Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 15, 2016.

Tunbridge grammar school[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 29#Tunbridge grammar school

Requests for moving[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) 14:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XNR and WP:R#D6. In the wild, this could refer to anything from physical moves, such as when three NFL teams made requests for moving to Los Angeles. Or possibly even Recognition (parliamentary procedure), where one would make a request to the chair (get recognized) in order to make a motion. -- Tavix (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2016 (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.

Slither.io[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. It appears an article on this game is pretty close, and in the meantime, Miniclip is the only search result. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slither.io is not the same thing as agar.io, so this is an invalid redirect epicgenius, presented by reddit.com/r/funny (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only connection is that slither.io was mentioned in a review saying its creators wanted it to be the next agar.io. That's no reason for a redirect; we wouldn't have redirected Blu-ray to DVD when it first came out. —C.Fred (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Miniclip - I understand the lack of relationship between the two pointed out by C.Fred and I admit it was a poor decision to target the redirect there. Because of this, I've changed the redirect's target to Miniclip, where the game is hosted; do you feel this is better? Capcapandgengen (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For me, no, I don't think that's better. The target should mention the redirect in some form. Since there's no mention of "Sliter.io" at Miniclip, someone searching for specific information on the game would end up disappointed. -- Tavix (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, so I've added Slither.io to the list of Miniclip mobile games (Miniclip has released it as a mobile game for Android and iOS). This isn't very much information on the game itself, though; there are a few reliable articles on Slither.io itself, such as one from MCV here, so maybe an article of its own could be created. Capcapandgengen (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources. I say we make this into it's own article.

In fact, I am currently working on a draft here: User:Sarr Cat/Slitherio SarrCat ∑;3 13:34, 18 April 2016 (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.

Massachusetts National Guard Museum and Archives[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 Massachusetts National Guard#Massachusetts National Guard Museum and Archives. --BDD (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect is incorrect. The Museum mentioned isn't this building now, and it seems that, according to there being no mention of it the target article, it never was. The Museum is located at a different address entirely: [1]. Therefore, this isn't a useful or accurate redirect. MSJapan (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying this. I have redirected the article to Massachusetts National Guard#Massachusetts National Guard Museum and Archives. Jllm06 (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2016 (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.

Trowbridge Infant School[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 without prejudice against article creation. Deryck C. 17:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not listed at the target article. Based on the name and previous targets, I assume they're affiliated with Trowbridge Primary School, which now redirects to List of schools in Cardiff. I'm not familiar enough with the Welsh educational system to know if these should be listed there as well. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. From personal knowledge, I know my cousins went to Trowbridge Infant School and Trowbridge Junior School (and Trowbridge Grammar School) which were at that time in Avon (county), I think; the Boundaries Commission (hmm, apparently Boundary Commissions (United Kingdom)) changes county boundaries sometimes, but they don't change England to Wales or vice versa. They were not in Cardiff or anywhere the Welsh side of the border. They were not in Cardiff, they were in Trowbridge. Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2016 (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.

Verison[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) 14:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:RFD#D1 per WP:XY, hinders search; an equally likely typo for version or venison. (The most sensible thing would be to move the target over to Verizon per WP:COMMONNAME and make this an {{R from misspelling}}, but I don't make the rulez.) Si Trew (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What, that's not the British spelling? :P --BDD (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Fowler's under -ize, I presume you have a copy :). Not my fault the colonies got stuck with Noah Webster's ideas. Si Trew (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2016 (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.

Verizon iPad[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 both. JohnCD (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the iPad 2 was the first edition to be available in white, and through Verizon. But those were really just options, and I'm not seeing similar redirects from other colors or carriers (cf. AT&T iPad, Black iPad). iPad would be a more informative target than the dab, but specific case colors aren't mentioned there, and Verizon only in the context of their introduction into the iPad market with gen 2. For what it's worth, the Verizon redirect initially targeted iPad2, and the White one iPad. My first choice is to delete, second to retarget to iPad or iPad 2. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There's no mention in Verison -> Verizon Communications of the iPad at all. I think the point BDD is making is that it is a branded version of the device, but the article there does not say so, neither does iPad (disambiguation). These are WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target, nor any likely target. Version but not Verison is mentioned in the iPad infobox, but that is stretching it I think even as an {{R from typo}}. If we are taking it as meaning "version" as a typo, I can quite imagine this is likely, since I have just done it about four times in writing this, when I know the bloody name of the company, but thought it was spelled with an S not Z. Si Trew (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no inherent meaning or significance to their coloring, and its rather unhelpful in the first place to have a redirect that's just a semi-random adjectives thrown in front of a product name. As mentioned above, we don't have the likes of "black iPad" (Yet?) et al. This redirect should just be trashed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2016 (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.

