Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 20, 2016.

4CT[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. -- Tavix (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This concept is not known by the acronym "4CT". -- Tavix (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I guess my search was obscured by Nokia phones. -- Tavix (talk) 03:32, 21 October 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.

Army.mil[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 3#Army.mil

Puerile[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 31#Puerile

Indian Independence[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 4#Indian Independence

Four colour map problem[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) Pppery 22:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Not marked as {{R from alternative language}} so I have no idea what this means. I guess it is some strange kind of English; "problem" seems to occur interchangeably with "theorem" in the article as if they were the same thing, but in the WP:RS at the bottom it interchanges. There isn't a four-colour map problem, nor a four-color map problem, there is a four-color map to the same target but not a four-colour map, so none of those is any help to me to divulge what this might mean, encyclopeedicly. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense: Three hits in the last ninety days, well below bot noise level. Nothing links to it beyond this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, plausible search term. The article makes plenty of references to the fact it's a problem and the fact that it involves four colors and a map. There's nothing wrong here. -- Tavix (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There is something slightly wrong here, but I am not sure what it is, User:Tavix. What I said about links etc and so on are all correct, this is exactly the justification for many a listing, but I presume you guessed I was not entirely foxed about it. However, I actually searched for four-colour map problem with the hyphen and couldn't find it, and it took me a few goes to search until I removed the "u" from "color" before I got there. So it does kinda block the search, for the search engine to take over its usual treat-hyphens-as-spaces-as-equals rule, when we have an WP:ENGVAR that has it in an R form without the hyphen, but not with it. I do not suggest the solution is to add the redirects with the hyphens. I will happily withdraw, of course, but I should like to have it recorded that those that are red were red, when I searched, and I had to search in Damyank spelling for it to get me. I was surprised they didn't exist in the WP:ENGVAR. Perhaps the best solution is to create them, in this case, but my search for "four-colour map problem" came up with no results, strangely. I doubt it will now repeat that behaviour, because it will probably now find this discussion: you have to believe me when I did it, I got zero results. I note it simply so I can report it somehow, but I don't really know how to do that. Pretty obviously withdrawn, I never intended it really to be deleted. But my reasoning for why is absolutely sound: no links, three hits in ninety days. Many a redirect has thus gone. Si Trew (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely a plausible redirect. The 4 colour map theorem has only been a theorem since it was proved in 1976. Before that it was a conjecture, or problem. Meters (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    4 colour map problem goes there but not 4 color map problem. I think I have conjectured enough. Si Trew (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter now blue, created by User:Tavix at 01.22 this morning with this edit. One has one blue, expect others to go the same. The ones I said or implied were red, were red when I said so. Si Trew (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
off-topic
Suggestion out of RfD's remit, I wonder if to subcat and create template to match {{R from other english variant}}, {{R from engvar}} etc would be better. We can hardly mark these as {{R from alternative language|en}}, as they stand. I bring this one, of course, as a test case. What I said about hits and links etc are correct, and many have been deleted by those criteria, many that I myself have nominated. I am not that stupid, I can spel proply. Si Trew (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you wasting our time with an abusive test case? I ignored the language variant issue because it is simply not a concern, and you didn't clearly mention that it was what you were interested in. If I remember correctly, we have redirects from some of the hyphenated and variant spellings already. If you want the rest of them filled in then add them, and if you want to propose a new subcat then do so. Don't play games. Meters (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not wasting anyone's time. I regularly contribute to RfD and I spend hours checking through redirects and following them up. What you mean, if you put it correctly, is "why are you wasting my time?" I am not. I didn't ask you to reply. I made my response, and I stick by it. If you choose to reply, and you consider your reply a waste of time, then that is your waste of time, not mine. I didn't waste anyone's time. I wasted a tiny bit of server time but nobody requires you to come here. I did not waste your time. I actually checked up all the links, I checked up all the variations, I listed them all here, I asked they don't suddenly become blue to invalidate my argument and essentially kick the bucket from under me, which has happened before. I set out my stall like a nice little conjecture: with saying we have some in one kind of english, some in another kind of english, but neither in both. That is a perfectly reasonable argument, and indeed I went out of my way even to offer a suggestion to how we may solve the problem, because it is not just this one that suffers from this problem. I came with clean hands. If you can't see that my proposal for deletion is spurious, try rewriting RFD guidelines WP:RFD#D2 and WD:RFD#D5. This is WP:XY confusing, by your own lights, because a conjecture is not a problem, be it said in 1976 or 1588. Si Trew (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You did indeed ask me, and any one else who bothered to read this request for discussion, to comment when you posted it. We're all volunteers. None of us are required to come here. I don't