Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 28, 2016.

Wikipedia:Compunity Portal[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) 22:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like a plausible misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This has an awful lot of links, almost all in user talk space, so I did a little investigating and it seems that user:Benesch (named user:Primate at the time) used it as a link in a substituted signature template. See for example [1]. Benesch retired in 2015 so his motivation for this is likely to remain unknown. user:Primate now shows as not registered (probably due to the account being renamed, although user:Primate~enwiki also exists so SUL issues may also be relevant?) meaning other links in the same signature are now broken. This suggests that breaking this link wont be the end of the world, but that alone doesn't mean we should delete it - I'm unsure currently whether I favour keeping or deleting so I'll leave this as just a comment for now. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate and delete. Deryck C. 16:05, 9 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.

Ecole elementaire catholique Elisabeth-Bruyere[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 all. Deryck C. 16:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The first of these was an article but in the middle of 2015 was turned into a redirect for failing WP:GNG and WP:SCHOOL, with [2]. Yet it is WP:RFD#D2 confusing as there's no mention at the target beyond the navbox ({{CECCESchools}}). (For that matter, if the school fails GNG then it probably won't ever be created so should it even be in the navbox?) The others are just tracking variants. Si Trew (talk) 22:08, 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.

Ecole elementaire catholique Pierre-Elliot-Trudeau[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) 22:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:REDLINK. Not mentioned in the target except in the navbox ({{CECCESchools}}). It is linked in some other articles, but then that's just WP:RFD#D2 confusing. But, likely to fail WP:GNG per WP:SCHOOL anyway, so perhaps it should not be in the navbox anyway. Si Trew (talk) 22:03, 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.

Per Ole Baeckman[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) 21:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The target is Swedish, and I am not sure that this is a reasonable substitution of the Swedish "ä" with "ae". (Eubot redirect). It's marked as {{R from title without diacritics}}. Si Trew (talk) 22:01, 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.

ColibrI Florido[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) 21:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as WP:RFOREIGN. No particular affinity to Spanish. The top two are by User:Eubot, the bottom two by User:Polbot. Si Trew (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:RFOREIGN. These just make it harder for Spanish speakers to find the Spanish Wikipedia article, they don't help English Wikipedia readers. Spanish Wikipedia hasn't split Anthocephala into two species yet and Spanish speakers have their own organization that decides on official common names for birds (es:Anexo:Nombres en castellano de las aves del mundo recomendados por la Sociedad Española de Ornitología); best to let them sort it out themselves when they decide to split the species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantdrew (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I was a bit previous in saying there is no affinity to Spanish when it is endemic to Colombia, a Spanish-speaking country. Si Trew (talk) 23:26, 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.

Colibri A TETe Rose[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) 21:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This is the French common name for this species, when the two subspecies are treated together, so this is the correct target as far as I can tell. However, the English article doesn't mention it, and I'm not sure it has any particular affinity to French, being endemic to Columbia. Calling User:Plantdrew. The French articles at fr:Anthocephala floriceps, our Santa Marta blossomcrown, and fr:Anthocephala, our blossomcrown, both say in pretty much in the same words "elle résulte de la division de l'espèce Colibri à tête rose (portant aussi le nom scientifique Anthocephala floriceps) en deux espèces distinctes" ("resulting from the division of the species... (carrying the scientific name A. floriceps) into two distinct [sub-]species" and later say "of which the two, taken together as a taxon, are referred to as Colbri [À Tête Rose]". French WP has a redirect at fr:Colibri à tête rose to Anthocephala floriceps (i.e. the subspecies, not fr:Anthocephala), but no other caps variants (and the search on FR:WP is case sensitive).
So probably it's the right target, but delete as WP:RFOREIGN unless there's any particular affinity to French that I have failed to spot. Si Trew (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The top two are by User:Eubot; the others are by User:Polbot. I hesitate to combine, but on balance it's probably best to treat them together at first, since my main rationale for delete is not the weird caps but the RFOREIGN, which applies to all of them. Si Trew (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No affinity for French. I assume "Colibri À Tête Rose" was listed as a common name at the IUCN Redlist at one point, given Polbot's involvement, but it's not listed there now ([3]). Plantdrew (talk) 22:11, 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.

Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE[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. Hatnote discussion can be done on the current target's talk page.}}---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These above two are redirected to the "Just a vote" section of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Because other essays about arguments to avoid in other discussions have been created (see Template:Relevance fallacies), the redirects shall not be limited to just one essay. We can convert the redirect page to disambiguation page, or we can redirect the pages to "Template:Relevance fallacies". Any other alternatives? George Ho (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both to avoid breaking and/or changing the intended meaning of the very many discussions in which these are used. If there are now other relevant essays they can be linked with hatnotes and/or see-alsos (if this is or might be controversial, get consensus on the talk page first). Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both Each of the other arguments on the "arguments to avoid" page has shortcuts for easy use by editors who want to refer to them elsewhere, and these are the shortcuts that were created for this section. If we repurpose them, then we'd need new shortcuts for this section, and how would we come up with other shortcuts about which the same argument couldn't be made? Meanwhile, these shortcuts been around for years and have been used for years in hundreds of discussions, so moving them now is only asking for trouble. Largoplazo (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't find any of the arguments giving for getting rid of these short cuts convincing, and on the other hand I do see several reasons why doing so would be unhelpful. For a start, where are the "other essays about arguments to avoid in other discussions"? I don't know where they are, and George Ho doesn't tell us. He links to Template:Relevance fallacies, but that template does not link to any Wikipedia essays at all, but only to articles. Not one of those articles, as far as I can see, has any relevance at all to "JUSTAVOTE", and I cannot conceive of any reason why anyone would wish to link to any of them from that short cut. Nor does any of them particularly relate to "NOREASON", except in so far as any bad reason for doing anything could be regarded as in a sense "no reason". If we were to replace these redirects by disambiguation pages, what would we do about the 735 pages that currently link to Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE, and the 246 which link to "Wikipedia:NOREASON"? It would not be acceptable to leave the links in those articles as they are, the effect of which would be to change the targets of the short cuts, thus misrepresenting what the editors who posted those links were saying. Is George Ho going to volunteer to edit all the links on all 981 of those pages so that they continue to point to where they were intended to point? Then there is the question of what to do about editors who are used to the existing uses of those short cuts, who would be likely to continue to use them, unaware that they had been changed to point to something quite different. Also, this nomination is based on a fundamental failure to grasp the point of what short cuts like this are. They do not serve a similar purpose to redirects in article space, even though they look similar. A redirect in article space should link from something which a reader of the encyclopaedia is likely to type in when they are looking for information about some topic, unaware that information on that topic is actually available in an article with a different title; if there are more than one articles which could be helpful in such a case, then we need a disambiguation page rather than a redirect. A Wikipedia-space short cut, normally all in capitals, is something quite different, namely an arbitrary convenient shorthand to link to information somewhere else, typically used by an editor who knows full well where the information is to be found, but who wants to save typing. Because it is arbitrary, and its purpose is just to save typing, it does not matter if there is some other topic which the same title could conceivably link to but doesn't. If someone wants a short cut to one of these other essays that George Ho tells us exist (but doesn't say where) then they can create one, such as Wikipedia:ONLYVOTE or something, but removing the current short cut and putting a disambiguation page in its place would not be helpful to anyone wanting to link to either the page currently linked to or one of the other essays; they would have to resort to either typing the full page section title or else creating a new short cut: lining to a disambiguation page would be no help whatsoever. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are long used. If I follow the above and below correctly, George is observing that WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages has provisions similar to WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:NOREASON which have long lived at WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. That's actually fine. AADD was first, and the vast majority of references to that kind of fallacious argument are in reference to the AADD version because they're about deletion discussions. The AADP versions are much newer (I would know, since I wrote substantial portions of that page), and the AADP essay exists simply to extrapolate from AADD to contexts beyond deletion discussions in particular. The essays cross-reference each other repeatedly. (They may need to do this more in some sections; AADP is not 100% fully developed yet). Basically: Nothing is broken, so there is nothing to fix, and deleting or retargeting these shortcuts would cause confusion, for no benefit.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – "JUSTAVOTE" is embedded over 800 times; changing the destination for these to a disambiguation page would be counterproductive, as it would diverge from the meaning of the name "shortcut". Shortcuts go straight to a destination — this is built-in to their definition. If they go the long way around, or lead to a fork in the road (a disambiguation page), then they are not shortcuts. Speed (the fewest keystrokes), along the shortest route possible (one click or one press of ↵ Enter), is the goal here. The Transhumanist 20:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notes[edit]
I have come to this discussion because I was one of six editors to whose talk pages George Ho posted invitations to come here, after this discussion had been open for several days and had received only opposition to his proposal, with no support. Even if this does not fall under any of the specific pieces of behaviour explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:Canvassing, it does look dangerously like thinking "Hmm, things aren't going my way in that discussion. If I try bringing in lots more editors maybe some of them will support my position." I don't know that George did it in that spirit, and I hope he didn't, but he should take note of the fact that it could be seen that way, and be careful to avoid doing anything similar again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering myself how George Ho chose me to invite, and more so now that you say he selected only six people for this. I don't know that anyone could realistically call it a canvassing problem, though, because, a priori he had no reason to know what my opinion would be and, a posteriori, the two people he invited who've responded so far (you and I) have disagreed with him. Largoplazo (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I invited you, James and Largoplazo, because only one participated and you contributed to WP:AADD, an essay about deletion discussions. To make you feel better, what about WP:arguments to avoid in discussion pages#Just a vote? That's more suitable than one about deletion talks, right? I realized days ago that 700+ pages link to the shortcut. George Ho (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I didn't realize Template:relevance fallacies have links to articles. I should have mentioned template:Arguments to avoid earlier. George Ho (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And no, I was not trying to outbalance the opposition. I wanted your opinions; that's all. George Ho (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
George invites me (via talk or pings) to a lot of discussions, even when I'm pretty sure he's pretty sure I'll disagree with him. At a guess, I think he just pings familiar faces from previous discussions, for continuity. I don't think it's an active attempt at canvassing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:53, 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.

