Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 29, 2017.

Fictional 31st days[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 June 31 to 31 June, delete the rest. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Created in 2005, reportedly to ward off hoaxes, these redirects from fictional dates now serve no purpose. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment are there notable fictional works for this? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I searched all 4, and the only one I found was 31 June. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget June 31 to 31 June as a plausible error. Delete the others. Only April 31 and November 31 have ever been hoaxed, both by the same user 12 years ago; protection/prevention is not necessary, and if it was then these could be ECP salted. There are real erroneous dates with noteworthy information (January 0, February 30) but these redirects don't provide any useful information to readers. There's been a lack of consensus over the years whether these should target the general month article, or either the day before or day after the purported date (e.g. whether November 31 should target November, November 30, or December 1), but none of those would be useful to readers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them except for 'June 31', which should go over to the aforementioned film's page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2018 (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.

Wikipedia:Not menu[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 note that several editors !voted "keep" arguing that such a section could be added to the WP:NOT policy, but such an addition to a policy page would require discussion in a much more central venue than this. As it stands this redirect does indeed suggest an interpretation of policy which is not supported by that policy nor by any evident consensus, and that is evidently harmful. There is no prejudice against recreation if consensus supports adding a relevant section to the NOT policy. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user that created this page added a WP:NOTMENU link to the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy page (diff, which I reverted) and created this redirect, but no rationale was provided in the edit summary for why this was performed, other than "valid". As such, this is entirely ambiguous, and could refer to the contents of any article that contains any mention of foods that companies or organizations purvey. Furthermore, such changes to policy pages should be performed after a consensus is formed to do so, rather than unilaterally. I have also posted a note regarding this matter at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § Revert. North America1000 06:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep as there is no provided policy basis on deleting a redirect, a redirect that anyone can start, see for example, WP:Not guide. The current WP:Not guidebook actually mentions a menu and food as part of its criteria: not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait....not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc.". That a restaurant, hotel or venue is an excellently valid redirect. This satisfies our principles of Help:Redirect#Purposes of a redirect. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Wikipedia:Consensus is a policy. Consensus should be obtained before adding ambiguous entries to the WP:NOT policy page and creating redirects to the content that was added without consensus. North America1000 07:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No mention of "not menu" at WP:NOT. Seems to be part of a mass editing by creator to remove mention of products from restaurant articles (such as this edit), which seems to conflict with WP:PRODUCT: "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself". More guidance is needed than to merely point to a policy page with no mention of menus.—Bagumba (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notice of this discussion has been placed at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink.—Bagumba (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't make sense redirecting when there hasn't been discussion in the policy page. Stickee (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it doesn't clearly pertain to the material there, and we do not have any extant, regular problem of people a) trying to add menus to articles on restaurants and other food services (already covered under various rules about trivia and promotion, at WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#ADVERT, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, etc.), or b) anything else that "menu" could refer to, e.g. badly rewriting articles on software to be stepwise catalogues of their menu items (which would already be covered by WP:NOT#MANUAL).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was very clearly created in an attempt to create their own policy. A quick look at their edit history shows they are just going through and deleted tons of content from restaurant articles, and wanted something to support their claim. - GalatzTalk 15:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On its merits, an appropriate redirect. It's exactly the sort of contents we do not usually include. I think it was always assumed before, but it seems to be clearly needed now.It exactly matches the other similar statements, all of which are basically extensions of NOT INDISCRIMINATE to the usual special cases. DGG ( talk ) 16:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Since this is "Redirects for discussion" (italic emphasis mine), and since I did not explicitly state "delete" in the original post, I would like to clarify that I am for deletion. Key points about the foods and fare that companies and food manufacturers create and purvey should not be wiped entirely from articles. Conversely, I also understand that articles do not need to go into great intricate detail covering every foodstuff a company/organization is involved in. These types of matters in articles should be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than by the ambiguous ten-character phrase, wp:notmenu. North America1000 11:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't see any great harm in this, any experienced edit will recognise the different between a typical menu item and a full listing, just as we can tell the difference under the product heading between "Bloggs Ltd makes widgets" and "Bloggs Ltd makes widgets, including blue widgets, green widgets, UV widgets etc." Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • inclined to keep This guy's edits are a bit of a problem but it's reasonable (and I feel a consensus for this) to assert that if we are talking listing particular dishes they should be part of their fame and not listings from the menu. Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep From what I see, we can all agree that NOMENU should be a thing. What I think the issue here is, was the way it was overly boldly implemented, without discussion. We put the cart before the horse on this one, but unless I'm missing something, we do have consensus at this point, albeit not formally. The reason I'm weak about this is probably why people voted delete, and if I'm honest, it's probably to discourage this as a precedent. As a small aside, and I don't think this is case here, but I also don't want to encourage people slashing entire sections when they could be rewritten more concisely to conform. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Drewmutt, with a note that the word menu should be included in the target page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Jimfbleak, Mangoe, Drewmutt, and Piotrus: DGG mentioned above that this would be more relevant when considering "NOT INDISCRIMINATE", in which case the redirect should be to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (not it's current target of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal) As a few of you mentioned, there should be mention of menu somewhere in the target, and guidance as to the extent of what NOTMENU means (e.g. WP:NOTSTATS is not carte blanche to remove any and all stats). Otherwise, we get this removal of independently-sourced prose on a restaurant's core offerings.—Bagumba (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bagumba: I agree that the diff you provided directly above is of concern. The content removed (which you restored) is not a long bulleted directory list of menu items, it is sourced content that is relevant to the topic, as per WP:PRODUCT. This example is in part a reason to be wary of vague additions to Wikipedia policy pages that have a potential to be significantly misinterpreted, leading to the blanking of entire sections of sourced content (and the work of our valued editors) at the push of a button, without appropriate due consideration of the content's relevance relative to a particular topic. Such content can also be copy edited to address concerns with intricate detail, rather than blanked in a rapid, drive-by manner. These types of matters in articles are better considered on a case-by-case basis. North America1000 11:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the troubling part is the edit summary read, "... Pricing and menu is an immediate violation".—Bagumba (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it might make more sense to say, details of pricing and menu. The general level of pricing is appropriate, the type of food served is appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 14:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to point at WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which has relevant wording already. Mangoe (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I see no reason why we shouldn't include this into our policy, and it's definitely something that isn't controversial because of personal opinion or bias. It's something that adds value to Wikipedia policy and it should be encouraged for Wikipedia's welfare. Today, we now see paid editing of all kinds and we should prepare for it, and this includes spamming us with menus. One comment here says this should be deleted because there hasn't been any discussion on the policy page, but there indeed is, so this doesn't add anything into why the redirect should still be deleted alone. Several years ago, the community was free to implement anything it wanted to, since the community has a choice of making it. I recently participated in a discussion about an article where menu product spam like this was added in, and this redirect fits in perfectly with solving that issue. Trampton (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trampton has been blocked as a sock of SwisterTwister. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bagumba. There's no mention of menus at the target, so someone is free to interpret the redirect however they want. This isn't helpful as the above diffs have shown. -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a place to house an eating establishment's menu, ennumerating the offerings being provided. The content must be encyclopedic, i.e. the special dish should be noted in 3rd-party, independent sources, rather than routine reviews, such as what's common in local press. That's the very definition of indiscriminate. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems a reasonable use of a redirect. Not sure why it has been nominated for deletion. At worst it is harmless and it may well be useful.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of those would ever be suggests as they're not relevant. Not menu is a reality though in regards to article, but "Not teacher" or "Not your mother" is certainly not. The comments above clearly gave examples of why it's in fact valid, so simply stating "implausible" isn't showing how they're irrelevant. Also, as for the formatting an article, adding content without a table of contents, is against WP:MOS. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the menu issue isn't mentioned in WP:NOT, it's not appropriate to have a redirect there under this title. First get the menu-related text added to WP:NOT, then create a redirect. (And then I'd probably vote keep.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NOT BURo. We all do agree it's a good statement of policy, so why delete it only to remake. it? Just edit the policy page to include the statement. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: DGG (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
