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 accept new targetNakhchivan (city). This is a slightly involved closure as I closed the DRV and relisted this debate, but the clear consensus is that the new target is viable. There is no consensus on whether to preserve attribution by restoring the deleted revisions. Because the target has changed, there is no overriding reason to restore the revisions, so I'll leave the log untouched. Deryck C. 16:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it looked like run-of-the-mill WP:X1 nonsense? – Uanfala (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Nakhchivan (city), which was apparently known in antiquity as Naxuana, of which Naxuan appears to be a variant [1]. – Uanfala (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Uanfala. The original target was the republic, where "Naxuana" is also mentioned. But the citations quoted there speak of the "city", so the city is the best target for Naxuan. Because Naxuana also redirects there, that will be consistent. — Gorthian (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, it's been deleted now, which probably indicates that Pyrusca didn't place the RFD template on the page. — Gorthian (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was tagged correctly, but apparently after it was already placed on one of the master lists of Neelix-created redirects for speedy deletion. If consensus here is to recreate or retarget it, any user in good standing may do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've recreated the redirect. That doesn't feel like the most proper thing to do, but it's proving to be much less bother than having it undeleted. – Uanfala (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This was previously closed by User:BDD as "speedily deleted by Beeblebrox" at 14:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC). The outcome was challenged at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 17 and the RfD was resumed.[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 19:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore deleted revisions per WP:RUD and speedy retarget per Uanfala. Nominator didn't suggest an action and no others have been suggested; should be a WP:SNOW case. Regarding attribution, my feeling is that this particular redirect is sufficiently creative to require crediting the original creator, and also their contribution was deleted somewhat out of process, so we ought to presume copyright applies. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Making a redirect from a translation isn't creative enough to require attribution, and if it's restored, it makes the X1 situation possible again since it was originally created by Neelix. I know there are a couple people making another sweep through his contributions, restoring this will add it back there. The status quo would prevent that from happening. --Tavix(talk) 20:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The X1 injunction only applies where a redirect hasn't been subsequently edited by another human editor. Because we have RfD + re-creation + RfD closure (likely retarget) this should not reappear on the X1 cleanup list, assuming the list was programmed correctly. Deryck C. 10:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about Neelix's contribution list, which isn't editable and will reappear there should the redirect be restored. --Tavix(talk) 13:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the instructions at WP:X1 don't mention anything about whether or not another editor has edited it. I agree with your interpretation, but others might not. --Tavix(talk) 14:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore deleted revisions per Ivanvector. I don't know if digging up the ancient name of a city requires attribution, but it certainly doesn't hurt, provided Deryck's observation holds true. – Uanfala (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. An editor in good standing and good faith has recreated the redirect. That should've resolved all problems and we could've been done here. Uanfala had to dig this issue out of the grave by taking this to deletion review over an incorrectly applied CSD tag, which means we're now debating whether or not the redirect should be restored? This is one petty issue after another, but I'll play along... --Tavix(talk) 13:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly contrite for having become the cause of all that. When the G4 tag was placed, I couldn't persuade the nominator that it was inapplicable so I reckoned the redirect was likely to get deleted (I regularly see speedy deletions that are much more wildly off than that) and I imagined it would get stuck in a loop of getting deleted again every time it was recreated. I thought the delrev would put the matter to rest and possibly give us a chance to examine the two (questionable, in my opinion) practices that are the root of this situation: speedy deleting pages that are under discussion and closing discussions as "speedy delete" when no participant has supported the deletion. Well, the delrev achieved neither and instead has apparently locked us into another catch-22. – Uanfala (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the redirect were to be deleted, the next step would be talking with the deleting admin to explain to them why the tag was inapplicable. You jumped the gun twice by taking it to DRV before that could even happen, which turned the molehill into a mountain. I know you had the best of intentions, and I'm not faulting you for that or trying to point fingers, I'm just calling what I observed. Back to the root of the problem, you mentioned that you don't want the deletion of this redirect to happen again, and I'm taking that stance by wanting to keep it as-is. By restoring the redirect so that Neelix is the creator, there stands a chance that this redirect could be deleted again via WP:X1. I'm trying to prevent that from happening by saying let's leave it as it is. --Tavix(talk) 14:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the actual deletion, but I do need to take responsibility for the X1 mixup. I had tagged the redirect for Beeblebrox after thinking about it for a couple of seconds, and failing to find the text in the target article. I did not realize that this discussion was going on when I tagged it. My apologies for the error. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
1166 Neelix redirects on Vermont Representative Districts[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 those without "district" in the title and no consensus, default to keep the rest. Deryck C. 11:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Do you have an efficient way of enacting this outcome? Deryck C. 12:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neelix Redirects using the same template for Vermont Representative Districts. Full list follows. I have not tagged them all individually, because of the quantities involved. Some of these redirects are good, but the quantity is excessive. Where exactly to draw the line between helpful and excessive is the question I bring to RFD.
