Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 7, 2015.

Unitedairlines.com.vn[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) 14:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of these terms are mentioned at the target. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. This is not the official website of United Airlines: the official website is "united.com" and that's the website that is mentioned in the article. Since this is not the official website, it isn't mentioned at the the target, making it confusing at best. These are extremely implausible search terms. Who would search this website in Wikipedia? Since the website already says "United", they would already know that it's United, so a general article on the airline wouldn't be helpful. It would make sense if we had United Airlines in Japan, for example, but that's not the case here. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:RFD#D8 also applies. -- Tavix (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:28, 8 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.

.vlaanderen[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) 14:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:RDELETE reasons #2 and #7 (redirect loop - since all the TLDs listed on the redirected page have either article-links or dead links (never an empty or redirect page to the list itself) the same should apply to .vlaanderen and the page deleted until someone bothers to make an article. —Loginnigol (talk) 22:33, 7 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.

Theme from Platoon[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) 14:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per G5, as another creation by banned user Bossanoven. There were several variations on this one, but for whatever arbitrary reason, RHaworth decided to 'unspeedy' this one. Adagio for Strings has been used in several mediums, so it wouldn't make sense to refer to it specifically as the "Theme from Platoon." -- Tavix (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague since Platoon may pertain to any military platoon and at least two films --Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy delete criterion WP:G5, with respect to RHaworth whose opinions I respect highly, but we are not nearly rigid enough when it comes to banned users' sockpuppet contributions. In this instance I also don't think the redirect is useful (per Lenticel) but if it is then some non-banned user will create a new redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 8 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:Rfx-question[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. Deryck C. 14:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect's target was at the title of this redirect until a few minutes ago. The current title of the target was moved to the redirect'a title 4 days ago without consensus. (I reverted the move, and am now nominating the redirect.) Anyways, I think this redirect should be deleted per WP:XY since 1) WP:RFX is a redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion (a closed forum), and if "RfX" is used assuming that the "X" could be any letter, it could also refer to "RfC" which itself is ambiguous (Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Requests for closure, etc.), 2) The title has only been in use for 4 days, so the impact of this title's deletion is next to nothing and 3) the potential harm this title could cause if this somehow gets confused for a template used in a "RfC" forum, as identified above. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --BDD (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see where the nominator is coming from, but Requests for Expansion" has been deprecated for almost seven years now. Personally, I had never heard of it. Earlier, WP:RFX was retargeted to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. I think that's the right move, and addresses that concern right there. The potential for confusion with RfC does remain, but I wouldn't be too concerned about that unless I saw the mistake being made. Template:Rfb-question redirects to the same place; I'm not sure what that says about this redirect, however. --BDD (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: You know, when I made this nomination, I forgot about RfD. I could see there being a bit more confusion there since the acronym "XFD" exists with "X" meaning "any letter" and usually used for page deletion/discussion forums. Steel1943 (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, though a "question" template is much more plausible for RfC than RfD. I was trying to think if there's a use of XfD besides the usual deletion fora. I'd have to get back to you on that. --BDD (talk) 14:10, 14 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 FORGOTTEN WAR OF VIETNAM[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) 13:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the ALL CAPS is weird and it's subjective (I don't think the Vietnam War has been "forgotten"). (PS: I put together an WP:RFDO on capitalization. If you have an opinion about the issue, please contribute on that talk page.) -- Tavix (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - in this case (pun not intended) whether or not it's in all caps isn't the issue, it's that we wouldn't keep this as a redirect to this target in any case (pun maybe intended). You can see a list of wars known as "forgotten" at Forgotten war; Vietnam is not one of them. ALSO DELETE PER RCAPS OR WHATEVER. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the "forgotten" war would by the French-Indochinese War that directly preceded the American-Vietnamese War -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obscure synonym --Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 15:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:18, 10 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.