    • However, there is no consensus on the policy talk page at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#NOT.23MENU to include anything about "Not Menu"—Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, this redirect was created entirely out-of-process. I am surprised that people are advocating for a WP:NOTMENU redirect to the WP:NOT policy page when the policy page has no content qualifying the redirect. Furthermore, edits to the policy page should be performed by consensus, rather than arbitrarily. In this ambiguous manner, "WP:NOTMENU" could refer to any content in any article that even has a mention of cuisine. North America1000 03:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither the target section or WP:NOT has any mention of menus, which means that this redirect cannot be interpreted. Since this is a redirect to NOT, one of the central policies on Wikipedia, and one which is frequently used to delete content, this is problematic. As Bagumba showed, this leads to abuse of the redirect to give the weight of policy to actions which are in fact not justified by policy. This is not to say that this redirect should never exist. But if "menus" become mentioned, (WP:INDISCRIMINATE) seems like a good section), then this can be recreated. But RFD is certainly not the place to decide the contents of NOT.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 01:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer Since this is a redirect into policy page WP:NOT, I hope this can be closed as a definitive keep or delete, and otherwise invite you to !vote if you feel there is currently no consensus. (Of course to me, it seems like WP:COMMONSENSE that WP:R#DELETE should have covered redirects created with no consensus, whose existence could lead to misinterpretation of Wikipedia policies.) Thanks for your consideration.—Bagumba (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer – Ambiguity such as this can create problems. E.g. let's delete all of the Michelin Starred restaurant articles, as per WP:Not menu. Since the WP:NOT page has no qualification for the redirect, anything could arbitrarily be applied. Also, a discussion regarding this is occurring at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Revert. It may be a good idea for the closer of this discussion to also make a determination and close the other as well at the same time, to end this matter of having two separate discussions on two separate Wikipedia namespace areas about the same topic. North America1000 13:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Anomalocaris. There are a lot of things Wikipedia is not. If we delete this and people start flooding pages with restaurants' menus, please let me know and I'll apologize. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect creator blocked as a sock The redirect creator SwisterTwister was just CU blocked as a sock by Bbb23 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trampton. Technically this now qualifies for speedly delete WP:G5.—Bagumba (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bagumba: It does not qualify for G5. Nothing that SwisterTwister has created qualifies for G5 because the timing is wrong. ST and the two other accounts were just blocked. There would have had to have been a blocked sock before for their creations to be G5'ed.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bbb23: I had thought that sockmaster Trampton was blocked since 2007, but that was just a temporary block at the time. Thanks for clarifying.—Bagumba (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However he has used the account Trampton to !vote twice..which I've noted above. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I struck it out. - GalatzTalk 04:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  (1) WP:DEL1: G5 IAR.  (2) As per the information page WP:Guide to deletion, "misrepresenting policies and guidelines in deletion discussions is disruptive of the discussion process."  This redirect is intended to (mis)represent a personal opinion as a WP:NOT policy.  WP:DEL2 has "inflammatory redirects", which I would interpret misrepresentation in the context as equivalent to inflammatory.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing on SwisterTwister, just that it could cause confusion (The redirect might cause confusion. being a delreason) and doesn't seem like everyone agrees that it should be in NOT so IAR doesn't seem applicable here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This really should be closed soon, but I'm relisting it just to get the "December 5" page off of the main RfD page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:29, 29 December 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 Sparrow (2017 film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This film has not been and will not be released in 2017. Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A redirect's validity shouldn't be temporary: If it was valid in January, it's still valid now. Furthermore, it's still getting a decent number of pageviews. And with it having gotten 63k views since creation, there's a real possibility that there are incoming links from external sites. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the page views chart proves essentially how implausible this redirect is as a search term after the article was moved in January 2017. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid {{R from move}}. This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Can be tagged as {{R unprintworthy}}. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Still receiving 10ish hits a day. It was at that title long enough. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...Still receiving 10ish hits a day." – probably because it's listed on RfD right now as it has no incoming article namespace links. And in regards to quoting the verbiage of {{R from move}} as you seem to have: So, if someone moves Google to (click to see title) then moves it back to Google, we should keep the leftover redirect since it is then a {{R from move}}? Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's clearly vandalism and was there for only a few minutes and so hasn't been there long enough for external links. Long-standing article titles should remain redirects though, even if they are somewhat illogical. Regarding the views, I looked at before the RfD began. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it is actively misleading. The R from move argument is nonsense as it should never have been at this title in the first place. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - {{R from move}} and per page view stats. It was at this title for 6 months until it was moved in January 2017. Page views dropped after it was moved to about 200 a day which is enormous for a redirect, and although they've tapered off prior to this nomination to 10-15 a day that is still quite a high rate for a redirect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:12, 2 January 2018 (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.

