Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 11, 2017.

Dance of the Sugar-Plum Fairy.rmi[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. There is a clear consensus to delete the unabbreviated ones. The abbreviated ones are a closer call, but ultimately I find the arguments for deleting them stronger. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a file, but neither these redirects nor their targets are files. -- Tavix (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... But that doesn't explain why these would be plausible as redirects. As far as I can tell, that dictionary isn't even notable, so it's not like there's anywhere that discusses these files. -- Tavix (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: But canyon.mid and passport.mid are also available as redirects.--Dabao qian (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which is fine because they're discussed on Wikipedia. Redirects exist to help people find information on what they're looking for. Those two redirects you mention do that. The ones I've nominated do not. -- Tavix (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the abbreviated ones in light of Dabo qian's comment, delete the spelled out ones. – Train2104 (t • c) 04:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have an exceptionally difficult time imagining anyone would search for these to begin with, more so that someone would search for an obscure file name when they're actually looking for iconic musical works, and that they were buried deep within Windows isn't a valid argument to the contrary. TimothyJosephWood 13:17, 12 April 2017 (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.

Worldwide distribution[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 Distribution. Other than "don't keep it as is", there really isn't much of a consensus here. However, it seems like a retarget to Distribution would satisfy the most people here, so that's where it's going to go. -- Tavix (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the current target is too narrow for the broad term "worldwide distribution". The page should be retargeted to another page, like either globalization or Global marketing. Alternative, how about disambiguating it? George Ho (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest writing a short article. It's a term most commonly used in filming though, so keeping the current redirect is fine as well. Lyrda (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know how sources use the term. Google Books and Google News may explain better than I. --George Ho (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Film distribution instead? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Distribution instead. Term isn't solely used for distribution of films. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate The term overwhelmingly refers to film distribution, but I guess it could in theory also describe distribution (which happens to be worldwide) of other media and the like. Creating a separate page that links to all the possible search targets is best. Second choice would be redirect to Film distribution. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything but keep The current target is surprising and way too specific. I'd say to retarget to Logistics as that's the general article about managing the flow of goods. Would also accept Jonpatterns' suggestion of Distribution the dabpage. – Train2104 (t • c) 04:39, 12 April 2017 (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.

User:Hemanshu/sandbox239[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. The redirect is clearly broken, but so far everyone who has commented has suggested a different solution to that problem. As a matter of maintenance, I am updating the redirect to point to what is clearly intended to be the correct target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a non-existent target, seemingly invalid target. Nothing besides this in the page history. User has not edited since 2015. G8 doesn't apply to pages in the userspace. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fix or let it be. Redirects to special pages are always soft redirects (see e.g. User:Thryduulf/R to special) but they can be useful. In this case the page the user desires is the list of changes related to Category:India. The correct target for that is Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:India ("Special:RecentChangesLinked?target=Category:India" works in URLs but apparently not in links), so we should either fix it for the user (who may still be around as a reader and/or come back in future) or leave it be as completely harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless redirects like this add clutter to some maintenance list, I don't really see any benefit in trying to do anything with it. – Uanfala (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It shows up on User:R'n'B/Redirects and User:Godsy/R to special. -- Tavix (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personal user lists like that do not carry much weight in my opinion, and certainly not enough to justify deletion, as anyone may create any list with any (or no) criteria. Certainly for Godsy's list simply excluding userspace will resolve most of the list. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The user in question seems to have left Wikipedia, so the likelihood of them needing it again is infinitesimal. However, the likelihood of it cluttering maintenance lists like those I linked earlier are high, much higher than any future benefit. Because of that, I say delete and if the user comes back and needs it again, I'd have no problem with them recreating it. -- Tavix (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical deletion. That redirect syntax probably worked when it was originally created in 2004. But it doesn't work anymore. So this should fall under WP:G6 technical deletion. A courtesy notice about its deletion would suffice. Anyway, Tavix pointed out that the user seems to have left Wikipedia. Deryck C. 11:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe such redirects have ever worked, but I still fail to understand how deletion will benefit the encyclopaedia here, and how one person's overly broad personal cleanup list can justify deleting something in a another users' userspace? Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That argument works both ways. I fail to see how keeping this redirect will benefit the encyclopedia. The only arguments brought forward for keeping it has been broad terms like "harmless" and "I don't see the benefit to deletion". On the other hand, I have provided a specific cost to keeping the redirect moving forward. If we're conducting a cost-benefit analysis (CBA), the only benefit I can come up with is personal use for Hemanshu. However, there's no evidence that it is being used, and several reasons to believe that it is not. Chief among those being that the user seems to have left Wikipedia and that the redirect is broken (ie: broken redirects can't be used, by definition). Therefore, with no evidence of a tangible benefit to Wikipedia, and a specific cost that has been brought forward, the CBA favors deletion. I do agree that if the redirect is being used in any way, it would swing the other way in favor of keeping it. To mitigate that, I think it's fair to leave a note for the user in case they come back saying that they are more than welcome to recreate the redirect or have it restored on request. -- Tavix (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also okay with soft-redirecting with correct link syntax if this is more acceptable to others than deletion. Deryck C. 17:14, 2 May 2017 (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.

