Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 17, 2015.

Antivillain[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. The rough consensus is that this title is a rough match for several existing article but not a precise match for any, and can be an article itself. Delete to encourage article creation. Deryck C. 18:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No articles link to this redirect, The term itself is a non-notable neologism and was previously deleted. And at best the term is peripherally related to the redirect target, which does not discus it. Edward321 (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to false hero, which is currently the only article categorized beside "antivillains" in Template:Stock characters. False protagonist is another option, by meaning, although "antivillain" doesn't appear there. Neither of these exactly describe the concept as I thought of it, the opposite of antihero which would be an antagonist with heroic qualities, or a character who does good despite an evil motive (or a motive opposite that of the protagonist). Mustapha Mond of Brave New World (when viewed through John the Savage's moral frame) is the best example I can think of at the moment.
Coincidentally, a search brought up Redshirt (character) but I think this is way off. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. --Rubbish computer 00:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Isn't there a problem going to false hero given that a great deal of anti-villains clearly are not heroes (and are never seen as such) in the story sense? The example that comes to mind immediately is Inspector Javert from Les Miserables and Deputy Samuel Gerard from The Fugitive. Neither of them are heroes, and they're certainly portrayed as antagonist characters doing ill activities, but their motaviations are complex, with them being relatable human beings. Recall:
"I didn't kill my wife!"
"I don't care!"
That's an 'anti-villain'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a False Hero is a person pretending to be a hero whereas an antivillain is a villain who has noble goals and or virtues but their means to achieve these goals is evil. The current redirect is actually better than the proposed one since there is more of a connection.--174.91.187.135 (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that, given that there's enough information about the topic of being an anti-villain, the subject could merit its own separate page. I suppose thus the best thing to do would be to delete the current redirect (though, as stated above, there is somewhat of a connection between 'anti-villain' and 'anti-hero'). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I only just thought of this. It couldn't possibly be a mishearing for antediluvian, could it. (Awaits flood of comments.) Si Trew (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with CoffeeWithMarkets' analysis, an anti-villain and a false hero are not exactly synonyms. However at the moment we don't have a better target, and one could argue that a false hero is a sort of anti-villain; certainly whoever added the line to the stock characters template thought so. Rather than a separate article, I think a discussion about anti-villainy would be best written as a subtopic in the antihero article. But I'm a long way off from a literature expert. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehhh, I think antihero is the best target for this. If I worked hard enough, I could probably tie the two concepts together with a source. A quick Google Books search reveals this source, which is likely not reliable. However, it's evidence for an academic tying together of the two concepts. I don't like retargeting this concept to false hero, and I think deletion would be better than that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Edward321. The whole thing seems like a neologism, and a false hero is a specific archetype, not necessarily a villain at all. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this to encourage article creation. This seems to be a distinct character archetype--Lenticel (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There isn't a good target about what this concept represents. I can't seem to find any reliable sources about the topic offhand, but if they can be found, article creation would be desirable.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh - Could be deleted under WP:REDLINK, but we could just as easily tag it {{R with possibilities}}. --NYKevin 17:40, 19 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.

Wiihabilitation[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 Exergaming. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect sst✈ 15:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not mentioned at the target. If the subject is notable for inclusion in the article (didn't find anything to establish that at this time) or notable on its own (WP:REDLINK), this can be recreated.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • or Weak Retarget to Exergaming#2000s- "'Wiihab'" is mentioned at Exergaming. This is a longer form of it, but as it's quoted not used, I'm not quite to a straight retarget.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:33, 17 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.

