Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 24, 2016.

Current President of the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Vague redirect, per below nomination, not particularly likely search term, this has been discussed many times but I want it to be deleted and salted unless a bot can update this. If they want to know who the president is, they would not search "current". - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at current target. This will always be accurate at this target and will prominently feature the correct person associated with the search term. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as-is, per Patar knight's rationale above. -- The Anome (talk) 07:38, 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.

Next president of the USA[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 President-elect of the United States. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to delete this redirect because this redirect cannot be accurate forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshiman6464 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 24 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.

CNN News Radio[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 trainwreck. What this means is that any redirect in which someone advocated to keep will be procedurally kept. Specifically, this is what that looks like:
Keep: CNN News Radio, CNN Travel, CNN USA, CNN World, CNN/U.S., CNN/US, CNN/USA
Retarget: CNN.money → CNNMoney
Delete: CNN.com Live, CNN.com Live Video
-- Tavix (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mixture of obscure and overly promotional terms, like all the "USA TODAY" redirects not so long ago. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep CNN World and CNN Travel. Reasonable redirects of CNN websites here and here to the main CNN article. Nightscream (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CNN World and CNN Travel . Delete ones with / and US as that can be distinguished in location=U.S. and not work= The ones regarding Live and Video are useless. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3-way opinion :
    • Retarget CNN World to CNN International and CNN.money to CNNMoney. Place Clichy (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep CNN USA, CNN/U.S., CNN/US and CNN/USA as valid alternate names of the channel, per statement in article introduction : "CNN is sometimes referred to as CNN/U.S. (or CNN Domestic) to distinguish the American channel from its international sister network, CNN International." Place Clichy (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete the others (CNN News Radio, CNN Travel, CNN.com Live, CNN.com Live Video) and correct incoming links as no mention of them is made in the target article, especially in section CNN#Specialized channels. Place Clichy (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Place Clichy's proposals per his reasoning, but also keep CNN Travel per Nightscream. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also Keep CNN News Radio as a valid redirect of a CNN service linked to from radio station articles.--RadioFan (talk) 17:15, 1 December 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.

Watch CNN[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 00:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect, will make readers think that we are a live stream television provider when we are not. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no such program called Watch CNN. This would be like adding Watch in front of any network channel. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. This isn't useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with the above comments. Place Clichy (talk) 14:04, 28 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.

Public servant[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) 18:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly better suited to target public service. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that. Public service doesn't mention public servants at all, whereas the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE of Civil service starts "A civil servant or public servant is a person in the public sector"... which is a discrepancy with the article's title. Si Trew (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - This is a bit confusing. However, there's still no difference between "civil servant" and "public servant", basically, and the 'civil service' article covers what it is to be a "civil servant". I would prefer to leave things as is. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:13, 22 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) 22:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: I don't know what the system conforms to, but I was a bit cautious when listing all those redirects to CNN because I wanted to combine them and Twinkle may suddenly list them on the 25th, but luckily it did not happen, I relisted it on the 25th because it is already 10:44 on the 25th (AEDT, UTC+11). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Champion: Yeah, these XFD systems go by UTC: for example, where I am, it's still several hours before the 25th starts. That's also a reason why I make sure that when I'm using Wikipedia, I only ever see UTC times: I think there's a way to change that setting somewhere in "Preferences", but I can't remember where that is right now. I'm not sure if either of those may have affected putting this relist on the 25th, but those are two of the only things I can think of right now which may have caused the relist to originally go on the 25th. Also, regarding your Twinkle group nomination concern: Yeah, that right there is why I try to avoid group nominations when it's +/- 5 minutes from 00:00 UTC ... been there, done that. Steel1943 (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have mine set to local time, what is a bonus is I don't need to change the setting in the event of daylight saving changes, I relisted it on the 25th merely out of habit. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Found this writeup on public servant vs. civil servant, but this is difficult to distinguish [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:41, 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.

