Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 4, 2016.

Humanitarian passport[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 Travel document#Laissez-passer and emergency passports. -- Tavix (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a likely search term, and its inaccurate (or at least not mentioned by the article.) The closest thing I could see to a passport being mentioned is the outdated Nansen passport (It being issued by the league of nations speaks for its age). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Travel document#Laissez-passer and emergency passports, which is defined as a document that is used "for one-way travel to the issuing country for humanitarian reasons". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per NCFF above as the best target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Truce (1996 film)[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) 19:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the actual article is a 1997 film, I have my doubts that someone would know the name but get the date wrong, or even search with both. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the infobox of The Truce (1997 film) says that the film was originally released in 1998... Steel1943 (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943:, the article name and lead say 1997. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. All I'm doing is pointing out an inconsistency that probably needs to be verified. Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943:, sorry for sounding argumentative, Ill dig into the refs and see if I can find out which is correct. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The IMDb lists its release date as 1998, but the page itself calls it 1997, im very confused. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges: No worries; I didn't interpret it as such. Either way, I noticed the same inconsistency with the references as well, so I'm not sure what is going on right now. Either way, the film was definitely not released in 1996, so... Steel1943 (talk) 00:18, 5 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.

St John the Baptist Church, Toodyay (1963- )[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 15#St John the Baptist Church, Toodyay (1963- )

Voornaam[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 Dutch name#Dutch given names. -- Tavix (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“Voornaam” is Dutch for “first name”. Most cultures have first names; it is not a specifically Dutch concept. Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Gorobay (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:56, 4 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.

Cloververse[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 procedural close. RfDs do occasionally result in page moves, but if that's what you're requesting, use WP:RM. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the talk at Cloverfield (franchise), "Cloververse" is the most technically accurate name for grouping the film series. Requesting deletion to make way for move. uKER (talk) 18:55, 4 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.

John in Islam[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 default to delete given the consensus not to keep but no clear consensus on what else to do. Deryck C. 11:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the only John in the religion? SSTflyer 10:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are several Johns even in the Crhistian Bible, so "The Baptist" is essentially a disambiguator. I'm not very Christan, but I think two of Jusus' extended disciples were called John. I think this is fine, it goes to the section which relates the Quran to the Bible so I think we have no problems there. I think this is fine, tho' I understand the concern. Si Trew (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Without prejudice, I'ce added the existing section target to the nom, I have marked the R as {{R to section}} and placed a comment it at the target per WP:RSECT. I emphasise, this is without prejudice to this discussion. I do that even if they end up delete. Si Trew (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - This appears to be the most notable 'John' in the specific context of the Koran, although I'm not sure. I lean to keeping things as is. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, with more thought, I think I also support creating a page to disambiguate the results. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I'd prefer deletion over disambiguation since it doesn't seem like a likely search term to me. Disambiguation is preferable over the status quo, however, so it could be a useful compromise/no consensus solution. -- Tavix (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is nothing to disambiguate, as no other John's are mentioned in the Quran. The article fails to mention that according to Muslim tradition the head of John the Baptist is burried in the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. The alternative would be to redirect to Yahya or Yahya (name). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per PatarKnight, pace Tavix. While that is WP:NOTPERFECT, I think it's better. I can see that deleting it would give people a better chance to find tge Apostle themselves through a search, but that they are both in sections ("Islam" and "Islamic View") probably would make the search rather clumsy, so the DAB will act as a good "hint" both to the search engine and to the reader searching. User:SSTflyers question in the nomination, "Is this the only John in the religion?" is no, as we see. I think there are a couple of others but fairly minor characters with walk-on parts. Si Trew (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have John (Baptist) but not John (Apostle). I don't think we should have the first, will nom separately. I must admit I always thought that Matthew Mark Luke and John, well I never gave it much thought, really, pretty obviously he wa John the Apostle but I never really thought about it when I was being fed baby food with apostle spoons. They weren't as posh as the ones at the article, though, just a bit of sheffield steel, I think. Si Trew (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_14#John (Baptist). q.v. Si Trew (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this compromise idea the best, although I still support deletion as my top preference. -- Tavix (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC) clarified 18:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no primary topic John to discuss as with Mary in Islam. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. We generally frown on DAB pages with only two entries, but WP:2DABS states that it is necessary when there is no clear primary topic. This is pretty clearly the case here. Redirecting to one John or the other doesn't make sense, but neither does deleting this just because of a general preference against two-entry DABs. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:41, 4 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.

AD Carry[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. The majority in number and argument successfully argued that since this concept is not explained anywhere, it causes confusion to those who search for it. If it can be explained (with a source) somewhere, then I will allow recreation of a redirect. Until then, this needs to stay red. -- Tavix (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article it redirects to. If it is meaningful, it needs an explanation. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 4 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.