normally have any dealings here, and all your actions have done is convinced me not to spent any time on this board once the redirect I listed is dealt with. Congratulations. Meters (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will tell you when I want to withdraw it, (non-admin closure) User:Tavix, not you tell me. That was a (non-admin closure) and I got an (edit conflict) on the closure, a genuine one not just buggering about, I got an ec with adding my comment before tavix (non-admin closure) closed it with this non-admin closure, ultra vires. Because I said I will withdraw it does not mean I said withdraw it: had that been my !vote, I would have struck my nomination and !voted to withdraw it. What is so difficult about this? There is no WP:CONSENSUS yet, because I as nom, you as closer, and someone else who is annoyed for wasting their time, has commented, and that someone else is the person who created it. That was a supposition that I will withdraw it if there are reasons to withdraw it. The reasons to delete it still stand. You can call it a strawman if you like, but that is exactly how Neelix redirects were found out, because we have to think about what we do with these kinds of things. I was just asking people to think really. And maybe try some variations for themselves. Or is it just me who does that. Cf. Indian independence and Indian independance and Indian independance. Is it just me who wonders what other variations we have, and whether they are useful or harmful or neither? Why can you be a dependant but not an independant? Am I the only one who can tell the difference any more? Si Trew (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Pretty obviously withdrawn, I never intended it really to be deleted. Stop wasting everyone's time. -- Tavix (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not obvious to me. Show me where I wrote "withdrawn" in bold at the start of a comment, or indeed where I wrote it in bold anywhere in a comment. Show me. I have pointed out to you where you closed it and what you said. Show me. You are wasting my time because I was doing a four colour map for the counties of Hungary before this farrago. But I don't mind pointing out procedure to you, I am only a non-admin myself. I still think one delete and two keeps doth not a consensus make. Most regulars here are not even awake at weekends. We won't get consensus until about Tuesday evening UTC at the earliest. Let it run. "Redirects usually are listed for about seven days"... I think it says something somewhere, I may be thinking of PNT though Si Trew (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just quoted where you said you withdrew and that you never actually wanted it deleted... -- Tavix (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I said myself that I didn't want it deleted. It didn't mean I wanted it withdrawn. If I meant that I would have not voted for withdrawn (I do do that, you may have noticed, with some of the redirects from Neelix that I list here when I list as sometimes not sure or delete. I deliberately do not put it in bold and so on, so that is not taken as a not vote. I am glad that misunderstanding is cleared up. No hard feelings, let's carry on shall we, you with keeping everything and me with deleting everything. Truly, I am not a deletionist, but as the search engine gets better the redirects get worse, they get in the way more. This one genuinely did with me, and of course I know how to spell color or colour and perhaps I was rather arch with the nomination, but have you tried to get anything out of WT:RFD these days> I should be glad if you would comment there, really I should. Really this is a proposal for WT:RFD but nobody looks at that, not even the regs like thee and me here. There's a discussion about what we do with foreign-language redirects going along somewhere that User:Champion pinged me about, I pinged various others. RfD is quite top-heavy with foreign-language speakers. I made my case there, that translators and foreign language speakers do it for free, as volunteers, like we all do. It was more to do with a discussion at WP:PNT I think started by User:Champion who is good at Chinese. I do French, Hungarian and a bit of German and a smattering of Spanish and a tiny bit of some others. Multilinguists do not get appreciated in any way at EN:WP, even though we do the gnomework tying all the Wikidata links together, pointing out false friends and WP:ENGVARs, and all that. Not only do we have to translate, be it User:Siuenti and many other regs here whose names I forget but who are regs here and take what it might be in Japanese or somesuch, you have to trust them on that unless you want to learn Japanese. (I have learned Japanese to a basic level, but mostly forgotten it, but I can still understand hiragana but am losing understanding katakana, my eyesight is not so good and the broad strokes of the hira are easier for me than the narrow ones of kata). You have here probably the only resource on the whole of EN:WP who has some kind of idea of what Hungarian means. There was one today well it will be yesterday now and I have to follow that one up, but haven't got around to it because of our little argy-bargy. Let it settle, let it go. Let's just carry on, you keeping, me proposing for deletion and retargeting etc. You haven't even commented on Indian independance, yet. Jump to it, things to be done. Ony another seven million redirects to go....
If {{WP:NOTPERFECT|Wikipedia were perfect]], there would be zero redirects. The search engine would be perfect, and everyone who had a thought would be taken to their information before typing it. It's not. Our job, as I see it, is to make it better. It's good that editors try to do that in different ways. Otherwise I give up and get paid $200 an hour for translating rather than translate template markup before I get to the first word. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Pages_needing_translation_into_English#monolinguals_and_translation_copy-editing, if you please. Si Trew (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: You're ranting nonsense...at least nothing related to the redirect in question. You need to stop, it's quite ridiculous. -- Tavix (talk) 00:33, 21 October 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:Deletion request[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) 19:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 20:42, 20 October 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.

