopping center is "Town Square Las Vegas", rather than just "Town Square". The target should be moved. Putting that aside, this shopping centre doesn't seem to have any special WP:PRIMARYTOPIC claim to "Town Square"; Googling again brings up several nearer to me, in Markham and Waterloo, but they don't have articles. We don't have a Town Square (disambiguation) but our Town square (disambiguation) lists other Town Squares. I think, because of the caps, that it's likely someone typing this is looking for a named place rather than an article on town squares generally, so I agree with Tavix: retarget to Town square (disambiguation). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the disambiguation page, where multiple topics are listed -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Town square: Just like I pointed out in the Public Square discussion, the primary topic for town square is definitely not a town square in cleveland. Town square is a generic name for a town square! I don't mind if it is redirected to the disambiguation page, but I'm opposed to the page being linked to a specific town square.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Town square (disambiguation) as this seems to be the most plausible target, and not to town square per WP:DIFFCAPS. Rubbish computer 15:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Town square per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Town square (disambiguation), since that would be the most helpful thing to do CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, just plain town square is better. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Town square. This doesn't seem like a very important decision, but since any given town square can be a proper noun, "Town Square" seems like a plausible way to search for the general concept too. --BDD (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - retargeting with Champion's hatnote treatment would work for me as well. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment works for me too. We don't seem to have policy on WP:BLEEDINíGOBVIOUS but this is bleeding obvious. DIFFCAPS does not apply, otherwise we end up with Forum redirecting to Castellation, which it do not. Si Trew (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redir to Town square (disambiguation); the use of the capitalization suggests someone is looking for a proper name, so it should go to the DAB page not to Town square.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:02, 6 October 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_October_1&oldid=1037881286"