Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 31, 2016.

File:SiriusDecisions logo.jpg.png.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No inbound file links from the mainspace, completely mangled file name FASTILY 22:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:G6 housekeeping. Was declined at CSD but for not meeting WP:R3 as not recent, probably should have gone G6. Si Trew (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible synonym --Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like pure silliness to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:25, 7 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.

Kirin Fang[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) 16:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at target, and fails WP:NOTWIKIA. Seems to be the name of a weapon wielded by one of the playable characters in one of the games. Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It's not good to target it to Qilin given that the mythical creature is purported to be vegetarian so probably has no use for fangs --Lenticel (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This whole thing is a matter of minor trivia, and the redirect isn't needed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:46, 7 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.

House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić)/Zamagna[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 8#House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić)/Zamagna

Ancient rome.[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: Be amazed. Deryck C. 03:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 3#Greece. and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 3#Fly. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that it meets precedent, but I wonder about the precedent. Redirects are cheap; it's an unlikely typo, but there is very little harm done in keeping such redirects around. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not especially hopeful of finding strong consensus here, but the cited precedent is fairly shaky.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:52, 31 March 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.

Dragon Quest Monsters I & II[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. I've also taken into account the below discussion. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY issues as Dragon Warrior Monsters (first game in the series, the current target of these redirects) and Dragon Warrior Monsters 2 are separate articles. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree that these are separate articles, and this redirect is unnecessary. Mamyles (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, I agree with the reasoning below. Mamyles (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dragon Quest Monsters 1+2 is actually enhanced graphical remake for the PlayStation that contained both games not a reference to the two separate games. It is mentioned in the article in question so it is useful. I am less sure of the 1 & 2 since that was not the title of the game in question.--76.65.41.126 (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above, "Dragon Quest Monsters 1+2" is an actual game release, which doesn't have enough information on it to support a stand-alone article. As a legitimate search term, a redirect should exist. --PresN 14:15, 1 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.

NFL Bowl[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Bowl game#Professional bowl games. Past bowls that existed within the league aside, the NFL currently has more than one "bowl" game (Super Bowl and Pro bowl). —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, NFL bowl most always refers to the super bowl, and the Pro Bowl is quite insignificant compared to the former.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It might be helpful to look at cases where this phrase is used "in the wild". Is it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bowl game#Professional bowl games since Super Bowl is nowhere in sight on the first few search pages for search engines in the United States. All the results not "Super Bowl" are for Pro Bowl. Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the NFL plays more than one bowl game, such as the one played in Hawaii, the Pro Bowl -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as per the surprising search engine results. If anything, search engine results would suggest the Pro Bowl is primary here. ~ RobTalk 10:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I like the retarget idea, I think it would help readers understand the history of bowls in the NFL. As for the surprising search results, it seems to me this stems from the fact that the Super Bowl is almost never known as the "NFL Super Bowl" whereas the "NFL Pro Bowl" is more common jargon, and the search engine is picking up on that. -- Tavix (talk) 05:45, 2 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.

Roto trilogy[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) 16:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect's target does not clarify what a "Roto trilogy" is. It seems that the redirect was an article that was converted into a redirect about a decade ago. The closest related target is Dragon Quest#Erdrick (aka Loto), but that section still doesn't explain "Roto trilogy". Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the "Roto trilogy" is a neologism from a decade ago (is is still a "neo" logism then?) to describe the first three games in the DQ series which never caught on. It's an implausible and largely meaningless search term (the name relying on a specific, non-standard translation). --PresN 14:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obscure bit of trivia behind an unhelpful redirect? Absolutely should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:00, 7 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.