Boner law[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 and restore Boner Law. WJBscribe (talk)

Boner Law (with "law" capitalised) was deleted per WP:CSD R3, in 2009. --Nevé–selbert 20:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Restore example in nomination as {{R from misspelling}}. Phonetically, this is extremely similar (or the same depending on accents) to how it is properly said, so this will aid searches. Highly unlikely that "Boner law" can refer to anything else. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Restore. I fully agree with Patar knight, these are useful search terms. -- Tavix (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Restore - Yes, there's plenty of jokes that can be made about this, but the above arguments make sense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as creator) and restore capitalized version - The reason I created the redirect is because I was searching for the PM and thought it was spelt "Boner". I don't think I'm the only one to make this error. ... discospinster talk 15:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the miscapitalized version as redundant and annoying. Restore the other one. Siuenti (talk) 15:38, 24 October 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.

Johnadams[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 3#Johnadams

OBAMA![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, noting that this is WP:NOTAVOTE. -- Tavix (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Should be deleted or retargeted to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. It's a rather odd term to search for, if I may so. --Nevé–selbert 19:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't see a good reason to keep this. It's not really helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:12, 21 October 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.

OBAMA[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 3#OBAMA

The Sun (newspaper)[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. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps retarget to Sun (newspaper). I am aware that there are incoming links, but clearly there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 09:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, unfortunately. Looking at the internal links, they are overwhelmingly for the British newspaper. It would have been far better, in my opinion, to have the target at The Sun (British newspaper). But as it stands, there are about 4,000 articles that link through this, and the vast majority look to me like things the British Sun is likely to talk about (celebs, British politicians, etc etc.)