Katrina Richardson[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, default to keep. Deryck C. 18:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:R#D2 as this is confusing. There is no one at this dab named or nicknamed "Katrina". -- Tavix (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and comment can we add Catrina Richardson to this? There are a huge amount of unnecessary and potentially misleading and confusing redirects to this page. Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
late edit:
Boleyn in what way/s do you think the redirects may be "potentially misleading and confusing"? GregKaye 07:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They have no connection to the subjects on the page. Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Boleyn has made numerous similar redirects, including 1) Phillip Anderson → Philip Anderson; 2) Elisabeth Brown → Elizabeth Browne, Countess of Worcester; 3) Elisabeth Browne → Elizabeth Browne, Countess of Worcester; 4) Katherine Cook → Catherine Cook; 5) Katherine Fisher → Catherine Fisher (disambiguation); 6) Catherine Foster → Katherine Foster; 7) Phillip Lewis → Philip Lewis; 8) Katherine McCarthy → Katie McCarthy; 9) Katy McCarthy → Katie McCarthy; 10) Catherine Morrison → Kathryn Morrison; 11) Katherine Morrison → Kathryn Morrison; 12) Katherine Parker → Catherine Parker; 13) Catherine Ross → Katherine Ross; 14) Phillip Young → Philip Young (disambiguation), etc. It would be overkill to continue, but this list is much longer. If these redirects have "connection to the subjects on the page", how is it that those nominated for deletion are represented as not having such a connection? The already-mentioned [below] entry, Catherina (and similar spellings), indicates that this given name has myriad permutations, thus suggesting that a random selection of some variations for inclusion and others for deletion may well be singled out as the true source of confusion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all of these make sense to me. The redirects are all homophones of either the target or another redirect that targets the same page of the created redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These also make sense to me. I am simply pointing out that the author of the words, "They have no connection to the subjects on the page", has made numerous redirects of the same or similar nature. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same or similar. Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence speaks for itself. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Boleyn:  Done -- Tavix (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of a tangent addressing Boleyn's concern above. Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Boleyn:  Not done. Congratulations ... You've managed to stumble across the issue that I've been meaning to bring up at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation for a while now: the necessity to create another acceptable disambiguator for disambiguation page titles (The contents of Kate Richardson (version 2)'s edit history represent the "subject" in Kate Richardson (disambiguation).) The issue with Kate Richardson (version 2) is that is has edit history that needs to be retained per WP:CWW, so it cannot be deleted without the attributions being moved somewhere else. When I see these, I usually move the page and edit history to a title that is an acceptable title for its edit history and the article that the "version 2" redirect targets, and then I tag the "version 2" redirect for G6 speedy deletion... but with disambiguation pages, the only two acceptable titles are only the ambiguous title and the ambiguous title + (disambiguation). So, I'm not sure where to move the edit history since the contents at the "version 2" title were a disambiguation page. The best I can think of doing for now is retargeting that redirect to Kate Richardson (disambiguation), which I did. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, instead of creating endless dab pages for every possible variation (Cat, Kat, Cathy, Kathy, Kate, Cate, etc.) it would be much more convenient for users to have all these gathered under one name in this fashion, with redirects and hatnotes resolving any potential confusion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats not how it works and your examples prove it. In every example you give either a) it's not a redirect to a dab page (eg: it's red or it's own article) b) the redirect is to a dab page that includes the variant. In this case, NO ONE is known by these "variants" so it's either confusing or nonsense. -- Tavix (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. Although you claim to have refuted my arguments, such "refutation" cannot overcome existing evidence. In my previous submission, I deliberately limited myself to the surname "Smith" and presented intentionally boilerplate examples, including redlinks, all prefaced by "if". All of them were intended to be generic, rather than represent existing headers. Are you contending that in the event the three redlinks above, Liza Smith, Elisabeth Smith and Bette Smith, were actually created, such redirects would be "confusing" and you would argue for their deletion on the basis that they are "nonsensical and that "NO ONE" is known by such names? Is it your position that only names which already exist on the disambiguation page are eligible to serve as redirects? Thus, are you arguing that if there is no one whose main title header indicates the name Phil Smith or Philip Smith at the Phillip Smith disambiguation page, then "Phil" and "Philip" cannot serve as redirects to "Phillip"?
