Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 21, 2016.

Hang up[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. Thanks to Gorthian for doing the legwork. --BDD (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nope, nope, nope. The title of the song by this "celebrity" (someone who got onto a talent show once) was "Hang Up" with the caps. This is not what the word means, this is just turning Wikipedia into a bloody way to suit sales for people who have ever been on X factor and can't type properly from their mobile phones. Delete immediately. I have a big Hangup (a song) and Hang Up (same target) about this abuse of language for commercial ends. WP:PROMO all three of them. Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Telephone_call#Placing_a_call which is likely what the user would be searching for. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was thinking of that too, it is possible but I am not sure likely. On the other hand on the automated systems, when they went all fancy and replaced the engaged tone with an automated voice, I think BT used to say "your call cannot be connected. Please hang up and try again". (I am pretty sure those were the words cos I heard them as much as I heard "tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day till the last syllable of recorded time", etc.) So perhaps it is OK for the telephony malarky, but it is a bit edgy, I think... Si Trew (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand: Sorry to say folks, but the song was released 8 April 2006 and charted at 63. And thus it fulfils criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings. The song also appears on YouTube. I'm assuming whoever did the redirect meant to place it at The Impossible Dream (Andy Abraham album) as the single is off that album. Which if that is the case, then re-target the direct to the album article. Wes Mouse  T@lk 10:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then Expand it then.You're the one with the info, you can help to improve Wikipedia. It says right at the bottom of the article "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it". Go ahead, then expand it. I don't know bugger all about it so I can't, I've just been translating Romanian. Please get my eyes back they rolled across the floor. Si Trew (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't be bossing me, Si Trew, on what to do and when to do it. You may have forgotten, but there is a real world out there. You know, blue sky, green trees, pretty flowers. You've nominated something for deletion with a specific rationale. I have debunked your rationale because the song has charted and therefore fulfilled criteria that prevents the deletion. I'm not going to start creating a new song article, when I'm also trying to move house, plus I'm not that good with song articles. I tend to balls things up when creating them. Wes Mouse  T@lk 18:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. YOu have a user page and talk page that is inaccessible. I hope your house move goes well, that is always a stressful time, I hope it all gang aft agley or rather doesn't. Since you have kinda ruled yourself out from being able to create or expand the article I have no idea why you suggested the article should be created or expanded. I wish you well in your new home, and let's hope it has Internet so you can contribute here too! Si Trew (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ain't bossing you. You're the one who suggested to exxpand the article, so expand the article, nobody is stopping you. What you are doing is bossing me around for telling me I am not allowed to say the bleeding obvious, if you know it, stop bitching about it, make the article. There are plenty of stubs in Category:Stubs and just be bold and do it. Don't whine at me about the lack of something that you have expertise in, do it. Si Trew (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create dab there's a 1974 film called Hangup, the song as mentioned above which (song) should direct to the album, and the phone usage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's pretty much in danger of being WP:TWODABS I think, AngusWOOF. Si Trew (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Champion. Pppery 12:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, we're completely torn between 'The Impossible Dream (Andy Abraham album)', 'Hangup (film)', and 'Telephone_call#Placing_a_call'? I don't see a clear-cut case for any of them being a primary target, to be honest, so I guess I'm having to also vote for a disambiguation page coming about from all this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify. I've created a dab page at the redirect if it's wanted. (I have no idea if any of those songs are covers of one another.) — Gorthian (talk) 05:50, 29 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.

Govern Ment[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 13:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems really implausible. BDD (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In my cryptic crossword head i was trying to think of anything that may possibly go to this target or anywhere else, what had Govan meant and things like that, would the Royal Mint be the Govermint Mint well yess but not the Government Ment, and stuff like that. I can't see in any way this is a plausible search term. What Gover meant? Nah, delete. Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are a few obscure articles that use "govern-ment" and "depart-ment", but none as two separate words or with the second one capitalized. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see this as helpful and useful at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too many errors to be a plausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 01:14, 23 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.

