Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 21, 2015.

Richard Mann (American football)[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) 14:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects should probably exist as articles or not exist at all. On the List of Pittsburgh Steelers players, several of the redirects now appear as blue links redirecting back to "List of Pittsburgh Steelers players". No reader wants to click on one of these redirects (anticipating that it is an article) and be redirected to the page they are already on. They should be red links like the others to show that the article doesn't exist yet, These redirects could also cause some people to think that they were created just to get credit for "creating" the article when someone expands the redirect later. Richard Mann, Dan Rooney, Jr. and Art Rooney, Jr. redirect to the Pittsburgh Steelers article but they should be red links as well, like the others on Template:Pittsburgh Steelers staff. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:42, 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.

Hillary Clinton email scandal[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. See WP:RNEUTRAL and WP:SNOW. --BDD (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously created to associate the word "scandal" with a politician. Hard to assume good faith here. Scjessey (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree. Link where it was inserted on Hillary Clinton was an WP:EASTEREGG at best... see no need for this redirect. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The redirect was created just before its creator inserted the link into two articles, even though that same editor was well aware of the article's actual title. Clearly it was an agenda-driven action. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag as a {{R from non-neutral name}}. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, redirects don't have to be neutral, they just have to be a term that people would use to find the article, and this seems like one of those terms. It's used by reliable sources such as WSJ, Politico, and Washington Times. -- Tavix (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All three of those article were written by conservative political commentators, and are not representative of the regular mainstream media. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that it's used by reliable sources (no matter if they're conservative or liberal), which shows that it's a plausible search term. It wouldn't be a good title for the article, but the purpose of redirects are to help our readers find the article they're looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Tavix, as a plausible redirect. There are hundreds of thousands/millions of google hits that use some variation on this wording, tens of thousands of gnews hits. This term is useful for searches within wikipedia, as well as a target for searches from google. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The right-wing media echo chamber has certainly created many Google hits, but the preponderance of reliable sources absolutely do not refer to Clinton's email issue as a "scandal". -- Scjessey (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. please identify the policy that says redirects should follow that standard, particularly when we have WP:RNEUTRAL.
  2. RS are not required to be neutral, and conservative voices are certainly required to be represented to be WP:NPOV
  3. there are plenty of other sources (many of them liberal and firmly neutral) that use the term
    1. Mother Jones "put the email scandal to rest" [1]
    2. slate http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/20/hillary_clinton_email_scandal_explained.html
    3. O'Malley [2]" Otherwise, our party is being defined by Hillary Clinton's email scandal and it's not good for our party and it's not good for our country."
    4. The atlantic [3] "Clinton’s email scandal hasn’t been put to rest, but the hearing may not have the resounding effect it once threatened to have."
    5. time http://time.com/4051197/bill-clinton-hillary-email-scandal/
    6. cnn [4] "Tech worker speaks out in Clinton email scandal"
    7. huffpo http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/benghazi-is-political-but-clintons-email-scandal-is-serious_b_8255482.html
    8. 538 https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/chat-how-much-damage-has-the-email-scandal-done-to-hillary-clinton/
    9. npr [5] [...] but instead, his bosses became single-minded about the email scandal.
      1. etc etc etc

Gaijin42 (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This term is in actual wide use and is likely to be searched on Wikipedia. The fact that it's a non-neutral term doesn't matter, since it's in use in the wild. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a name in wide use to refer to the target. Per WP:RNEUTRAL. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 04:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I understand that the title itself has pejorative applications, and I very much personally support the principle of NPOV titling, we still have such common usage by reliable sources (particularly sources that cannot be labeled as 'conservative', 'right-wing', etc as pointed out above) that the redirect ends up being pretty helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of above points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Scandal" is defined simply as something considered or thought of as morally or legally wrong and causing public outrage. Look at what Wikipedia has on the concept: A scandal is a widely publicized allegation or set of allegations that damages (or tries to damage) the reputation of ... [an] individual ... A scandal may be based on true or false allegations or a mixture of both. The topic of the article meets both of those bars. More importantly, the term is also used in reliable sources, as shown above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Redirects do not have to be neutral. sst✈ 10:29, 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.

Meaning system[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 29#Meaning system

Edna Giles[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 Rupert Giles#Character history. I accept that. --BDD (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely obscure character, mentioned but never portrayed. She's not covered at the target article, though mentioned once (as "Edna Giles") at Rupert Giles. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 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.