어둠의 왼손[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. The only one in which I can develop a consensus for is 섿쇼마뤁, which will be deleted. All others had some kind of objection and deserve an individual discussion if anyone still wants to pursue deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the targets of these Korean-language redirects have any special affinity for the Korean language or culture. Per WP:FORRED, they should be deleted. — Gorthian (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing ㅋㅋㅋ as a keep for now; it'll get nominated later. (See Deryck Chan's comments below.) — Gorthian (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep ㅋㅋㅋ, as "kekeke"/"gegege" actually does originate in Korean. Never mind, I see that "kekeke" is not discussed in the current article. It can be deleted. Delete the others; as mentioned, the subjects have no particular relation to the Korean language. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Isn't there a significant relationship between traditional Korean medicine and traditional Chinese medicine, so that specific redirect might make sense? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 어둠의 왼손 which was in the target at the time of creation. None of the suggestions in FORRED make any sense in relation to this redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • Rich Farmbrough, when The Left Hand of Darkness went through a FA review recently, it was decided to remove the translation section. I doubt it will be put back. And the Korean translation is the only foreign redirect that was made, though there were quite a few other translations listed. — Gorthian (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "섿쇼마뤁" (I can't even find any mention of this on Korean Wikipedia?). Keep "의식동원" as it is correct and culturally relevant (food therapy currently redirects to Chinese food therapy; at any rate the local variants of East Asian food therapy are a cultural continuum, not discrete concepts). Delete "어둠의 왼손" per WP:FORRED. Weak keep "스트래스필드" since Strathfield, New South Wales has a large Korean population and a Google search of "스트래스필드" ("Strathfield" transliterated to Korean) does return search results predominantly about Strathfield NSW. Procedural unbundle "ㅋㅋㅋ" since its Anglicised variant Kekeke still redirects to Leet. Deryck C. 15:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Deryck Chan: 1) The article on Strathfield only mentions South Koreans very briefly, along with the other migrant nationalities; shouldn't it discuss this a little more to justify the Korean redirect? Do all of those nationalities need redirects in their languages? 2) ㅋㅋㅋ and kekeke (not included in this RFD) are both pointing to Leet because they used to be discussed there. That section was deleted, though, so now there's no mention of either. And as I understand it (I don't know any Korean), "ㅋㅋㅋ" and its romanization "kekeke" are basically equivalent to "hahaha" in English. If that's true, then ㅋㅋㅋ is a WP:XY and should be deleted.— Gorthian (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gorthian: (1) Yea, that's why it's "weak" keep. (2) I agree with you, but I think we should handle that as a separate RfD of ㅋㅋㅋ and Kekeke. I'm uncomfortable with deleting one but not the other. Deryck C. 11:54, 11 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.

Google Watch[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 Android Wear and hatnote. -- Tavix (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this is semi-protected. And I believe most people would be looking for Android Wear when they search this, even though there is a less-known subject discussed at the article. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The protection occurred as a result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 12, which should provide some background. -- Tavix (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary of what I understood from the DRV, for those who don't like big walls of text: Daniel Brandt founded the advocacy group Google Watch, and was part of various flamewars on Wikipedia, which therefore tainted in appearance if not in fact the result of AfD etc. processes involving GW circa 2009.
Methinks a retarget to Android Wear, which did not exist at the time, ought at least to be considered. I am not sure it is worth reopening the 2009 can of worms, but there seemed at the time to be consensus that GW (the website/advocacy group) was somewhat notable, at least enough for a redirect and a mention. A retarget+hatnote could be fine, but (1) there are due weight issues and (2) it is not clear, even now, that Android wear is primary topic for that term - my non-Google search turned "Google watch watch" fairly high in the results. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Android Wear - many sources refer to it as such.[1][2][3] (Got these from a Duckduckgo search.) I don't think we're treading on DRV's toes because that DRV concerned the deletion of the former article on the watchdog group; this suggestion to change the redirect target does not overturn the deletion of that article. Deryck C. 10:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:24, 4 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.

Alone for the Holidays (film)[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) 15:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More redirects that were the result of a faulty Crystal Ball. These films don't exist, and their rumors aren't mentioned at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan: How to Talk to Girls is a book, not a film. Also, I don't see how your comment relates to CoffeeWithMarkets', you both seem to be referring to different things. -- Tavix (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I've edited my comment. Deryck C. 20:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:23, 4 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.

Rumson Polo Club[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 17

Former Muslim Kambohs of Meerut[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) 18:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what "Former" is meant to identify. Also, Muslim Kambohs of Meerut and Muslim Kamboh of Meerut do not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 15:23, 4 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.

Elitist snob[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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 11:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive redirect created by sockpuppet of the "North Carolina Vandal" from 2006. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:21, 4 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.