Dragon Warrior I & II[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) SSTflyer 13:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, all of these redirects targeted Dragon Warrior I & II (except for Dragon Warrior I & II) until it was converted into a redirect towards its current target. It seems the article was redirected due to being a compilation game with previously released games. As the situation currently stands, all of these redirects have textbook WP:XY issues. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak keep - "Dragon Warrior I & II" is the title for a single, unique console release, though it is a compilation. We don't know which of the two games the reader is looking for, or if they're looking for information about the console release in particular. However, in all three cases, such a reader will find at least some relevant info at the target. Tricky one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That, and about the "relevant info" ... sure, they will find the links for the individual articles referenced in these titles, but that's about it in reference to the subjects of these redirects. In other words, I would think the fact that the two referenced titles in the redirects are not the same as the entire video game series is a bit misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly harmless, though. It's not like we're redirecting them to Mostly Harmless. I don't think it should be an article or a dab page unless notability for the combined console release independent of the two games themselves can be established, and I highly doubt that. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is recreating the article as a disambiguation page an option? That way, a one-sentence lead could mention that it was released as a combined game in the NA market, and give both Dragon Quest I and Dragon Quest II as links for more information. Mamyles (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mamyles: That sort of already happened in the past. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is a title of a release in the series, so functions properly -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's fairly clear that all of these are likely search terms when seeking the compilation and unlikely search terms when seeking either of the components of the compilation. We don't have an article on the compilation itself, so a redirect to the series article is appropriate. ~ RobTalk 10:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above, this is the various plausible names of an actual product, and therefore a legitimate search term even if it can't support an article on it's own. I don't think a disambig page would be useful, though, as it's an unlikely search term for someone who is trying to find information on one or the other game included in the compilation but is unsure of which. --PresN 14:19, 1 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.

Alefgard[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) 16:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect. "Erdrick" is a character in the Dragon Quest multiverse, whereas "Alefgard" is a kingdom/continent. Alefgard doesn't seem to be identified anywhere specifically in this article. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anothed idea would be to retarget to Dragon Quest (video game) since the subject is mentioned there.--76.65.41.126 (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This setting is present in at least Dragon Quest (video game) and Dragon Quest II, so that alone poses a WP:XY issue. Steel1943 (talk) 22:30, 1 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.

Beast (Dragon Quest)[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) 16:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect not identified at target article. Also, this redirect was formerly an article that probably fails WP:NOTWIKIA as an article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 31 March 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.

List of Dragon Quest characters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 8#List of Dragon Quest characters

Dragon Warrior I & II (disambiguation)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedily deleted by User:Ponyo as "G6: Obviously unnecessary disambiguation page" (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Warrior I & II (disambiguation) → Dragon Quest  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect's target is neither a disambiguation page nor a full title match. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 31 March 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.

Dragon Quest 25 Shūnen Kinen Famicom & Super Famicom Dragon Quest I・II・III[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) 16:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information for this redirect's subject at its target. Apparently, this was a compilation game released in Japan for the Wii per the redirect's edit history. Probably best to delete or restore article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the SILENCE, Steel1943, which would you prefer? If restore, feel free to do so yourself and procedurally close. If delete, I or another admin can carry it out. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 8 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.

Recalcitrants[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; both will again retarget Recalcitrant seed. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two pages:

These two pages have different targets, but at one time, both targeted Recalcitrant seed. I don't think the wiktionary target is good, and the seed target is weak too. I lean towards deleting both, but maybe there's another target? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Wiktionary redirect at Recalcitrant seems helpful, and gets regular traffic. I don't see a good reason to delete it. - Eureka Lott 16:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Recalcitrant seed. WP:NOTDIC; people looking for a dictionary definition should look in a dictionary. For if not, change the Wikimedia search engine so that every red link that has a Wiktionary entry automatically goes there. That something gets traffic does not imply that it gets travellers to where they want to go. Si Trew (talk) 03:32, 1 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.