Form of leadership[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 Leadership style. -- Tavix (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Government does not equal leadership. I'm thinking these should be deleted. Leadership lists some styles of leadership, but forms? Not really sure what's meant there. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for pissing on your bonfire, but we do have Forms of government. I am not sure that would be any better though, it would fall into WP:XY I think. Systems of government redirects there, too. I think you're right, one would think there would be an overarching article about autocracy, monarchy, plutocracy and so on but it seems there is not.

(parody deleted by meSi Trew (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I know that. I wssn't too happy with the scansion meself, either. Deleted. Si Trew (talk) 02:37, 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.

List of government functions[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. I think it's unanimous, but I'm not totally sure... Please let me know if I'm wrong. -- Tavix (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Function does not equal form. The section doesn't exist; it's at Forms of government now, but that's still an explanation of what governments look like, not what they do. BDD (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bugger, Form and function is the obvious riposte to that, but of course is not what you mean. These are buggers with these government ones. You would think there were overarching articles on things like this, but I tried and I couldn't find any either, I mean kinda meta-articles, I suppose I am being too mathematical or whatever here, that says look monarchy means one ruler, here is the graph for it (a hierarchy), several the few rulers an oligarchy, all the bloody hoi polloi chimning in, democracy and so forth, and you would think there would be an overarching article on forms of government wouldn't you? It seems on WP there is not, but we should confess our sins and say there is not, and if I took it, I would make it into a kind of graph theoretical thing of saying here is how stuff works. We have all this stuff in infoboxes and stuff for each country to say what its system of government is, I'm perplexed we don't have an article on systems of government or whatnot. We must have, surely. La lucha continua: Si Trew (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Forms of government -> Systems of government not good enough? This one can go as being not a list of government functions, because that would vary per government, from doing absurd things like trying to run British Rail, an anarcho-syndicalist commune, to sensible things like having a bus provided in the morning before half past nine when I have to get to work at half past seven. In short, I have my own views of what a government should do (i.e. should do what I tell it to do, at minimal cost to myself and the maximum inconvienience of others, out of pure spite: oh, I forgot, that is what cars are for) but that does not really cover what we have here. Si Trew (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What we're looking at here is a kind of conceptual thing, really. We don't have articles titled 'Purpose of government', 'Arguments for the existence of government', 'What is a government?', et cetera (nor should we). My gut instinct is to just let people search rather than fumble around for retargeting options here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And... it turns out that I'm wrong, and I was making a bit of a mistake. We do have a page titled 'Justification for the state', and that's where 'Purpose of government' leads to... however, I'm still not convinced. Both of those (the redirect as well as the targeted article) are possible candidates for deletion as they stand. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:19, 27 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.

Dream out loud[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 Dream Out Loud, after moving the drafted dab to Dream Out Loud (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not at target. Not marked as {{R to section}}, but there has never been a DREAMOUTLOUD section. Si Trew (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add section to Selena Gomez mentioning her brand of boots. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I ain't here to add the content. When someone else does, I'll change me !vote. As it stands, there is no content. I can only go from what I see on Wikipedia. What I then have is a totally bizarre reference to something that doesn't mention it. I don't even know who the person is, let alone what the boots are. When I hear the expression "dream out loud" I do not automatically think of a singer/cobbler. Si Trew (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that Gomez's brand isn't even notable enough to list in her article, but that the other band is, I'm changing my vote to Retarget per Tavix. A (brand) disambiguator can be added later if coverage does occur, but given the article is C-class, it isn't clear whether the article is complete to make a statement about that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dream Out Loud, {{R from miscapitalization}}. Can we all be happy with that? -- Tavix (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I am not happy with that. It goes to a different target. Delete it. Be brave, delete it. The search engine will cope with the different capitalization. Delete it. No point redirecting it. WP:BOLD and delete it. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify or Retarget to Dream Out Loud as a {{R from other capitalisation}}. I've drafted a dab page at Dream out loud but I'm not especially attached to it if this discussion decides to retarget. Also, Comment: her collection is discussed, with sources, at the target. 06:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)— Gorthian (talk)
    The Selena Gomez mention is listed twice but buried in the article. But nice finds with the other albums and songs. It might make a good dab page though the band stays a primary topic until at least one of the other topics becomes notable for its own article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:15, 23 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.