2. Since you insist on already-existing examples, I will oblige, but limit myself, initially, to the following 25 redirects to dab pages of names which do not appear on those dab pages: Phillip Anderson, Phillip Baker, Elisabeth Brown, Elisabeth Browne, Phillip Clarke, Katherine Cook, Phillip Davies, Phillip Davis, Katherine Fisher, Catherine Foster, Phillip Hall, Phillip Lewis, Katherine McCarthy, Katy McCarthy, Catherine Morrison, Katherine Morrison, Phillip Murphy, Katherine Parker, Phillip Robinson, Catherine Ross, Catherine Smith, Phillip Smith, Elisabeth Taylor, Elisabeth Wilson, Phillip Young. There are additional ones, which I can type as a list if/when the need arises: Are these redirects all incorrect and awaiting someone who would submit them for deletion, although such WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS? If that is your position, please state so, thus allowing the discussion to proceed from there. Are some redirects more eligible than others? If so, what are the applicable standards? The field is ripe for further argumentation. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: I voted before you refuted this, and I stated I supported what RS had put forward so I do not know what you are trying to say. Rubbish computer 01:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SimonTrew: WP:WAX isn't a good argument. Those are different situations than the one at hand. There is no one at this dab named "Katrina Richardson" so it's confusing to have "Katrina Richardson" redirect there. -- Tavix (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Tavix:, but it is you who quoted WAX in an earlier discussion, not me, and that went to close. I'm confused about why you think I quoted or suggested WAX. I didn't: I argued the case on its merits. Still, Í am rather happy that I have got Bijou (jewellery) translated, that was an effort, but I should be glad if you or others could cast your expert eyes over it, there are lots of little errors, some of which I can spot, some of which I shall miss. I added it to the DAB at Bijou. cocks up the WikiData links, though. Si Trew (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a liar, it is Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_26#Gourmette_chain, which went procedural close as converted into a stub article by yours trewly. Still busking for plaudits for translating Bijou (jewellery) this morning, well and this afternoon, and flowers, barnstars and money are greatly appreciated. (In partricular, money.) I'm amazed we haven't identity bracelet and the best I could do was dog tag, I should really appreciate some better suggestions cos despitge my wandering I could find no better. Si Trew (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Roman Spinner; it brings them to a disambiguation page for various variations of the given name which exist on Wikipedia, for which the reader may be under the misapprehension of them being spelled in that manner -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @70.51.202.113: I just had an (edit conflict) with you there, I think I resolved it but please make sure I didn't delete anything you wanted to say. Si Trew (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think there are any problems, I did a revision comparison, and all looks good -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any that do not have multiple entries in the dab page. If there is only one with a particular name that is not Katherine, there is no ambiguity to be resolved. The search engine will actually work better without these redirects. If someone is looking for a Wikipedia article about Katrina Richardson, then with the redirect, it will take them to Katherine Richardson which tells them nothing about the person they are looking for. Without the redirect, it will offer them pages that mention Katrina Richardson, even if she is not wikilinked or does not have a page yet. --Scott Davis Talk 10:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one redirect was initially submitted for deletion, Katrina Richardson. Shortly after the submission, another editor suggested Catrina Richardson should also be deleted, and a few minutes later, the same editor indicated that Katryn Richardson, Catryn Richardson, Katrin Richardson and Catrin Richardson are further candidates for deletion. If "any that do not have multiple entries in the dab page" are to be deleted, then that would include not simply these arbitrarily chosen six names, but also Catie Richardson, Cat Richardson, Kitty Richardson, Cate Richardson, Cath Richardson, Kath Richardson, Kathie Richardson, Cathie Richardson, Cathi Richardson, Kathi Richardson, Katha Richardson, Catha Richardson, Catharyna Richardson, Katharyna Richardson, Katharyne Richardson, Catharyne Richardson, Cathryna Richardson, Kathryna Richardson, Kathryne Richardson, Cathryne Richardson, etc. Redirects are frequently described as "cheap" and "harmless", but would not be so upon being accused of impeding searches. Is the eligibility test for redirects based, in fact, upon "multiple entries on the dab page"? Which redirects will pass consensus as "logical", and which will be considered "illogical"? Are some redirects more equal than others? Are there any other applicable standards? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think most of the redirects you listed are a waste of time at best and confusing at worst. However, I analysed them and just suggested adding to the nomination the most obviously useless ones. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but it would help if we just discussed the nominated ones, and in a concise manner. Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No single topic exists in a vacuum --- there is always a wider field of view. Arbitrarily plucking six redirects out of many others and singling them out as "waste of time", "confusing" and "obviously useless", while other redirects (such as the ones you created, as listed above) are presumably "time well spent", "methodic" and "obviously useful", presents the appearance of setting oneself up in the position of a biased arbiter. It is quite reasonable to ask on what general basis we are being asked to vote out some redirects, while allowing other redirects to remain. Is it simply WP:I DON'T LIKE IT for some, and I LIKE IT for others, or should we have a written guideline such as the above suggestion, "Delete any that do not have multiple entries in the dab page"? If we simply discuss the six nominated redirects without asking the wider questions, we would be confining ourselves to a shadow box, instead of offering guidance and future argumentation for editors who may be considering this topic in the years ahead. