Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 1, 2016.

Grand Collar[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 10#Grand Collar

Krikalev[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) Steel1943 (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last name only is an unlikely search term. MSJapan (talk) 23:00, 1 June 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.

Stephen hawley[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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive redirect from misspelling. MSJapan (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ivanvector: ...But is the lowercase "h" in "hawley"? (Just asking per your related concern somewhere else on this page.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Caps irrelevant in this case, presuming that this is a search aid. "hawley" and "Hawley" are the same as far as the search engine is concerned. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 2 June 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.

Mike mullane[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need "proper cap first name, incorrect cap last name" for every BLP article. MSJapan (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No, but for the ones that exist, there isn't a reason to delete them as they're harmless. -- Tavix (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects like this are perfectly fine and help thousand of people find articles every day. For example, over 25,000 people search for Barack obama every day. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redirect allows linking from the erroneous capitalization, i.e. mike mullane should be a redlink but is not, and it does not improve search function (search is case insensitive). It is therefore harmful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:18, 2 June 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.

Bill pogue[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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We actually don't have this as "Bill Pogue" as a normal redirect, and none of the sources used even refer to him as "Bill Pogue." As a matter of interest, Google shows them all to go right back to William R. Pogue in all instances, so I don't think the usage is relevant. MSJapan (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This helps direct readers to an article about a man who is commonly known as "Bill Pogue." The fact that the "p" in "Pogue" is not capitalized is immaterial. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an {{R from miscapitalisation}} that's likely old enough to have accumulated incoming external links (WP:R#K4). Contra nominator, at least one source cited in the article itself calls him Bill, meaning we have verification that he used the diminutive Bill (as opposed to Will, Willy, Billy, etc.), unlike the case at, e.g., the recent Billy Bentinck discussion. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - commonly known as Bill. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:19, 2 June 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.

Cute is what we aim for[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a useful search term - "cute is" by itself will cause the band to come top of search. The claim of "R from another method of capitalization" is actually inappropriate, because the title is a proper name. MSJapan (talk) 22:50, 1 June 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.

FORECASTER AVILA[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All caps makes this an unlikely search term. MSJapan (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleteper nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. I don't think he's the only forecaster that happens to have that surname --Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 2 June 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.

Complete works of Plato[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 refine target to Plato#Dialogues. -- Tavix (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Socratic dialogue#Platonic dialogues. I consider this a no-brainer but others might not share this opinion, so it is better to list it here. The Traditionalist (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: There are at least four categories of "Platonic" works that are not Socratic dialogues.
  1. Authentic Platonic dialogues which do not feature Socrates (e.g. Laws)
  2. Spurious Platonic dialogues which do not feature Socrates (Demodocus)
  3. Possibly spurious works which are not dialogues (Epistles)
  4. Spurious works which are not dialogues (Definitions and Epigrams)

Any meaningful "Complete works of Plato" should certainly contain the first category. It might also contain the other three categories, but I do not insist on it (I note though that the Works of Demosthenes, while in many respects a poor article, covers both possibly and certainly pseudo-Demosthenic works). Either way, I would be very surprised to be redirected to an article on Socratic dialogues if I were looking for all of Plato's works. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A quick search shows a collection titled Complete Works edited by Cooper and Hutchinson, as well as other authors compiling collections of "complete works". I don't see a bibliography on the main Plato article though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. "Complete works of Plato" appears to be an abandoned page and appears to be redundant anyway because the targeted section does the same job but in a much more understandable format for the general reader. Also, whatever the original editors were trying to accomplish there are no wiki links (except for two) or references that I can see. This page is really not much help to the general reader. I think it benefits only those with a background in Plato and Socrates and Greek Philosophy. Therefore, I recommend, Keep Redirect to the recommended section - this is the best use of this page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caeciliusinhorto, Steve Quinn, it sounds like you know more about this than I do. Is the content at Plato#Dialogues broader than the Socratic dialogues? More to the point, does that section reasonably list Plato's complete works as we know them? If so, keeping the redirect and refining to that section sounds sensible. If we don't have his works listed all together anywhere on the encyclopedia, though, we should delete. A reader searching for this term is clearly looking for something more specific than Plato generally, and will know enough to search for just plain "Plato" if that would suffice. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or refine target to Plato#Dialogues. The term "Socratic dialogue" generally refers to either Plato's early dialogues or (less frequently) to dialogues in which Socrates appears. Some of Plato's works do not fall into either of these categories (the most notable of these is likely Laws), and the list of works at Socratic dialogue#Platonic dialogues therefore does not actually reflect the complete works of Plato. As far as I can tell, Plato#Dialogues lists all works attributed to Plato and also explains the spurious writings and other challenges to the authenticity of various works, so we may want to refine the target as BDD suggested above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Plato#Dialogues, assuming that is a list of complete works by Plato. If not, keep at current target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:58, 7 June 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.