SelenaGomez.com[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 5#SelenaGomez.com

Selena Qomez[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) 02:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For an English-speaking audience (or a Spanish-speaking one, Latin American Spanish or Spanish Spanish) I don't see how this, as marked as {{R from misspelling}}, actually is. Q and G are nowhere near to each other on either keyboard and nowhere near each other phonetically in either language. In Arabic the glottal vowels I dunno labial semi vowels or whatever they are, Kh- Qh- Gh- and Ch- which I can say but linguists keep changing what they call them, would make Gh- and Qh- (or Kh-) quite close to an English ear (hence Koran, Quran and so on), but neither in Spanish nor English, the nearest to Gh- would be the Spanish J in words like Junta but that is still a long way away from a hard G which is a guttural plosive; it is the G at the start of "garage" and not the seccond one (depending on whether you sound it to rhyme with Nigel Farage or Porridge. Not close on either a Spanish or English keyboard layout. Too far out. Stats at zero, no internal links in any namespace beyond creator and this discussion, exactly 0 hits in last ninety days. Si Trew (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete implausible typo. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm generally supportive of having redirects for typos, but they need to be ones that are actually likely to be made. I agree. We should be rid of this redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:03, 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.

Selena Gómez[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is marked as {{R from alternate spelling}} (it should, more correctly, be {{R from title with diacritics}} if it were anything). But as far as I gather her surname is not Gómez but Gomez, she is American and does not have a diacritical mark in her name. This is borderline as many are, because of course Gómez is a common Spanish surname as the language says, but it's not hers. Perhaps {{R from incorrect spelling}} and keep? The search engine ignores diacritical marks (unless it must differentiate as we do for capitalisation and so on) using some private rules which I imagine will run through some diacritic stripping then compare (Hungarian WP doesn't do this, for example, because in Hungarian diacritical marks are much more significant than they are in Spanish, where they are stress marks, or French or German, where over the years they slowly fall out of fashion, or in English where they are pretty much optional if not affected to write cliché instead of cliche or whatever). Borderline in English WP.. es:Selena Gómez is a redirect to es:Selena Gomez; but for Spanish speakers it would be natural to mistakenly think it had the diacritical mark... not sure so much English speakers are doing this as hypercorrection? Si Trew (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Yeah, seems plausible as a hypercorrection, since the surname usually has the diacritic. --BDD (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retag That redirect was created when I moved the page to the proper spelling and I originally tagged it {{R from misspelling}} as she never spells her name "Gómez". Current tag is incorrect. NrDg 15:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Righty-ho, I'll speedily withdraw this one with the request that User:BDD tags as thinks best appropriate, probably {{R from title with diacritics}} is misleading to put because it suggests that her name is ever correct with the diacritics, probably just {{R from incorrect name}} is the best? It's not exactly a misspelling, User:NrDg, just wrong! We can help our users, and editors, by rcatting it and keeping it, I agree. Si Trew (talk) 15:45, 21 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.

Selena M. Gomez[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 29#Selena M. Gomez

Fly To Your Heart (Selena Gomez song)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 29#Fly To Your Heart (Selena Gomez song)

List of songs by Selena Gomez[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 List of songs recorded by Selena Gomez. -- Tavix (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading. "List of" articles go to list articles, not to sections. Not currently marked as {{R to section}} but we can fix that if you disagree. (Section is #Discography will fix after going through lots of kinda OKish but borderline Selena Gomez redirects). Si Trew (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It could go to Selena Gomez discography but that one contains her albums and some of her notable singles. There isn't a list of every song she has made, nor one with her band. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, because this one goes to Selena_Gomez#Discography. We need to unravel all this mess somehow. Don't mind keeping to Selena Gomez discography, the section at Selena Gomez has a {tlx|see also}} where it should probably have a {{main}}. All can be sorted out but it does need sorting out because as it stands the redirects (many) are rather a blunderbuss, I wasn't aware of the separate discography article, for example, from a search (I missed that it had the "see also" at that section, as I was not looking for that). Si Trew (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ambiguous, does this refer to songs performed or written. We have both articles for "discography" and "production discography". No point in dabbing it. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague per the Champ --Lenticel (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Selena Gomez discography, which is what's commonly sought for when people search for "songs by <pop artist>". ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is that a discography typically doesn't list all songs, and indeed doesn't here. By contrast, we have hundreds of list articles which at least aim to be complete listings of artists' songs. This includes pop artists, such as Jessie J, Kesha, and Britney Spears. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do have List of songs recorded by Selena Gomez and List of songs recorded by Selena Gomez & the Scene, but I don't think they're very complete. I guess in this case retargeting to the first one would be the analogous case. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good find. Retarget to List of songs recorded by Selena Gomez. It does need work, but WP:NODEADLINE and all. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 26 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.

