Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 5, 2016.

Small room[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) 03:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Small room" is not mentioned in the target article. Unless this redirect is a notably-used alternative name for its target, this redirect is ambiguous since "small" is ambiguous itself, meaning not just toilets/bathrooms/restrooms can be considered a small room. Maybe a small bedroom or a small living room? Steel1943 (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Small room is in fact a euphemistic synonym for a lavatory, as you could have established for yourself. It is not in any way a synonym for the other rooms. It stays, unless being turned into a disambiguation, but that seems rather needless. — LlywelynII 02:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not useful redirect. Toilet is a common word that would be overlinked. And we shouldn't be using euphemisms in writing articles anyway. WP:EUPHEMISM. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AngusWOOF and WP:R#D8 (If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful). Redirects aren't supposed to be a poor man's version of Wiktionary giving every possible different rare name for a topic. Users who type this common phrase into the search box are best served by search results, which list topics normally called "small room", or things which actually are small rooms. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: I just noticed that Small Room redirects to Aloha Milkyway as a {{R from song}}. (Aloha Milkyway is an article about a music album, and "Small Room" is a song on the album.) Steel1943 (talk) 12:28, 6 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.

Dorsia[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 Remixploitation. --BDD (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a piece of trivia that is not mentioned anywhere in the main article. Hence no one can tell why it links to the main article. Editors of the main article seem to find this too trivial to mention on Wikipedia. Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Remixploitation where it is a track and where the trivia about the word is also mentioned --Lenticel (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about turning it into a disambiguation page then? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just two entries so a hatnote would suffice --Lenticel (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How should I do that? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait for consensus first but you can do it via WP:HATNOTE --Lenticel (talk) 00:42, 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.

Nipper (helper)[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) 03:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to the section Commercial and other services. This section includes a mention that nipper can mean a child pickpocket, a boy that's an assistant, or just a toddler. Is there a good target for this, or should it just be deleted? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:43, 5 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.

Smallest city in the world[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) 03:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a misleading {{R from antonym}} considering that the subject listed in the redirect doesn't seem present in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:51, 5 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.

⚳[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. Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this Unicode symbol (which does not appear at all on my browser) is supposed to represent "Ceres." Besides wondering if this could represent Ceres (mythology) as well, I'm not sure what browser this may appear properly on, or even if this is the correct Unicode symbol. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It displays alright on my browser and actually looks exactly like the little image next to the planet's name at the top of the infobox at Ceres (dwarf planet). I don't think it can be confused with the mythological entity: planets have this weird system of symbols, Roman deities don't. Uanfala (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the planets have such redirects, afaik. For example: ♇ → Pluto. Uanfala (talk) 18:03, 5 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.

Smallest dwarf planet[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 List of possible dwarf planets as proposed. Deryck C. 16:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Due to this redirect being false since it is based on what dwarf planets have been discovered, it should probably be retargeted to List of possible dwarf planets. Steel1943 (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom, based on facts presented re: dwarf planets. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 12:19, 6 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.

Smallest bone[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) 03:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to a bit of research, stapes, the target of the redirect, seems to be a bone exclusive to mammals. The problem with this redirect is that it is misleading since bones are not exclusive to mammals. Steel1943 (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, delete, delete - strong delete. As an active editor in the mostly human WP:ANATOMY group of articles this is an incorrect and misleading link and should be deleted. The stapes is the smallest named bone - lots of smaller "bones" exist referred to in general as "sesamoid bones". And, as you say, who knows if this bone is the smallest in all animals or even in mammals in all their shapes and sizes?? This redirect should probably be deleted or converted to a disambig page and Wikipedia animal anatomy project involved. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. shoy (reactions) 16:04, 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.

Banter (True Meaning)[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 03:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is nonsense disambiguation. It's subjective to say that a certain meaning of a word is it's "true meaning" over the other meanings. It's also an implausible search term. -- Tavix (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. This redirect was the ultimate result of a user trying to create a two-sentence article for a joke, probably bypassing the ridiculously high protection level at Banter. There's nothing salvageable in the history. Uanfala (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. True Meaning isn't a book or media title that requires a specific article on Banter. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:00, 6 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.

Facks[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 criterion G3 by Fences and windows; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:XY of multiple errors: could be a misspelling of facts, off-by-one-key typo for racks, minced oath for fucks, etc. Retargeting to Fack won't work either: that's a redirect for a song title (apparently with the minced oath meaning). Creator was vandalism-only account: created this redirect, then vandalized the fax article to use this spelling. Only possible reason to keep would be age (eight years old), but I don't think that overcomes the WP:XY problem. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per G5 and per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G3 since the creator wasn't (obviously) evading a block, but this is clearly vandalism. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:10, 6 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.