Christmas Stories[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 Christmas by medium, as that seems where this discussion is headed. There's really no consensus for anything, but with no appetite for keeping it as is, something had to happen. -- Tavix (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for a dab here, but this clearly misleads the reader. We have A Christmas Story (disambiguation) but I don't see that as any help for they could be looking for anything. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to A Christmas Story (disambiguation) since Christmas story redirects there, and there are links to other similar links like Christmas Tale and The Christmas Story. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as vague. A reader searching for this phrase will be expecting tales appropriate for Christmas season, like a book of children's stories. We don't have an appropriate target for that. Deryck C. 17:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, as much as that's a clear improvement (and I guess I wouldn't object to going over to there, instead), it only focuses on written works while there are a variety of Christmas stories that are best known for their portrayl on television, over the radio, in films, et cetera. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeWithMarkets: Christmas by medium exists (Christmas in film redirects there). A literature section could be added there with a {{main article}} hatnote to Christmas in literature.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that works out. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:14, 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.

스트래스필드[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) 16:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Nominating for deletion per WP:FORRED. The target article talks about the large immigrant population, but it's certainly not all Korean. Yet this is the only foreign-language redirect to the article. Delete. — Gorthian (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as I said last time. I think the substantial Korean population in this place and the search engine results persuade me that there is sufficient affinity to justify keeping this redirect. Deryck C. 13:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to weak delete. From the official website of Strathfield Council the official Korean name is "스트라스필드". The title of this redirect, "스트래스필드" (substitute ræ for ra), is an attested alternative transcription into Korean (gets 55k GHits) but given the official Korean name we might have the Korean redirect at the official title. Deryck C. 22:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepKorean language RD clearly relates to target.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Deryck Chan and Prisencolin. There is sufficient affinity between the Korean language and this target. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't even appear to be the correct name in Korean, getting this from Google search results and how Google corrects it to 스트라스필드, I'm not sure if it is a plausible typo for I don't know any Korean. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good find. See my new comment above. Deryck C. 22:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Thryduulf and Prisencolin: Do Champion's findings impact your !vote? -- Tavix (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deryck's comment that this is an attested alternative transcription, despite not being official, means that I still favour keeping this. The official transcription should be created as a redirect if it doesn't already exist as there is no reason we cannot have both. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still considering keep, it's a plausible enough typo, it's only one character off and a similar syllable at that.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a borderline WP:RFOREIGN case already, but the incorrect name tips the scales in the delete direction for me. -- Tavix (talk) 03:12, 12 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.

100th anniversary of the sinking of the RMS Titanic[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 Cultural legacy of RMS Titanic#100th anniversary commemoration.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section being redirected to no longer exists at RMS Titanic. --Nevé–selbert 18:35, 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.