Red plains texas[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 retarget. After more than a month at RfD and two relistings it seems rather unlikley that further opinions are going to be rapidly forthcoming on this one. It's clear that there is a connection between "Red plains" in Texas and Osage Plains, but there is disagreement about whether there is sufficient information at the target to make a redirect useful, and neither side has made a more convincing argument than the other. So that brings us to no consensus, which normally defaults to keep but nobody here support the status quo, so that really wouldn't be ideal. Retargetting is a softer option than deletion, and deletion without consensus to do so should require exceptional circumstances that I don't see here, so I'll go with a retarget to Osage Plains. I would encourage AngusWOOF and anyone else interested to improve the target article though. Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, connection is unclear, along with incorrect capitalization. -- Tavix (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I oppose a retarget to Osage Plains. -- Tavix (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Osage Plains or delete. Some Web searches have convinced me that "Red Plains" is sometimes used as an alternate name of the "Rolling Plains", which in turn are that portion of the Osage that extends into Texas. That makes this a barely plausible search term. However, the region is barely discussed at the target, and the more plausible Red Plains and Rolling Plains are both redlinked, so it may be better not to get readers' hopes up. In any case, the current target makes no sense. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Osage Plains as used in books discussing the rolling red plains [1] and this one which says Rolling Plains is the same as Red Plains and lists the counties affected. [2] and this article [3] which quotes "The Rolling Plains include 21.7 million acres east of the High Plains in northwestern Texas. The area lies west of the North Central Prairies and extends from the edge of the Edwards Plateau in Tom Green County northward into Oklahoma. The landscape is nearly level to strongly rolling, and surface drainage is moderate to rapid. Outcrops of red beds, geologic materials, and associated reddish soils have led some scientists to use the name “Red Plains.” Limestone underlies the soils in the southeastern part. The eastern part contains large areas of badlands." It doesn't make sense to point to a highway system unless the highway is named as such. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Do not get what the redirect is for. Dough487210th 04:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2017 (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.

Rough sex[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) 13:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ungentle intercourse isn't synonymous with BDSM. The redirect has some history that is quite old.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you suggest the term redirect to? There is barely any decent scholarly content on the topic...under that specific name. And when quality sources do discuss rough sex (meaning by using the term rough sex), they usually do discuss it in the context of BDSM. It can refer to different types of sexual activity (not just intercourse). The term could redirect to a section in the Human sexual activity article, if reliable sources are gathered for it, but mention of BDSM would still be in that section. I'll post a note about this discussion at Talk:BDSM. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This probably shouldn't be deleted, but I don't know exactly where it should point at the moment. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality inviting comment, so hopefully that and Flyer22's note will bring some ideas. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand into article. We don't have an article or section that covers this. It should be expanded into an article. --Mr. Guye (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The term is rather vague. I don't know that such an article could consist of much more than a dictionary definition; unless the term has a notable usage, it isn't different than other adjective preceding "sex", e.g. gentle sex, fast sex, or pleasant sex.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to sex human sexual activity as the general topic. I'm not supportive of the status quo as the terms aren't synonymous. I think there's less likelihood of astonishment by a redirect to sex over BDSM. I don't buy the "expand into an article" idea. I'd be surprised if there's enough coverage for an article here, and perhaps having the redirect would discourage one from being created. -- Tavix (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Updating !vote to retarget to human sexual activity. Thanks for the correction, Uanfala. -- Tavix (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be fine with delete. -- Tavix (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to sex per Tavix. Rough sex =/= BDSM. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not retarget to Sex as that article is about the altogether unrelated biological topic. The relevant generic article (and an eligible target) would be Human sexual activity (see Flyer22's comment above). – Uanfala (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We simply don't have one good target for this. Deryck C. 11:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with Deryck Chan, there are too many targets for which this might be a valid search, but it will vary tremendously depending on the reader. The "roughness" of sex is extremely highly subjective: for some individuals all sex is rough, for others no sex is rough enough. BDSM isn't something that happens when a certain threshold of "roughness" is met, either. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:39, 2 May 2017 (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.