Comic book Resources[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) 03:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what this redirect brings to wikpedia as the search engine brings up the result whether you use capitals or not Domdeparis (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. This redirect is functioning as it should, just as the nominator states. The redirect is a {{R from incorrect capitalisation}}. However, I say "weak delete" since the redirect was created only an hour before this nomination was posted, so there's no longstanding historical precedence for its existence. That, and it's odd in the fact that the third word is capitalized, but not the second word. Steel1943 (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)*[reply]
Comment the problem is that it gives a form with less capitals rather than incorrect capitalisation. When you search without capitals you find it and to be honest even when you search a subject that is in lower case with incorrect capitals the search engine finds it with no problems. Try looking for terms of endearment by typing "TERMS Of eND" or any combination of capitals and lower case it will always throw up the right page as a suggestion. I wonder if the search engine has evolved since the creation of this template? --Domdeparis (talk) 10:10, 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.

SS0[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 SS postcode area. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Target article 2 (number) doesn't mention the redirect term “SS0". A Talk page comment from 2006 says that "SS0" represents number 2 in Peano arithmetic, which may be right for readers who remember Gödel, Escher, Bach but our article Peano axioms (the redirect target of Peano arithmetic) doesn't use this notation either. Hence delete this unwarranted redirect. Context: I discovered this situation because of a hatnote on 2 (number) which said "SS0" redirects here; I deleted that already. — JFG talk 17:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget either to SSO or Southend-on-Sea. The dab page can have something that mentions the number 2. SS0 is a postal code for Southend-on-Sea as it appears on the Internet searches. Redirecting to "2" would be a bit of a surprise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SS0 is a postcode district, not a place, so should redirect to the postcode area. Although Westcliff-on-Sea is the post town for addresses in SS0, and included within it, Chalkwell is also in the postcode district but not in Westcliff, so this would be misleading. Peter James (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'll take your word for it. I'd be fine with a retargeting there. -- Tavix (talk) 21:31, 8 December 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.

Acting President of India[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) 04:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is no longer mentioned (could be tagged as {{R to article without mention}} in the meantime) at article; only about a dozen pages in the mainspace link to the redirect (can and should be piped to President of India thereafter). I'd recommend against redirecting to President of India#Succession as this may result in a WP:R#PLA-type scenario for some. --Nevé–selbert 16:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appear in the edit history as the creator of the redirect, but in fact I deleted an article "Acting President of India" which was a fork of "Vice-President of India" (a straight copy a section of that article, I think, but it was a long time ago) and left a redirect in its place. I never had any interest in the redirect. I can't see much point in the redirect, so I suppose deletion would be OK, but I don't really care whether it exists or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:40, 24 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.

Dino Crisis (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. -- Tavix (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Target is not a disambiguation page. (But since the redirect was formerly a disambiguation page, I don't see this being immediately uncontroversial.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As a franchise page, it does disambiguate between the similarly named games of its series, and is unlikely to get moved, so the redirect is cheap. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As long as I have worked on dab pages, I have assumed that titles with "(disambiguation)" in them should always redirect to a dab page (if they are not dab pages themselves). And that "dab page" means a page with the {{disambiguation}} template, not a list or any other article. When the dab page is gone, the "(disambiguation)" redirect should be gone, too. — Gorthian (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The target of a (disambiguation) redirect page should be a disambiguation page (there's a clue in the name). This redirect is misleading, and of no use to anyone. Narky Blert (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:25, 24 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.