Dark Vador[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) 13:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RDELETE reasons #2 and #8. No obvious connection to target beyond sounding roughly similar; and might confuse readers into thinking there is some obscure connection. (I don't think there is.) Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RFD#K5 - it's reasonably frequently used. I wouldn't have thought it a plausible misspelling but the stats say otherwise. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a reasonable connection to make. Think about all the dark side references that are made in the film series and how similar "darth" is to "dark", especially if you haven't seen it written. The other typo I'm ehh about, but I'll accept it in this case. When you have a schwa-like sound like there is at the end of "Vader," it could (reasonably) be just about be any vowel. The stats back that up as this is well above bot levels and fairly old in case that matters (2004). -- Tavix (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag as "Redirect from misspelling". Vador might sound like Vader per Tavix's explanation. --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a matter of pronunciation, as stated above, and I think that this redirect fundamentally is helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:59, 9 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.

Eight-bagger[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) 13:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more examples of junk redirects created by Bossanoven aka TyrusThomas4lyf. Banned users aren't welcome to make contributions, so this should've been speedily deleted. (There were literally 56 redirects like this. RHaworth deleted most of them, but for whatever arbitrary reason that wasn't specified, decided to 'unspeedy' these). More to the point on the redirects themselves, this is an uncommon terminology in bowling. To demonstrate, search for "eight bagger," for example, and you won't find stories on anyone getting eight strikes in a row. -- Tavix (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete all criterion WP:G5, notwithstanding that they were already declined, per WP:EVADE and WP:DENY. The user who created these is not welcome to contribute. If these are in fact useful, someone who isn't banned will recreate them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I appreciate the "unspeedy" for an honest discussion about these redirects. However, we should put the foot down when it comes to bans. --Lenticel (talk) 00:15, 8 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.

This suit is black pause not[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) 13:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pointless redirect, of (apparently) a line of dialogue from the movie "Borat". Korny O'Near (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 15:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - quoting lines from movies likely qualifies for WP:COPYVIO along the same lines as WP:NOTLYRICS, and at any rate this is an unlikely search term, and the target doesn't provide any additional information. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obscure synonym at best --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while I don't think quoting a single line from a film would be a copyright violation I don't see it as necessary since it is a random line form a film that does not appear to have any significant impact on popular culture.--67.68.29.107 (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:16, 9 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.

Fugged[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 all. The discussion gradually moved towards the consensus that "fugged" doesn't necessarily mean "fucked". Deryck C. 15:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are examples of minced oaths, but the redirects are not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of these redirects is questionable since the subject of the redirects isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless good retargetting options can be found for these redirects, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Per Fug (a disambiguation page), retargeting to The Naked and the Dead may be an option, but at the present time, I am not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wiktionary has fug, but didn't mention its use as a minced oath until I added it just now. I also created fugged. There's no fuggin or fuggin'. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to fug and add an explicit link to fuck at the dab page, since it should already appear there, as it is used outside of the novel, in the real world. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see any value in this retargeting option since these redirects could only be used properly to identify alternate forms of a verb or adverb form of "Fug". Steel1943 (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The usage in the novel and the actual value that should be added to the disambiguation page for fuck would end up with two values. Or we can just redirect them all to fuck instead WP:POFRED alternate names for fuck. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to fuck per 70's last point. Rubbish computer 11:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Fuck - Minced oath alternatives to "fucking" are discussed on that article. Neelix (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed to Fuck#Common alternatives. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose retargeting to fuck due to the fact that the word "fugged" has other meanings besides its use as a minced oath (e.g. related to thick smoke or fog, as in the phrase "fugged-up windows" which has 24 GBooks hits and does not mean "fucked-up windows"). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The minced oath for "fucked" is the most common use of the word "fugged" that is encyclopedic. Any other encyclopedic meanings, if there are any, can be linked via a hatnote. Neelix (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIC. Fugged doesn't necessarily mean "fucked". -- Tavix (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, but Private Eye (magazine) uses it regularly as a parody of Mohammad Al Fayed's accent. It could perhaps go via there somehow, but that is not very WP:WORLDWIDE. Si Trew (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Fuck#Common alternatives where someone searching for this will be educated about the primary topic for their search term. Any other encyclopaedic uses can be linked via hatnotes. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Unless we can responsibly source it at the target article, the idea that "fug" is an alternative to "fuck" is original research. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 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) 13:50, 7 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.