Higher Than Higher[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 III (Take That album). -- Tavix (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Must redirect to III (Take That album) instead; the album contains this song. George Ho (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious retarget per nominator. Nothing else in Wikipedia by this name besides this song. (FWIW I don't think this needs a full discussion, even if the AfD did close just a day ago. The consensus there was "this shouldn't have its own article", rather than "this has to point to the band rather than the album".) 210.6.254.106 (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nominator and reasons stated by previous user. Doesn't need it's own article, should redirect to containing album, IMO. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as per the above comments CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:32, 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.

Most published[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) 03:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is ambiguous. It is not clear if the redirect refers to most published writers/authors or most published books/novels; the current target is for most published writers/authors. Steel1943 (talk) 06:13, 5 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.

Most remote object[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, by Casliber (talk · contribs) and RHaworth (talk · contribs). -- Tavix (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects seems misleading due to the use of the phrase "remote object(s)". For reference, Remote object, Remote objects, Remote Object and Remote Objects are all red. And, search results in some search engines for "remote objects" return information for a subject related to Java (programming language). Steel1943 (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator comment: I just found out that all of these redirects were created by Neelix, so I'm tagging them each with {{Db-g6}}. Steel1943 (talk) 06:07, 5 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.

Most popular names[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) 03:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect fails to answer the question "Most popular names of what? Buildings? Cities?" The redirect assumes that the reader is referring to human given names, which is not the exclusive subject of Name. Steel1943 (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article itself also tries to cover recent baby names but with some entries being what are the most common given names of the current populace. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. shoy (reactions) 16:04, 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.

Most popular family names (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 delete. -- Tavix (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"2" is an unclear disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Looks like old housekeeping, rather than an attempt at a disambiguator (placeholder title that was used while fixing a cut-n-paste move). Could have been speediable at the time, though I guess after 10 years that might be harder. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible search term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as housekeeping --Lenticel (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most popular family names is not a kind of 2. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:20, 6 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.

Greenisms[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. -- Tavix (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declined at CSD by User:Patar knight. Just because it is in a book doesn't mean it makes sense. What in the plural? How many greenisms do you want? Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see any greenisms at the source listed by target by declining admin [[1]]. Perhaps my eyesight is bad. Cant even see a greenism let alone a greenisms. Si Trew (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Click the preview for pg. 51, the term is used. Books in my keep !vote below use the plural. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right User:Patar knight. I noticed you are not commenting on the one immediately below. You just swipe my Neelix ones and I am stating to think and I should not think that it is just because you want every one kept. I doubt that is the case but it is starting to look like that from my angle. I am no doubt wrong but I do about a hundred a session, about three sessions a day, and I am bound to make mistakes. It just looks like when every time the rebound is from not any other CSD but from you that you are a kinda "keeper". I do actually keep a lot of Neelix redirects and rcat them so only send them to CSD when I am kinda 99% sure they are nonsense. Tell you what, let's switch roles. You start listing hundreds at RfD and I will start calling them. How does that suit you? Some admins should well look up the WP:G6 concession. Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not want every single Neelix redirect kept; I've deleted several of the ones you've sent to CSD. The Neelix exception to CSD G6 includes redirects that "the reviewing admin reasonably believes...would not survive a full deletion discussion under the snowball clause" (i.e. the reviewing admin must believe that the RfD !vote would be overwhelming delete). Trust me, I have not rejected any G6 tag that I would !vote keep in an RfD discussion because the redirects in question fulfill one more of our purposes for redirects as established by our guideline or satisfy one or more of the reasons to keep redirects. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely true User:Patar knight. Because it just happens that you have been batting a lot back I, would not say took personal offense but I must say in bad faith I thought you were just whacking them all back, yes you have deleted a lot too. Sorry for my bad faith there that is just entirely my fault as I whack through them. You do have to make the call and you're utterly right that if it is borderline it should come to RfD. I do only list at CSD the ones I am pretty 100% certain on, but a second check does no harm. Sorry it was not a personal attack just seemed, coincidence I guess, that every one I listed you were batting back. We do all have to do due diligence the "neelix concession" says basically you can take it straight to CSD rather than RfD. It does not say anything beyond that. Thanks for the second check, I acted in bad faith there. Si Trew (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletionalismatutionomics - nonsense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Green (surname) It's a bit different from Greenism which is primary topic to the environment. The plural on news searches brings up a bunch of people with the last name of Green. Greenism can then be a See also at the bottom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add Redirects here I've added hatnotes to Green Party and to Green (surname) as discussed in the news articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added Green (disambiguation) instead for the "other uses" on the hatnote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 03:09, 5 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.