Adam(2017 film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. Also, Adam (2017 film), a redirect towards the same target, exists. Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 29 December 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.

Lacépède (taxonomy)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect pages should probably be (taxonomist), since he's a person. There is a surprising number of redirects to the target page (e.g. this long and unused title, many of which probably bear deletion if their dependencies can be retargeted around those redirects first. ~ Maltrópa loquace 17:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is probably a remnant of some infobox which automatically linked the surname of the first person to describe a species. Also, re: The redirect pages should probably be (taxonomist), since he's a person – different topic areas on Wikipedia use different disambiguation conventions, so it's probably helpful in general to have redirects from one to the other. For example, Donovan Mitchell (basketball) is not a basketball. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He seems to be the only notable person named Lacepede, and he was associated with taxonomy, so I don't see an issue here. While (taxonomy) wouldn't be a preferred way of disambiguating an article about a person, it might be acceptable in some circumstances anyway. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per both of the comments above; harmless. I don't believe anything is preventing the nominator from creating redirects at Lacepède (taxonomist) if they wish to do so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Little Mermaid (2017 film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 9#The Little Mermaid (2017 film)

Celeris[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 10#Celeris

Wedding dress of Meghan Markle[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 Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Aervanath (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the current target article or at Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. feminist (talk) 12:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bound to be a great deal of discussion about it soon though, isn't there? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in four months time this will be one of the most talked/blogged/tweeted fashion moments of the year. It will stand alongside the many other historic dress articles. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:CRYSTALHAMMER or Weak retarget per nom. This can be created when there is information about the dress. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a brief mention could probably be added at wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, based on sources like:
    • Gonzales, Erica (20 December 2017). "The Royal Family is already requesting sketches for Meghan Markle's wedding dress". Harper's Bazaar. Retrieved 22 December 2017.
    • Barr, Sabrina (21 December 2017). "Meghan Markle's wedding dress designs have been revealed". The Independent. Retrieved 22 December 2017.
Though I don't know exactly where it would fit in the article. Or perhaps a WP:REDLINK deletion would be better. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per TtT and really anyone cares about her wedding dress? Or other royal wedding dresses? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently. See Wedding dress of Kate Middleton. -- Tavix (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - her future wedding dress should already be presumed notable, this being a royal wedding. Unless she elects to be wed in a pantsuit or something, but then the fact she did not have a wedding dress will be notable and this redirect will still be useful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until information about her wedding dress is known. Right now, Wikipedia has no mention of this. -- Tavix (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CRYSTAL. We are not in a rush to create an article. Recreate later if notable. CookieMonster755✉ 02:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: CookieMonster755 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
  • Weak delete While we can point to other examples, I'm not quite convinced that such dresses are always notable. It definitely feels WP:CRYSTAL, though I concede it's likely that we'll have relevant content in a few months. Next year? I don't know when the wedding is. --BDD (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, per TonyTheTiger, striking my keep comment above; that's a better target. There hasn't been a British royal wedding in nearly 180 years (probably much longer but Template:British Royal wedding dresses can only be so big, presumably, and Victoria is credited with starting many still-current wedding fashion trends like wearing white) that hasn't had its every minor detail extensively documented and painstakingly detailed in media of the time; see also Category:Royal wedding dresses. What royals wear to their weddings is like the "next year's iPhone" of fashion. Ms. Markle's future dress is already being written about and analyzed by many credible sources, such as The Independent, The Mirror, The Telegraph, Elle UK, Elle UK again, Metro, Business Insider, all from the first page of Google. This dress doesn't yet exist, but it was notable the moment their engagement was announced. There is also detailed speculation on her engagement ring and wedding band, her wedding hair, who's in the wedding party and what they're wearing, and on and on, as there always is for royal weddings. Deleting the redirect now when it will 100% definitely be recreated later and in the short term (the wedding is 5 months out) is pointless admin work. I'll see about adding something to the target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added a small blurb about the present speculation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:47, 10 January 2018 (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.