Sliding doors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 10#Sliding doors

Obama's asian trip[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obama has taken many trips to Asia. It can be argued that China is always at least a subtext on these trips, but the redirect is very misleading. And it's probably too vague to be useful. Foreign policy of Barack Obama#Asia and List of international presidential trips made by Barack Obama both contain descriptions of such trips, but no neat, single list. And none of these trips has enough prominence to merit treatment like Nixon's visit to China. BDD (talk) 16:57, 1 June 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.

Consulate-General of China in Houston[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not discussed in the body of the target article, though there's an External link to its official website. So any reader searching for this is almost certainly looking for information we don't provide. We have standalone articles for Chinese consulate-generals in Auckland, Chennai, and, probably most relevant to this discussion, Los Angeles. So there's a strong WP:REDLINK case here as well. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - nom pretty much covered all the possibilities. MSJapan (talk) 03:27, 3 June 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.

StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016 May 23#~*~ StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs ~*~ was just closed as delete. The rationale for both of these should be the same, but I thought I'd bring it here just in case, since it's not as "bad" as the other one. For the record, I am neutral. -- Tavix (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Inconsequential - unlikely to be used as a wikilink without being swiftly corrected, and its existence does not affect the function of the search engine at all. Whether this exists or not does not matter one bit. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeLeTe. Is there any notable real-world use to back this up as a relevant alternative usage? I don't think so. bd2412 T 18:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per the arguments in the prior RFD discussion. It is also important to note that there is no explanation of this bizarre capitalization at the target article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary and non-notable stylization AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete someone who types in this exact bizarre capitalisation already knows how to get to the movie article, and probably is looking for something else. We should assume that searchers are looking for encyclopedic information as opposed to general shits & giggles, and we have no encyclopedic information in mainspace on the topics referred to by this string of letters (either the capitalisation controversy itself, or the XKCD comic which satirised it). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NO. JUST NO. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless redirect (or should that be "UsElEsS ReDiReCt"), the spreading of which elsewhere we do not want to encourage. MSJapan (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. Someone typing the title in any capitalization would get to the target article anyway. SSTflyer 07:24, 3 June 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.

OBAMA'S VISIT TO CHINA[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RCAPS as there is no reasonable connection between this capitalization and the subject. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But we do have 2009 Barack Obama visit to China and 2009 Obama visit to China. -- Tavix (talk) 14:31, 2 June 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.

Spring and winter holidays[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current target isn't helpful because it doesn't discuss spring nor winter holidays. As far as discussions of these holidays, there's somewhat of an WP:XY problem as these holidays aren't discussed together outside of the too-broad holidays or the shell-list at List of holidays by country. Since this gets no usage (2 hits in the last 90 days), I think it's safe to delete it. -- Tavix (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete The only possible target for this is some list of holidays by date, and even that is weak. Mangoe (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given that spring in one hemisphere is fall in the other, and summer in one is winter in the other, this would cover all four seasons in some manner. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't see how this could actually be helpful rather than just being confusing due to the WP:XY issue. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:29, 2 June 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.