Mankri[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 restore article. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a spelling mistake, and even the correct spelling doesn't seem to be in the target article. SorryToDeleteYou (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Actually I don't know if it should be here or at articles for deletion because it used to be an article but not a very good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorryToDeleteYou (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct spelling is Makri http://www.mapsofindia.com/villages/uttar-pradesh/bulandshahar/siana/makri.html SorryToDeleteYou (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an entry for Mankri in the GeoNames database (not sure how reliable), and although it is not given as a variant of "Makri", it has virtually the same coordinates. So it's most probably an alternative name. In this case it seems most appropriate to move to Makri, Bulandshahr (to preserve the relevant history, as the place is notable), and make Mankri a disambiguation page, that will also list List of Burmese monarchs. – Uanfala (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you be able to fix the "not mentioned at target" issue? Or do you think it should be kept regardless, since it's a real place? SorryToDeleteYou (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion (which others might not agree with) is that in cases like this inclusion on a disambiguation page is a lower bar than having a mention in an article – if it were included in the target, then all the other settlements in the district would have to be listed as well to avoid making it appear as this particular place is the only (or the most important) one there. – Uanfala (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I withdraw in the light of this evidence? Deletion doesn't look to be necessary. SorryToDeleteYou (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article. Per WP:GEOLAND, populated places are notable and Uanfala provided evidence of its existence. If the article needs to be moved to a more correct name, I wouldn't oppose that. -- Tavix (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2017 (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.

Ottocento[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate the consensus in this discussion seems to be that disambiguation should be primary, but this can obviously be discussed on the talk page in future if anyone wants. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a foreign language dictionary, and there is no strong connection between the 19th century and the Italian language. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — doesn't hurt anyone, very unlikely to be used for anything else. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:RFOREIGN. Has another use in English as well (diff). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term is used in English for the 19th century in Italy, especially in works on art history, e.g. this book [4]. Compare Quattrocento, Cinquecento and so on. It also has its own entry in the concise Kindle version of the Oxford English Dictionary, showing the term is in common use in English. --Folantin (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is accurate, that suggests a better target would be History of Italy (possibly History of Italy#Unification) or a soft redirect to wikt:Ottocento. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change !vote to disambiguate. Neither "19th century in Italy" or the typeface is sufficiently common to indicate a primary use. WP:TWODABS suggests there shouldn't be a disambiguation page with two listings, but neither should point to a location in the article where a {{redirect}} template can be placed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - "Ottocento" is frequently used in English art history to denote the 19th century in Italian art. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is common in art history. There is no better target at present. A stub article could easily be created. Srnec (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The current target doesn't seem to have any Italy-specific content, so I'm wondering if Italian Neoclassical and 19th-century art might not be a more suitable target. I'm not entirely sure disambiguation is a very good idea as Ottocento (typeface) redirects to an article where the typeface is just an entry in a very long list of typefaces with no other content about it. – Uanfala (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. A disambiguation becomes feasible when including the typeface, a variant of Tarocchini, and there's also an album titled Ottocento from the band Ödland. The art history definition should probably be mentioned somewhere for it to be included. Uanfala mentions a great candidate to do so, but I'll defer to the art history editors. 18:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavix (talk • contribs)
  • I would prefer to see a draft disambiguation page before passing judgment here. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A draft dab page available below the redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I almost closed this, but while closing, I noticed that in the discussion, there seems to be a claim that the reference to the 19th century, even with the disambiguation page, may be the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT target (which would move the disambiguation draft to Ottocento (disambiguation) if that is the case.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2017 (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.

Asa Seeley[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete as unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted. This seems to have been a routine arrest rather than what was reported in places, there is no mention of the redirect subject on the list, and a Google search yields no reliable sources to that effect. I considered a G10 but given the prior AfD and RfD I didn't think it could be justified. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2017 (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.