USA Today Available Around 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 Keep "NEWS", "ONLINE", "INTERNATIONAL" and "SPORT"; No consenseus' about "LIFE" and "MONEY" (specifically mentioned to be kept, late in the discussion, and not addressed individually by anyone else), Delete the rest. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All are unlikely search terms, these are also on the boundary of violating WP:SOAPBOX for it is almost promotion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - a mix of implausible search terms, inconsistent-caps titles, blatant promotion, and possibly valid redirects on which there is no information at the target. Pitch the lot. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Some of these are covered by the section= of cite news. Having slogans in the article redirect don't make any sense. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If they're used by {{cite news}} won't deleting them break links? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only if they grouped the entire part of the citation in work= and not section= None of these section names are notable like that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NEWS / ONLINE / INTERNATIONAL / SPORT. Delete the Section and Slogan related ones. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I don't see a plausible use for these redirects. Citations are generally supposed to contain a link to the main work and any subsection/page no is supposed to be mentioned in a different parameter. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The plausible use case is making the links work if anyone copies and pastes the information off their website and into our citations. It might be ideal to add the section information in a different parameter (if you're using {{cite news}}, which the editor might not be), but AFAICT there's no actual rule against assuming that the website is giving you an accurate name and putting down whatever they've got in an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep USA Today NEWS/ONLINE/INTERNATIONAL/SPORT. "USA Today News" and "USA Today Online" uses a nomenclature shared by many media organizations (e.g. BBC News, BBC Online). "USA Today International" is a seperate edition that they publish for international readers and is mentioned in the article. The article also already mentions a "USA Today Sports" publication, for which "USA Today Sport" would be a valid redirect. Leaning delete on the rest. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm amenable to keeping those subcategories mentioned if they are renamed without the all-caps stylizations, for example, Keep USA Today Sport, but delete USA Today SPORT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That means creating a whole new stack of redirects, which any editor is welcome to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, don't want that mess especially when cite news will not use it. Amending vote above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least USA Today NEWS, which has a surprising number of page views (averaging two visitors every three days) for something that nobody would ever have a reason to search for or otherwise visit. USA Today LIFE maxed out at five page views on the same day a little while ago. The "YOUR NEWS - WHEN YOU WANT IT" variant similarly had nine page views on a single day, but that was after it was listed, so perhaps voters clicked on it. Overall, I'm leaning keep for all of them. The basic arguments for deletion are that they're unnecessary for the voters (which is not a valid argument for deleting them) and that the use of caps offends our sense of aesthetics (which is also not a valid argument for deletion). These are 8-year-old redirects. They're not used in an articles at the moment, but we don't know how many old article revisions or external links they were used in. I'm inclined to leave well enough alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep those mentioned by Patar knight, along with LIFE / MONEY because those two sections are discussed prominently at USA Today#Layout and format and because they get use per WhatamIdoing. I'm neutral on NATIONAL simply because it's a national paper. Delete the rest. -- Tavix (talk) 22:38, 9 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:Chemical compounds[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 the MOS entry. Deryck C. 16:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably redirect to a guideline about use of chemical compounds in articles, etc, but I cannot find such a guideline at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe retarget to MOS:CHEM? That's the best available target that I could find, though I'm also okay with deleting this. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If we don't have a proper target for this, then we should leave the text red to encourage its creation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With some more thought, I guess I agree with a retarget to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Chemistry#Compounds makes sense. I don't have strong opinions either way. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and re-target if you want. Either the MOS or the WikiProject Chemicals page are reasonable targets; the MOS page might be slightly more helpful. The page actually began life as a place to discuss languishing stubs about chemicals, so its merge to the collaboration page makes more sense than it looks like now. There's no advantage to deleting this. Also, there's content in the old revisions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:37, 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.