Caral civilization[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-ish. This nomination is a bit misleading, in that the page isn't a redirect to Norte Chico civilization as implied by the usual RfD formatting. But my close is making it just that. Call that a keep, a retarget, whatever—just "redirect" might be most accurate—but that's the outcome. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re-targeting Article says it's only a Spanish name for NCC. Someone has prevented any deletion or move over the years Smarkflea (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well this is just odd. This targeted Norte Chico civilization in the past, but years ago someone added a blurb defining this as an alternate name, and then flagged it as a disambiguation page. It has never been a disambiguation page. [Re]target to Norte Chico civilization is clearly correct. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This was not a redirect before being listed here (with this edit by User:Smarkflea). Both the nomination and the "redirect" are incorrect; the REDIRECT is back to itself, not to the target listed here, which I guess is the desired target. But Smarkflea, you could have simply been bold and turned into a redirect: the move protection seems to have been taken off back in February. (But this is not the place to discuss requests for removal of page protection, anyway.)
Caral-Supe civilization, which is given as an alternative name in the first sentence of the article text, redirects to Norte Chico civilization and has done for a long time (redirecting to Caral until January 2007). Caral-Supe and Sacred City of Caral also redirect there. Si Trew (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have out this in the wrong place. My point is Caral civ should be deleted and pointed to NCC. I can list it for deletion if that would be better Smarkflea (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should have taken it to WP:AFD. The other I mentioned, which is a redirect, could be listed here though. I think the "correct" procedure would be to restore the article, close this RfD WP:PROD that article and raise RfD or WP:CSD for the other redirect depending on the outcome of that PROD. Seems long winded to me, though... Si Trew (talk) 18:19, 1 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.

Ray Narvaez, Jr.[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. Rob's argument carries the day, but it's worth monitoring the situation in the future. If he becomes notable for some other venture, WP:REDLINK or WP:XY deletion is possible. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ray left Achievement Hunter last year. Don't think his name should redirect to his former occupation anymore. GamerPro64 14:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The only information on the project about Ray is at the Achievement Hunter, and so anyone seeking information about him will find the Achievement Hunter article most useful. There's no sense in removing potentially useful navigation in favor of a red link that definitely won't provide useful navigation. thanks for the notification about this discussion. ~ RobTalk 14:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But he's not part of the group anymore. He's his own person. Some examples from other RfDs I've made, Max Read isn't part of Gawker anymore so he shouldn't be redirected to there. Jon jafari isn't part of Game Grumps anymore so she shouldn't be redirected there. I think I even saw him say he didn't want that to happen on Twitter too. GamerPro64 04:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GamerPro64: Max Read was deleted based on WP:REDLINK, which doesn't apply here since the article was recently deleted at AfD as non-notable. Jon jafari's close was based entirely on WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which has no bearing here unless there's some evidence Ray doesn't want the redirect. I don't see either RfD as setting any precedent applying to this discussion. ~ RobTalk 04:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's mentioned repeatedly in the article, so it's a useful redirect for the term. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 17:21, 3 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.

Declaration of the Rights of Women[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) 16:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was PROD'd by User:Alan De Smet with rationale "Nothing links here, and there is a different 19th century declaration of the same name, meaning the risk of erroneously linking here and redirecting to the below is high.". While undertaking New Page Patrol, the redirect came up in my feed - however WP:PROD states that a redirect can not be deleted through the PROD process (refer this footnote). I emphasize that my contesting of the PROD was procedural only and without prejudice towards deletion. sandgemADDICT yeah? 08:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: Thanks Sandgem Addict, we get de-prodded redirects here all the time. @Alan De Smet: do you know if we have an article on the other 19th century declaration of the same name? We could potentially build a disambiguation page here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also, throw a {{confused}} hatnote on both articles, since they were written around the same time on similar topics. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:01, 3 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.

Jemima Witness[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) 16:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial joke from Family Guy. It's not notable enough to be mentioned anywhere. -- Tavix (talk) 03:44, 31 March 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.

