Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 19, 2016.

Oops/version 2[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 without leaving a redirect. This is Jenks's proposed solution, and it seems to resolve the issues here. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another {{R from history}} that seems to not have an existing article that corresponds with its edit history. The edit history is a mix of 4 parts "Redirect to Wiktionary" (WP:NOTDIC) and 1 part about a non-notable band named "Headley Grange". Steel1943 (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect is an artifact of a series of pagemoves. Despite that, this title contains nontrivial history (such as the debate about whether we should have an article titled "oops" or whether that title should be soft-redirected to Wiktionary). Rossami (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There isn't history needed for attribution purposes (a la WP:MAD), so this can safely be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without leaving a redirect. There is a non-trivial history for both the mainspace and the talk page that there is no benefit to deleting. Instead it should be moved to a title that could also function as a plausible redirect, which has been the standard practice for this type of thing in my experience. Off the top of my head maybe Ooops would work. Jenks24 (talk) 12:55, 20 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.

Castro's[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, but retarget to Castro given almost no desire to keep as is. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar redirect to the one deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 21#Apple's. Castro doesn't redirect to Fidel Castro, which makes this redirect different than the base title. I don't think a retarget to Castro would be helpful. Since that's a disambiguation, it can't be used as a piping shortcut. Therefore, I believe the best option is to delete it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Castros is red. (And so is Castroes.) Si Trew (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to Castro per wikt:'s where "'s" is a method of creating a plural term in English. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we don't have Castros. I am not sure we generally have plural forms redirecting to surname DABs, do we? Obviously there are articles for things like The Simpsons (to which Simpsons redirects. Thatchers is a twodabs with some British woman and a brand of cider; Joneses targets The Joneses, etc; I couldn't find any that targeted a surname DAB, but there probably are some (loads). Si Trew (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Castro; this one is pretty harmless. For the record, Castro's is a bar down the street from me which has the best beer selection in The Beaches, you should go if you're in town. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Every inbound link is in the context of the Cuban leader. Our articles frequently use just a person's last name (after their first mention in the article) and not everyone knows the wikimagic that makes [[foo]]'s work the same as [[foo's]]. If the consensus is to retarget, however, since it's a possessive (and there are no bars named in the current Castro disambiguation page), the least bad target would be Castro (surname). Rossami (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which Cuban leader, Fidel Castro or Raúl Castro? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. I would have thought "Castro" primarily meant Fidel, but patently I am in the minority there, because it's a DAB that I imagine was hard fought over. Given that it is a DAB, there is little point taking this anywhere but the DAB; Retarget; I can't think of a suitable rcat ({{R from incomplete disambiguation}} is not quite right; throw on {{R from incorrect punctuation}} or {{R from plural}} if you want; I am well aware of greengrocer's apostrophe. The incoming links will just have to be fixed and (perhas) piped; presumably Raul will more commonly be known as just "Castro" than his ancestor, in the not too distant. Looking at the Spanish, es:Castro is a name DAB too, at which Fidel and Raul are listed near the top in section Personalidades. Si Trew (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should have been clearer. What I saw were all references to Fidel. I can see the potential confusion with Raul but it is not evident from the current usage patterns in our articles. Rossami (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:40, 19 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.

Sussex County Council[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. Deryck C. 13:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently redirects to Sussex, but there never was a "Sussex County Council" here. The redirect is therefore misleading and should be deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to dabification. DuncanHill (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Drafted DAB under R. Si Trew (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Sussex County Council has never existed, and that DAB seems okay. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks to User:BDD for adding the US entry. I concentrated on England (and not the United Kingdom or Europe or The World Space the Universe) because I imagine that is where the confusion lies. I've linked historic county but don't want to over-egg the pudding. It's OK as a draft but needs a looksee by others before closing (if that is what we decide). Si Trew (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as per the above since the exact term "Sussex County Council" has been used 'in the wild' so to speak both in the U.K. and the U.S. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:28, 21 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.

1999–2000 UEFA Champions League qualifyng rounds[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) 17:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

do we really need this redirect? this spelling error is rare and this is the only redirect for any article with the word qualifying in the title Rayman60 (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely typo —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - simply not needed. GiantSnowman 17:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D1 hinders search. Probably this is autosuggested but without it the target would be autosuggested. Nobody actually will type this with the en dash. There is something over in WP:MOS that says create redirects with hyphens and stuff, (MOS:HYPHEN and MOS:DASH]) but this is just makework now, the search engine has got a little better. Si Trew (talk) 06:29, 21 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.