Apostrophectomy[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 soft redirect to Wikt:apostrophectomy. Deletion issues mentioned were WP:NEO and WP:CNR. NEO points to a section titled "the dictionary definition trap" about article content: surely pointing readers looking for a dictionary definition to Wiktionary solves this problem. CNR is solved by soft-redirection. Several of the delete arguments also suggested that the redirect should be kept if there was information about it in an article, but there is information at Thryduulf's Wiktionary entry which seems to invalidate these arguments. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CNR. Someone searching this concept would be surprised or confused to end up at a MoS page. -- Tavix (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Apostrophe#Non-standard English use. I created this redirect specifically for use in edit summaries which is why it shows no incoming links, and deleting it will break these links. But I certainly agree it's not ideal as is (while noting that WP:CNR redirects to the essay at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects). Andrewa (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not redirect). I removed it from the proposed target page. It was added to that page today, sourced to Urban Dictionary. Not a reliable source WP:UGC. A google search turned up 1k hits for the word, limited to forums and other similar usage. It's an insignificant neologism. Alsee (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal... it will break the links mentioned, pointlessly IMO as I really don't see the harm it does... and as I pointed out above, nom is based on an essay, not any official guideline or policy. I found it useful in building the encyclopedia, otherwise I would not have created it. But if it makes you happy, delete it. No big deal. Andrewa (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the nom's essay is based on a guideline, WP:R#D6. My apologies for not being clear earlier. -- Tavix (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that strictly speaking that claim is false, but let us not play with words. That new link to a guideline is certainly relevant, thank you for it.
WP:R#06 reads Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (my emphasis)
This redirect is a redirect to the MOS, and is not just potentially useful, it is in use as explained above, and it has existed for two years... perhaps not really longstanding.
I repeat, no big deal. If deleted it will just make my existing edit summaries useless (and I can't change them now), and future edit summaries a few characters longer, but I can easily set up a shortcut in the project namespace, where in hindsight it really belongs. Andrewa (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The exception refers to shortcut redirects with the "MOS:" prefix. Because there is not a MOS namespace, those shortcuts are technically CNRs. -- Tavix (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • soft redirect to wikt:apostrophectomy, an entry I've just created. Per Andrewa there are links that will be broken if this is deleted but there is no mention of it on either the MOS page or article so neither will help someone looking to see what this is. The Wiktionary entry (which meets the criteria for inclusion there) will help people following the links and anyone else who searches for this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Wikt redirect per Thryduulf. This is a fair search term; some readers will be looking for it as a portmanteau.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would much rather see information about this neologism included at the Apostrophe article and have it retargeted there. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wikit per Thryduulf. The current target is way too surprising. — Train2104 (t • c) 17:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only reason for not deleting this would be its use in Andrewa's edit summaries for the past year or so (how many are there of these?). Keeping targeted to the manual of style is sensible, despite the CNR issues, as that's the intended target in these edit summaries. As the term has only a few hundred google hits, it's extremely unlikely to be searched for by users, and hence one of the necessary conditions for soft redirecting to wiktionary wouldn't be met. – Uanfala (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Uanfala: No, this is being used - 134 times in 2016, many clustered at the end of March, presumably correlating with some usage external to Wikipedia, demonstrating that people do search for this. It is not possible to correlate the number of people searching for something with the number of google hits for that thing - Westminster attack gets 50 million hits, Paris attack gets 70 million, and I strongly suspect that in the past month the former has received far more search interest (backed up by Wikipedia page views). Thryduulf (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if it is being used, then I agree that sof-redirecting to wiktionary is the way to go. – Uanfala (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm going to make this official. I don't really know Wiktionary's inclusion standards, but I suspect if the word is good enough for them, it's good enough for us to mention in Apostrophe, and I would strongly prefer that outcome. I think we should be extremely sparing in soft redirecting neologisms over to Wiktionary. --BDD (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BDD: the wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion are three or more "durably archived" independent uses of the term spanning at least one year. This is very significantly lower than Wikipedia's inclusion standards, and as this is a rather informal term I think a requirement for it to appear in the article (which is generally written in a more formal register) is somewhat inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD unless the term is added to Apostrophe, in which case retarget to Apostrophe. WJBscribe (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wikitionary per Thryduulf. I would prefer this over deletion. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable neologism. And per WJBscribe. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "@Dweller: "Non-notable neologism" (although a word that is over 17 years old is stretching the definition of "neologism" a bit) is a reason for their not to be a Wikipedia article, but not a reason why the many people searching for it should be faced with (directly or after a few clicks) search results which wont help them rather than a direct link to content at Wiktionary explicitly about the term they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixing ping to Dweller. – Uanfala (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't recall how long ago this was, but I know our Neologism page said that the term wasn't just about the recency of a word, that it could even apply to words that had been around for 50 years. It was more about its level of adoption. Now, did that have a good reference, was it original research? I don't know. But I think it's fair to call "apostrophectomy" a neologism. --BDD (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion seems to still be ongoing, so relisting in the hopes that consensus becomes clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while redirects are inexpensive, some are just plain cheap. The latter are not cost effective, even at the low price; especially when they are hardly used anyway.[5]--John Cline (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2017 (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.