F Guy[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. JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Family Guy is rarely known as "F Guy." Also vague to Fabrice Guy or Fritz Guy. -- Tavix (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that's not a good idea since people searching for "F Guy" could be looking for Family Guy, which isn't listed there. -- Tavix (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't we put a {{redirect}} on the DAB to Family Guy? Si Trew (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that seems awfully trivial. Here's my dilemma with this redirect: Family Guy is rarely known as "F Guy." However, I believe someone searching for "F Guy" would want Family Guy over the three relatively obscure people at Guy (surname). Therefore, I believe deletion would be the most logical thing to do with this redirect, especially since it isn't being used (stats at ~4 hits/month). -- Tavix (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, since the dilemma is a real one, it's WP:XY thus delete per WP:RFD#D2. I don't mind being the fall guy. Si Trew (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a real problem, since as stated by the nominator, it is not really about Family Guy, whereas in the real world, people's names frequently appears as First Initial and Last Name, so a very real use for Guy surname exists -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but you can't just ignore the fact that "Family Guy," "fall guy," etc. can be abbreviated as "F. Guy," causing problems in the off-chance that someone searches in that matter. That's why it's better off deleted: either place you put it, there'll be a problem, that's part of the premise of WP:XY. As for your friends at Guy (surname), you'll be hard pressed to find sources where they're referred to as simply "F Guy" ("F. Guy," maybe. I wouldn't call it "frequently" as you put it though.) It's much ado about nothing though, it's not like this redirect is being used... -- Tavix (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If they are highly unlikely uses, then they don't get a redirect in the first place, so those options are not viable choices, leaving only the surname ones, which are viable choices. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But they aren't "highly unlikely" uses—in fact Family Guy shows up for me more than anything else when I search "F Guy," making it more plausible than the surname choices, even if I believe it to meet the "novel or obscure" synonym threshold to delete per WP:R#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 03:43, 5 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.

List of national capitals of countries in Europe by area[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. 08:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading. The list of European capitals doesn't include the area of the capitals (and I don't know why it would, it seems too trivial). -- Tavix (talk) 03:20, 31 March 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.

Anexo:Pais who have participated in the Dances of 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. Deryck C. 08:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an eswiki remnant. On eswiki the Anexo namespace is used for lists and tables. The half-translation and use of a nonexistent (on enwiki) namespace make this an unlikely query. Raymie (t • c) 03:15, 31 March 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.

This year[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. JohnCD (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

We generally do not make soft redirects in the article namespace. A hard redirect cannot work because the value changes every year. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Redirects that go out of date, especially within a short period of time, will need an update and therefore they shouldn't exist. Readers will harmfully be led to the wrong information until someone notices this and fixes it. There is no good way to ensure these type of redirects get updated in a timely manner or at all currently (a system could be set up with a bot). This is also an inappropriate use of a soft redirect. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 11#Last year → 2007 as a precedent. These type of redirects go against WP:RELTIME, though as a MOS guideline it isn't really applicable to this.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For some people, this year could be 5776, 1437, the Year of the Monkey, or if you are in North Korea, this year is 105. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the soft redirect code includes {{Soft redirect|{{CURRENTYEAR}}}} so there is no problem with it going out of date. There are between 5-100 hits per day so it is serving some utility. [1]. The redirect target includes an infobox with links to all the other calendars. In my view WP:IAR means utility trumps strict adherence to MoS. --Salix alba (talk): 08:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll strike the part about it needing an update, the rest still stands though. We shouldn't encourage searching in this manner. Steel1943 also makes a good point.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Which year is this year? "This" doesn't always mean "current". Ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY and Notecardforfree. "This year" is a different target for different readers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Godsy. As a note, This Year and Present Year currently redirect to "This year," and would be deleted via WP:G8 if this redirect were to be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doesn't make sense to have an ambiguous soft redirect in the mainspace that requires an update every year. -FASTILY 22:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Dynamic redirects (i.e. using {{{CURRENTYEAR}}}) surely must be a bad thing; if really necessary in an article then encapsulate it in a template like {{year link}} or something. I can't believe anyone would We also have an article at This decade and a redirect at This century (-> 21st century). (This Day, This Week and What Time Is It? are DAB pages; This month is red.) It does seem to get a few hits (5-20 a day), but then why not have last year, next year and so on? Is this the title of a work that people might be looking for? Si Trew (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Encyclopedias don't work that way! —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:08, 5 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_March_31&oldid=1138581175"