Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 15, 2016.

Other royal and princely houses in the line of succession to the British Throne[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems unlikely of a search term due to the use of the word "other", as well as other words in the redirect that could have readers believe that this redirect refers to a different topic than the target of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete too ambiguous, many thanks for sifting through these, Steel1943. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for housekeeping. It's left over after a page move (or two) and gets almost no use. — Gorthian (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:04, 18 September 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.

Other specified adverse effects not elsewhere classified[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this is an official alternative term for the subject of the target article (the redirect is currently not mentioned in the target article), this redirect seems confusing and possibly misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 22:10, 15 September 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.

Other songs recorded by Hank Williams[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "other" makes this redirect vague in what it refers. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless there are articles that group particular songs recorded by Hank Williams, this doesn't serve a purpose. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Meaningless title, meaningless redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this gets about a hit a day over the last year. Seems like it would pick those up from carelessly formed web searches, and still gets the searcher where they want to be. — Gorthian (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gorthian: In my experiences and my opinion, page views of a redirect do not necessarily mean that the reader is arriving where they want to go. In this case, I would have to say that readers are not arriving to their intended destination since they could be viewing the target, try to look up the redirect since it starts with "Other", and then become confused/mislead when they arrive back at the page which they were already viewing. Steel1943 (talk) 17:31, 19 September 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.

Other Songs Produced by Dj Quik[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word "other" makes it unclear what songs the subject of the redirect is meant to exclude, and is thus vague. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no such split article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Meaningless title, meaningless redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good on you, Steel1943, for getting the history to a good title, then getting this out of the way immediately. — Gorthian (talk) 01:59, 18 September 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.

Other Vampires in (Twilight)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that the use of the word "other" is ambiguous since it doesn't help clarify "other than what?", this redirect is unlikely since the word "Twilight" is in parentheses, and could be seen as misleading since it's not a disambiguator and Other Vampires in doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete implausible search term especially with parentheses. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree completely. This isn't helpful, and it should be trashed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's getting no use, and it is of no use. — Gorthian (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague at best --Lenticel (talk) 01:48, 19 September 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.

Voiding[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 22#Voiding

Harpers Ferry, Virginia[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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harpers Ferry is in West Virginia, not Virginia - different state for folks not familiar with US state taxonomy. This makes no more sense that having Harpers Ferry, Ohio redirect to Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. Toddst1 (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Quick history lesson: before the American Civil War, West Virginia (and thus Harpers Ferry) was a part of Virginia. The most important event to occur in Harpers Ferry happened before the Civil War, so you'll see "Harpers Ferry, Virginia" in the history books when learning about John Brown's raid. -- Tavix (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point- consider this withdrawn. Toddst1 (talk) 20:02, 15 September 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.

Notable non SoD Suikoden characters[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 both.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what "SOD" refers to, and it's unclear what qualifies the characters to be "notable" or even which ones the term refers to. Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The list of characters for a video game should be for notable characters anyway and not the complete list of characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The main reason to keep these would be so that someone fishing through the history of how articles looked in 2006 could have working links. No modern use of course, but it's something. "SOD" means "Star of Destiny" for reference, but I agree that this name was really horrible. Seems the edit history has been all juggled around so I can't figure out what happened then. SnowFire (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was 10 years ago! But yes, I apparently moved it away from this title because it was awful. SnowFire (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not even sure why this would need to be justified, but it makes no sense on a lot of levels. MSJapan (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These pages were moved so long ago that any links to them have been removed, and they're getting no use at all these days. Time to put them out of their misery. — Gorthian (talk) 02:13, 18 September 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.

Other domestic competitions record (Urawa Reds)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems vague and confusing, considering that it seems that the target article's scope is "all of the Urawa Reds records". Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for housekeeping. No one uses it. It'll just go bad in the fridge. — Gorthian (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This isn't helpful. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:06, 18 September 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.