Hanneke Canters[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 deleted by RickinBaltimore. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: I have no idea why RickinBaltimore deleted the redirect under R3 as it was not recently created and created as the result of a page move. That being said, I've carried out a suggestion put forward in this discussion to history split Hanneke Canters from Grace Jantzen. This is without predjudice against WP:AFD if someone still wants to pursue deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete redirect with no direct connection to target article and is confusing. Was once an article ([6]) targeted for AFD. Somehow became a meaningless redirect. Quis separabit? 20:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: How can you recreate an article about Canters under the name Grace Jantzen?? Quis separabit? 00:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean to restore the article about Canters under this title. Thryduulf (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I don't understand, I'm afraid. Right now Canters is a direct redirect to Jantzen. This can't stand. Quis separabit? 13:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal would mean that Hanneke Canters is an article about Hanneke Canters. Grace Jantzen would remain unchanged. It is possible for an admin to split the versions about Canters from those about Jantzen (see WP:HISTSPLIT). Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::: OK. Quis separabit? 15:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf -- what's going on with creating the Hanneke Canters article? If you can't get it done now then withdraw your objection to deleting the Canters redirect. You can always create an article with that name when you get around to it but you can't leave the redirect as it is because it implies that Canters and Jantzen are the same person or somehow intimately connected. Quis separabit? 20:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE: @Thryduulf's Restore article per reasons above. Delete the redirect and just close this thing out. It's not a complicated issue. Quis separabit? 21:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @[email protected]: I am not proposing the redirect be left as is, I agree that the status quo is not suitable. I have not taken any unilateral action to restore the article as this discussion is still open, and before your most recent comment nobody else had actually expressed an opinion on the proposal. My taking any action in these circumstances would not be appropriate. The reasoning for my suggestion is that the article has never had consensus for deletion, and I am always very reluctant to delete an article at RfD as it is simply the wrong venue for such discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I am not proposing the redirect be left as is, I agree that the status quo is not suitable." -- CORRECT.
SO? Delete this pestilent redirect and create an article at your leisure. What is the big deal? Quis separabit? 12:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2017 (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.

Viruskiller[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Term is not spelt this way. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Back in the days of the Atari ST, this term was commonly used, including this variant without a space. Because this lack of space may not have been correct (at least that may have been the case in English), I have added the following redirect-template - R from incorrect name. Ae-a (talk)
  • Delete or disambiguate As viruses are not just a computer topic, they exist in nature as well -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW there is no current disambiguation, Antivirus is about computer viruses and Antiviral is about biological ones, the two are linked by hatnotes. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2017 (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.

National Airport[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. There's overwhelming consensus that the DC airport is the primary topic. I advise that if a disambiguation/set index is to be pursued, be sure that other airports are actually known as "National Airport" and aren't partial title matches. -- Tavix (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this suitable as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT? There are many airports named National Airport. Should this be converted into a disambiguation page? feminist 07:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think Set index is better than a disambiguation page, but I agree with you that the airport in Washington DC is not the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have previously worked on Draft:National Airport, which may be a good place to start from. I stopped pursuing that because of the large number of airports named "National Airport". feminist 14:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There may be dozens or hundreds of airports with "National Airport" as part of their name, but as far as I know, only one airport is referred to simply as "National Airport", and that is Washington National. Add a hatnote to the top of that article that "National Airport" redirects there and to see a disambiguation page for a list of national airports. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking more closely at the google results, it seems that the airport serving Washington DC is the primary topic. The set index/dab should be hatnoted from the target though as there are others that are referred to in this manner. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as primary topic, but create National Airport (disambiguation) with a hatnote on the target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Train2104 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reagan is the only one commonly called "National Airport", both historically speaking before Reagan's name was added, and still today to some extent, especially by locals unhappy with the name change to honor a locally unpopular President. I can tell you from experience that even today, most locals call it "National" or "National Airport", not "Reagan Airport". No objection to creating a disambig page with a hatnote if someone wants to, but this is the primary topic. Smartyllama (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2017 (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.