Gulf Coast[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep (non-admin closure). Proposals for moving or renaming Gulf Coast of the United States can be discussed at that article's talk page. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, but "Gulf Coast of the United States" is clearly not a WP:COMMONNAME. SSTflyer 11:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I'm honestly not sure what the is being proposed here. Is this supposed to be a move request? Otherwise, I see no issue with the redirect and it's clearly helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems proper and useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:09, 6 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.

AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Scholarship[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be an alternative name for the full name of the target; the target's subject's full name is "AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples", not "Scholarship". Steel1943 (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Legitimate former name. The first redirect was created from a page move in 2009, edit summary: "moved AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Scholarship to AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples: The journal has changed name". --BDD (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: I noticed that as well. However, I've looked through the external links listed on the article, as well as did a few searches via third party search engines, and I was unable to find any definitive proof that this was ever a former name. One detailed reference proving me otherwise could be enough for me to withdraw this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Librarians to the rescue! See these results from WorldCat. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure enough, the first two entires on that search display the current title of the article and the title of the redirects, and they both have the same ISSN. Consider this nomination withdrawn. Steel1943 (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Mortal Instruments: City of Ashes (2014 film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 16#The Mortal Instruments: City of Ashes (2014 film)

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 both to barbarism. There's clear consensus for barbarous to target there. The consensus for barbarity isn't as clear, but the desire some expressed for both of them to go to the same place is the difference maker. -- Tavix (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbarity[edit]

Delete. Barbarity rarely these days means things the Barbarians did, it just means any violent act we happen not to like. WP:NOTDIC. This is not marked as {{R from noun}} or any such, but it sends people astray. People wanting to know about "Barbarities" probably do not want to know about "Barbarians". Si Trew (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as with barbaric. Still used a lot in news articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to cruelty, which is what it means as a rule. Mangoe (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My instinct is to redirect over to 'cruelty' as well, given that the terms seem synonymous in Anglo-American English. I'm open, though, to other suggestions or ideas. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it really make sense to have this and "Barbarous" pointing different places? It looks like we're headed that way... --BDD (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbarous[edit]

While literally this refers to Barbarians, its use is mostly in style guides. e.g. Orwell's Six Rules the last is "break any of these rules rather than write something outright barbarous", (a bit WP:IAR before his time old George) so I think this is an odd place to put it. Retarget to Barbarism (linguistics). Si Trew (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to barbarism as the corresponding noun form. Mangoe (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to barbarism Per above. Jackninja5 (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it really make sense to have this and "Barbarity" pointing different places? It looks like we're headed that way... --BDD (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:43, 4 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.

Indian Independence[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 disambiguate as drafted. Deryck C. 11:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget one or two of the three, so they all have the same target: but which? The second could be a {{R from other caps}} (the "i" on "independence: isn't) but goes to a different target. The third is an {{R from misspelling}}. Neither is tagged as such, but that's easy to do when we agree where it should go. For completeness, I checked and Indian Independance is red. Please don't someone create it just to make a point and have a combinatorial explosion, I nominate a genuine case of confusion here when likely misspellings and things differentiating by a caps I which on many screens (not mine) is hard to distinguish from a lowercase I, and the search engine does not distinguish case except when it must, this is where redirects kick in, and in this case, kick out. But I have no idea which is the better target. Indian Independence Movement is R from other caps and should be, but Indian independance movement and Indian Independance movement are red. With caps M all are red. Si Trew (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget Indian Independence to Indian independence movement so that they all three redirect there. I say this because the latter has links to almost everything else having to do with independence, instead of being focused on one aspect. "Indian independence" (however it's spelled) is a broad, general term, so it should redirect to a broad, general article. — Gorthian (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget so that they all go to the 'Indian independence movement' page, which is a broad, historically-minded article. I think that errors in capitalization as well as in spelling are reasonable enough things in terms of helpful redirects. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between Indian independence movement and Partition of India, as well as any other related articles (the Act, the Native American self-determination movement hatnoted at the Indian independence movement page). If we see "Indian independence" as an event then it must refer to the Partition of India. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Indian Independence Act 1947. I suspect that when these links are used, they are used to refer to the facts and conditions of India achieving independence (best detailed in the Act's article). Redirecting to the movement would be a mistake, because when somebody speaks of "Indian independence" they are referring to what happened at the end of that movement, not the movement as a whole.—indopug (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per Patar knight. I've drafted a page at Indian independence. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:33, 4 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.

African Negro[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 16#African Negro

CAT:LINKROT[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 as proposed. Deryck C. 12:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The target category was renamed to Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations, which no longer has "link rot" in its title. Therefore, the above redirect should be either retargeted or deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:44, 4 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_4&oldid=1088108730"