Trunky[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 Trunki. --BDD (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No obvious connection or relevance between this name and the redirect target. No idea what the thinking is here but it does not seem valid. DanielRigal (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Trunki as this seems like an open-and-shut case of a misspelling CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was "open-and-shut case" supposed to be a pun there? I am not sure. It's not at the target and the R has no incoming links.
The Free Dictionary has it meaning "homesickness", and in particular it seems to be used by missionaries (in particular those of the Mormons and of the Peculiar People?). However that's not WP:RS and we are WP:NOTDIC.
It is also the name of an elephant in Roald Dahl's 1978 work The Enormous Crocodile, at which article he is mentioned. Given that, I think we should Delete<sub struck by Si Trew (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC) it per WP:SURPRISE, and let the search engine kick in. Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Trunki per Tavix. The Free Dictionary is a Wikipedia mirror. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
is it? Not according to thefreedictionary.com (at least, wp is not the only nor even the main source for entries there). Si Trew (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Trunki...per me??? -- Tavix (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Trunki per whomever. You two made me laugh. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 05:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Trunki as plausible misspelling--Lenticel (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Trunki as a plausible misspelling. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget I'll happily ride the avalanche to say retarget, but regarding my earlier remarks about Trunky the elephant, I think we should hatnote it to The Enormous Crocodile. For now, with this change I've added a hatnote that says "For the character Trunky in"... etc. since that seems valid even were we to keep or delete, but were we to retarget we should refine it to say "Trunky redirects here. For the character in""... (i.e. change the {{for|...}} to a {{redirect|Trunky|...}}). Si Trew (talk) 01:29, 25 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.

Single occupant[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. See comments below (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing / makes no sense, could refer to any form of single occupancy, especially various types of accommodation. Keep - see Nomination withdrawn below. 223.205.244.220 (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is a valid use of these terms; I see nothing confusing about it. If there are other valid uses of the term, we should create a hatnote or a disambiguation page, not delete valid redirects. Neelix (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This could also refer to Single room occupancy. Per WP:PTM, I'm not sure this would make a good disambiguation but am willing to entertain the idea. -- Tavix (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn (can I do that?) - I have created a dab page at Single occupancy listing three possible meanings - Single room occupancy, Single-occupancy vehicle, and 'Single-occupant vehicle' (a vehicle designed to accommodate only one person (the driver) - for very small cars, see Microcar, Bubblecar, and Cyclecar). I think that's an uncontroversial and acceptable solution? I will redirect the remaining 11 to Single occupancy if there are no objections. Apologies for failing to find the Single room occupancy article prior to nominating. 223.205.244.220 (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that. I'll close this for you. (The other redirects haven't been retargeted yet, but I trust that you'll do so.) -- Tavix (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Thank you. 223.205.244.220 (talk) 03:44, 22 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.

Criminal anarchy[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. Deryck C. 22:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the entry below, but if "criminal anarchy" is a legal concept exclusive to the United States, the article should be moved to this title instead. BDD (talk) 16:13, 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.

Threatening the government[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 29#Threatening the government

Terrorism in Georgia[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. JohnCD (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the GTEP was created to combat terrorism in Georgia, the target article only touches on one instance of what could be termed terrorism in Georgia. And of course, there's the "Georgia" problem here—there are instances of terrorism in the US state at Terrorism in the United States, for example. BDD (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ambiguous terminology. What of the 1996 Olympic Games bombing? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's never going to be an article here, only a disambiguation page, since Georgia is a country that was invaded by Russia, and Georgia is a state that was invaded by Sherman -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points and per WP:REDLINK. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:56, 24 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.