File.charles tucker iii.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. --BDD (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous attempts to create pages in the "File:" namespace, it seems. Either way, they're completely unlikely search terms. Steel1943 (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as confusing since the target is an article rather than an image --Lenticel (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2016 (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.

Current communist rulers[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 discussion below demonstrated a lack of good topic match. Given the low level of participation I think it's reasonable to enact the majority proposal. Deryck C. 18:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does this redirect not target a place where there is a list as described in the redirect's title, but it also seems vague as a title since "ruler" is ambiguous. Also, Communist ruler and Communist rulers do not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator comment: Also, I oppose this revision (retarget to General Secretary#Leaders of current Communist parties) since not all individuals listed on that page are rulers, but rather heads of political parties that may or may not be the head of state in their country. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag and retarget. I think this is fine if it's tagged {{R to related topic}} or {{R from subtopic}}. General Secretary of the Communist Party#Leaders_of_current_Communist_parties is a better target than Secretary (title) because there's less extraneous material and there's an actual on-topic list. Targeting a superset of "current communist rulers" (including both rulers and non-ruling party leaders) is not problematic; we have plenty of {{R from subtopic}} and redirects aren't meant to always be 1:1 topically to their targets. Targeting a subset would be more problematic because there would be more information somewhere else that searchers would be missing, but that's not happening here. List of socialist states#Current actually has a list of the leaders (not merely party secretaries) of current self-declared Marxist–Leninist states, so that might actually make the best target since it excludes non-rulers like the head of the Communist Party USA. -- Beland (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Communist party heads and communist rulers are very different things. List of socialist states#Current is a better suggestion. Socialism and communism aren't synonymous, though all four parties listed there are communist. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2016 (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.