Selena Gomez songs[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 Selena Gomez discography.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Singer Selena Gomez at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_20#Singer_Selena_Gomez. There is a section Selena Gomez#Discography we could perhaps {{R to section}} to, but as it is this does not redirect to the songs but the person, and is therefore WP:SURPRISEing, WP:RFD#D5. (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Selena Gomez discography. Unlike the previous search, the user isn't looking for a complete list but just any article that focuses on her songs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I was unaware of that article until you pointed it out. We should make some of the others more kinda unsurprising, like that, too then. Retarget per AngusWOOF. Si Trew (talk) 15:00, 21 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.
Yeah, I closed it procedurally and before I discovered the list in the RfD above. I agree that should be the target regardless of the other RfD turns out. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with retargeting to the song list. I didn't realize there was one when I initially voted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I think that's enough support to go ahead and do it. -- Tavix (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ppr:Kut[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 Reanimation as a {{R from song}}. -- Tavix (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding this redirect as a notable or official alternative name for the subject. Search results on search engines do return the target, but it seems more like a fan-created acronym than anything the band Linkin Park made official. Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable for now since the original redirect was made in 2008 and assumed that the single had information about it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a WP:XNR since "Ppr:" in not a namespace, an alias, or a pseudo-namespace. The nominated redirect is in the "Article:" namespace, the same namespace as its target. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Er, you can make your own namepace pretty easily. Paprika:Steely. There ya go, I made it. Si Trew (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You just made a page in the "Article:" namespace. Unless the namespace is technically programmed into the software that runs Wikipedia, the page defaults to the "Article:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well that pretty much answers my question. Paprika:Steely can be speedily deleted then, was very much a test case, of course. Si Trew (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colons are generally fine in article titles, unless the bit before the colon clashes with a namespace prefix (but in this case redirects are still fine): WP:NC-COLON. Uanfala (talk) 21:15, 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.

Lyrics redirects to Papercut (Linkin Park 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. --BDD (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTLYRICS. Steel1943 (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lyrics need to be notable like a catchphrase, and covered by independent secondary sources such as news articles. Ideally something that the reader immediately knows that song, but might not know its actual title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia isn't a lyrics database. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Why does it feel like night today" as the first line in the song (i.e. a low-brow version of Shall I compare thee to a summer's day) and delete the other. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:46, 26 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.

Good Will Hunting 2[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 13:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was a gag in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, but it's not mentioned at the target article. Definitely misleading for readers who might be wondering if Good Will Hunting actually had a sequel. --BDD (talk) 14:03, 21 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.

MacOS[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. While it's not unheard of for an RfD to gain consensus for a page move, if that's your initial request, it should be an RM. As Si has noted, there's already an ongoing one on this issue. --BDD (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose OS X to be moved here because macOS Sierra is now released. See macOS Sierra and App Store. NasssaNserand his edits 13:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a discussion at Talk:OS_X#Requested_move_20_September_2016. I am not sure why this has come here. I added (or tried to add), the move header to the target, but I am always hopeless at {{requested move}} and it has subst'd with an error which I have left there as evidence I tried... the discussion is indeed on the talk page as it should be! Further comments should be on the link I have provided here. Si Trew (talk) 13:41, 21 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.

