Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 4[edit]

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

Scott Block Theater[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) 19:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neelix redirect. This may remind you vaguely of the #Scott Block, below, but these are entirely different, because my argument there was that "The" was unnecessary whereas my argument here is that "Theater" is spelled the American way, which the theatre ain't: if we're gonna be rather specifick about this place, then let's get the spelling right. You really can't have it all ways, User:AngusWOOF. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:ENGVAR; Wikipedia doesn't favor any variety of English. This is most likely how Americans would search for this theatre, so it's a useful search term. -- Tavix (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, I would go with ENGVAR for a keep with it, too. Keep as {{R from other language|en}}. Now how many of the other ninety would you like me to dredge to RfD for this obscure theatre? Si Trew (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a better use of all of our time would be an WP:AFD nomination of the theatre itself. As long as the article exists, these variants are cromulent. -- Tavix (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tavix closed this as withdrawn, but this discussion was not withdrawn at all, certainly not by me the nom. Since I go through the neelix redirects, I sometimes list them here when I am not sure about things, and sometimes even am persuaded to keep. when I want to withdraw something, I will say so. Others may wish to delete, or retarget, and they haven't had their chance yet I didn't say withdraw, and it isn't withdrawn. Naughty admin. Si Trew (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want it kept, that's the same thing as withdrawing when there are no outstanding delete !votes. There's no point in keeping this open since no one is advocating for its deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, Tavix. I might want it kept but other editors might want something else, they have not had a chance to say. If I want to withdraw a nomination, I say "withdraw" or "withdrawn" by nom: this generally happens when the !vote is for keep towards a WP:SNOW really and since the only reason I bother to bring things to RfD is when I am not certain of the Neelix redirects, so if the consensus it to keep, I withdraw like a gentleman after others have thought about it, not before. post hoc propter hoc, if you like, "Sentence first, verdict afterwards", as the Red Queen said Alice. Most other regs do the same. If I change me !vote, that is not the same thing at all: other editors may come in and say, yeah, delete, or retarget, or whatever. It is not the same thing at all. Two (edit conflict)s with you now, neither of ours' fault.Si Trew (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If someone else comes around and for whatever reason want it deleted, then they can renominate it. -- Tavix (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That evades the point. You closed as withdrawn when I did not withdraw it and made no statement that I wanted to withdraw it. So you took it in your own lights to say I had withdrawn it when I never withdrew it. It's ok to admit you are wrong, I cock up all the time. Si Trew (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wrong though. When there are no outstanding delete !votes, it is proper for a discussion to be closed as withdrawn/keep. You can call it WP:SNOW if you wish. -- Tavix (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There weren't any votes at all except mine and thine: sorrry keyboqrd bust now on belgiqn french kb qnd nissing q lot will get used to it. Lets take this discussion elsewhere shall we, but I will say thanks for your caring so much qbout rs, feew people do: wow it is strange lqyout Si Trew (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Scott Block[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) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_3#The_Scott_Block_Theatre. You can't have it all ways. Either it is known as "The Scott Block" (which the article says it is) or "Scott Block" (which the article makes no mention of). You really can't have it both ways. Something has to give. Si Trew (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yes, you can have it "all ways", if it means that a place can have more than one nickname. Unless there are any notable people named "Scott Block", this redirect is harmless and actually makes a fair bit of sense. -- Tavix (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's referred to without the "The" as per a Red Deer Cultural Vision report [1] I did find another Scott Block in Winnipeg, Manitoba but it doesn't seem as notable for now (2014 it had a For Sale sign) [ http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/sites/scottblock2.shtml] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AngusWOOF and Tavix --Lenticel (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Stephen V. Cameron[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 speedily deleted by RHaworth. --BDD (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect in the Wikipedia namespace pointing to an article in the the article namespace. Doesn't appear for there to be any reason for it. Gluons12 talk 22:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Achievement gap in the Educational System[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 speedy deleted G7 by RHaworth JohnCD (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recently created this redirect as a result of a page move (as shown by the redirect's and target page's edit histories), but the leftover redirect was not eligible for suppression per Wikipedia:Page mover in my opinion ... since I do not see the target draft having any need to be in the "Wikipedia:" namespace, but I am not 100% sure. The draft should probably actually be in the "Article" namespace when published. Anyways, for these reasons, the leftover redirect should probably be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:G7 author requests deletion. Am I missing something here, User:Steel1943? That's what I usually file under when I do a page move and the R is useless to keep (no history etc) which seems to be the case here. But I imagine you are well aware of that policy so I'm a bit puzzled by why you didn't take it. Si Trew (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