Section header[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 disambiguate. A draft of the disambiguation was offered during the debate and I have added to it slightly based on the discussion here but others are encouraged to add if we missed any other variants. Rossami (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term "section header" is ambiguous, so WP:XY applies. For example, on Wikipedia, it could mean text put between equal signs, which designate sections. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment so create a disambiguation page? -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Making a disambiguation page could make sense were this a more specific concept, but the usage of 'section headers' to organize bits of information into subsections is so incredibly broad. Think beyond just in terms of written Chinese, written English, written French, et cetera but then there's the organizational processes in computer programming, in physical engineering blueprints, and so on that's not even matters of 'written language' per se. It's possible that someone could create their own page on the general concept, I guess... we do have a Wikipedia article on 'The' after all. Yet that's justification to delete the redirect and leave the text red as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I'm also okay with making a DAB page. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D1, hinders search. Apart from a literal translation in the etymology, this is not used in the article anyway, and WP:NOTDIC, neither an etymological dictionary nor a translating dictionary. We do have an article at Page header though. Si Trew (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created Section header on 5 July 2012 as a redirect page to Section headers of a Chinese dictionary, which was merged into Radical (Chinese character) on 3 July 2013 (moved to Radical (Chinese characters) on 18 August 2013‎). Apparently "section header" is a legitimate alternative name of Radical (Chinese characters). Although the term section header has more than one meaning, section headers of a Chinese dictionary (radical) is the only created Wikipedia article for now. If "section header" cannot (or should not, or is unlikely to) be changed to a disambiguation page, redirecting it to Radical (Chinese characters) is useful for users who search for this Wikipedia article. So section header should be kept since it "aids searches on certain term" according to No.3 of the Reasons for not deleting. It does not violate WP:NOTDIC (Wikipedia is not a dictionary), which requires that a Wikipedia article should not be written as a dictionary entry. Article Radical (Chinese characters) is not a dictionary entry, and "section header", as its alternative name, can of course be redirected to it.--Neo-Jay (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Section header" is a synonym for Radical (an example is in the lede of Radical 51). It seems to me that there's some WP:NAVELGAZING going on because we are familiar with a "Wikipedia definition" of the term. Those !voting to disambiguate have failed to provide links to other articles that we could include. I'd be fine with a {{selfref}} hatnote if someone has a suggestion for a WP space page that describes "section headers." WP:Section header, WP:SECTIONHEADER, etc. is currently red. -- Tavix (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per 210. I'm happy with those suggestions. -- Tavix (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Section (typography) per remarks above. In the abstract this is the obvious choice, even if it were used for something else at some point. Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SIA. I think it's clear by now that the parent concept of a "section header" is covered by Section (typography). But as Neo-Jay pointed out, "Section header" is a synonym for Radical (Chinese characters). The first paragraph of the article explains why. It would disappoint readers if a reader looking for "section header" were not given a way to find information about "section headers" in Chinese dictionaries. I've drafted an SIA below the RfD template. Deryck C. 10:20, 18 April 2016 (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 Oldest Latino Fraternity in Existence[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. czar 14:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Braggy and non-encyclopedic Naraht (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - braggy though it is, it in fact says in the article, with a source, that this fraternity is the oldest Latino fraternity in existence. Someone finds it useful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The fraternity had this phrase trademarked, [2] but it is still promotional and self-proclaimed in nature. What are the rules for such phrases? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ambiguity is not a concern here, but is this a likely search term? Are similar phrases trademarked by the fraternity?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the wording is indeed bragging, and appears not necessarily encyclopedic, I think the fact that the wording is indeed trademarked officially as well as commonly mentioned in commentary about the group points to this being helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given that said claim is supported. I agree that it is indeed quite braggy. --Lenticel (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2016 (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.