When is Christmas?[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, once again. The community remains split as to what to do with these redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete both per WP:NOTFAQ. Si Trew (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. WP:NOTFAQ is about article content, not redirects. When Christmas is is a valid question and plausible search term, especially since it varies between traditions (e.g. Eastern Orthodox). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per previous discussions on this sort of redirect and the scope of NOTFAQ (perhaps my heart has grown three sizes since the last discussion). The target answers the question posed by the redirect title, and does so in the first and second paragraphs of the lede as well as in the infobox, including the various different churches' varying interpretations of when exactly Christmas is. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per Ivanvector. As much as I have advocated for deletion of WP:NOTFAQ redirects in the past ... yeah, the question is answered in both the first sentence of the article and in the infobox, so ... question answered. Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Unless we should have a million other "when is X" redirects, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 6#How old is Tom Cruise for example, it does answer the question, I never denied that it does not, but article space is not the Reference desk. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Cruise's age is pedestrian, while the date of Christmas has been subject to centuries of academic/theological debate (see: Christmas#Date). These two redirects aren't comparable at all. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Why is Christmas?, What is Christmas?, Who is Christmas?. The possible list is endless. I suspect that I might be able to get answers to all such questions by the old-fashioned technique of entering Christmas into the search box. Narky Blert (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:COSTLY. This format has no more affinity for this recurring holiday than any other, especially as it has a fixed date. Even beyond that per Champion. WP:NOT applies to Wikipedia, unlike other policies that are specifically about the article namespace, making the rationale (i.e. WP:NOTFAQ) given by the nominator valid. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: copying over what I said when we last discussed this type of redirect. "The important parts of the policy we're discussing are under the heading "encyclopedic content", within a section titled Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal; I think it's pretty clear this policy is meant to refer to article content and not to meta-data like page titles and redirects, so I don't think there's anything in this policy which explicitly forbids a redirect such as How does time travel work? or Why did my car suddenly get so loud? if there's a target where the information sought can be found. It does not say "Wikipedia is not a question-and-answer site", and if it did, we would not have Wikipedia:Reference desk. I'm in agreement with Thryduulf (and WP:RFD#K5 - someone finds it useful) that it's up to us to facilitate users finding the information that they're looking for in whatever way they attempt to find it, if we can, so having these "question" redirects serves a useful purpose. I also think that we do need to be careful: there's lots of questions that are vague, ambiguous, or that we don't have content to answer, and some that we shouldn't answer (e.g. medical and legal questions, financial advice, etc.) but absent some reason to delete, we shouldn't delete "question" redirects just because they are questions. There are lots of other reasons that many that are created will be deleted, but questions aren't harming the encyclopedia, if done properly." This is a clear case of a redirect directing readers to the information they're looking for. The second paragraph of WP:REDIRECT starts: "[r]edirects are used to help people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read[.]" Somebody please explain how, if a reader wants to read about when Christmas is, it is harmful to redirect them to our article which explains when Christmas is. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. TL;DR version: "Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers" (WP:PURPOSE) and these redirects benefit readers (for reasons explained below).
    Long version: Ivanvector explains it well - if someone is looking up this question then they want to know the answer, and the target article gives them the answer. Deciding that we should make it more difficult for someone to find the answer to their question, simply because some people dislike how they asked it is petty and contradictory to our purpose of educating people.
    @Godsy: If you actually read WP:NOTFAQ, you will find that it not relevant here. The title of the section is "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" - and no arguments have been advanced (nor can I see how they could be) that redirects of this nature make Wikipedia any of those things. The text of the sole item related to FAQs is, in its entirety: "FAQs. Wikipedia articles should not list frequently asked questions (FAQs). Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).". It is therefore not possible for a redirect to breach the NOTFAQ guideline.