Black Stone (shrine)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now hmm I would think this would refer to I don't know what WP's spelling would be the Kaaba in Mecca. I wouldn't have thought it would be this. Neelix. Comments please. Si Trew (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually as it happened those did go to where I expected but it was chancy considering there is Mecca Bingo and all that which is probably blashphemous. Actually I don't think anything in the Qu'ran or Bible says Thou shalt not gamble. Not covet certainly but nothing says you can't have a little flutter on the gee-gees. XIth commandment I imagine. I am going straight to Hell I imagine. Si Trew (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now actually I didn't do this on purpose but I just said (because I kinda came up trumps with those two links without testing them) "it was chancy"). Below we have "#chanced" which I have also listed, another Neelix. If I am using it that way, to mean "I took a gamble, it may not have paid off" then what would the one below mean? Of course we have all kinds of articles I hope on probability theory and so on but what would it mean? Si Trew (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chancy by the way is a municipality in Switzerland. The plot thins. Si Trew (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do we actually want to do with this? Deryck C. 10:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominator didn't suggest an action; keep by default. As it happens, Lapis Niger is a shrine whose native name translates to "black stone", so this redirect makes perfect sense; the two other targets pondered but not actually suggested by the nominator are a shrine called "the cube", and a city which is not a shrine. Everything below the nomination statement is off-topic to the redirect being discussed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps better to be redirected to Black Stone (which as it happens is part of the Kaaba)? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Possibly this could be disambiguated but I'm getting a lot of hits for the Kaaba, some considerably fewer hits for the Roman structure, and a bunch of hits for one or more strictures in India. The problem is that none of the targets except the Roman one are actually shrines of (a) black stone, but I don't think we need Neelix's literal translation redirects. Mangoe (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. Based on this I think this is probably better pointed at Black Stone as a primary topic, or else retargeted to Black Stone (disambiguation). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as rather superfluous with this parenthetical disambiguator. I think redirecting to Black Stone of the Kaaba might be problematic, as the word "shrine" doesn't feel right in this Islamic context (not sure if it's just me though). Uanfala (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly not a value-adding redirect, and WP is not a dictionary or a translation service. MSJapan (talk) 03:31, 3 June 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.

Triameter[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) Triameter is all right, like hexameter, pentameter, tetrameter and so on but is this a valid alternative spelling? Not sure Si Trew (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I guess. Google Books lists a few dozen works from reliable publishers using it with the trimeter poetry meaning. There's also some sources using it to refer to some concept in Riemannian geometry. I glanced at one of the relevant papers and my main take-away is, "hey, I know some of those words!" It is possible the mathematical meaning is discussed somewhere in Wikipedia under a different name; I wouldn't recognise it even if it walked up and hit me on the nose. In any case, I don't think the mathematical meaning knocks out trimeter from its WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT positions.210.6.254.106 (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a think. I only have O level in maths but I am not too bad at it. trigram would seem way out but I can see this being used in geometry certainly. The thing is then we have a kinda WP:XY don't we. I mean kinda poetry at least meter, rhyme schemes are themselves musical/mathematical in the sense that you could algebraically say for a Shakespearian sonnet aabbccddeeffgg and of course indeed you do, so there is an intimate connection with poetry and mathematics in that sense, but perhaps it is just WP:XY. I mean trigonometry would seem a long way off although it essentially means the same thing. Like in iambic pentameter there are two feet to a meter but I wouldn't go quoting that to a carpenter otherwise all your new window frames will fall out. They are kinda different worlds but the same. Dunno yet. (You know the old joke about the mathematician with constipation? He worked it out with a pencil.) Si Trew (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think {{R from misspelling}} as a likely error. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not in my Collins Concise but that was printed in 1986. dictionary.com which presumably is more up to date doesn't have it either and asks did you mean "trimeter". I have a Webster's somewhere but can't lay my hands on it right now. Fowler's Modern English Usage has neither, in in neither the first nor second editions. Neither is in Usage and Abusage either, so they're no help one way or the other here. My Hungarian translation dictionaries list neither, nor does my French Collins-Robert translation dictionaries so eveything is leading me down a cul de sac at the moment but I say WP:NEOLOGISM. Si Trew (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment "Triameter" does seem to be a rare synonym for "trimeter" in poetry, but there is also a "triameter" having to do with "metric polytopes", which is a math subject we don't have an article for. It is presumably very obscure given the small number of hits. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 1 June 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.

Trumpian[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 10#Trumpian

Hilary with extended titles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 10#Hilary with extended titles

Longbladed[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 Speedy Delete all, G6 by User:Sphilbrick Lenticel (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a helpful redirect. Any blade could be long. This tells people nothing about long blades specifically. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as unused and useless. Jschnur (talk) 22:40, 1 June 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.