హల్దార్ నాగ్[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) 14:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a reasonable alternative language redirect? It began as an article with just a few words in Telugu, but we already had an article on Haldhar Nag, so I redirected it. (Otherwise, it would have been an unmistakable A10 speedy deletion candidate.) But Nag, though in India, where Telugu is spoken, is from Odisha, where Telugu is evidently spoken by only a small minority, and writes for an Odia-speaking audience. I don't know whether Telugu is a "relevant" language for an article on this person, such that the redirect would be acceptable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see the point, and the term is used in Hindi newspapers but mostly in a declension and not in this particular letterform. It's not in Hindi WP at hi:హల్దార్ నాగ్ (no reason it should be there any more than in English WP, but it kinda might be more likely for it to be there). Search results for me are mainly in Sanskrit to India (country) newspapers, but none is from the Times of India which I would guess is fairly RS. I think it is a bit far off the mark for English WP.
'Delete' per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. The target doesn't have the Sanskrit, or indeed any Sanskrit at all. WP:RFOREIGN. Si Trew (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2016 (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:Echo[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. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the implementation of mw:Extension:Echo, and this template's non-use in article-space, I think this template should instead redirect to Template:Reply to. Izno (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment'. User:Izno, I don't mind this being here, but shouldn't the discussion be at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion? Not sure, but it would certainly be worth cross-referencing over to here from there if we keep the discussion here, I'm not worried really where it is discussed. Si Trew (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a redirect, and the last time I took a template redirect to TFD I got told to come here. So... --Izno (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Righty-ho, damned if you do and damned if you don't. Might as well stay here then. Si Trew (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldly retarget as WP:G6 housekeeping. Not currently transcluded and it makes sense. Si Trew (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @SimonTrew: WP:G6 is a criteria for speedy deletion. You can't use it to retarget something. -- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix: you're right, of course, I must have just been distracted when I wrote "retarget" there, sorry.
    And Steely says (immediately below) that it has over 30 transclusions. I usually check the What Links Here and history before casting a !vote but obviously completely cocked it up on this occasion probably looking at something else and confusing it with this. So, striking my !vote as nonsense, sorry all. Si Trew (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep. This redirect has 30 transclusions that need to be resolved prior to it being retargeted. Steel1943 (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943: It's usually bad practice to deprecate/"fix pages linking to" the redirect/template prior to a result; your comment reads better as a "conditional retarget". --Izno (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: I disagree since if the transclusions of this redirect are not bypassed prior to the redirect being retargeted, there will be incorrect redirect transclusions. Having incorrect template/template redirect transclusions is "bad practice". Steel1943 (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943: Templates are not removed from pages prior to a consensus decision for deletion/merging; articles are not delinked prior to a consensus decision for deletion. I would suggest that "fixing" the links to bypass the redirect would be a practice similarly incorrect/out of line with guideline/policy to the above other cases. Regardless, your !vote (and not the bold part) still reads as a "fix the transclusions, then point to another location" which is, in effect, "conditional retarget". --Izno (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: I never said "removed": I said "resolved". In other words, bypass the redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943: Please don't get stuck on particular word choice. Review my entire previous comment and see if the analogy of "deleting a template from where it is used prior to a consensus to delete the template exists" is a good analogy. I think it quite clearly is, given that this is a redirect to a template that we wish to retarget. I don't think anyone (including me) is arguing that it should be retargeted without fixing the existing transclusions, but that can and should only be done after this TFD concludes favorably; a case which which your comment indicates you support but your boldface !vote does not. I am looking for you to reconcile those two things. --Izno (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: Speaking of "word of choice", your "keep" vs "retarget" argument holds the same issues. Wikipedia is not a vote, so you can expect the closer to understand what I clearly meant. Anyways, I've been agreeing with you from the start, so I'm dropping the stick now. Steel1943 (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (@Izno: I didn't catch this when you mentioned it earlier, but ... this is RFD, not TFD. If a redirect to a template is redirected, then all existing transclusions of the redirect then start transcluding the new target, which is problematic if its new target has absolutely nothing to do with its previous target. This is why such redirects need their transclusions bypassed first prior to a redirection happening. Hope that further clarifies the situation, and that we are more on the same page regarding this.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we have echo, WP:ECHO and WP:WikiProject Echo, as well as mw:Extension:Echo; -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In order:
    1. I don't find it likely that a template would be dedicated to the notion of an echo (much less most of Echo_(disambiguation); maybe the record label, but I doubt Template:Echo record label is going anywhere).
    2. WP:ECHO leads to WP:Notifications, which is the system implemented by mw:Extension:Echo. So this is a supporting item rather than one which could cause ambiguous expectations.
    3. It appears the WikiProject moved and the very-few links to Echo are mostly generated by templates.
    --Izno (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "fixing" transclusions in cases like this, it just matters how you do it. "If it ain't broke" aside, you're not really making anything worse by "fixing" them, and doing so makes deletion or retargeting easier if there's consensus to do so. I would only be concerned if someone did this in bad faith—i.e., replaced all the transclusions and then argued that no one uses it. I'm prepared to close as retarget once the transclusions are dealt with. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @BDD: Done. Only one remaining transclusion which is not an actual transclusion that I'm aware of, but you can verify. --Izno (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: Looks like Jackmcbarn was having a fun time with that last transclusion at User:Jackmcbarn/Page that's really slow to preprocess. I'd fix it myself (probably just requires blanking the page and restoring it), but I don't want to do that in case Jackmcbarn has something specific going on with the page. Steel1943 (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @BDD and Steel1943: I did need to make an amendment to the pages being transcluded there, so the actual "transclusion" of T:Echo isn't occurring but instead it's redirect target T:1x now. Tried (and failed) a null edit, but template transclusion levels make that weird. Suffice to say, it's not transcluded anywhere. --Izno (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: Yeah, I tried that as well, but with the way the page is set up, there are a lot of circular references to itself, so I figured it wouldn't work. Since you already fixed the pages it transcludes, the only real solution is probably what I suggested earlier: blanking the page, saving, then undoing the blanking. I'm just weary to do it myself since Jackmcbarn is obviously testing something there, and I don't want to break what they are doing (in case they are trying to time how long it takes for the changes ti happen with page transclusions or something of the such.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943: The point I'm attempting to make is that, if all of the included pages have been fixed, then it's technically not transcluding Template:Echo anymore (even though WLH says it is) and thus retargeting of Template:Echo wouldn't break anything. --Izno (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: Your point was quite clear a while ago. I was just presenting a solution to get the page off the transclusion list. Steel1943 (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2016 (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.