2014 Ukrainian coup[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) 17:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion per G4. That deletion was vacated but not overturned. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_April_9 LinkinPark (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Western media is biased since they typically would not favor another geopolitical rival such as Russia. Moreover, it can be seen as a coup as there were many violent individuals who occupied government buildings and attacked the Berkut. It was a coup since it was the threat of violence that caused Viktor Yanukovych to flee. It is hard for me not to see it as a "coup".
Victoria Nuland had plans to appoint a new prime minister, indicating that she had influence over the course of events.
It is correct that it is POV to say that it is coup and that this is the position of Russian state media, but it is also disingenuous on the part of Western media to largely ignore the violence on the Maidan and the role of far-right militants. Also, it is not "fringe" to say that it is a "coup", but it is a fairly unorthodox view in the West. Western mainstream media is not calling it a "coup", but it is also a legitimate viewpoint. LinkinPark (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No other encyclopaeidic coup in the Ukraine in 2014. Si Trew (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a likely search term with exactly one reasonable meaning. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Labeling as a "coup" is indeed inflammatory, but it's a viewpoint that's widely held even if it's not the majority worldwide view (I don't know in the first place how'd you even survey such a thing at a worldwide scale, but that's beside the point). It's well established policy that redirects are not expected to always be NPOV, or even completely accurate. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CoffeeWithMarkets. Rossami (talk) 21:43, 25 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.

(UK)[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) 18:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Useless, virtually not getting any links or hits. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because useless. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unambiguous, and explains a disambiguator used in Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - null(); is not a kind of UK. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete per WP:RFD#D1 hinders search; {{-r}UK}} does target United Kingdom but I imagine someone searching for this already knows what that is; in the alternate it could mean Ukraine but I think on the English-language Wikipedia that would be less likely and perverse. Si Trew (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just not helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as utterly useless - We already have UK which is sufficient and I'd imagine anyone with half a brain would know "UK" is the United Kingdom and not Ukraine.... –Davey2010Talk 18:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It does no harm and could not plausibly refer to anything else. It's been around since 2008 without causing any problems and if it helps even a few readers, that's good enough for a redirect. Rossami (talk) 04:48, 23 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.

Venaejae[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) 16:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this means. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think it's Karelian for "Russia" (Karelia is a part of Russia with a Finno-Urgic speaking population) -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, more Eubot nonsense. From Finnish orthography: The Germanic umlaut or convention of considering digraph ae equivalent to ä, and oe equivalent to ö is inapplicable in Finnish. -- Tavix (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN; no affiliation to English and not at target (nor anything close, correctly spelled or anglicized nondiacritically etc; Ven- is not present at the start of any word at all, and only occurs in "eleven", "event"(ual)(ly) and so forth); WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:NOTDIC (but nice work above). Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If "Ven- is not present at the start of any word at all" then our articles Venice, Veneto, and ventricle would appear to be misspelt. 19:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - no one will use this, ever. The question is whether Venaja should also be deleted; it's also an Eubot creation, and pretty much all arguments given for deletion here apply to that as well, but at least it (unlike Venaejae) is getting some hits. (Presumably, that's because it gets the hits from the correct spelling Venäjä, which as noted is a redlink.) Finland used to be part of the Russian Empire, so there's a connection between Finnish and Russia; whether that justifies a Finnish-language redirect to Russia today is another matter. Sideways713 (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I speak a bit of Finno-Ugric languages. There is no affiliation to Finnish, nor any to Estonian nor Hungarian. I checked and there are no entries at other languages' wikipediae. This is just WP:MADEUP. It could also look like Latin and isnt. Si Trew (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Venaejae", as noted above, is "Venäjä" (Finnish for "Russia") with the German "ae" used instead of the letter ä; it was automatically created by Eubot back when Venäjä was not a redlink. "Venaja" is Venäjä with the letter a instead of the letter ä; neither of them is MADEUP, though Venaejae has never seen any use even from users searching in Finnish, and it would be strange if it had. Sideways713 (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if this is used by some people, somewhere, rather than having just been made up, it's still against guidelines as pointed out above.
    Side note that I was the one who posted that above line. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:34, 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.

Russia (1991-1993)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 27#Russia (1991-1993)

"Tun" redirects[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep all. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion[edit]

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Alexander Iskandar (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. the pages were moved to the name without the title, but we need the redirect or the person who submitted the article will think we deleted it, not moved it. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep all WP:CHEAP viable search terms, and these are not article titles, they are redirects. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have to be consistent in this redirect issue. We cannot simply let users create article with wrong spelling, inserting unnecessary honorific title as the page title, create redundant multiple redirect. Mahathir Mohamad has many redirect with variant page title. Tun Mahathir, Tun Dr Mahathir, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, omg.. is it recommended, relevant, significant in Wikipedia? The interested reader would simply type "Mahathir" in the search engine and they will get to Mahathir Mohamad article. Why do we have to make multiple redirect with no links (WhatLinksHere)? In short, we should be consistent to enforce Wikipedia naming convention policy. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects exist not because pages link to them, but because people spell it that way. If you can't find the article because the redirect was deleted, it is not helping people. If people don't know these are honorifics and only saw the name as presented with honorifics in documents they are reading, then we are not helping people by hiding the articles by deleting the redirects from honorific forms. This is being consistent with the purpose for redirects. Redirects are not articles. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some of these redirects have incoming links, and they should certainly be retained. It is open to any editor to correct those links if he feels srongly about it. A redirect only needs deleting if it has no links and is msleading or is very unlikely to be used. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. As noted above, the standards for redirects are different than the standards for article titles. These are entirely acceptable and in many cases helpful. Not all readers navigate the wiki by means of the search engine. Rossami (talk) 04:57, 23 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.