    The history has a nice WP:ES by User:DMacks about a "long-term slow-moving war over target of this redirect." (quite long-term, User:DMacks made that comment on 9 March 2012 and it had been rumbling for years before that). So I very much doubt an RfD will achieve any lasting effect. Resignedly, I say keep, but this should probably be sorted once for all at some higher level. The page was edit-protected (by DMacks) from 9 March to 28 April 2012 (by User:Tbhotch) but has been stable since then. We'd probably be better off opening some full-blown discussion at somewhere more prominent than RfD, I don't know where: its talk page is red but really talk pages for redirects are almost invisible and despite what WP:Redirect etc says I wouldn't recommend putting anything on a redirect's talk page if you actually expect it to be read. Si Trew (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Sun (newspaper). There are many such newspapers, current and discontinued. Wikipedia should be a timeless work, not obsessing over the recent, the older newpapers are as notable as the current. Recentism is a bias to avoid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The most notable newspapers at the proposed target that might challenge this for primary topic all do not actually call themselves "The Sun", but have some qualifier (e.g. Toronto Sun, Vancouver Sun, Baltimore Sun, Daily Sun). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sun (newspaper). This is a case of WP:INCOMPDAB. "Sun (newspaper)" is disambiguated, but still too ambiguous to refer to any one target. When this happens, it's best to retarget to the most relevant disambiguation (or in this case, a list). -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:34, 20 October 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 Sun[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. There is consensus that Sun is the primary topic for "The Sun". -- Tavix (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This has undergone several edit wars but was never discussed at RfD. IMO people searching for this term would likely be looking for a newspaper or something else on the disambiguation. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 09:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Champion: Just an FYI, this redirect was subject to an RfD in January 2010. Steel1943 (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sun > → Sun. Were we to change the nominated one, we'd have redirects that differed only in lettercase that went to different targets. That's not impossible but I think a pretty strong case has to be made for doing that. I doubt anyone would argue that these should be deleted (per WP:THE) since it's a WP:COMMONNAME for the thing. There's really not a very good solution to this one.
I notice The world and The World both go to World and not as The World (newspaper) does (to World_(disambiguation)#Periodicals). It's all a bit unsatisfactory, I agree, but I can't think of a solution that would be less so. Si Trew (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sun and The sun both have incoming links. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and while technically we could hatnote Sun with {{redirect2|The sunThe Sun}} and so on, presumably the aim is to keep the poor old fellow cluttered at the top of seven hundred hatnotes. Sure, it means that we only have a hatnote there for Sun (disamiguation) and not, e.g. The Sun (disambiguation) – we could perhaps add that into the existing hatnote – but what good even would that do? It would be saying "We now have two disambiguations. Messieurs et mesdames, faites vos jeux, please now place your bets, which of the two disambiguation pages should you like to try first?". I really can't think of a term more common than "the sun" that has left not even a chink of daylight to guide us out. A sun and a Sun are both red (as are A world and a World, to complete my earlier analogue.
    An earth and An Earth also; The Earth is an R to Earth (again, WP:THE versus WP:COMMONNAME) but to my suprise The earth is red. But, then, Earth (newspaper) and The Earth (newspaper) are also red, so perhaps that is not so great an analogy.
    Casting desperately to the heavens, The moon and The Moon both → Moon, which starts "The Moon" (i.e. the "The" is not in bold at the start of the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE; "The Sun" likewise, but Earth is just Earth not "The Earth"). I imagine much of this terminology would have been much fought over, e.g. why does not Moon tell us about satellites in general and The Moon about "ours" in particular. Our battle is essentially WP:THE versus WP:COMMONNAME. If WP:THE wins, then "The Sun" (and "The World") should go to the DABs about newspapers etc. thus called, since by our own lights, lunar or solar, we call the heavenly bodies just "Sun" and "Moon" as their WP:ARTICLETITLEs. If WP:COMMONNAME] wins, they should stay where they are. I think they should stay where they are. Keep, or I will get Apollo onto, pronto. I don't see much point in e.g. asking WP:WikiProject Astronomy, with all due respect they know what the sun moon and earth are, any more than if we asked what WP:WikiProject Media to tell us what The Sun, The Moon and The Earth were.
    It's really tempting to say WP:XY out of sheer cussedness but I'm pretty sure they are fine as they stand. After all, the newspapers were named after the heavenly bodies, not the other way around.
    To take some less well-known papers, Morning Star is a DAB, Morning Star (newspaper) you can guess for yourself, The morning star is red, but you may be WP:SURPRISEd with where The Morning Star goes. Si Trew (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Makes perfect sense, even as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Steel1943 (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I don't believe that an average person searching for "The Sun" is more likely to be looking for the newspaper than the Sun. Most people outside of the UK have never heard of The Sun newspaper. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sun" should go to Sun (newspaper), as this case-sensitive combination overwhelmingly refers to a newspaper. "The sun" can go to Sun. Alternatively, delete these redirects and allow the internal search engine to do its job, which it appears to me to do well. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, after reading the old discussion keep, per Gavia Immer. Summed it up perfectly, and nothing has changed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The star seems to be the primary topic, and the hatnote takes care of the rest of the cases.Tazerdadog (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per SmokeyJoe. Readers looking for the topic in astronomy would not be searching for "The Sun". SSTflyer 03:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but use a hatnote that includes a link to the newspaper and the DAB page. Given that the Sun is a proper noun, it's not an unreasonable search. Since the Sun is much more prominent than The Sun, it seems like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies and it should stay at the current target.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:57, 27 October 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.