Sentence logic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 29#Sentence logic

To ensure that any new or revised requirement providing for the screening, testing, or treatment of individuals operating commercial motor vehicles for sleep disorders is adopted pursuant to a rulemaking proceeding (H.R. 3095; 113th Congress)[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. For Si and others, the relevant guideline is WP:NCGAL, which says to generally use the short title and redirect from the long title. But I don't think full titles are what's intended there. The example given is European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 instead of An Act to amend the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 so as to alter the method used in Great Britain for electing Members of the European Parliament to make other amendments of enactments relating to the election of Members of the European Parliament and for connected purposes, but there's no such redirect to the actual article. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This and the one below are the only two with this form of rather legal "long title" of an act of law (if that is the right word) for their title, including a the parenthesesis which might be good in a legal dictionary but is not what Wikipedia uses parens for as titles. I don't see as being likely search terms or useful to search. Result of a page move. In a sense harmless, but so much clutter. The only links in article space, unpiped, are from List of bills in the 113th United States Congress, which could probably more sensibly just link to the the target with a pipe especially considering that it is a piped link at that page anyway to remove the parenthetical bit, and Sleep-deprived driving#See also, which is how I found it (because I am somewhat insomniac so was looking at topics on sleep deprivation to pass the time), and again could probably more sensibly just link straight to the target: I am not sure it is wise in this case to "see also" via the redirect, and usually those cross-refs should be fixed on doing the page move, I think, although sometimes of course going via the redirect makes sense, in this case it doesn't. Si Trew (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I imagine we have a policy for what we do with the long titles of acts, but I don't know what it would be; {{R from long title}} (-> {{R from long name}}) does include a statement that it can be used on the long titles of acts, says don't replace it "just because", and refers to WP:COMMONNAME, but common usage seems not to have them, or at least not to this extreme. Neither this nor the one below is rcatted as {{R from long title}} which is the least we should do, but because usually the long title is in the infobox of the article a search would find it that way, I imagine, anyway. The (not a disambiguation) of (H.R. 3095; 113th Congress) is particularly worrisome. Si Trew (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible search term. Create H.R. 3095 instead. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC), updated 17:16, 21 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.

To ensure that any new or revised requirement providing for the screening, testing, or treatment of an airman or an air traffic controller for a sleep disorder is adopted pursuant to a rulemaking proceeding (H.R. 3578; 113th Congress)[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) 21:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above for rationale. The only link in article space, is from List of bills in the 113th United States Congress, piped to remove the (not a disambiguation bit). It could probably more sensibly just link to the the target. Remplacing the pipe to the redirect with a pipe to the target does not come under WP:NOTBROKEN, (which is not about replacing a piped link to a redirect), but I shan't do that gnoming while it is here for discussion. Si Trew (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete implausible search term. The list article will have the verbiage anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The list article does indeed have the verbiage. It's only a minor enabling act anyway, there are hundreds of them every year. These are the only two someone has listed, just because they could not be bothered to find the short title. Leave it be, just delete it, don't create more mess. Si Trew (talk) 16:09, 21 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.

Wikipedia:Requests for revert wars[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 13:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does this really mean, I don't see how the target has anything to do with the title. Why would anyone want to request edit wars anyway? - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I wonder, perhaps you have the wrong emphasis, Champ. Perhaps it they are wars about "requests for revert", whatever they would be, rather than requests for "edit wars"... anyway, it is pretty meaningless. Si Trew (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see the point in keeping this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To my knowledge, Wikipedia doesn't has the ability to revert historical wars that happened centuries ago. Steel1943 (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing at best. Even Jimbo himself can't revert wars :) . --Lenticel (talk) 01:27, 26 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.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion[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) 21:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant search term, possible created in error. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:XNR. (Wikipedia:Wikipedia: is a distinct namespace from Wikipedia:). Si Trew (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This redirect isn't a WP:XNR since "Wikipedia:Wikipedia:" is not a namespace, an alias, or a pseudo-namespace. For that reason, this redirect is in the "Wikipedia:" namespace, the same namespace as its target. Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For some reason, this redirect reminds me of the purposely erroneous WP:MFD nominations that happen every year on April Fools' Day. However, if that is the case, this redirect was created a week too late. Steel1943 (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm does it, Steel? Not to me. I know that WP:DYK will store up things for Hallowe'en and April Fools' Day and even the facts are All Korrekt For A Change but are just given a bit of a twist, I seem to remember I had a perfectly innocent bishop tieing up men and women in bondage (i.e. marrying them) and so on, the piped links were kinda the fun but all the facts were correct. If this is an April fool's joke in editor space, it is beyond me, and does not have the privilege that DYK does of having it been fact checked and so on before it even appears under the New Articles page on the mainpage, so the twisty April Fools are actually just rather cryptic crossword clues but technically correct. Or at least mine were. Si Trew (talk) 20:39, 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.