Blade weapon[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 Edged and bladed weapons. Thanks for putting together an article, Cinderella157! -- Tavix (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These should point to the same place. Is there a more appropriate target that describes bladed weapons in general? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Blade#Uses.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some modern weapons are bladed, such as a bayonets or ballistic knives. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need a consensus on where to redirect these.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throwing up some ideas.
Blade(d) weapons are swords, knives and bayonets but not all swords, knives and bayonets are bladed.
Not all blades are weapons. Not all blades are swords, knives and bayonets.
Not all edged weapons are blades. Edged weapons are a larger set that includes axes, poleaxes and other edged weapons.
Sythes etc are tools that are bladed and/or edged, that have been used as improvised as weapons.
Not all bladed or edged weapons are premodern. Bayonets knives and machetes persist in the modern era as do other edged weapons (some improvised) particularly but not limited to trench warfare.
A redirect to premodern weapons is not specific since many are not bladed or edged. It may be better to link to specific headings within the list.
I suggest a short article Edged and bladed weapons with redirects from "Edged weapons" and "Blade(d) weapons". The article would essentially be a disambiguation page, although, I suggest it might be more appropriate for it to be written as a prose article (with multiple links) along the lines of the ideas I have identified, rather than as the more usual format for a disambiguation page.
For consideration Cinderella157 (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See [[7]]
Suggested page - though largely unformatted. Needs links added. I don't think this needs a lot of (or any) referencing per WP:Blue and the fact that it is essentially intended as a redirect.
Hope this is a help and a start. Rome wasn't built in a day and not by one person. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited it slightly and added some wikilinks. It would need some sourcing; if titled "Edged and bladed weapons", it would at least need a source defining edge[d] and blade[d] weapons. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have sources but they may exist in existing articles. Will have a look. But it is a good foundation? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See [8] re sources.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: since discussion is still ongoing, I'm hoping another relist will be fruitful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per previous discussion, a proposed article Edged and bladed weapons has been created. Can the three terms be redirected to this new page please. Further contribution to this new page is more than welcome. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2017 (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.

Unghie[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's not anything special about Romanian or Italian nails that would justify this foreign-language redirect. (At least, not that I'm aware of.) I'd've speedied it A10 if I'd seen it at creation, but it's been hanging around for almost a year now. —Cryptic 11:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. I don't see anything worth preserving in the history – the page was created with a translation of the corresponding Romanian article, which, given the bizarre curiosity of the fact of the translation, it is conceivable to think of preserving, yet I don't see it as anywhere bizarre enough. – Uanfala (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2017 (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.

Calvin Koolaid[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. Oh, yeah! -- Tavix (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid alternate name, bizarrely it is tagged with {{R from misspelling}}. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not notable. Brand was around when he was president though, but without any mentions of the product or the president on either article, this is synthesis. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:17, 13 April 2017 (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.

Corey Bringas[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. It seems to be unanimous. Do let me know if it isn't and I'll relist. -- Tavix (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent connection to target. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2017 (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.

Nguyễn Thị Sen (Badminton player)[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) 00:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No more affinity for capitalization than any other disambiguation (WP:COSTLY). Nguyễn Thị Sen (badminton player) and Nguyễn Thị Sen (badminton) exist. Created in late January of this year. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think pages Nguyễn Thị Sen (Badminton player) and Nguyễn Thị Sen (badminton player) should be removed because there is no redirect to that page. That page created by Huy Trịnh. He/she tried to create another Nguyễn Thị Sen (wife of Emperor Đinh Bộ Lĩnh) but he can't actualize that page because that title already exist.Stvbastian (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2017 (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.

Slaphead[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 1#Slaphead

Eyuep Can[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) 00:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) This redirects to a surname page. Neither of them listed have this name. Not Germanic but Turkish. Si Trew (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing comes up on web search that is not related to wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2017 (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.

Smazeny Syr[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) Very slight doubt this would be taken as "Senior" which it is not. But probably OK. Si Trew (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not everyone owns a Czechoslovakian keyboard to type the correct diacritics. Also, nom is not making sense at all; did you take your medicine? --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • These normally get kept per WP:DIACRITICS, don't they? – Uanfala (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2017 (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.

Gwenfo[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky one and probably keep, but this is the English' Wikpedia. The R goes to the village which goes to the little primary school, so that is a bit WP:N. All my external searches are to the primary school. It is absolutely definetly the Welsh transiteration of this name, but we haven't much RS on it. Si Trew (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back formation from Gwenfô. With the diacritic at the back and the W for G in Englsih I am not sure. To be clar, the article lists the vilage, but all external searches I get are for the school. 00:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep searches looks like they go to locales in Wenvoe anyway, like the school or some stores. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_11&oldid=1214765181"