    @Narky Blert: Firstly, (re)read WP:WAX - we are not discussing any of those questions, but my response to any of them being brought up would be the same: If a human has created the redirect then WP:R#KEEP point 5 is satisfied and we need to look at where it redirects. If the question asked is unambiguously answered by a single encyclopaedia article then it should redirect to that article. If the question is mostly answered by a main article but parts of it are answered by related articles then it should redirect to the main article. If the question is ambiguous but clearly relates to an existing set index or disambiguation page then it should redirect to that page (something like "Who is John Smith?" should be redirected to the John Smith page, unless there is something more specific such as a notable book film by that title). If the question doesn't make sense or is not answered by encyclopaedic content, and there is no suitable alternative place to target it, then deletion is probably appropriate (but this is not the case for "When is Christmas"). Generally I agree with Ivanvector regarding medical and legal advice, etc, but there may be exceptions - for example if the question is "Should I have <medical procedure>?" and we have an article about that question or about a notable work that was about that question then it might (but not always will) be best to point readers there. If there is a question that is very frequently asked, but really not for us to answer, then it may be best to target Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer or Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer, etc. that explain why we don't (and won't) answer the question.
    It's also worth noting that the presence of a redirect will likely help people who use that or similar question phrasing on search engines find the answer they want, even if they do not actually use the redirect themselves - the redirect will be indexed by search engines and the target article used to aid understanding of what is (probably) being asked and so give better search results (many, perhaps most, of which will include Wikipedia articles anyway). There are (or at least might be) other issues relating to this, but they are tangential to this discussion and RfD (and especially one individual RfD discussion) is not the right venue to discus these.. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: See Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 48#RfC: Should we add a footnote to WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTFAQ stating that it does not apply to redirects? and Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 7#Does WP:NOT apply to redirects? (which you participated in). There is disagreement as to whether or not WP:NOT applies to redirects, and a proposal to clarify that it doesn't was struck down.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, please explain how this (or any other) redirect is an article that lists frequently asked questions, and/or formats information as something other than neutral prose in an appropriate article. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Short version. Wikipedia naming conventions for article titles should apply also to redirects.
Long version. A redirect is not an article, but redirects look like articles to the majority of readers, in that they are almost invisible indirections for a target. In many cases, readers don't even realise they have been jumped through a redirect (the text saying so only appears in tiny print at the top of the page, and I'm not sure it appears on mobile editions at all). So, we have two cases:
  1. The redirect is expressed in terms of a frequently-asked question, and the target (or section) is a FAQ. Delete target (or section) per WP:NOTFAQ; redirect follows deletion as R to nonexistent content.
  2. The redirect is expressed in terms of a frequently-asked question, but the target (or section) is not a FAQ. The redirect is WP:RFD#D2 potentially confusing.
In either case, I think it's perfectly reasonable to mention WP:NOTFAQ or WP:TITLE, etc; yes, we are here to get readers to where they want to go, but nobody looks in a real encylopaedia's index under "What is" or "Who is" any more than he looks under "The", except if they want to find out about who is, The The, and so on. We have the essay on WP:RFOREIGN and WP:RFD#D8 to delete foreign-language redirects, even though they might be helpful to some people and are rarely harmful, because the stance is that we should discourage the notion that Wikipedia can be searched in any way you fancy with 100% predictable results. The same applies to search terms expressed as questions, we are not some game-show gimmick that expects answers to be expressed as questions.
WP:NOT should neither be automatically enforced nor automatically discarded for redirects: it's something that should be weighed case-by-case, and I think it's right to mention it if it's relevant to the nom. Many nominations don't get any references to policy or guidelines; for example, the redirect immediately below is nominated without an RfD criterion or even a !vote by the nominator. Common sense then kicks in, and we seem to manage quite well with it, without needing either to "ban" any references to WP:NOT or to enforce them: saying "WP:NOT (or any other policy) does not apply to redirects" is tantamount to saying "Redirects are not governed by the Wikipedia rules – one of which is WP:IAR". Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia naming conventions for article titles should apply also to redirects." would imply that we should delete mispellings, redirects from official but not common names, from former names, all foreign language redirects (including those with clear affinity to the subject such as München →> Munich), from subtopics, from non-neutral titles, etc. additionally, WP:NOTFAQ is a policy about article content not article titles and if we treated redirects as articles then we should fold RfD into AfD and streamline the process.
As for your two numbered options, the redirect title and the content of the target are completely independent in the same way that we don't delete a neutral article at a non-neutral title - we move the article and leave a redirect behind. If the content of an article is worded like an FAQ we reword the article, regardless of what redirects point or don't point there. If a redirect is formatted like an FAQ we decide whether the question is answered in Wikipedia and, if it is, we target it at where that answer can be found. I'm not entirely sure why you think redirects formatted as questions are gimmicks, or why keeping such redirects has any relevance to whether WP:IAR exists or not (that part of your comment makes no sense), and your comments about WP:NOT being automatically enforced or not enforced miss the point that some sections of WP:NOT are relevant to redirects (e.g. WP:NOTPAPER) while others clearly are not (e.g. WP:NOTLINKFARM). Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 4 December 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.