Mansfield Independent Forum[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 Tony Egginton#Creation of Independent Forum.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, so the connection is unclear. Even if it was mentioned, the connection could be seen as misleading since the title of this redirect suggests that is a group (which the target subject is not) and a completely separate subject independent (no pun intended) of the target article's subject. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, Tony Egginton#Creation of Independent Forum (per Gorthian) is a much better target! ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:31, 19 September 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.

No label[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is vague and ambiguous, considering that the redirect is not mentioned or defined in the target article, the subject in Label isn't referring to this target, and the redirect could potentially refer to the opposite of most subjects in Label (disambiguation) (but since it's an opposite meaning, retargeting there would not be helpful.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm wondering about this in relation to the organization 'No Labels', which has some significant notability in the U.S. but isn't known worldwide. I believe that said group is commonly misheard or mistyped as 'No Label'. However, the term 'no label' (without capitalization) by itself can have a lot of different meanings; albums and EPs independently done without a record label comes to mind. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no PRIMARY. I wish we would just get rid of these things instead of stretching to find targets that may be plausible in particular sets of circumstances for particular subsets of users which may or may not occur and who may or may not exist. MSJapan (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a WP:XY situation. I found four or five completely different subjects it could link to, because this is a common English phrase. And no, I don't want to make a dab out of it because this phrase should not be linked. CoffeeWithMarkets, you'll be interested to know that there are three articles that link to No label, and they are all bands who don't have any label! I don't think the current target is what they had in mind... — Gorthian (talk) 03:12, 18 September 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.

Mayor 4 Stoke[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 Mike Wolfe (politician). --BDD (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No clear connection. Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a notable nickname. Is it even a nickname? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per CoffeeWithMarkets. Recommend rename to Mayor4Stoke and have that redirected to Mike Wolfe as well. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mike Wolfe (politician) as he's the individual commonly associated with the terms "Mayor4Stoke", "Mayor-4-Stoke", et cetera; he's used those in his own career. Significantly for a non-major party politician, he succeeded in his run for office in 2002, this is cited in sources such as here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense now. Thanks for finding that! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could be at least a minor WP:SURPRISE without some explanation. The "party" is listed in his infobox, but that makes the redirect look like an error without some explanation (e.g., "Hey, what about the rest of Mayor 4 Stoke?"). --BDD (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per CoffeeWithMarkets. The party in his infobox can simply be unlinked and context about the party's association with him added.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per CoffeeWithMarkets. This is a label used by the former Mayor, so it makes sense to retarget to his article. QueenCake (talk) 20:43, 24 September 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.

Independent (politician)^[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "^" makes this a very unlikely searched term. Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Very unlikely typo^^#)%. Margalob (talk) 14:04, 16 September 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.

Better Bedford Party[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 Frank Branston. WP:INVOLVED close, though I recommended something else! --BDD (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per research, the subject of the redirect looks like a political group that may have dissolved at some point last decade (but this may be inaccurate.) Either way, a political group is similar to a political party, so this connection could be misleading since the subject of the target article specifically excludes political parties. Also, the subject of the redirect may qualify for its own article (WP:REDLINK). Steel1943 (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I didn't include this redirect in this batch because at least Bedford is mentioned at the target article, but the party, the group, whatever it is, still isn't. It's almost impossible to imagine a reader searching for this term will be satisfied, or will get any more knowledge about the subject than he or she already had. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic that the recent RFD was not how I found this redirect. My path to this redirect started after I found the existence of Other parties and Independents. Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable / local political group. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Frank Branston#Political career. Mayor of Bedford, the only article that uses the name (though the five links to it will need to be removed). I'm not particularly invested in this retarget, but the redirect did get nearly 200 hits over the last year; not lots, but definitely some use. My second choice would be to just delete it. — Gorthian (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • All right, Branston makes sense, so I'm changing my choice for target. — Gorthian (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Frank Branston, which seems to be the only politician that was successful under this party banner (see: Frank_Branston#Political_career). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may end up being closed as 'no consensus', but I agree with the proposed retarget to Frank Branston since he's the individual most notably associated with this political label. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm possibly mistaken, but this appears to be more of a personal vehicle for Frank Branston, rather than an established political party. On that basis, retarget to Frank Branston. Note that we have similar precedents for these type of hyper-local personality parties, i.e Bristol 1st redirects to George Ferguson (politician). QueenCake (talk) 20:38, 24 September 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.