List of cults[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 to delete. -- Tavix (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been redirected to several pages throughout its history, but never discussed at RfD. I would suggest deletion and possibly salting it. This is because effectively, any target is bound to be a POV as a group that someone identifies as a "cult" may not be viewed by everyone as such and a "new religious movement" is not necessarily a "cult" and vice versa. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - The distinction between a 'cult' and a 'religion' is a fuzzy area, indeed, but redirects don't have to be neutral. Nor even strictly accurate, really... my instinct is to retain this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My instinct is to delete it because there are all kinds of other cults describied at cult: Doomsday cults, Political cults, etc let alone things that are not enumerated there such as cult films. WP:RFD#D2 confusing because we are here directing from the general to the specific, which is going to be WP:SURPRISEing for people who are looking for cults other than new religious movements, and in particular because as Cult#Terminological history says (referenced) "Most sociologists and scholars of religion also began to reject the word "cult" altogether because of its negative connotations in mass culture". Yes, redirects don't have to be neutral, but they don't have to be downright misleading either. Si Trew (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term and an appropriate redirect target. We explain the difference in the associated article, so there's minimal risk of confusion. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 21 October 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.

IGI Global[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 30#IGI Global

Template:Corrupt (organization)[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) 19:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so is COL is corrupt it's isn't. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 16:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Corrupt and conflict of interest are not one and the same... Steel1943 (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. COI is not the same as corruption, not even close, so it is incorrect and as such prone to make a difficult situation even worse. - Nabla (talk) 17:41, 23 October 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 graduation song[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, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous since there are no entries on the list that are named this title. I seem to be getting a lot of search results about Graduation (Friends Forever). But I believe that is not a common name even for that specific entry. (I am currently expanding the target article). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'd rather just let people search given that there doesn't seem to be one clear-cut instance of a track known as "The Graduation Song". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On Wikipedia, I found "The Graduation Song" as a single in Wynter Gordon discography, and a Chinese TV (movie? series?) starring Janice Man. I don't suggest retargeting to either, and a dab page would be useless. If either becomes notable, then an article can be written. — Gorthian (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They might mean Pomp and Circumstance, but this term is pretty vague otherwise. It doesn't need "The" in front as that would imply just one, or a specific title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:09, 22 October 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.

Graduation in absentia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 31#Graduation in absentia

美國管理科技大學[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for Chinese. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what User:Champion is objecting to, but article titles on en-wiki should be in English. I move the page to what appeared to be the English equivalent, and it was subsequently redirected Jimfbleak (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: See WP:RFFL. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not seeing a particular link between this organization and China that would merit such a redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete English school in the US. No need for a Chinese (or any other foreign language) redirect. Meters (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason why most people would search the Chinese name for it. Joseph2302 09:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:48, 22 October 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.

Land Force Northern Area[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 31#Land Force Northern Area

British 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 delete and salt. Consolidating recent discussions there is a clear consensus for deletion on the grounds that 'British independence' is a distinctly different concept from 'Brexit'. Just Chilling (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obligatory RfD listing based on the fact that I'm recreating as redirect a page that has had two Afds that both resulted in delete outcomes. Quite frankly I don't understand why everyone keeps trying to wipe every mention of this term off the face of Wikipedia. Prisencolin (talk)