Washingtontimes[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. as similar to their websites' addresses - Nabla (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term (IDK why Twinkle "failed to find a target", so I had to manually nominate this. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A space between isn't hard to type on a search. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update added a couple more, same rationale. I have no idea how many of these there are altogether. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Entirely harmless and unambiguous. There's affinity with this stylization due to their websites (e.g.: washingtonpost.com). -- Tavix (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • These redirects don't necessarily refer to the websites though. I just don't understand the benefit of deletion here. -- Tavix (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the websites per Tavix.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. No benefit to deletion and plausible usefulness indicates that these should be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not an unlikely search term: that’s the reason I created Washingtontimes redirecting to The Washington Times. I pasted part of a link into the search box and should have been sent straight there. We should not delete it now, because “Cool URIs don’t change”.[4] —LLarson (said & done) 19:38, 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.

Online calculator[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 Software calculator#Software calculators on the Internet. Deryck C. 11:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT linkfarm, this will mislead the reader. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A notable term/type of a calculator. --Eleassar my talk 08:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Eleassar: This is a harmful redirect obviously. People searching for this would probably be looking for info on the specific type of calculator and our article does not provide any information, do you think readers will be helped? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should be fixed by adding content to the article, not by deleting the redirect. --Eleassar my talk 08:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eleassar. If a reader is looking for information on online calculators, I doubt they would be particularly disappointed with an article on calculators in general. Content can probably be added. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. This is a topic that deserves it's own article, and a redlink would encourage the formation of such an article. I also agree with Champion's analysis. Someone searching this is going to want something more specific than calculators in general, and it's something that we don't have currently. -- Tavix (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to software calculator#software calculators on the Internet. I'll concede that target is "close enough". -- Tavix (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No mention at target. What is an online version anyway? One that is on the Internet? The ones that appear as apps on phones or on laptops aren't really online. The only types I know about are online mortgage calculators, and those are mentioned in that article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wheel calculator shows one such example. -- Tavix (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:37, 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.

Georgian nationalism[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 longer a question for RfD. The redirect was deleted along with its target, and a new article has been created at the target, JohnCD (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield blanked this redirect with the edit summary, "Deleting this redirect - the article it is directing to is too subject specific to cover a broad topic like Georgian Nationalism that covers a much wider time period and subject matter". I happen to agree with that assessment, but simply blanking the redirect isn't the correct procedure, so I'm bringing this here. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is it supposed to be done then? If I have made a mistake it is because advice is unclear. Two other editors, (probably three, the third is a bit vague in his comment), had already said in the article's talk page that the redirect was inappropriate [5]. As well as deleting the redirect because of the reasons stated in my edit summary, I want to encourage an actual "Georgian Nationalism" article to be created. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiptoethrutheminefield:, it's done by bringing it here (as I have done). This discussion is the place to ask that it be deleted. There are instructions on at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#How to list a redirect for discussion. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's reached consensus through discussion at a talk page, it can go straight to WP:CSD with {{db-xfd}}, though: it needn't come here. Si Trew (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added my opinion to the talk page. There is also an AfD going on, in which the redirect has been criticized by a fifth editor: "This article is in place of the article on "Georgian nationalism" .. Info about the slogan could be included in such an article, but the whole article shouldn't be about the slogan instead of a well-balanced article on Georgian nationalism." - so that makes 5 editors in agreement that the redirect is inappropriate. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for an update, the target page Georgia for Georgians is deleted per AfD. George Ho (talk) 19:54, 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.