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for me, any of those redirects from names that are not the topic of the dab page should be deleted, or built into articles for the people with those names. --Scott Davis Talk 22:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason we have alternate spelling redirects to disambiguation pages is because (1) people do not always remember the exact spelling (or pronunciation) of the name of the person they are looking for and (2) we want to have fewer disambiguation pages so the variety of redirects is usually shown in the lead sentence. The fact that no existing article is about someone positively known as "Katrina Richardson" does not gainsay that no one will go looking for an existing article using that spelling. If a person of notability has an article written about them under that name, the redirect simply becomes a hatnote to the disambiguation page, for the same reasons. There is nothing here that should confuse the ordinary user of Wikipedia, or lead them astray. --Bejnar (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since these are not homophones of their target, and are thus misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All forms of respective disambiguation page names function as redirects, not merely homophones: Eliza or Beth may redirect to Elizabeth, while Richie or Dick may redirect to Richard and so on. Also, while Katrina or Catrina do not sound the same as Katherine, the other nominees for deletion, Catrin, Katrin, Catryn and Katryn are, indeed, homophones. Returning to the previously-mentioned link, Catherina (and similar spellings), all of these are legitimate variations, homophones or not. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the same as my point above for one key reason: those are redirects from examples of given names, not examples of full names. With given names, there is more acceptable leniency for these minds of redirects, considering that they will most likely redirect to an article that includes the origin of the given name, and its variants. For full names, the only acceptable option is a redirect from a homophone (since this is what the reader is intending to find since they are looking for a biographical subject whose name matches that sound.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the "full-name" caveat in mind, four of the six nominees for deletion, Catrin Richardson, Katrin Richardson, Catryn Richardson and Katryn Richardson, are still homophones of/for Katherine Richardson. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In which variety of English? --BDD (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No they aren't: "t" vs. "th". The two make completely different sounds. Steel1943 (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At present, this could almost become a comedy routine, with Emil Jannings in the English-language version of The Blue Angel demonstrating to his German-speaking students that "the" is not pronounced "zee", or that "Hawaii" is not pronounced "Havaii" and responding to "thank you" with "You velcome". No one is (yet) arguing that Janos Smith, Jens Smith, Joao Smith or Giovanni Smith should be redirects to John Smith, nor is anyone (yet) arguing that Kaltarina Smith, Katarzyna Smith, Kotryna Smith or Yekaterina Smith should redirect to Katherine Smith. However, we would be in a comical situation if we were to haggle over regional English pronunciation by accepting Kathryn Richardson as a legitimate redirect to Katherine Richardson, but rejecting Katryn Richardson as an illegitimate redirect on the basis of how we enunciate our "th". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Boleyn and—I'm surprised no one has mentioned this—WP:FORRED, actually. The only way to justify these, IMO, is classifying them as foreign-language variants of "Katherine". These are very unlike the homophones mentioned above. The most likely scenario here, by far, is that a reader is looking for people actually named Katrina Richardson (et al.). The redirects will disappoint readers, and probably confuse them. --BDD (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as "foreign" goes (presumedly as to "Katrina" and "Catrina"), in the late XX Century and XXI Century those names were given to children in English speaking counties, particularly the US and Australia. According to the US Social Security Administration, "Katrina" was in the top 1000 names for girls in 2010 & 2012, although "Catrina" has never made the top 1000. --Bejnar (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand, or (perhaps more likely) I didn't phrase my argument well. If we assume that names like Katrina are foreign variants of Katherine, some editors might see these as useful synonyms, although FORRED discourages such redirects. Since these are indeed English-language names too at this point, this isn't a valid defense of them regardless. Perhaps I was using a straw man. The more salient point—that these redirects mislead readers by suggesting coverage of subjects we don't have—remains. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When there is no one named "Bill Xxxx" at the disambiguation page for "William Xxxx", it has been standard practice to redirect "Bill Xxxx" to "William Xxxx" (or the reverse, if the main title header is "Bill Xxxx" and no one there is named "William Xxxx"). The same is indicative for "John"—"Johnny", "Charles"—"Charlie", "Robert"—"Bob"—"Bobby", "Richard"—"Richie"—"Dick", "Patrick"—"Pat" or "Elizabeth"—"Beth". Rather than "disappoint readers" or "confuse" them, such redirects serve as a useful guide to synonymous names (in case readers meant to type a similarly-spelled variation) and stand ready for conversion into articles should one of those redirected names gain notability in the future. Such an approach (for "reasonable" redirects, such as the ones nominated for deletion [as opposed to "foreign" variations, such as the ones redlinked above]) would seem to be more user-friendly than having searchers confronted with a redlink accompanied by the boilerplate "You may create the page "Katrina Richardson", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Usually that's helpful if and only if someone is also known by that name. Do you have any evidence of anyone at Katherine Richardson who has been called or known as "Katrina Richardson?" -- Tavix (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the discussion is framed around around "legitimate" and "illegitimate" redirects, with familiar nicknames and variants, such as "Bill", "Bob", "Dick", "Johnny", "Charlie", etc, being unquestioningly accepted as automatic redirects, whether or not anyone listed on the disambiguation actually uses those names, on the assumption that anyone on any "William Xxxx" disambiguation page must have been called "Bill" or "Will" or "Willy" or "Billy" at some point in their lives, while other name variants are excluded, then we should formulate and declare such a policy at WikiProject Disambiguation. Some given names have more variants than others, with Katherine and Elizabeth being two of the prime examples. Some of those named "Katherine", "Katharine", "Catharine", "Catherine" or "Katrina", may also be called "Kate", "Cate", "Cathy", "Kathy", "Kath", "Kat", etc.