Wikipedia:Wikipedias in other languages[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 19#Wikipedia:Wikipedias in other languages

Other Government Agency[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 general consensus below is that the target doesn't address the "other" part of the redirect title. Deryck C. 14:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is unclear what "government agency" it is meant to exclude. It is a misleading circular reference to its target article. Steel1943 (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 17:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whatever other government agency they're looking for, the reader will find it at the target. We are writing an encyclopaedia so readers can us it, to those who've forgotten. WilyD 07:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will they, Wily? The target article isn't a list, has no information about government agencies in the great majority of the world's countries. If you want to play a game where you name agencies mentioned there and I name agencies not mentioned there—well, I wouldn't recommend that you play with any sort of wager. --BDD (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article is sort of a list - probably, they'll have to navigate to a sub-page or two deep, as is common with all sorts of searches. It's just how Wikipedia is organised. Personally, I find it much more navigable than single, enormous articles. WilyD 15:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We can't assume that the "other government agency" someone is looking for is on that page. -- Tavix (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And what other other government agency may they like to find? Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Si, I'm happy to play the game I offered to WilyD above with you. I'll start with Direction générale de la statistique et des études économiques. Your turn. --BDD (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of Department of administrative affairs (and others, but not Department of Administrative Affairs) → Yes, Minister. But Quango is possible. Your turn. Si Trew (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should take this to the talk page if we're really going to do this. I'll give you a hint, though—I'm looking at Category:Government agencies by country, which has god only knows how many articles in its 72 subcategories. There are approximately 20 specific government agencies named at the target article, so there are dozens, if not hundreds, of "other" government agencies a reader could be searching for. And Quango, by the way, is a type of government agency, not an agency itself. --BDD (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, you have thrown the shuttlecock back into my wicket then. Indeed, "other" is meaningless and I think that is kinda WP:CONSENSUS here by now, but somebody had to hit the nail on the thumb. Types of Government Agency and List of Types of Government Agency are both red, and I don't think we need to start discussing type theory do we? Poor old Bertie Russell got a bit confused with it all, but he only invented it to try to get out of the trouble with infinities in set theory. I can assure you there is no such thing as infinity, it is turtles all the way down. Si Trew (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: I agree with you, more seriously, this should be on a talk page somewhere, but which page would you suggest? Talk:Other Government Agency would seem the bleeding obvious, but that is a bit kinda sub judice when the redirect is here for discussion, and were it to be deleted, so would its talk page. But I'll happily follow there and quite happy if you delete or move this discussion to there, as long as we leave a pointer from here, which I am sure you will do. Si Trew (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well to have to navigate two levels deep and run through a long list is about as much use as a snake in an arse-kicking competition. Si Trew (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I think most English speakers outside the US have heard of the Central Intelligence Agency... or if they haven't they probably will shortly.... Si Trew (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The 'Other Government Agency' is not a thing, and it could be zillions of agencies, so there is no target for it. We do not have to redirect all and any sillyish search. - Nabla (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete' If they are looking for some "other" agency, they aren't going to find it this way. I just don't see how this is in any way helpful. Mangoe (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the target doesn't help the reader find "other" anything. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:10, 7 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.