All in Time (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 Article restored. The redirect was converted from an article in this edit, but the page where the subject was moved was actually All In Time (capital "I"). But ... It wasn't a move; at the present time, it looks like an attempt to start a new article from scratch about the same topic. The aforementioned page will soon be redirected appropriately as an article about a subject which already has an article. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I moved All In Time to All in Time (2015 film), then redirected All In Time to All in Time and All in Time (2015 film) to All in Time (film). Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page creator replaced its contents with a redirect to a disambiguation page, which then has a link back to this redirect, creating an infinite loop. Drm310 (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Patriarchate of Serbia[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. I've tagged it {{R from incorrect name|Serbian Patriarchate}}. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect was partially nominated by Sorabino on 20 July 2016: The discussion was not started on the respective RFD page, but the RFD tag was placed in the redirect. Here is the rationale provided by Sorabino as shown in the redirect's edit history:

Delete. Title "Patriarchate of Serbia" is fictional, there is no institution with such name. Correct name is "Serbian Patriarchate".

For the record, I am neutral. Steel1943 (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While there is indeed no such office by this technical name, it's a reasonable kind of wording for someone to guess at if they know the term "Patriarchate" while being unsure about the rest of the name. This seems helpful enough. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Guy Sims Fitch[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 12#Guy Sims Fitch

Surname List[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. So there are 3 prominent options: delete, retarget List (surname), and retarget to some list of surnames. I don't see a consensus emerging for the best retarget so deletion would be the most plausible outcome. Deryck C. 11:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The target article does not really contain a useful list of surnames. Propose retargeting to Lists of most common surnames. SSTflyer 11:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people would use the "list of" format for that. This format makes me think they'd be looking for List (surname). I haven't made up my mind between retarget there or delete per WP:XY though. -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. On a completely irrelevant note, I couldn't help noticing that List (surname) is where List of Lists redirects, and that's different from where List of lists is pointed at. Uanfala (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the exact same thing! I think it'd be worth a discussion... -- Tavix (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, although I think things are fine as they stand: after all, the entities listed at List (surname) are Lists, and a list listing Lists is a different thing from a list that lists lists, isn't it? Uanfala (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's more of a question whether Surname (subject) should be a valid search term in general. List (surname) exists. But yeah a hatnote for List of surnames would be good for that article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: your comment made me realize that we could have an excellent parody article at List of lists of Lists (surname). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List (surname). The caps on "List" and singular on "surname" are clues that someone would be looking for the surname "List" over a list of surnames. -- Tavix (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an uncommon format, per Wbm's example. -- Tavix (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't be ridiculous, guys. The editor whose first two edits were to create this page wasn't thinking about the surname "List". They were just mistakenly using title case when they should have been using sentence case. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the seven most common American names, Surname Smith, Surname Johnson, Surname Williams, Surname Brown, Surname Jones, Surname Miller, Surname Davis. Get the same results if you substitute "last name" or "family name" for "surname". People simply do not think this way. wbm1058 (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then just delete the damn thing. As my !vote was apparently too complex, I've just boldly created Surname lists, which should be a useful addition to Special:PrefixIndex/Surname. By deleting it, we just lose the record that someone else had the same idea, but created a fork of Surname lists. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would just delete the lot of them. This demonstrates that the only people likely to think this way are not native English speakers. Even Russell. This is just a handful of one-offs, with essentially no pageviews. If we allow these they clutter up Special:PrefixIndex/Surname and the auto-generated suggestions in the MediaWiki search box, thus making it more difficult to find the pages people are likely searching for. wbm1058 (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom and add List (surname) to the See also there. I think we have a pretty good sense that this is not a normal way to search for individual surnames. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 18 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.