The world's most popular appellation, Muhammad (name), also has the greatest number of variants in comparison to any other name. Do we need to comb through all such pages to determine which, if any among those listed, have been known by any or all of such nicknames or variants and which were given such variants as their official birth name? Should the addition of variants as redirects be micromanaged to such a degree that every "Katherine" or "Elizabeth" (to say nothing of "Muhammad") disambiguation page is faced with an extended discussion of this nature? If the variant is so far-fetched that it stands out as obviously inappropriate, then it should be questioned, but that does not appear to be the case with any of the six submitted for deletion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely! We should never "mindlessly" or "automatically" make redirects. They should only be made when they meet one of the criteria of WP:RPURPOSE, making our redirects informational and functional. The redirects that have been nominated are not, because there is no one known as "Katrina Richardson." -- Tavix (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was my proposal for an all-inclusive Katherine Richardson disambiguation page. Some of its entries have now been redistributed to both Kate Richardson (disambiguation) and Kathleen Richardson, with "Cathy", "Kathy" and "Katie" remaining here, but "Katie" also listed at the "Kate" dab page, and Kat Richardson being dropped [as of this writing] from all dab pages. There is no longer any attempt to categorize the entries, as they originally were, by "Sportswomen", "Writers" and "Others", leaving them randomly listed. No one on these pages is named "Kathlyn Richardson", "Cathleen Richardson", "Caterine Richardson" or "Katerine Richardson" and yet those redirects have not [as yet] been targeted for deletion.
There are some who feel that homophones or alternative spellings ("Katherine" — "Katharine" — "Catharine" — "Catherine" — "Cathy" — "Kathi", etc) should be automatically included as redirects, but "Bill", "Pete", "Charlie" or "Dick" are not homophones or alternative spellings and yet are redirected to "William", "Peter", "Charles" or "Richard" dab pages whether or not individuals with those nicknames are actually listed on those dab pages. Should such common redirects also be submitted for deletion? On what basis can a standard be established for "common" and "uncommon" redirects? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But "Bill" is a standard nickname for "William". That doesn't mean every William necessarily goes by Bill, but they may be referred to as such, even if jocularly. (For example, you'll see William Shakespeare referred to as "Billy" or "Bill" in some informal contexts.) By contrast, no one would call the people on the target page Katrina—if they did, they would be wrong. If my name were Timothy, you might address me as Tim whether I went by it or not; if you called me Tom, you'd be wrong. --BDD (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've put your finger on the very heart of the contradiction I have been highlighting — the tiered redirects. The top tier consists of just such standard nicknames, typically used by sports personalities ("Don", "Mike", "Pat", "Steve"), which receive a free pass as redirects even by those who insist that redirects must only consist of names which appear two or more times upon the disambiguation page in question.
The second tier (or, possibly, still the first tier) includes the homophones or most-commonly used alternative spellings ("Katherine", "Katharine", "Catharine", "Catherine", "Cathy", "Kathi"). Not only "Phil", but also "Phillip" redirects to "Philip" or, in an example such as Phil Wilson, "Phillip" and "Philip" redirect to "Phil". All those redirects also appear to be usually left unmolested, even by the strict constructionists.