Don't Waste My Time (Status Quo)[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 moved to Don't Waste My Time (Status Quo song) without leaving a redirect. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely to be a useful redirect. A note in Don't Waste My Time would be better. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Harmless and unambiguous, but no new redirects in this format should be created. feminist (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a move to Don't Waste My Time (Status Quo song) would be helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The present redirect fails WP naming conventions. No opposition to AngusWoof's suggestion to move (with no redirect).--Richhoncho (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 08:00, 29 December 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.

Plumbus[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. Several options have been discussed and none seem favoured over the others after multiple relists, with some of the proposers changing their minds several times throughout the discussion. Noting that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plumbus closed with a much stronger consensus to redirect the article to the current target, this is closed with no action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Without mention in its target page, this redirect has no notability outside of the Rick and Morty universe, and is the equivalent of a WP:NOTWIKIA issue. Also, the history of this page was a recreation of an article deleted and redirected at AfD; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plumbus. Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had a very similar thought process. In fact, the redirect is only one letter off from plumbous, an adjectival form. -- Tavix (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Lead This would work since Plumbous and Plumbus sound the same and have been used in some books. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Striking previous vote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully this relist will lead to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: After giving this some consideration, I oppose retargeting to Lead. Though connecting the nominated redirect to Rick and Morty without mention is a WP:NOTWIKIA issue, the connection between the redirect and Rick and Morty is still notable. Instead, Wikipedia's search function should be utilized to help readers find what they are looking for when searching this term. However, in the spirit of the AfD discussion that resulted in the redirect having indefinite full protection, I now suggest this redirect be deleted and Plumbus be salted. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you throw in a redirects here and then hatnote to Rick and Morty? It'd help if Plumbus was mentioned at least somewhere on the Rick and Morty article. If the verbiage is there it can take the redirect. There are news articles that refer to it: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC) update 23:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect to Rick and Morty per the articles listed by AngusWOOF. However, also note in the Rick and Morty article that “Plumbus” and “Plumbous” sound familiar (Plumbus redirects to “Rick and Morty”; not to be confused with “Plumbous“.) Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 13:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Plumbus" in the Rick and Morty sense is mentioned at How It's Made#Parodies. -- Tavix (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 01:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If plumbus can be integrated into the Rick and Morty main article, like how Futurama#Setting and Futurama#Hallmarks introduces readers to the terms, then it would be more useful than the hatnote proposal I had. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Until then, it's probably most useful redirecting somewhere it's mentioned. Retarget to How It's Made#Parodies for now. -- Tavix (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Hopefully this is the last relist. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah perhaps - just was looking at the split in where to retarget... Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:40, 29 December 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.

🙃[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. Aervanath (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This emoji depicts an upside-down smiling face. It is often used to represent silliness, but it has no clear meaning so it is used in other ways too. The current target does not discuss upside-down faces. I do not think any article discusses this character or its meanings, so delete or redirect to Emoji. Gorobay (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something like wikt:Appendix:Unicode/Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs? -- Tavix (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: That's probably a good start. Maybe bring it over here, redirect all emoji titles to the sections/anchors that represent them, and call it a day. Then, we can stop having these discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the best available target since it discusses smiles, and this emoji is smiling. Do not retarget to emoji because that does not describe this particular emoji. -- Tavix (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is in Emoticon and Emoticons (Unicode block) but not in Smile. There are no descriptions in the articles but the tables link to the Unicode website which shows the emoji and describes it as "upside-down face". Peter James (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The emoji depicts an upside-down face and we don't seem to have articles discussing either upside-down faces or their use in emoji. The fact that the face also happens to be smiling is incidental. – Uanfala 10:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to keep this, you'll have to add a Unicode section as with Japanese postal mark. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to emoji, per Uanfala's comment; emojis with varying appearances shouldn't go to a particular subject. All emojis should exist, if nothing else because a redirect helps those of us using computers incapable of resolving the image. All I see on this computer is a little box, so if there's not a single relevant topic, redirecting to emoji demonstrates to me that the little box is an emoji. I'm not opposed to an alternate useful target, e.g. what Steel1943 is talking about, although it needs to be some sort of topical thing; if you send it to a comprehensive list of miscellaneous symbols, this won't help people figure out what it is, since anyone can guess that an unresolved little box is some sort of miscellaneous character. Nyttend backup (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 01:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's not a smiling face, it's an empty square. Squares can't be upside-down, they're square. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's an "upside-down face" emoji, see here for what it looks like. Your browser doesn't support Unicode 8.0, see H:MS for support. -- Tavix (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2018 (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.