Yang Berhormat Datin Seri Dr. Wan Azizah Wan Ismail[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Alexander Iskandar (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. page was moved to the name without the title, but we need the redirect or the person who submitted the article will think we deleted it, not moved it. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have to be consistent in this redirect issue. We cannot simply let users create article with wrong spelling, inserting unnecessary honorific title as the page title, create redundant multiple redirect. Mahathir Mohamad has many redirect with variant page title. Tun Mahathir, Tun Dr Mahathir, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, omg.. is it recommended, relevant, significant in Wikipedia? The interested reader would simply type "Mahathir" in the search engine and they will get to Mahathir Mohamad article. Why do we have to make multiple redirect with no links (WhatLinksHere)? In short, we should be consistent to enforce Wikipedia naming convention policy. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It does no harm and yes, we can simply let users create redirects with alternative titles for articles. That's what they're for. As long as they are helpful to at least one person (and not harmful or confusing to others), they may be kept. Rossami (talk) 05:01, 23 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.

Ir. Haji Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Alexander Iskandar (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. page was moved to the name without the title, but we need the redirect or the person who submitted the article will think we deleted it, not moved it. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have to be consistent in this redirect issue. We cannot simply let users create article with wrong spelling, inserting unnecessary honorific title as the page title, create redundant multiple redirect. Mahathir Mohamad has many redirect with variant page title. Tun Mahathir, Tun Dr Mahathir, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, omg.. is it recommended, relevant, significant in Wikipedia? The interested reader would simply type "Mahathir" in the search engine and they will get to Mahathir Mohamad article. Why do we have to make multiple redirect with no links (WhatLinksHere)? In short, we should be consistent to enforce Wikipedia naming convention policy. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same argument as above. Rossami (talk) 05:01, 23 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.

Prof. Ir. Dr. Wahid bin Omar[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Alexander Iskandar (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. page was moved to the name without the title, but we need the redirect or the person who submitted the article will think we deleted it, not moved it. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have to be consistent in this redirect issue. We cannot simply let users create article with wrong spelling, inserting unnecessary honorific title as the page title, create redundant multiple redirect. Mahathir Mohamad has many redirect with variant page title. Tun Mahathir, Tun Dr Mahathir, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, omg.. is it recommended, relevant, significant in Wikipedia? The interested reader would simply type "Mahathir" in the search engine and they will get to Mahathir Mohamad article. Why do we have to make multiple redirect with no links (WhatLinksHere)? In short, we should be consistent to enforce Wikipedia naming convention policy. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same argument as above. Rossami (talk) 05:02, 23 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.

Ar. Dr. Tan Loke Mun[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Alexander Iskandar (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I moved the page to the name without the title, but we needthe redirect or the person who submitted the article will think we deleted it, not moved it. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have to be consistent in this redirect issue. We cannot simply let users create article with wrong spelling, inserting unnecessary honorific title as the page title, create redundant multiple redirect. Mahathir Mohamad has many redirect with variant page title. Tun Mahathir, Tun Dr Mahathir, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, omg.. is it recommended, relevant, significant in Wikipedia? The interested reader would simply type "Mahathir" in the search engine and they will get to Mahathir Mohamad article. Why do we have to make multiple redirect with no links (WhatLinksHere)? In short, we should be consistent to enforce Wikipedia naming convention policy. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same argument as above. Rossami (talk) 05:02, 23 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.

Right to Food[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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect to a page of the same name but with differing schemes of capitalization. It is thus completely redundant and unnecessary. Dschslava (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:CHEAP {{R from alternate capitalization}} -- title case capitalization -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep miscapitalization is common. Common typing mistake or from a lack of consensus on proper capitalization for the term. LinkinPark (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Not really a typing mistake, it depends on how you were taught to capitalize Proper, Concept or Impersonal Nouns. Rights of man is an {{R from other capitalization}}, as a counterexample. We were Much more likely in good English to capitalize Nouns in the 17th and 18th Centuries than we do Now; unless we are German. Si Trew (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:POFR.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as alternate capitalization --Lenticel (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - Pretty harmless. –Davey2010Talk 18:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Open-and-shut case that can probably even be closed right now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy-keep. Redirects for capitalization variants are not only allowed but often encouraged. No valid reason has been given to delete. Rossami (talk) 05:03, 23 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.

Windows Redstone[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) 16:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The codename of the Windows 10 Anniversary Update is "Redstone", not "Windows Redstone". If this redirect is to exist (it's not currently used) it should be renamed to something like Redstone (software).  — Scott • talk 15:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I can find a problem for every solution. There is a little work to do: Redstone Software is linked at the DAB at Redstone#Companies, it targets TestPlant. That might be a bit confusing in the absence of a hatnote at its target or doing something at the DAB (linking R's rather than targets at DABS is discouraged per WP:DABPIPE [sic]; we might want to list this one there too if we keep it). Redstone Software is mentioned in the lede of the target without reference or farther mention, and no hatnote to this, but that is just tidywork, no point doing it until we have consensus here. Si Trew (talk) 23:17, 19 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_19&oldid=1084304668"