It is the subsequent tier, the variants, which attracts dispute. A common, and relatively uncontroversial one, such as "Ed", might redirect to "Edward", "Edmund", "Edgar" or even "Edsel" but, as can be seen from the entry, Catherina (and similar spellings), some redirects to Katherine Richardson are more equal than others. "Kat" or "Cat", in the same manner as "Ed", could redirect to any of the multiple names on the list but, as I already pointed out, Kat Richardson has been stripped from any and all lists.
I am not suggesting that we use "true" foreign variants, such as the Czech "Kateřina", the Polish "Katarzyna", the Dutch "Katelijne", or similar others found at Katherine (given name), but the redirects currently under threat of deletion have entered English-language usage and should be considered as "legitimate". Redirects are sometimes called "cheap", or to quote Errol Morris, Fast, Cheap & Out of Control but, in this case, it does not seem that some redirects should be held to a higher standard than others. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - there are no people listed at the target with these names. If there were, we would likely remove them per WP:PTM because their names are Katrina, Catryn, etc., not Katherine. See also that we have Kate Richardson (disambiguation) and Kathleen Richardson (disambiguation), both of which are names which by the logic of these redirects could be merged in. If there was one Katrina Richardson she would have her own page at the target (like Kat Richardson does). If there were multiple Katrina Richardsons, we would have a dab page (assuming one was not the primary topic). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these are all plausible search terms. If we try desperately to hide information from our readers, we can't then expect them to know it ahead of time. WilyD 12:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WilyD, I don't understand your argument. What sort of information do you suppose we would be hiding by deleting these redirects? --BDD (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proper spelling/long form of her name. The search terms only don't make sense if you assume the reader has already made it to articles, and totally absorbed them all. Readers not already totally familiar with the subject (e.g., those likely to consult an encyclopaedia) are liable to think "Katie" is short for Katrina, or misremember Katharine as Katrin, or whatnot. That's the kind of thing that'd lead them to be searching for the article in the first place. They can't read the article before they find it (or fail to find it, if we treat them with contempt by deleting the pathways to it). WilyD 16:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the redirects and names on the dab were switched—if the rarer "Katrina" were the name of several articles, maybe the more common "Katherine" could be a useful search term. But how many readers would think that "Katrina" is what "Katie" usually stands for? What's next? Michael Luther King, Jr.? Timmy Blair? A reader who's that far off probably can't do much better than search results; trying to guess what could be going through their head would do more harm than good. To quote one of my friends, "You can't just make stuff up." --BDD (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The matter of "Katrina", "Katryn" and associated names cannot be compared to randomly and/or derisively selecting all given names which simply start with the same letter. "Michael" has no connection to "Martin", and "Timmy", likewise, has no connection to "Tony". On the other hand, all interested editors who consulted such previously-mentioned entries as Catherina (and similar spellings) or other widely-inclusive pages such as Katherine (given name), Katrina (given name), Catriona or Ecaterina (disambiguation) will find a direct anthroponymic connection between and among those names. As has also been stated, such "true" foreign variations as "Katarzyna" or "Katelijne" have not been included as redirects, but if someone named Katelijne Richardson ever becomes notable, it would be quite proper to include her on the dab page. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it seems that this is talked out, no comments for almost three weeks, and that there still is no censensus. --Bejnar (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Okay I know this is risky... This has been sitting at the bottom of the pile for a month and could be closed as "no consensus, do nothing". But RfD participants change with time so I'll relist it one more time to see if we've got any further ideas.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:21, 17 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.