Sedecillion[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 sexdicillion and secdecillion as they were individually called out to be kept. Delete sedecillion and secdicillion. -- Tavix (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing redirects. Some of the text doesn't even exists. See WP:RfD#D2. NgYShung huh? 09:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sexdicillion; it's only one letter off, and while not particularly likely as an unintentional typo, it's entirely reasonable as a misspelling by someone who hears the word and doesn't know how to spell it. Delete the others; they don't seem like likely typos or likely misspellings by the "sexdicillion" typist. Nyttend (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Secdecillion; the first time I saw the original word "Sexdecillion" it had the typo "Secdecillion". But per Nyttend, delete the others. ∞😃 Target360YT 😃∞ (talk · contribs) 12:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except Sedecillion as perfectly reasonable misspellings. And I hope the fact that I find them perfectly reasonable isn't down to just me mishearing and mistypign a lot. Uanfala (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - The Sexdecillion article had been redirected to Names of large numbers by User:Pppery. Resulting on double redirect. NgYShung huh? 13:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've updated the nomination to fix the double redirect, since Sexdecillion has itself been redirected. Does that change anything?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Réunionese literature[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. WJBscribe (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind given WhisperToMe's findings. Suggest adding Réunion literature and Reunion literature. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, discussion is needed on where Réunionese, Reunionese, Réunionnais, and Reunionnais should go as they redirect to different targets. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would like something like French, British, German, where various possibilities are listed, at whatever the proper term is.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:28, 6 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.

Réunionese Creole[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. WJBscribe (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The diacritical mark plus the "ese" is is the sticking point here, because the English word "Reunionese" does not have the diacritical mark. It's fine for Réunion as it stands as a noun, because English often uses accents on foreign words (but Reunion is a DAB for example: so the only thing between Réunion and Reunion is the diacritical mark, but the DAB has Réunion firstmost so that is no problem). What we have here is that we have taken the French accent and stuck on an English suffix, and that ain't English, that ain't French, that is WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Were it to be deleted, no harm will come to people searching for it, because the search engine ignores diacritical marks using some kind of folding algorithm, probably a Unicode equivalence. It's not a big deal, it's just wrong. Mark as {{R from incorrect spelling}} if kept. Si Trew (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Canceling my vote. There may need to be discussion about whether Reunionese and Réunionese should direct to Demographics of Réunion or Réunion, and where Réunionnais should direct. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given WhisperToMe's findings above. Seems like a plausible way to apply the adjectival form. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WhisperToMe and Patar knight. Our article for Réunion gives "Réunionese" as the proper demonym so there's nothing wrong with this. -- Tavix (talk) 15:30, 15 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 vehicles simulated by iRacing.com[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 Article restored. Per the original closing rationale here placed by Iridescent:

Redirect was created as the result of an IP unilaterally blanking the page, content now restored. If you think it needs deletion, Articles for Deletion is thataways. ‑ Iridescent 12:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

...(I adjusted the close due to needing to use {{Rfd top}} and {{Rfd bottom}} to properly format the discussion page for its appearance on this page and the main Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion page.) – Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com is entirely redundant, as it lists a non-notable and arbitrary collection of cars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.226.49.233 (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mrs Bill Clinton[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. Added to that nomination. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Guyane Creole[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 12#Guyane Creole

Confoundment[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) 13:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A made up word—not in even the full OED, and the assorted 'free dictionary' sites which list it all appear to be Wiktionary mirrors—albeit one which does seem to have a slight but steady degree of usage in the real world. However, looking at the actual usages none appear to use the term in the sense of "shock value". Could possibly be redirected to Confusion, but despite being synonyms the connotations of "confound" and "confuse" aren't quite the same so this would probably be too misleading to be worthwhile.  ‑ Iridescent 08:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:NOTDIC if nothing else (although you might think so from the free dictionary scrapes). WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, WP:RFD#D5 confusing. To confound is to shock, a bit... but something that has shock value would not have confoundment. It would be the person shocked who would have confoundment, i.e., be confounded, not the thing doing the shocking. Nonsense, pure nonsense. confound → confounding, by the way, which is about confounding variables). Si Trew (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If it were a useful variant, it should redirect to confound. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as we are not a dictionary and this is also possibly not the primary meaning of it. No use of this redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listing every made-up word is not Wikipedia's role, particularly when the target of the redirect does not mention "confound", let alone the nonsense "confoundment". Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC - and nonsense to boot. -- Begoon 03:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Pd-inelligible[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) 13:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect. Seems to be a misspelling, but isn't used anywhere. FASTILY 07:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:G6 housekeeping. Is it intellegible as "eligible" or "ineligible"? Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Detloff[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) 13:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:PTM or something. This is a middle name (at least, what most English speakers would consider a middle name) and we have (at least) two other notable people with this middle name, Hans-Detloff von Cossel and Georg Detlev von Flemming. We don't generally redirect on middle namesm, but even if we did, I am not sure this would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, von Cossel seems more notable in the PageLink sense of having more links/mentions on WP. Si Trew (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a likely search term, and not the only possible target. —Kusma (t·c) 08:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Forgot to say, Neelix redirect. There are about 18 more to this target. Si Trew (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the unlikely event this does have a primary usage, it would undoubtedly be the armour-plating manufacturer, not someone who happens to have this as an element to his name. ‑ Iridescent 12:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.[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) 13:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, implausible redirect. Probably satisifies G1, G6, or per common sense. FASTILY 05:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:G6. Redirects in user-facing space can often be useful as {{R from full title}}, and abbreviations for templates are sometimes useful to editors, yet this is not an abbreviation but an expansion. Editors using templates should have a minimum of competence, and find the right template. Since it's not even mentioned on any doc page etc, it patently is not encouraged to use this, and it can safely go. Si Trew (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Chief of Air Staff[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 Chief of the Air Staff. JohnCD (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I moved the page to List of Commanders of the Royal Jordanian Air Force but then decided that since that information is duplicated at Royal Jordanian Air Force#Commanders, it could be replaced by a {{R to section}}, which I have done. (That is, the target is a redirect and the only thing stopping this being "fixed" to point the same way is this nomination.)