Head Writer[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template is always a capitalization error. I've been chasing these down and fixing them. It would be better if editors would see it show up as a redlink. Dicklyon (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Different capitalizations is one of the primary reasons for redirects. And why would a red link be better? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - someone employed with the title "Head Writer" is quite likely to work in a profession described at head writer; fixing these links is unnecessary. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question – is there some other way to indicate to editors that a redirect they're invoking is really an error? Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's quite clear to me that you think this redirect is wrong. But you haven't made that case to me. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, no. For most users a link is either blue if the link exists and red if it does not. If the redirect were clearly erroneous, we would delete it, then the links would be red. A user can install a script that changes the highlight colour depending on the nature of the link (article, redirect, disambiguation, stub, etc.) but that script can't predict if a redirect is "really an error". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon, it's tagged with {{R from other capitalisation}}, which marks it as "unprintworthy" for a print index. That's about as close as we can get. While this is undeniably wrong capitalization for an article title, it's not really incorrect as a search term. Not all readers are familiar with our capitalization conventions, and the search engine is still generally caps-insensitive. You mentioned a template in your nomination statement—did you mean to say redirect, or is this used in a template? If the latter, that might be a case for fixing something else. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. But it's also an error in every place where it's used in articles (and there are a lot of them). It's too bad there's no easy way to let editors see when they make such mistakes. I realize my attempt to turn this one into making redlinks is not going to fly. Consider the request withdrawn. Dicklyon (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So done, Dicklyon. The only mechanism like what you describe is really a soft redirect—see, for example, ironically, WP:DICK. But I think you're very unlikely to be able to build consensus to do this with mainspace redirects. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 1 June 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.

Ogden Codman Jr, House[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 speedy deleted, G6: page unambiguously created in error. -- Tavix (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally created. Dicklyon (talk) 03:12, 1 June 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 big ideas[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 Big Ideas. -- Tavix (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect should be retargeted to Big Ideas. Parti pris is found at Big Idea. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:22, 1 June 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.

Domovoi (Quest for Glory)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article. It was originally mentioned in the cast section, but the cast section of the article has been removed. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:54, 1 June 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.

Lily'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 delete Deryck C. 21:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this fails WP:PTM because wiki also has Lily's Driftwood Bay. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I was thinking of converting this to a dab but most of the targets are partial title matches --Lenticel (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Given how many entities are likely labeled "Lily's ___" or something like that, it's best to just let people search, I think. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep EPs can be referred to with or without the "EP" designation. Unusual to see one with periods, though. The bay TV series is a partial-title match, but the EP isn't. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The song and the EP are titled with the "e.p." in there. Other bands and songs would just remove it if they didn't want the EP part. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This may not matter to this discussion, but the EP doesn't have a song by this name. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah they fooled me with it with classifying that a single. Striking that.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:22, 2 June 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.

Follow (song)[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 Follow (disambiguation). MrLinkinPark333, in the future, you can WP:BEBOLD and retarget it yourself. Only take it to RFD if you aren't sure or it has been contested. -- Tavix (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should be redirected to the disambiguation page Follow (disambiguation) because there are at least two songs with the name follow. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:24, 1 June 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.

Omini[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 redirect. I'm not sure about the disambiguation page - it seems that it isn't actually very useful to have a disambiguation page either, so I'll procedurally send the dab page to User:CoffeeWithMarkets/Omini (disambiguation). @The Anome, CoffeeWithMarkets, and Tavix: Please discuss among yourselves and figure out if we should have the disambiguation page. Deryck C. 21:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot find any evidence of "Omini" related to United Bank, though they do have a service called "Omni". Should be a redlink for the biological tribe Omini of tiger beetles. RA0808 talkcontribs 07:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- The Anome (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - a few internal links from the article namespace, and they all refer to aforementioned biological tribe - Andre Engels (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect as typo to Omni. No news articles using this, except one where it was a typo for The Omni in Los Angeles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 'Omini" appears to be a legitimate scientific term used often in reference to Tiger beetles. See: here. Biology is really not my field of expertise, particularly when it comes to the creeeeepy-crawwwwwling, creepy-creepy-crawly-crawlies. So, there's a likely helpful exact page subsection to retarget to, but I'm not sure. Can we ping someone from 'WikiProject Biology' or something like that for help? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it also seems to be Italian for "little man", a surname, a bunch of companies presumably named after people with that surname, and the name of an online store selling children's clothes. Whatever this should be, it shouldn't be a redirect. Perhaps a disambiguation page? -- The Anome (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks like a good option. I went ahead and created 'Omini (disambiguation)', but I'm still looking for more comments since I don't quite understand the biological terminology here and hope for people with expertise to chime in. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pretty sure we'll delete the redirect as it is, but I'm relisting this so we can have more input to the newly created Omini (disambiguation) which will probably be moved to Omini.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both the redirect and the disambiguation. The tiger beetle entry fails WP:DABMENTION as "Omini" isn't mentioned and the Italian place fails WP:PTM as the place is known as "Omini Marti."-- Tavix (talk) 15:11, 8 June 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.