Other parties and Independents[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is inaccurate since the term as defined in the target specifically excludes political parties. Also, the use of the word "other" is vague. Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Was going to suggest Third party (politics) but the capital in Independents makes it rather weird. It also is a bit of an WP:XY to group third parties with independent politicians, both of which have their own articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too vague --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated above, this is both awkward and vague. We should delete this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:30, 20 September 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.

Other red cell antigens[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not clear on what "other" is meant to exclude, and is thus ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Precedent for these kinds of "Other ____" redirects seems clear, and this really should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirects starting with "other" are simply too vague. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:00, 17 September 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.

Red cell antigens[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 22#Red cell antigens

Other side of the story[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) 15:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect/article connection seems misleading. In addition, I don't think there is a valid target for this phrase due to its ambiguity in what encyclopedic topic it refers. Steel1943 (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to The Rest of the Story, simply because it's what I immediately thought of when reading this phrase. I couldn't remember the real phrase, but I remembered Paul Harvey, and that was enough. If that's too far-fetched, then just delete it. — Gorthian (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah, I think that's too far-fetched, and a real stretch for the target article too. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 22 September 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.

Dangerous Rhythm[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, default to disambiguate. From reading this discussion, there are valid arguments for either Ritmo Peligroso or the Ultravox! song as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However, since we can't decide on one, I'm defaulting to the situation where there wouldn't be a primary topic, which would be a disambiguation page. -- Tavix (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct - There is now a new article for a band that used the name Dangerous Rhythm for 16 years and is still known by the Spanish form of the name, Ritmo Peligroso. The redirect is currently pointing to an article about a British boy band's 1977 album because they had a single entitled Dangerous Rhythm. Elinruby (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: In my search engine results, the most popular result for the term "Dangerous Rhythm" seems to be a book by the name Dangerous Rhythm: Why Movie Musicals Matter by Richard Barrios. (However, how pertenant the aforementioned information is to this discussion is probably minimal at the present time since neither subject yet has an article on Wikipedia, and thus mentioning the book on a disambiguation page for "Dangerous Rhythm" world probably fail MOS:DABMENTION since there is no article for its author.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this comment: Turns out that the aforementioned book is currently used as a reference in the Wikipedia article Beauty and the Beast (Disney song). (That's probably not enough for the subject to meet MOS:DABMENTION for inclusion in a disambiguation page, but it's interesting nonetheless.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: I would like to resolve this. I do think the first Mexican punk band should get the default redirect, personally. The alternate is just an obscure single but a disambiguation page would work I suppose. I wrote Rock in your language yesterday and plan another article or two about Spanish-language punk bands. I am not expecting huge readership for this but it *is* a fact that if you click on Dangerous Rythm in Rock in your language, Wikipedia assumes you mean the single from the 1977 British rock charts. I would like to fix that. I don't usually do a lot of stuff with redirects and I am not sure what policies apply, but I would like someone on the Mexican punk rock pages who is interested in Dangerous Rhythm to be able to find the Ritmo Peligroso article. I put that under the Spanish name because they that is what they always use anymore. But the punk rock pages refer to them as Dangerous Rhythm because that is what their name was in that period. My solution to this was to redirect. I urge that we pick *some* solution. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elinruby, these RfDs often take about a week to resolve, unless there's no clear consensus, in which case it could go on longer. So hang in there. — Gorthian (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. I'd rather see hatnotes on the two articles than make a dab page with just two entries. In my Google search, the Mexican group is more talked about (vs. just ads) than the Ultravox song. — Gorthian (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am OK with anything that resolves the confusion I describe above. Elinruby (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ultravox was not an obscure act by any means, and they've been around for far longer than the Mexican act, having originated almost 40 years ago or so. RECENTISM doesn't trump common sense. All we need is a hatnote for the Mexican act, because being known by a name in another language unofficially shouldn't supersede the original. Two entries is not worth a dab page, either - most English language speakers are not going to confuse an 1970s-80s British band with a 2000s Mexican one. MSJapan (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I have educated myself. Ultravox is not a boy band. I have still never heard of them, but let's suppose I was just in some other area of punk rock/New Age at the time. Fine. I did want to clarify something I think you misunderstand, though -- RECENTISM is not the issue here. Ritmo Peligroso has been around since 1978, but they didn't change their name until 1989. Before then they were known as Dangerous Rhythm (in English) and all the histories of Latino Punk refer to them this way. I am waiting for you guys to decide this before I do any more Latino punk articles, because this group seem to have been quite seminal and are frequently mentioned. I want to limit the scope of the issue, ie the number of articles about punk in Spanish that mention this group and link to a single by okay, a *New Age* British band. Ultravox does seem slightly older (if you count the time where they were Tiger Lily) but I am not sure that is the right criteria. In any event, I repeat, I am ok with any solution that allows readers to navigate to the right article. LMK. Elinruby (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MSJapan. A hatnote on the Mexican act is fine for two clearly distinct entities. &nbs;— Scott • talk 14:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget but have a hatnote back to the album. It really doesn't matter when either of these bands were active. If the band is notable and the song isn't, this is the logical way to handle it. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert the redirect into a disambiguation page. I'm not seeing any proof yet that either aforementioned existing subject qualifies to be the primary topic association with this term. Steel1943 (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the band by this name while having a hat-note to the Ultravox release. While the British group is highly influential and well-known, the song itself seems to have been 'just another single', more or less. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:46, 16 September 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.