福澤 諭吉[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. Opinions are split: "keep, this is correct Japanese"; but "delete, because Japanese Wikipedia deletes all human name redirects with a space in the middle". Deryck C. 22:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, since the name of the redirect page contains a redundant half-width whitespace character. RekishiEJ (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep it is the name of the subject, in the subject's original langauge, and the given and surnames are separated by a space, as does occur in some uses -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete putting a space in a person's name like this is a speedy deletion criteria for redirects at jawiki (Ctrl+F for "リダイレクト2-6"). I'd be very leery of keeping a foreign language redirect when the people who actually use the language the most have decided that it's so problematic that they'll shoot it on sight. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not Japanese Wikipedia. It's a variant spelling that would be expected to be seen in a search term, just as "SURname, GIVNEname" (note the comma) would be a viable search term. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If if were "expected to be seen in a search term", you'd expect to see people using it. Instead it gets below-bot-level numbers of hits. Even this RFD apparently didn't entice anyone to visit it besides the nominator (it got two hits that day instead of the average ~0.2). I am well aware that this is not Japanese Wikipedia, but like I said in my rationale, it makes sense to defer to the people who know the language best, especially when apparently no one (including myself) contributing to this discussion is fluent in it. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it is a form expected to be seen as a redirect. It should be around, regardless of views because WP:CHEAP, not every article is a popular article, so pageviews for articles are dependent on audience, but search formats are not dependent any single article and this format being used in various places. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless I am mistaken, that is actually a space, not a half-width whitespace character, and has relevance to the target, so it's OK to keep it as a foreign-language redirect. 福澤諭吉 without the space goes to the same target. Si Trew (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, thanks for the clarificiation. Si Trew (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I do consider 210's reason as valid (hence the weak part) but I think the English Wikipedia should give this some leeway as a plausible misspelling. Had this redirect been in the Japanese Wikipedia then I'm totally okay to request for a speedy deletion. --Lenticel (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 削除強いです (google tells me that's Japanese for "strong delete") per 210.6. How plausible is it that English readers are going to make this apparently heinous typographic error? I think probably not very. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The back half is Kana so presumably the Japanese don't have the phrase "Strong delete" as such, or at least not in this sense, and "Strong" I think you have in an entirely different sense. But nice try....
Sure, I don't know how we generally mix Japanese names with English punctuation... the reason it's plausible is other woodware sources I have, they have much the same trouble if, say, just the surname is given (as Yukichi-san, say) and then later the forename is given in a different context. These are learning books so they deliberately separate it to make it easy for idiots like me, but I am surely not the only idiot in the world (am I?). I imagine it is wrong but useful when learning the kanji. That being said, we are WP:NOTGUIDE. Si Trew (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Different Wikipedias can have very different standards for deletion, so we need not follow Japanese Wikipedia standards here. On the English Wikipedia, you'd expect to have a space between a given name and a surname. I think this is an entirely plausible search term for someone familiar with English naming/punctuation conventions who might use a native name as a search term, such as if they're unsure of the correct romanization. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for two reasons. First, that actual Japanese speakers consider this so useless that they speedy delete it. Second, hidden and sneaky characters (like that half-space) shouldn't be allowed without a damn good reasons, which we don't have here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is factually incorrect, a "half-width space" is a standard space It is called a "half-width space" in Japanese contexts because Japanese uses double-byte characters. It is charcter %20, which is the regular spacebar space, and not the Japanese-space or double-byte space. It's a perfectly normal space. But then, even in Japanese webpages, half-width (ie. normal ASCII) characters are frequently used instead of Japanese double-byte characters when the character in question isn't Japanese -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's going rather off-topic, what U+0020 is called or the character encoding is irrelevant to whether we should have one in an {{R from other language|jp}}. The question, rather, is whether it's acceptable or desirable to use English-style punctuation (i.e. the space) to separate the forename and surname of a Japanese name on an English website.
I give an analogy to names in Eastern name order. Here at EN:WP we write the names, in the LatinEnglish alphabet, in Western name order. However we tag them (with {{eastern name order}}) and have redirects for the name in that order, and also for the names in other alphabets/writing systems if appropriate (per WP:FORRED and WP:COMMONSENSE). I think the same general rule should apply for Japanese names: Anglicise them (we have) but keep all reasonable redirects for native naming and bastard offspring such as native naming with English punctuation. It's fine to keep it. Si Trew (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oiyarbepsy's deletion rational says sneaky characters (like that half-space) which is directly relevant to my reply. This is not a "sneaky character", it is a normal character. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:00, 25 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.