White cake[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. 14:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This can refer to a lot of things, the term is not mentioned. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Note no other colors like "yellow cake" or "brown cake" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and tag {{R with possibilities}}. I'm sure that "white cake" is a specific variety of cake (much like how angel cake is a specific variety of cake) but I can't find any info on it at the moment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. White cake is a specific kind of cake with particular flavor. It need not necessarily even be white in color. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is the specific cake is not mentioned in the article and thus won't help a reader. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think of "white cake" as being synonymous with vanilla cake, but that lacks an entry at list of cakes or elsewhere here.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Without a mention of what defines a "white cake" on the redirected page, it's only going to confuse those seeking that definition here.KMJKWhite (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per KMJKWhite (cake). -- Tavix (talk) 02:54, 7 December 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.

Islamity[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) 02:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More pseudo-Neelix terms. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Not plausible search terms; even if someone started typing that, Islam would come up in suggestions first. — JFG talk 17:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would at least keep Islamo as the correct prefix form of the word. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:29, 1 December 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.

Siege of Peschiera[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) 02:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misnomer: the target (Peschiera del Garda) contains almost no information on the 1848 siege. A red link would be more useful, especially associated through {{illm}} to actual Wikipedia articles over the battle in other languages (it). Reasons to delete #5 and #10, at least, apply. Also see similar discussion on Battle of Peschiera. Place Clichy (talk) 13:23, 24 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.

Freidewald train collision[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. The rough consensus is that this typo is sufficiently plausible (at least to English speakers who don't also speak German) to justify not deleting the redirect. Deryck C. 11:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect page Freidewald train collision can be deleted. Because of a move that occurred already in 2012 it is not needed any more. No articles link to it now, and the spelling of the place name is wrong. Schlosser67 (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Harmless and plausible spelling error. — JFG talk 17:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete for the simple fact that Freidewald doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, firstly it's a standard {{R from move}}, and we don't delete these unless there is a good reason to. Secondly this is a very plausible spelling and/or typographical error. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the title of the redirect page were a real homophone, I'd understand why it is kept. But while it looks like a mere typo, the pronounciation is different. --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It being a plausible typo is reason enough itself to keep a redirect, but the pronunciation difference is only obvious if you know German pronunciation and know that Friedewald is somewhere that uses German pronunciation. We also generally keep redirects after moving pages to avoid breaking links (while internal ones can be fixed, links from external pages, bookmarks, etc, are outside our control). Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • No other articles link to the old page, I checked. I still do not see how the typo would be plausible. What are the criteria for that? Do we really need to cater for any accidental mistake (in particular if it has been corrected), or for people who do not update their links? I do not think so. --Schlosser67 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Transposing I and E in a word is a very likely typo, particularly in languages such as English where the spelling and pronunciation are not always related. Yes we absolutely should maintain the redirect for people do not update their links - firstly they might be in archives, in non-editable formats (PDFs, etc), in printed works, etc. and there is no way for them to know that these links need updating. Preventing link rot is something we, as responsible citizens of the internet, need to be very concerned about - see WP:EXTERNALROT. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • In principle, I agree with the idea of preventing link rot, but I have already noticed 20 years ago that in trying that one fights a losing battle. Anyway, even Google (shame on me for using it!) says: No results found for linkto:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freidewald_train_collision - and that's good enough for me. Perhaps not for you, and maybe I am expecting too much mental effort from the average web user. Well, if a majority proposes to keep the clutter, so be it, but I wished to state my reasons for wanting to get rid of it. --Schlosser67 (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Google (not any other search engine) cannot know about all possible links, let alone bookmarks, offline sources, etc. Just because preventing link rot is hard, does not mean we should not try, and we really, really should not categorise efforts to do so, nor highly plausible typos.misspellings, as "clutter". Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've said my bit (and more of it than I intended) on this particular case of an obvious misspelling, you've said yours, let's agree to disagree on it. While I have noticed that my plausibility criteria are stricter than yours, I'd probably agree with you in many other, likely more important cases regarding the prevention of "link rot". Others will decide on this rather minor one. --Schlosser67 (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Someone who's not familiar with the pronunciation, which is a group that certainly includes a ton of people, can very well make this reasonable typo. This seems helpful to me. I also support leaving it alone. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:23, 8 December 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.