Internals[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 dabify. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Internals usually refers to the insides of a machine, right, not to this economics concept. Nominated Internally separately, since these two forms seems to have different usages. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... or the insides of animals (particularly the entrails). I think the place for that kind of information is wiktionary and a soft redirect is probably the best we could do here. Uanfala (talk)
  • retarget to the dab page at Internal that already has a Wiktionary link and an entry for the current target. Entrails and the dab at Innards are probably useful additions to the dab as well. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But internal and internals are different lexical items (with separate headwords in dictionaries) that don't have a lot of overlap in meaning. If a dab page is the solution then it had better be a separate one from Internal. Uanfala (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dab and/or Wiktionary entry could use expanding. One of the first things I think of when I hear "internals" is internal polls, i.e., typically those conducted by political campaigns rather than third-party pollsters. Search results show this isn't US-exclusive either. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf The dab is vague enough so that none of the entries really address the dictionary definitions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to a dab page separate from Internal, which won't contain anything relevant even if expanded. Internals isn't the plural of internal, it's a separate lexical item with its own set of meanings. Uanfala (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You might be onto something. Could you draft what that would look like? --BDD (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - When I think of internals, the first thing that comes to mind is internal organs; the second is the internal components of a machine.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We've established that there are multiple meanings, but are there multiple Wikipedia articles this could refer to? If someone's up for the task, drafting a disambiguation page would go a long way to solve the issue. If not, the question becomes whether it's best to retarget this to Internal or wikt:internals (which could also use some work).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now drafted a tiny dab page at the redirect, scavenging the relevant bits of Innards (and skipping offal as I haven't seen internals used to mean that). I haven't included the economics meaning (Internality - the current target of the redirect) because it's not mentioned there and the user who created that redirect was very likely not an economist and also known for creating a very large number of questionable redirects. BDD, I haven't included the polling meaning either, as what I read on this site I found on the internet tells me that "internals" can also refer to the bits inside the polling questionnaire apart from the main question. Is that ambiguous with the meaning "internal polling"? I don't know. I'm not brave enough to go into such lexicological detail, so I'm leaving that to someone else.
Now, if nothing else gets added, the dab page will whiff of a dictionary definition, so maybe soft-redirecting to a bravely expanded wiktionary article could be a thinkable alternative. Uanfala (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support creation of a disambiguation page for 'internals' as separate from 'internal' or other words CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:19, 15 September 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.

What if It All Means Something (song)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 22#What if It All Means Something (song)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_15&oldid=1088108402"