Template:Slash[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. 02:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current target does not produce a slash. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As a redirect to a template in Category:Single-image insertion templates to a image template that looks like a slash, this redirect makes sense. Also, probably best to leave it as is since the term "slash" in itself is ambiguous. Does "slash" mean "/", "\", or actually slash-ing something? Steel1943 (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Beyond what I just said, there may be a suitable retargeting option out there. However, the nominator hasn't presented one at the present time, and per my previous comment, I oppose deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases, punctuation and special characters can interfere with wiki markup or template formatting. I don't know whether that's the case here or not. --BDD (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: The only template that I know of that has any resemblance of what you state in regards to templates representing symbols is Template:!, a template that allows a "|" to be used in a template to allow link piping instead of calling the next template parameter. That, and as far as I personally know, a slash only affects links by linking to subpages, and have no detrimental effects in wiki markup or templates. (I'm saying this provided that the symbols "<" and ">" do not work in template transclusions (as opposed to template coding), which I have never seen before.) In a nutshell, I don't believe that slashes affect wiki markup or templates in the way your concern, as voiced above, wonders. Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be the function of Template:= as well (in fact, you can't even refer to that one with {{t|=}}). I know I've used templates where the = character can scramble formatting. Of course, we're talking about Template:Slash, not Template:/, which is red. --BDD (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This template doesn't serve that purpose, though. It inserts a graphical slash icon. The fact that {{/}} doesn't exist suggests it would not be useful, but someone thought that this graphical usage is. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Looks like Template:/ at some point in the past was deleted due to being "not a functional name". My guess there is that the slash probably cannot be used due to unintentionally trying to link to subpages when used as a transclusion (for example, maybe "{{/|hello}}" would try to transclude [[Template:/|hello]], which wouldn't work since it would probably return a link that appears as "hello". Not sure, but now I'm curious.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so the template which inserts a / is actually {{\}} because slashes can't be used in page names. Deeper and deeper this goes. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to Template:\. There are minimal transclusions (which should be updated), suggesting this isn't much used. I'm not surprised, because the icon it currently redirects to doesn't seem as important as inserting a slash where one would interfere with coding. --BDD (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Template:\ to Template:Slash. "Slash" should be the name of that template as it makes no sense to have a template called "\" that creates a "/". I know that it's named that way because a title can't start with "/", but naming it "slash" seems to be the more logical solution than naming it something that's technically incorrect. "\" would then be retained as a redirect and shortcut. -- Tavix (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That probably makes more sense than retargeting. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that if my proposal is accepted, then that template should have a see also in the documentation that links to {{slash icon}}. -- Tavix (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh, (Redacted). {{\}} produces  / (since 2008), {{Slash}} produces (since 2007). These aren't broken and don't need to be fixed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit harsh. Mistakes can be longstanding too, and these sorts of inconsistencies can be barriers to new users, or any users unfamiliar with our sometimes arcane, patchwork template schemes. Let's think about those users. If this were a frequently used template, I might judge that changing it could inconvenience readers more than it would help, but I've seen no evidence of that, or really any arguments for keeping that aren't just from the status quo. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happily redacted, it was a bit harsh. However I stand by the sentiment that it's frustrating that we seem to feel the need to fix things that aren't broken, even though fixingchanging those things is likely to break other things, and do more harm than leaving them alone would. Sure inconsistencies can be a barrier to new users, but arbitrarily switching this from one inconsistent scheme to a different inconsistent scheme doesn't help that, and has the added benefitdetriment of confusing established users too. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. {{Slash}} produces an image with a slash in it. It isn’t wrong. There is no reason to break anything; even if a bot updates all the uses, past revisions cannot be edited and will be broken when browsing page histories. Gorobay (talk) 15:33, 29 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.

Hoboken Film Festival[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) 13:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The target of this redirect (Television and film in New Jersey) says nothing about the Festival, and didn't at the time of the redirect's creation in June 2013. McGeddon (talk) 13:54, 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.

Doris in the middle ages[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) 13:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirects as useless. The Doric hexapolis was not quite in the area of the Cibyrrhaeot Theme, and the name is no longer used during the Middle Ages either way and is hence irrelevant Constantine ✍ 13:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would Doris (Greece)#History be a better target? I think probably no, because there isn't any detail about the Dorians in the medieval period in that section. Pliny wrote about their towns but that seems to be the last mention of them, and that is long before medieval times. There doesn't seem to be any link between the Dorians and the Cibyrrhaeots other than that they occupied the same land at different times in history. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. To speak about "Doris" or the "Dorians" in the Middle Ages is pointless. Some ancient geographic designations survived in use into the Byzantine period, but this one certainly did not. Constantine ✍ 08:13, 28 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_21&oldid=1037881293"