Corée[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) 20:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No particular affinity for French. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is this useful because French is used at the Olympics? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my gut feeling is that the answer to user:AngusWOOF's comment is "no" because the Olympics are bilingual, however Coree (an article about a Native American tribe) does have a hatnote pointing to Korea. Thryduulf (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep and categorize. There are 1,347 categorized Redirects from French-language terms among 38,638 Redirects from non-English-language terms, and probably a lot more that are not placed in correct redirect categories, including this one, so I don't think this particular redirect needs to be singled out and deleted. It's not really surprising that Coree does not point to the redirect because Coree does not mean anything in French (it is different from Corée). Place Clichy (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Place Clichy: There are indeed very many redirects from French. Per WP:RFOREIGN though all of them should have some affinity for France or the French language, for example Côte D'Ivoire is a redirect from the French name for a French-speaking locale to the article located at the common English name, Piece sur piece is a redirect from the French name that is also commonly used in English, Haute bohème is a redirect from the French name for a concept that has strong ties to France, Je ne sais quoi is a French term discussed in the target article, etc. It is perfectly appropriate to discuss whether this individual redirect is a useful French language redirect or not. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. -- Tavix (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - French involvement in the affairs of the Korean people goes back a long way. We can look at the 1860s-era campaign in Korea by French forces. There's also the French involvement in the 1950s-era Korean war. So, while merely having French terms for everything as redirects is the wrong idea, this seems to be not as clear-cut a kind of case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think there's sufficient affinity between the French language and Korea. Deryck C. 11:12, 8 December 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.

Wikipedia:Communist Party of WIkipedia[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 00:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the target is kept for humorous reasons, but the extra capital "I" in "WIkipedia" isn't so humorous. That, and its creation was probably unintentional. Steel1943 (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is a result of a move, no longer needed. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the characters look aImost identical on my screen. Pppery 15:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Implausible spelling mistake. — JFG talk 17:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per orders of Dear Leader er... per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is an unlikely typo. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:46, 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.

Wikipedia:Common sense and desicion making[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) 02:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo. However, per the redirect's history and since the "creator" of the redirect created the target page, this redirect may qualify for WP:G7. Steel1943 (talk) 05:21, 24 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.

Computer Applications[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 8#Computer Applications

Wikipedia:Notability (clergy)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 8#Wikipedia:Notability (clergy)

Wikipedia:Comment éditer une 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 delete. -- Tavix (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary interwiki redirect. This redirect is in French, and leads to a page on the French Wikipedia. Interwiki links such as this can be navigated via Wikidata from its respective page on the English Wikipedia, Help:Editing. Steel1943 (talk) 04:28, 24 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.

2006 Java earthquake (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and malformed. Duplicate of 2006 Java earthquake. Dawnseeker2000 02:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Implausible search term and confusing title. — JFG talk 17:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete housekeeping. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 24 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.

Hónghǎi Jīngmì Gōngyè Gǔfèn Yǒuxiàn Gōngsī[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from the full pinyin name, very unlikely to be searched (especially with the diacritics). ansh666 02:05, 24 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_24&oldid=1088108800"