Regardless of that, the head of the RJAF is the Commander, not the Chief of Air Staff, according to the RJAF's own website as referenced in the article, so I edited the article (and list, when it was a list) to call it that. Therefore this is WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. No incoming links, stats at noise level. We could, I suppose, have it as {{R from incorrect name}}, but I don't think we should: I don't think that someone searching for the Chief of Air Staff would necessarily want to land up at the RJAF anyway: we have Chief of Air Staff (Pakistan), Chief of Air Staff (Bangladesh), Chief of Air Staff (India) and Chief of Air Staff (Nigeria), none of which is obviously WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Chief of Air Staff (disambiguation) is red.

No incoming links in article space, stats are in single figures but above noise level, but I doubt all want the Commander of the RJAF. A WP:SIA over the redirect here is possible but would be little more than the result set of the WP:PTM. Si Trew (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ramble about self-reference and recursion
It's a perfectly good category, it's a category (set, class) whose members are lists.
The problem with List of lists of lists is not that it is self-referential but that it crosses the boundary between "reader space" and "editor space" (into WP space, if one wants to find out what a WP:list article is. Without that, which I have added just now and no doubt will be reverted, a reader (it is in reader space) has no idea of the WP definition of a "list article" and thus it becomes nonsense. I am pretty sure I took it to WP:PROD for this reason and failed, because some editors are rather attached to it even though it really does not keep the proper distinction between reader-facing space and editor-facing space: it's just navel-gazing. Lists of lists similarly are probably better done by using categories, which is what they are there for.
Wikipedia seems to hate being directly self-referential though. For example, Category:Container categories should really be a member of itself; so it goes out of its way to making it a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia categories, which is in turn a member of Category:Container categories. So "Container categories" is a member of itself, through class inheritance, and there is no Russell's Paradox here because we are not dealing with non-membership: we could I suppose have List of articles that are not listed on any list article (or Category:Uncategorized categories) and totally screw that up (lists do not have to be exhaustive, after all, so we don't need to enumerate all such pages; creating it with even one list entry, or even no list entries, would be paradoxical). Recursion is not something Wikimedia software does well, or rather, it is not something readers understand at all (assuming that readers are a good representative of the general population).
There were also lots of technical problems on the editor-facing side in that the WikiMedia software had great problems with recursion in templates, I think it is allowed in the new Lua modules but not sure. There were occasions when I wanted to use recursion or mutual recursion in templates but couldn't. I realise they could timeout etc but the way to solve that is to "timeout" at runtime, not to build the call graph at parse time, find a recursive call, and just give up.
Redirects are a good example, because they don't belong in any namespace per se but in the namespace of the thing they redirect to (usually, there are valid reasons for WP:XNRs). Yet they all ultimately belong to Category:Redirects (or should do). Redirects, Categories, Portals etc. are just different taxonomies onto the same information. Those taxonomies do interrelate, hence Category:Redirect templates and so on, but basically they are all there to navigate a finite space by chopping it in several different dimensions, and making a jump across those dimension e.g. from reader space (fairly flat) to editor space (highly organized) should be done with care. Gosh, I sound like Mr. Spock or something.
Incidentally in this ramble I just found Category:Jordanian military personnel. I couldn't find it earlier. That category needs to be categorised better. Si Trew (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And since when were WP logical? :) Si Trew (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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_4&oldid=1141906081"