The first chunk of these redirects, so people can see the formatting:
Keepallonly the ones with District in the title - all appear to be correct hyphenation variations pointing at the correct targets, and I see no pressing harm caused by any of these (none are plausibly ambiguous with other targets, for example). Or if they are, nom hasn't said so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CoffeeWithMarkets makes a good point below; !vote qualified. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly not aware of any ambiguities.Tazerdadog (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the ones that are just Location Number or Location Hyphen Number since these are potentially confusing, particularly when a lot of local city government projects, city streets, et cetera are known as something like Edge City One or such. Keep the rest of them since they seem useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete all, search takes good care of all of those cases - Nabla (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
@Deryck Chan: Yes, I do. The way I would do it is: First, I would copy the list from the edit screen (so you have the brackets) and paste it into Excel. I would then apply a text filter (in the data tab), use "does not contain" and the string "district", which would leave only the lines that do not have the word district in it. After that, I would copy the list, paste it to my delete box, and save. Then, I'd use Twinkle's d-batch tool to perform the actual deletion. I wasn't sure if you simply wanted to know a way to do it, or wanted me to do it for you. I'd be content either way, just let me know. --Tavix(talk) 14:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: I've pasted the processed list of redirects to be deleted onto your delete box. Please run d-batch for me, thanks :) Deryck C. 15:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Deryck Chan: Done. :) The d-batch is the best part! (maybe because the delete button is still a novelty for me, but still...) Do you not have Twinkle? --Tavix(talk) 18:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. 17:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - I don't see this as worth keeping at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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, G7. --Tavix(talk) 20:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (added: all) per nom. We don't delete CamelCase redirects that existed during the time that Wikipedia operated on CamelCase, but it hasn't for 14 years and there is no need to create new CamelCase redirects. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, CamelCase redirects don't have any use 14 years after they were deprecated. There were several others that were created at the same time by the same person. They are: --Tavix(talk) 15:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, including Tavix's list basically per Tavix. Pinging the creator to ensure he has the opportunity to respond: @Neve-selbert:Tazerdadog (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These may all now be deleted G7, See Neve-selbert's talk page. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 List of Presidents of the United States. Deleting as wp:CDG#G6 would also be acceptable, but this is the kind of title that is very much expected to have in Wikipedia, so let's keep it. - Nabla (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This should go to List of Presidents of the United States for that was what I was looking for, when someone hears "timeline" in this kind of context they would more likely be looking for a chronological timeline of presidents. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the redirect "Timeline of the Presidents of the United States" but contents keep on "Lifespan timeline of the United States". The contents are clearly about the lifespan timeline of the presidents, that leads me to change the article name from "Timeline of the Presidents of the United States" to "Lifespan timeline of the United States" and the change of name was undisputed. ~Manila's PogingJuan 10:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. Their proposed target is exactly what I would expect most people to be looking for with this search. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 and dabify, respectively. --BDD (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "RKN's" per above, Weak Retarget "RKN" to Redknee since it is their ticker symbol --Lenticel(talk) 00:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Create dab. RKN could refer to Redknee, the Megaman characters, a model of Refrigerated container, and that nematode parasite [2]. I don't see a primary topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete RKNs as unneeded plural. create dab for RKN, with just about any target named here - Nabla (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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) 20:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mention of the Rumson Polo Club at the target article. Someone searching for information on this club would end up disappointed or confused. --Tavix(talk) 20:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:REDLINK, someone searching this will want more information than the fact that it exists. --Tavix(talk) 01:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least they would know that the institution was in Rumson, New Jersey, a good start for a researcher. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This appears to be its own notable topic (though, I may be wrong about this), and I think WP:REDLINK applies. The nominator also makes a good point. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The target article does mention a bit more than just that it exists, noting what the current name is and an organizational merger. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As much as, yes, maybe now a bit of information is in the article, I stand by thinking that deletion is the right choice. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to WP:REDLINK. Search can handle this just fine. Deryck C. 11:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, search works just fine here - Nabla (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Crown Commonwealth League of Rights (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since the target functionally is a DAB page, since the CCLoR is an umbrella organization for all the others. Since the target is unlikely to be moved, this is WP:CHEAP.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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) 05:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reference has been made to "Section 18C" daily in the Australian Press for some months now. That is why I created that short cut. Observoz (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage has increased to daily mentions in the last few months, as mentioned above. But even before that, it has been receiving regular coverage since at least 2011. The link WP:PTM provided by the nominator seems to only apply to disambiguation pages. Is there any sort of precedence concerning that guideline being applied to the deletion of redirects? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I mean there exists a WP:XY issue as it is a partial title match for more than one topic, I can't link to a previous discussion with a similar rationale, but it is common at RfD. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What other notable topics could this refer to? --Tavix(talk) 03:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where in Wikipedia are these topics discussed? If there truly are other notable topics on Wikipedia known as Section 18C, this should be disambiguated. If we can't do that, it needs to be kept as is. --Tavix(talk) 13:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this term. Hatnotes can be added if necessary if there are other Section 18cs covered on Wikipedia.. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Delete, creator endorsed It took me a few minutes to remember why I created it...but I did; it was part of a joke made during the 2014 Golden Globe Awards which I thought made this a plausible redirect, but it obviously didn't get that much beyond the day the joke was made, so I would happily endorse deletion on this lead balloon gag. Nate•(chatter) 02:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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. 10:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is more likely a typo for Tim Cruz or totally implausible (i.e. should we delete this or not?) - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems perfectly plausible as a typo to me. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd lean towards keeping this. Is Tim Cruz notable enough for an article? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure about the issue, but I encourage Tim Cruz to be nominated for deletion. My instinct is that he's not notable. There's a District Attorney named Timothy J. Cruz who appears, to me, to be the most notable individual associated with "Tim Cruz" (a lot of people in the U.S. seem to have this name). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only one that searchers would confuse Cruise with Cruz is Penelope Cruz. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needlessly confusing. --Tavix(talk) 19:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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) 05:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest redirecting it to the team that Danick plays for. But according to this database he seems to change teams at least once a year, so just deleting it may be the better option. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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) 05:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Delete or create article [5]. Carol Storck is Karl Storck's son, not an alternate spelling of Karl. WQUlrich (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move sculptor article over Carol Storck. Remove (sculptor) unless there are other Carol Storcks to consider. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 30#Korean disease