Digital life form[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 digital organism. The consensus is that "organism" and "life form" are more or less synonyms and someone using this term is probably looking for an article on something specifically "digital" rather than broadly "artificial." (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not the same thing as an artificial human companion. I don't know where better to target this and could use some help figuring out where. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected it to Artificial life. Feel free to close if you think that is a good enough target. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Digital organism is even better, and it should be re-targeted specifically over there. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Digital organism as a more plausible target. --Lenticel (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Digital organism Artificial life is not specific enough compared with Digital organism that specifies the constituents (digits). And "human companion" is very unsuitable target because it is assuming things already, like equating "animals" with "pets". 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to digital organism per Hisashiyarouin. --Rubbish computer 16:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Digital organism seems like a very poor target to me. Digital life form doesn't mean a computer simulation of life. If means actual life. Things like Data or gray goo. Basically, robots sophisticated enough to count as a person or reproduce on their own or the other factors we understand as life. Artificial life is much closer to a correct target. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm really not knowledgeable about this subject, but I'd like to see Oiyarbepsy's argument addressed before I close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I will address Oiarbepsy!s argument out of pure pedantry becayse I am quite happy with the retarget suggested. A digital life form presumably is one that has digits ( a DAB), i.e. fingers and toes? Tamagochi would seem the way to go for a digital life form, but I am not suggesting we do so. Conway's Game of Life is also possible but again I should not encourage it. Perhaps we DAB it then?Si Trew (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to artificial life per Oiyarbepsy, digital organism does seem to be a slightly different topic. As long as we're trading pedantry, consider that your hands can be used as a 10-bit digital counter. Wow your friends by counting to 1,024 on your fingers at your next party! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1023, actually. You can do better, counting to 310 − 1 = 59049 if you use ternary, bending fingers at the knuckle for 1 and extending them fully for 2. (Don't try quaternary because you have only one tendon to control both knuckles, you cannot bend the two independently.) Better make sure your "friends" bring plenty of drink cos it could take a while, and you might lose count... Si Trew (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to artificial life, obviously. It's weird that this would go anywhere else, much less to the present target, which borders on a WP:COATRACK. There's really not much in common with electronic game/toy/companion things like Tamagotchi and Sims pets and other software, vs. robotic "companions" that do stuff in the real world.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to digital organism, as that's more or less a sub-topic of artificial life, and matches the digital part more closely. I think it's abundantly clear that either one is much better than the previous target, and I'd encourage the closer to pick either one, rather than relisting again. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Digital organism, and trout myself for not just closing this, because it's going to fester now. Had I closed, I was going to retarget to Artificial life simply because there wasn't agreement and that seems to be the broader concept. I don't know how likely a search term this is, but just thinking in terms of synonyms, "life form" = "organism", so I think "Digital organism" is a better fit for this specific query. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Artificial life form redirects to synthetic biology, which is something we haven't even considered yet. Would this be a good option to consider? -- Tavix (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's still some unanswered questions I'd like to see looked at before this is closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to DAB. I think there is enough variance in the suggested targets, all sensible, but no real consensus for any particular one. I've made a Draft:Digital life form for y'alls consideration. @Tavix: wouldn't an organism incorporating synthetic biology (to any significant extent) be a hybrid organism, although we don't have that (but I am thinking along the lines of a hybrid computer being a mix of a digital and an analog(ue) computer).
This supersedes any previous !vote I gave. Si Trew (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added entertainment robot at the DAB, I note that digital pet does not mention it, nor vice versa (not even unlinked). Depending on how this closes I'll probably crossref those, but don't want to add confusion by doing so now. I've added it to the draft DAB. Si Trew (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further discussion of the (newly proposed) disambiguation option and SimonTrew's draft.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Digital organism - "Organism" and "life form" are exact synonyms. Unless someone has reliable sources indicating that they have different meanings in this context, both should go to the same place. I would support the addition of a {{confusion}} hat note pointing to artificial life, but I don't think we need to use {{redirect}}, for the simple reason that "digital life form" is no closer to "artificial life" than "digital organism" is. --NYKevin 17:45, 19 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.

Gosh darn[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 soft redirect to wikt:gosh darn, with a hatnote to goddamn. (@Tavix, NYKevin, and BDD: Does the edited soft redirect look correct?) Deryck C. 18:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winter is icumen in,
Lhudle sing goddam
Groweth snot and may it rot
Lhudle sing goddamn
Old english verse, translated by Ogden Nash. Si Trew (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Goddamn is a disambiguation page, with no instances of "gosh darn". Wouldn't a Wiktionary redirect make more sense than that option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment wikt:Gosh darn does not exist. --Rubbish computer 19:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a low participation rate at Wiktionary. Not to mention it isn't friendly to strangers. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it appears at wikt:goshdarn -- Wiktionary is case sensitive in the first letter as well -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think any of the topics listed at the dab Goddamn would really be referred to as "Gosh darn". And because that is a dab, there is no "primary meaning of 'goddamn'" on Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why wouldn't it mean the very first entry, damnation ? It's the reason why people write goshdarn/etc in the first place. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it could, but it's not used at that article, so the redirect would only really be helpful to readers who are already familiar with the term. --BDD (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are religious and cannot type "goddamn", then typing "goshdarn" would be a reasonable choice from those persons personal contexts. And as it is a synonym of goddamn, leading there will lead to the content about that topic. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with 70.51 that Wiktionary is not friendly to strangers. I stray there occasionally with RS as I have a lot of English dictionaries and some Hungarian and French ones so I can tie up the etymologies (after all, I and another editor created {{etymology}}, I wanted it at {{ety}} but the other editor won and that is a redirect to it), but sometimes I just give up there cos it is so unfriendly. I've made a couple of entries and amendments but it is a right tricky bastard compared to WP. Si Trew (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to euphemism. Si Trew (talk) 06:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's go through our options one at a time:
    1. Deletion: No. redirects are cheap and the target is clearly more relevant and helpful than a page full of search results.