Body of work[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 25#Body of work

IPAD[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 Procedural close as now need to reverse the redirect created by the consensus at this discussion. Result is target to DAB. Will start the machinery for reversing the redirect with consensus. (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retargeting to iPad (disambiguation) as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. The line of tablet computers by Apple Inc. is never capitalized as "iPAD", but the two other products listed on iPad (disambiguation) are. SSTflyer 04:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per SSTFflyer. IPAD (disambuguation) redirects there and all other variants of caps that I tried redirect there, so it would be WP:SURPRISEing for this to do otherwise. (I checked in case IPAD was an acronym for one or more organisations, International Petroleum-Added Dementia or whatnot, but it doesn't seem to be.) Si Trew (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a liar, the caps variant (disambiguation) does not redirect there or anywhere. It neednt be created, I guess the search took me through its autocapping algorithm and I didn't notice. Si Trew (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Si Trew, I can't say I agree with IPAD (disambiguation) not being created, so I created it. Steel1943 (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Si Trew, you misspelled "disambiguation". I didn't catch it until it was too late. Yay for WP:G7. Steel1943 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but ""disambiguation" is such a lovely word. It rolls off the tongue, like fellatio. Si Trew (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Si, those variants you tried must also be products of the search engine's caps-insensitivity. The only redirect to the disambiguation page is IPAD (disambiguation). Of course, anything with (disambiguation) should redirect to the dab, regardless of the capitalization. By the way, the other redirects to that page are Verizon iPad and White iPad. I suspect they should be retargeted or deleted. I'm on the case.(iPad pun?) --BDD (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done; see #Verizon iPad above. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yeah, but we're talking about all caps here. (Technical restrictions being what they are, we can't really distinguish between "IPAD" and "iPAD".) Since the iPad uses non-standard capitalization anyway, best to just keep this at the primary topic for the term. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't care I don't have a preference either way, both options seem sensible. Thanks for notifying me SSTflyer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:34, 16 April 2016 (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.

(Green Stinkwood[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 speedily deleted as WP:G6 housekeeping by User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; typo, no reason for parentheses Plantdrew (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, unlikely typo -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Unused and hits are well below bot noise level (none, in fact, except for the listing here). Taking CSD WP:G6 housekeeping. Si Trew (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (Green Stinkwood) with the balanced parens is red. Si Trew (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2016 (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.

Shareholder owned[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 Shareholder. --BDD (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corporations do not necessarily have to be shareholder owned, so this is misleading. It's an implausible search term, only receiving one hit in the last 30 days. Interestingly enough, the creator was "banned by Jimbo Wales." -- Tavix (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Retarget to Public company which is necessarily shareholder owned. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the DAB at Shareholder, although Oiyarbepsy's is good, too. Si Trew (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to shareholder, since private companies also have shareholders. And any partnership have partner shares, which is different from incorporated shares -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coming to think of it, a shareholder does not own the company, or any part of it, so it's a bit WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. A shareholder owns a share, but that is merely a promissory note and debt instrument; it is not as if the shareholder can turn up at the main gate and demand one ten-billionth of the bricks and mortar. It it is not really correct to say that shareholders own the company, they own the promissory notes (and can trade them openly or privately); they could also own a promissory cow. Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2016 (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.

Zzz-mailing[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. czar 14:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the hits I get for sleep emailing or "Zzz-mailing" come from a report of a 44 year old woman who 'sleep emailed' once back in 2008. This seems borderline WP:NOTNEWS and/or trivial. It's no longer mentioned at the target, probably for those reasons. -- Tavix (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete' per Tavix. (Sometimes I think most of my contributions must have been made while sleep-editing). Si Trew (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletezzzz.... per nom --Lenticel (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2016 (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/2016_April_15&oldid=1088110399"