Regular Grand Lodge of England[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if there was ever a Grand Lodge of England called "regular". Even then, I suppose that we should retarget it to the relevant article. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me check this one tomorrow. I am not a Freemason but have respect for them just as I have respect for all the pissy god botherers (joking). Because I am English I can check this probably better than you can. I am not even sure that there is a Grand Lodge what the Freemasons call essentially in the hierarchy, there is not even an occasional Grand Lodge of England let alone a regular one. So this is pretty much nonsense I think. Si Trew (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...but that page doesn't make it clear why you've been redirected there (and I don't know enough about it to edit it!) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Regular Grand Lodge of England is a real organisation, with a membership of almost two, which has nonetheless managed to scam perhaps hundreds of men in several countries into forming lodges and even grand lodges under its auspices (for money, of course). Most of these don't last, some have cast aside their phantom mentor and are forming their own masonic organisations. The acrimony generated by this tiny organisation was for a time truly international. I suggest re-instating the article as a stub. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...but not notable enough for anyone to have written about it in Wikipedia. I stand by my suggestion to Retarget. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if there is no article at present. Fiddlersmouth is correct, but let me elaborate: RGLE was a schismatic Grand Lodge formed by a few folks who were expelled from the United Grand Lodge of England. Therefore, it was neither related to UGLE, nor would it be considered regular by the vast majority of Grand Lodges in the world. There is a page on it here, but it appears that if ever it actually existed outside of a website, it hasn't been heard from in over a decade. Therefore, it is not appropriate to redirect it to Freemasonry, it had nothing to do with UGLE, or Regular Masonic jurisdictions. However, this discussion illustrates that the exact problem with it was that it was claiming to be exactly what it was not, hence the confusion here. Any sourcing available is pretty much due to WP:RECENTISM. MSJapan (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we find the best target? Or agree to delete because there isn't a good target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MSJapan and Fiddlersmouth, who make a great case for WP:REDLINK deletion. There isn't anything about the "Regular Grand Lodge of England" at either of the retargeting suggestions provided, so those suggestions aren't very strong anyway. -- Tavix (talk) 15:06, 8 June 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.

D'Angers[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 for now. We've clearly shown that the current target isn't the only d'Angers on en.wp and there isn't consensus on how to organise the disambiguation page. Deryck C. 21:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tricky one. I am aware a title in Wikipedia has to start with a capital that is just technical. I am then wondering whether it makes sense because the surnames of people that start "d'" are usually lowercase (or for that matter "de" like "de Montfort"). I am not sure if we can on a redirect put {{lowercase title}} and if it would make sense even if we did considering the search engine is case insensitive, but it is technically incorrect but probably harmless/useful? (Neelix redirect) More than happy to keep but I don't really know how to rcat this because technically it would be wrong to put {{R from surname}} when it is not his surname. Si Trew (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lowercase d is the fiddle really because that Wikipedia makes titles start uppercase. There is no doubt we should put it somwehere but I just don't know where. Perhaps we should delete it because as Ivanvector says beow a list of people with this surname are just going to be partial title matches. What do we have for an example for d'Arcy? Just throwing that out as kinda an example I have not checked yet. Si Trew (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good example actually. It's a DAB but the entries have capitalised the D I think in all cases but the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE does not have it in lowercase even though the first entry is for Bois-d'Arcy (disambiguation).... I don't know what WP:MOS would say about this. It's not exactly WP:RFOREIGN I don't know how we would expect to, if I can put it this way, anglicise it. Si Trew (talk) It was just a random example off the top of my head so I imagine we have many others in a similar vein I just happened to strike the jackpot with this one. Si Trew (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a dab would be one full of partial title matches, I think search results would be better. Side note: TIL it is possible to use {{DISPLAYTITLE}} on a redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig but with persons only, not the sports club or mansion. I don't consider it a partial title match to link from a last name to people who have the name. For what it's worth, there doesn't seem to be a real royal title called Duke of Angers. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Angers (disambiguation) the locales for Ducs and Chateau clearly point to places in Angers, France. It looks like it is closer to the Monfort example in use than the d'Arcy example. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think it probably would be best to just let people search, given the ambiguity. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:06, 31 May 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_June_1&oldid=1138581028"