Delete Two Afds have demonstrated the overwhelming view that this is not seen to be a term that is in significant use for this topic or any of the other topics that you have claimed it is. Yet you stubbornly recreate it in the face of this? Mutt Lunker (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was hardly any proof presented that this term is not in significant use other than a few vague claims.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's entirely back to front: for the article, then dab, now redirect to exist or be retained the onus for proof is that it is in significant use. You twice, overwhelmingly, failed to convince the debate. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems, per above, back to front logic. I'd have thought the biggest broad meaning was colonial independence from Britain. Seems WP:RECENTISM, so in balance both meh and trout. Widefox; talk 15:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been used countless times in various news outlets, some of which would be considered reliable sources. Regardless, redirects aren't required meet WP:GNG, and for that matter neither are disambiguation pages. The use of this term falls well within the threshold needed for a redirect at least, so there shouldn't be much else to prove. --Prisencolin talk) 16:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to obstinately disregard the views and reasoning expressed in the two Afds and the consequent decisions to delete. Your supposed examples of countless uses of the term in reliable sources to mean one particular and specific thing was just cherry-picking of disparate texts that happen to have the two words next to each other and overhelmingly and demonstrably did not convince the debate. Please have the grace to accept that. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit the timing for this kind of page was pretty bad and WP:TOOSOON applies for neologisms also I guess. Sooner or later this redirect has got to point somewhere. No use arguing any more for now.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify that you are conceding now that the redirect be deleted? In which case, thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The concept of political independence for the British isles is a broad historical one beyond just the current sturm und drang. Something that immediately comes to mind is the bloody British conflicts with Roman invaders, a struggle for independence which had notable effects upon later history. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and lock: This topic has gone through 2 successful AfDs, 1 successful speedy deletion and is now up for another speedy deletion... over a short period of time. Can we stop having this page recreated? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:19, 20 October 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 Legend of Zelda (2017 video game)[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) Pppery 22:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not used in any articles anymore, so it is essentially an orphan. The game's title is well-known now, so I believe this redirect is no longer needed. Basically, I believe the page-move redirect has been around for a long enough period of time that it is now not needed. — Gestrid (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This discussion and this discussion, both of which resulted in a "delete", may be relevant to this discussion. — Gestrid (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe them to be relevant. Both the 2015 and untitled game redirctes were deleted when they were no longer accurate, however in this case no one is disputing the 2017 release date. The 2016 redirect below is a another story though.--76.65.40.153 (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This redirect is currently correct in its disambiguation, and is thus helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel. --Izno (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per still. Still correct and useful as possible search term. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:34, 24 October 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 Legend of Zelda (2016 video game)[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) 18:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not used in any articles anymore, so it is essentially an orphan. The game's title is well-known now, so I believe this redirect is no longer needed. Basically, I believe the page-move redirect has been around for a long enough period of time that it is now not needed. — Gestrid (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This discussion and this discussion, both of which resulted in a "delete", may be relevant to this discussion. — Gestrid (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The game is coming out in 2017, not 2016, and I'm wary of keeping redirects that appear to be as factually misleading as this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A (2017 video game) redirect will probably be created anyway.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, saw that right afterwards. ;) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:49, 22 October 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.

No personal attacks[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) 14:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term and not appropriate for a CNR. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This does not appear to be a CNR. --Izno (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Izno: I think the nominator was saying it wouldn't be appropriate to retarget to WP:NPA. – nyuszika7h (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      That makes more sense. I agree with that position. --Izno (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Don't make personal attacks" is a general idea, not that clearly defined, that applies in a bunch of different contexts. This includes not just Wikipedia but other Wiki websites as well as online video games, online educational platforms, et cetera. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:52, 21 October 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:Orthographic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 31#Template:Orthographic

Year 1[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly retarget to Year One (education) for I believe that is the primary topic, the period of history is never "year 1". - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to 1, which is what this was originally supposed to redirect to. — Gorthian (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hatnote and lead sentence covers the cases. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AngusWOOF. This seems to be the most likely target, and the other possibilities are already covered in the hatnote. Meters (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and either retarget to the article currently still at 1*(soon to be moved to 1 (year)/1 AD/1 CE/... see RfC) or Disambiguate (->Year One (disambiguation)) as there are quite some different targets. --SI 18:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A partial phrase, could be many things. First grade, the first year of Adam and Eve, Year 1 of King X. The search function handles partial phrases best. The redirect prevents the search engine from engaging. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as-is since "Year 1" should match "Year One". I'm not sure the current article at the title is the primary topic for "Year One", but that's a different discussion for a different time. -- Tavix (talk) 18:55, 29 October 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.

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9[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) 18:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is a plausible search term, but people searching this would be more likely be looking for something to do with Educational stages, but I would prefer deletion to retargeting there. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - Patrick (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:R3. — Gestrid (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not eligible since this is not recently created, hence this RfD. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This just isn't helpful and isn't useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for transparency & history reasons + "Redirects are cheap". It is no harm to keep it, but we would lose an interesting detail abour how Wikipedia search was optimised in 2002/2003 by senior editors like Patrick, Menchi and Camembert. --SI 09:46, 27 October 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.

ABC Kids (Australia - 2000s-2009)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion as this redirect is unnecessary as its function is covered by the current name of the article which has details on the subject's past in its history section. Additionally, all former names of the article subject already individually redirect to the current article name and the formatting for this redirect is clumsy and unusual (placing dates in a country disambig, separated by a hyphen). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 01:13, 20 October 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_October_20&oldid=1088108601"