Carle[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 set index created. As it's no longer a redirect, it no longer falls within the jurisdiction of RfD. -- Tavix (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change to a disambiguation page due to there being various people and places also named "Carle". Examples include Matt Carle, Frankie Carle, Carle Place, Nick Carle, Gilles Carle, and Mathieu Carle. Alternatively, in the event it's decided Eric Carle is far and away the most famous Carle we could create Carle (disambiguation) and add a hatnote to Eric Carle's page. Rejectwater (talk) 14:22, 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.

Trompete[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 Trompete; disambiguate Tromba. -- Tavix (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to these languages. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Without prejudice, I've marked the first as {{R from other language|de}} and the second as {{R from other language|it}}. "Trompete" is also the Portuguese for it, but I chose German because the reference is in German; nothing stops us adding more than one language template, anyway. Si Trew (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target (in body text). The first is mentioned only in a German-language references, and the second only in a redirect hatnote. Tromba (film) should probably be moved over Tromba. "Tromba" is a false friend in (at least) a couple of other Romance languages, es:tromba is a waterspout and pt:tromba is a proboscis; so it is rather WP:XY even as a foreign-language redirect. (Catalan, Romanian and Latin are red). I guess, WP:NOTDIC kicks in really, not a translation dictionary.
For the other, Wiktionary lists both "Trompete" (German) and "trompete" (German and Portuguese). Si Trew (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Trompete (modifying target to mention term in infobox or names section) and Make disambiguation for Tromba (there is also Tromba (film) and Tromba (skipper), so that should be uncontroversial). (Disclosure: I created both.) Music encyclopedias (such as the most prestigious one, The New Grove, but others as well) generally cross-index musical instruments (and some other music terminology) from major musical languages (usually German, French, and Italian), presumably for the reason that those are the terms encountered in classical music scores, which are not usually issued in translation and thus are frequently encountered by English-speaking musicians. Basically this is a matter of WP:UEIA. (I can't think of a similar context where they are likely to see the senses of proboscis or waterspout, so I don't really see it like WP:XY.) In Grove, these names in other languages then appear under the heading for the English term. For this reason, both of these terms were on the original list for Music encyclopedia topics/44, which is why I created the redirects. (Both terms should of course appear somewhere in the Trumpet article, though.) Rigadoun (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rigadoun's proposal per his reasoning. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rigadoun's proposal to which I can't imagine any objection being raised. – Uanfala (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My objection stands, which is that it's not at the target. While there is no doubt that in other languages these mean a trumpet, WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, in particular not a musical dictionary. As I stated, these are listed at Wiktionary. Si Trew (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rigadoun. This is a case where English-speakers are actually likely to encounter and search for foreign terms. It would be perverse to delete one of the few helpful foreign redirects. If the foreign words need to be at the target, go ahead: be bold. Gorobay (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to change targets in a way that directly would influence the discussion: poca a poca. But I've no objection to the foreign-language term being added there, and it would make sense to keep the R if it were. As it stands, I don't see how we could know that a reader hadn't stumbled across a Spanish waterspout or a Portuguese proboscis, although admittedly that seems less likely. Si Trew (talk) 22:36, 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.

Efficient Networks[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. Article creation is welcome. Deryck C. 16:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently was (is?) a part of Gigaset Communications, but is not mentioned in that article. There's one other mention on Wikipedia, at TI-AR7, but it is not worth a redirect. Needs to be deleted. — Gorthian (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it was bought by Siemens for 1.5 billion in 2002, but it isn't mentioned at the Siemens article. [6] That precedes the formation of Gigaset, but if the Gigaset article covers its history in Siemens then it can be mentioned there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no mention even of Gigaset in the Siemens article, despite its seemingly thorough and long history section. I doubt there will be any material added to either article about Efficient Networks. All I can find online is manuals for modems and the generic phrase "efficient networks". But I haven't spent a whole lot lot time on this, either. — Gorthian (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:11, 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.