India proper[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. I can't see this going towards a consensus one way or another after two relists. Deryck C. 15:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible, what does this even refer to? "Proper as opposed to what? - TheChampionMan1234 04:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if there is half a chance it is a mishearing for India rubber -> Natural rubber, where it is in lede. Si Trew (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like several other of these "maybe it's a mishearing of ..." posts by you that I've stumbled over just in the last hour, this is totally implausible, and does not add to the discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Proper as opposed to Greater India or the Indian Subcontinent or the area formerly contained in the achronistic maximal extent British Raj (ie. India not in the country called India). -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Creating a new article per 58.176.246.42 would also work, but if that doesn't happen, the current redirect should remain -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Si Trew's reasoning and per WP:XY. The redirect's creator used it here to refer to the partition of India in 1947 into "India proper" (India) and Pakistan. In that context it goes where it should, but that is a narrow context. In broader context, it could mean the "real" India or the "official" India as opposed to other things called "India" (like Greater India or the Indian subcontinent, or British India vs. Portuguese India) and the valid target of such a query would vary greatly throughout history. Its only wikilink was long-since removed and the stats are well below "someone finds it useful" levels. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague per Si Trew's points --Lenticel (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It has a pretty clear meaning, referring to the country India as opposed to the area formerly called India. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mclay1. Rubbish computer 13:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per IP. It seems clear to me that "India proper" would indeed refer to the country, but since the target article doesn't explain the phrase, the redirect isn't helpful. Someone already familiar with the concept wouldn't need the redirect to get to India. Someone not familiar with the phrase might immediately just get it ("Oh, 'India proper' is synonymous with India), but they also might not. China proper does seem to present an example for what an article of this title might look like, but it also appears that that phrase has more historical usage and notability than "India proper" might. --BDD (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as quite honestly an unhelpful search term - I understand it can refer to something greater but most people in the world would associate Proper as an Adjective so technically the search term makes no sense... –Davey2010Talk 17:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • When used in this manner, it is clear what is meant, since this formulation is also used with other topics in the world at large, to mean the same kind of thing. As there are multiple India-named topics, this would be a useful redirect because it brings you to the modern country itself. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. I can easily imagine a reader who sees this phrase and is familiar with India generally but wants to know more about "India proper". Leading them simply to India without explanation might allow some readers to connect the dots, but others will likely feel condescended to or confused. --BDD (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But they would be more informed than if it didn't take them anywhere. If it took them to India and they were confused, I'm sure they know Google exists. McLerristarr | Mclay1 20:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per user:Mclay1 and the ip directly above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems to have no clear meaning, being used different ways by different sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:35, 7 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.

Résistance[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, and move La Résistance to La Résistance (disambiguation), redirecting the base title to French Resistance. --BDD (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was changed to point as La Résistance (by User:Brigade Piron), which is a disambiguation page with two items, French Resistance and La Résistance (professional wrestling). I reverted the edit, but was questioned about my reversion, so I feel bringing this redirect here to gauge consensus for where this redirect should point to is called for. My vote, in line with my reversion, is to leave this redirect alone. Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 08:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to La Résistance: It should be noted that "La" here merely means "the". To my mind therefore, "Résistance" and "La Résistance" are actually the same thing (per WP:THE). We could debate whether there should be a "La Résistance" page at all but otherwise it would seem mad to separate the two.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brigade Piron: Did you mean to say "Retarget to La Résistance" (for clarity)? The redirect's current target is French Resistance. Steel1943 (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no. I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. I'm supporting a link to La Résistance.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brigade Piron: Right, so you believe that Résistance should redirect readers to La Résistance? (If so, that here would be a "retarget to La Résistance" comment. (Just trying to provide as much clarity to this discussion as possible.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]
OK. I think it's fair to assume that Rubbish computer voted for the same thing?—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Rubbish computer 16:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: since you acknowledged that you !voted twice, as a courtesy and in good faith I've struck this vote, so that per your comment it's obvious to a closer that your two !votes are one. Please feel free to revert if you like. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appear to have voted twice to retarget it, but I am going to leave it, for to take it away would look like I was trying to cheat. Please take mty two !votes as one. Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/retarget per Kusma, and hatnote to the wrestler's article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:47, 7 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.

Stutz (disambiguation)[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 dabify. IP70 has pointed out the way. --BDD (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This used to redirect to what was a dab page at Stutz, but is now Stutz (surname). Stutz now redirects to what IMO is the primary topic, Stutz Motor Company. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there's no dab page anymore. Surname pages are WP:SETINDEX rather than WP:DAB. Links can be made directly to them without going through a (disambiguation) redirect. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per anon. --Rubbish computer 16:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate there are multiple topics, as evidenced by the hatnote, which is not just the surname. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And what would those topics be? -- Tavix (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gerhard Stüdemann is listed in the hatnote as "Stutz", the surname article, and the company article, makes a 3-entry dab page, which is a valid size -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you're saying now. I don't see anything wrong with the way it's set up now (one less click), but you do have a point... -- Tavix (talk) 00:49, 8 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.

List of official names of the states of the USA[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 14#List of official names of the states of the USA

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_7&oldid=1050182477"