Wikipedia:AfD/Gordon Franz[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. -- Tavix (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No incoming links, unlikely redirect. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Have no memory of why it was made or what purpose it was supposed to serve. jps (talk) 11:54, 21 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.

Chantelle Kreviaziuk[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) 21:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too many mistakes to make these plausible typos. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 08:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all typing in"Chantal K" will get the reader to the article, not confuse with a bunch of variants. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea whetether Champs contribution there means something or not. Sorry, been out in the cold all night fingers ust warming up. What do you mean, what does it all mean if it means sometihing? I wasn't expecting a debate about existentialism. Just whether these redirects make any sense. Si Trew (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew:I don't get what you mean now, but I believe you have failed to recognize the pun I have put in there. It just reminded me of that and this discussion, that is all. Also see [2]. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Champion: what pun? Si Trew (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Did you look at that linked RfD? I'm not sure if I'm right describing it as a pun, though. But I'm just saying that these spelling made me think of [3]. Thus, I'm saying, people who search for this will think of "What If It All Means Something". - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it but did not click through it (and am not going to). Can you explain why someone would think of this person and want to say "What if it all means something"? Why would they do that instead of phoning The Samaritans? or something? Is it a WP:LYRIC? Totally m issing the point here, but I am not familiar with this artist, and so I come as any reader should with ignorance but intelligence. Si Trew (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: responded on your talk page. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ta, and replied. We should probably get rid of this argy bargy between thee and me from this conversation, witty though it be, I think from this post up to "I have no idea whether" we can safely cut:? Si Trew (talk) 18:47, 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.

White house tours[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 White House Visitors Office. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT a travel guide. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 08:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Champion, and also because of my general dislike of redirects that imply that we have specific information on something and land the unsuspecting at the more-general topic. Weak retarget. I note that the properly Capitolized White House tours is a redirect to White House Visitors Office (which starts "The White House Visitors Office is responsible for public tours of the White House..."). Probably retarget there as {{R from incorrect capitalisation}}, but no harm would come of it being deleted, the same target would then be presented for someone typing "White house tours" (or "white house tours") etc. White House Tours and White house Tours are red, and on the first, with the drop-down search in Mozilla firefox, I get "White house tours", this redirect to the general, rather than "White House Tours", the more-specific redirect. So it's blocking the quick search, as it stands. Si Trew (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Si Trew, given there is an actual article for this, and a search where the second and subsequent words are lower-case are acceptable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to White House Visitors Office per Si Trew. Might be useful for our readers --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 25 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.

Democracy and Dictatorship[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) 21:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY There are several books and perhaps other publications and media with this title, but nome of them are notable according to our standards. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 08:33, 21 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.

-cracy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIC it is unclear what the readers will look for if they search for such a thing. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 08:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done,m User:BDD, these have not been deleted to make way for the article. What did you done? Si Trew (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just added "Cracy" to the nomination. Apologies for not being clear. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 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.

CAT R[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 the first, retarget the others toWikipedia:Categories for discussion#Redirecting categories. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects, especially WP:CATRED and WP:CATREDIRECT, should point to the same place to avoid confusion. I'd suggest targeting all of these to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Redirecting categories, as "redirect categories" (abbreviated "rcats" or less commonly "redcats") is generally the name used for redirect categories. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect was informed about this discussion.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom and add a hatnote to former uses, since they've been pointing to their original targets for around for 4 and 9 years. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:38, 26 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_21&oldid=1088108354"