Prime Minister 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, while muttering that a Prime Minister is Head of Government but is often (e.g. in constitutional monarchies) not Head of State; however since POTUS is presumably both, the conclusion is correct. JohnCD (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A President and a Prime Minister are quite different. SSTflyer 13:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no such thing as the Prime Minister of the United States, however a Prime Minister is the Head of State of his or her government, and the President of the United States is, likewise, the Head of State of the US government. My sense is we should Keep this. I would gladly bet that scores and scores of students outside the US who haven't yet learned about the various forms of government around the world have wondered who the Prime Minister of the United States is, and have done an internet and/or Wikipedia search for the term. Rejectwater (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from incorrect name}}. Speaking from experience, some people unfamiliar with American civics do use this term in error. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar knight. --BDD (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per {{R from incorrect name}}. If someone who calls their head of state a prime minister were looking for information on the U.S.'s head of state, and inadvertently typed in prime minister instead of president, it would lead them to the correct listing. Onel5969 TT me 21:19, 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.

CIA reports regarding Nigeria[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) 20:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All articles like CIA activities in Morocco were deleted per this AfD, so this redirect does not make sense now JMHamo (talk) 10:11, 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.

Eslovaquia[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) 20:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Spanish. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. See es:Eslovaquia. This is the Spanish name for Slovakia and hence a plausible redirect for articles copied or translated from Spanish. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Any article copied or translated from Spanish should be properly copy-edited into English. In the meantime I've rcatted as {{R from other language|es}} without prejudice to this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That link goes to an essay that attempts to explain an unnamed portion of a guideline. Color me a bit confused. Perhaps citing the guideline at WP:R#DELETE, #8, would be better, and the nominator would have done well to quote the guideline directly. Striking my "Keep". I think redirects like this are useful, but I won't die on this hill. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, I'd forgotten that WP:RFD#D8 says so directly. I agree it would be better generally if nominators generally referred to the criterion under which they are nominating something for deletion (if indeed they are: this is Redirects for Discussion, but I'm assuming it is the case here). That being said, I don't think that the deletion guidelines should be taken as exclusive. Si Trew (talk) 22:26, 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.

Sip Kin-ping[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 10#Sip Kin-ping

Eslovenia[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) 20:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Spanish, does not seem to be a plausible {{R from typo}} to me. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. See es:Eslovenia. This is the Spanish name for Slovenia and hence a plausible redirect for articles copied or translated from Spanish. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Any article copied or translated from Spanish should be properly copy-edited into English. In the meantime I've rcatted as {{R from other language|es}} without prejudice to this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking my "Keep"; see similar discussion on this page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:35, 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.

Vorstandsvorsitzender[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 10#Vorstandsvorsitzender

كاثوليكي[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. 23:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly related to Arabic. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:51, 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.

Arthur J. Salemme[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 per nom to encourage article creation. Deryck C. 23:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect used to be a tiny stub article, and was later deleted and made into a redirect to the single page that refers to this person (Arthur). But that page (NSA Hall of Honor) lists many people who were honored, who have redlinks because nobody has written a page for them yet. Arthur falls into the same category and should show up as a redlink, rather than as a wikilink to a redirect back to the same page. A search for his name will still find the single useful page that mentions him (the list of honorees) and will also lead to the source citation of that list, which has a page about him and why he was a notable employee of NSA. Gnuish (talk) 03:41, 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.

Shiists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 10#Shiists

Shi?a Islam[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 10#Shi?a Islam

Template:Hasan[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. 23:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect from template space. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: nonsensical cross-namespace redirect. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:45, 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.

Template:Namco's X series[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 10#Template:Namco's X series

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_28&oldid=1088108768"