    2. Retarget to goddamn - No. That's a DAB page, and none of the stuff listed there could plausibly be called "gosh darn."
    3. Retarget to euphemism - No. That's just making the target less specific.
    4. Keep - Maybe, but there could be better options.
    5. Soft redirect to wikt:gosh darn: Yes. Probably closest to whatever the user was searching for. --NYKevin 17:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You left out retarget to damnation because that's where "goddamn" is covered. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is about the religious concept, which nobody is going to call "gosh darn" ("You'd better go to church or God will gosh darn you to heck!"). --NYKevin 15:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Some people are religious and would prefer not to blaspheme when typing in search terms WP:NOTCENSORED we should not censor search terms just because they are used as a means to prevent typing in blasphemy (censoring non-blasphemous synonyms for the expletive terms). -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:gosh darn with a hatnote to goddamn. I think this is a good compromise that most of us can agree with, right? -- Tavix (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think a soft redirect with a hatnote would look a bit silly, though I'm sure some already exist. "Goddamn" is listed at the Wiktionary entry, so a reader could go back and check for that anyway. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps people find what they're looking for, I don't see the problem. I'd like to keep people on Wikipedia if we can, and a hatnote fulfills that function while compromising to a certain degree with a fairly sizable group that wants a retarget to either goddamn or damnation (a link from that dab). -- Tavix (talk) 17:27, 26 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.

Esoli[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 24#Esoli

File:Mañana.jpg[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. (deleted early due to speedy delete nomination but consensus is clear here) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is blocking links to Commons:File:Mañana.jpg. This redirect currently has no transclusions. (I would have thought there was a speedy deletion criterion for this, but there is not, it seems.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Stefan2: I know you've run across these from time to time (considering I previously had a difference stance about half a year ago on RFD when I saw these.) What course of action do you take when you see these? Is this the action? (Nominating them individually?) Steel1943 (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Or Stefan4, depending. Steel1943 (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect will have to be deleted as it is otherwise impossible to access the file on Commons. WP:FNC#9 implies that the file has to be moved without a redirect (or else the conflict remains unresolved), but only admins can move files without leaving a redirect, so the resulting redirect needs to be nominated for deletion when the file is moved by a non-admin. I tend to tag redirects like this with {{db-fpcfail}} because you could say that the file information page technically is a local file information page for a Commons file. I've seen others using G6 on the grounds that unhiding the Commons file is uncontroversial maintenance. I guess one could debate whether these speedy deletion criteria apply or not. Before nominating a redirect which shadows Commons for deletion, make sure that all pages access the file under the new name. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:56, 17 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.

2016 US Open (tennis)[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) 21:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too early, 2016 ausopen not created by users yet. 333-blue 04:35, 17 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.

2016 Wimbledon Championships[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) 21:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too early, 2016 ausopen not created by users yet. 333-blue 04:34, 17 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.

Selena gomez revival[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 all. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 01:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect does not need to exist; a re-formed way of stating the page's actual title, merely by having no parentheses and capital letters does not seem warranted for a viable or required redirect. livelikemusic my talk page! 00:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is there to make things easier for people who are searching. Personally, I created them and I find them very useful. Also, there are other pages just like this. For example, if you search for "Lady Gaga You and I" instead of "You and I (Lady Gaga song)," that is a redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoore95GAGA (talk • contribs) 00:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - aiding searches is pretty much exactly what redirects are for. I have boldly merged all of these nominations, because I don't want to have to type the same identical comment five times, nor read anyone else's identical comments five times. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perfectly valid lowercase search terms -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonable redirects and many people would search in that style without the addition of the paranthesis.Calaka (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 21:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible synonym. Not all readers are familiar with our title format --Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All of them ought to be kept. The bottom line is that the redirects are all both helpful and logical. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:34, 21 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_17&oldid=1050182487"