Pruned tree[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, except for for the fact that it shouldn't be a soft redirect. I've hardened it. -- Tavix (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this is a soft redirect instead of a normal one. It should either be a disambiguation page (if the redirect isn't always valid) or a normal redirect. Stefan2 (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it was so I could include the text giving the definition. At the time, I think, redirects to sections didn't work. I would be OK with retargeting to tree (descriptive set theory)#Terminal nodes; not a perfect solution but not important enough to worry about. --Trovatore (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Checked the history. I wasn't the one who made it a soft redirect or wrote the definition text. Anyway, I don't think it's worth bothering about too much; anything you come up with is likely to be fine, but it would be nice if the search term gets you to the article in some way. --Trovatore (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh this is tricky. Tree pruning in computational theory is a bit of a sod to do things like make a balanced binary tree and so on. This might be a bit WP:XY I think. I mean I don't think it really means anything in a computational sense and of course that applies to descriptive set theory when applied practically. The question to ask is what would an unpruned tree be and then work from there. (Also, for that matter, what would be a prune tree but that would be a plum tree). I think it is rather XY. Si Trew (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If "pruned tree" doesn't mean anything in CS and I think that is the case, outside of the extreme theoretical end of CS where it overlaps with math logic and might consider infinite trees, then I think it's reasonable to ignore CS for the purpose of this redirect. An "unpruned tree" would just be one with at least one leaf, I suppose, but I don't know why that would be a useful concept or likely search term. So I think this is not really XY; searches for other meanings are not impossible but that line of reasoning involves too much speculation about the mental processes of readers. --Trovatore (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right I am calling this User:Trovatore. It is not a term used in computer science (and I have a degere in computer science and have spent my life working in computer science, I am not trying to push my weight around but sometimes I know something). Tree pruning from the CS sense yes you will find it in various ways of trimming or balancing binary trees and taking off the redundant leaf nodes and so on (I wonder, never occured to me why they didn't just call them buds, very unimaginative computer science people are), but I think this is is nonsense WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. You've made the call to say it makes no sense, I am making the second call as the expert to say it makes no sense. Thanks User:Trovatore. Si Trew (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not completely sure I follow you. It makes no sense for CS, so I think it defaults to the DST meaning; is that what you meant? Then we can just retarget to the target I suggested first. --Trovatore (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Pruning (disambiguation). Could still be referring literally to trees or decision trees. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to tree (descriptive set theory)#Terminal nodes — just to make my !vote explicit. While there are other contexts in which one speaks of pruning trees, no evidence has been shown that the specific locution "pruned tree" has a term-of-art meaning in any other field. So the field where it does have one should take precedence over speculation about users thinking about pruning trees and entering "pruned tree" in the search box (that strikes me as unlikely in any case). --Trovatore (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure whether there's a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT by usage here. 48 of my first 50 Google Books hits are computer science books (the only exceptions: [2][3]), but nearly all the Google News results are for the topiary usage. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but these hits are presumably for natural combinations of "pruned" with "tree", and not for a term of art. Terms of art should take precedence. --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you can add the hatnote for this section to go to the general dab, then retarget to tree (descriptive set theory) would be okay. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 03:07, 5 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.

Garhwali Phonology[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy declined. Artefact of a recent move of an almost as recently created article. Superfluous as there's already a redirect Garhwali phonology of which this is a capitalisation variant. We don't create redirects for such variants: WP:RCAPS. Uanfala (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:CHEAP - sure, we shouldn't create it, but now that's it exists, we shouldn't delete it. There's no good reason to, it goes exactly where anyone would expect, and it's useful and accurate. keep. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
or WP:COSTLY. The trouble comes next time someone creates an article at Garhwali phonology: the upper-case redirect will have to be retargeted but as such variants are unexpected it will be a very easy one to miss. Uanfala (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is kept, it should be tagged with {{R avoided double redirect|Garhwali phonology}}, so that it will not be missed. Gorobay (talk) 22:43, 10 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_5&oldid=1088109226"