Oxygen redirects[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, delete, keep, and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects don’t seem like plausible misspellings or typos. We don’t have misspelling redirects for other elements. 165.91.12.221 (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would keep both "Oxigen" and "Oxygyn" since they seem like straightforward mistakes that people just might make, phonetically sounding out the word. The other two are more questionable, and I can see deleting them. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Oxigen", delete the rest as implausible.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget Oxigen to Oxigen Services or Keep and add that company to Oxygen (disambiguation). Delete Oxyjunn as they appear more like media branding for non-notable companies and not mentioned in media. Keep Oxygyn as likely typo as shown in books. [11] [12] but also an old fashioned or alternative spelling [13] [14] . Keep 0xygen (leading zero) as possible OCR typo. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC) updated 17:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that Oxegen redirects to that business first and hatnotes to Oxygen. Also striking 0xygen (leading zero) as not really used. Determining the difference between Hawaii Five-0 and Hawaii Five-O is confusing enough. There isn't a similar case for 0xygen. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:55, 29 December 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.

Crime in Puerto Rico[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 10#Crime in Puerto Rico

Political usages of the term evil[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 6#Political usages of the term evil

Johnny Carter (EastEnders)[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. Given lack of interest here and the user asking for a standalone article being blocked, the status quo stands. A split request would probably be the way to go in the future. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has become a contentious issue, it seems. Should Johnny have his own article, or should it redirect to the Character list? Judging by the history there have been many reverts in both directs. I do not have an opinion either way, I just don't want to see an edit war emerge. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural note - if it's a question of "article or redirect" this should probably be brought to AFD. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe RFD is the correct place to discuss this, rather than AFD. I've seen plenty of "article or redirect" discussions at AFD that were interrupted by someone saying it's not the place to discuss redirects. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 17:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, since it currently is a redirect. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • For it to be discussed at AfD, the article would first need to be restored, probably this revision. Since the status quo ante is a redirect, I think it makes more sense at RfD, but I guess it's a judgement call by the nominator (and we're already here anyway). The only cut-and-dry "this needs to be at AfD" I've seen here is when an article is redirected and then listed at RfD for deletion. No, you're trying to delete article content, take it to AfD. -- Tavix (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the user who was insisting on the page being an article has been indefinitely blocked, though I'm not sure if it should affect this discussion, however, TazminDaytime (talk · contribs) appears to be the only user insisting on a separate article at this time (I would like to see one in the future but I believe more work should be done in draft, userspace or in the existing list entry first). — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 19:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can this be redone as a split request instead to be discussed at the List of EastEnders characters (2013) talk page, with notices sent to EastEnders and related wikiprojects? The way it stands the entry in the character list has way too much plot detail, and while he has his own casting subsection, and lacks a reception or legacy section to show independent notability. It's not really an RFD question as the redirect is still useful should the article not be created. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:50, 29 December 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.

Plute[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. I took seriously the argument about INCDAB, though since the term is (informally) synonymous with both "plutocrat" and "plutonium", explicit use of the term at both articles doesn't seem necessary. Perhaps with rare exceptions, listing all potential synonyms in a given article seems undesirable. Thanks to Uanfala for drafting the disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting on behalf of IP editor as the notification did not show up properly: AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The plutonium article does not discuss the term “plute”. Wiktionary does not list plutonium as a definition of plute, only plutocrat. Dictionary.com does not have the word at all. 108.210.218.199 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The proposed disambiguation page fails WP:DABMENTION. None of the entries even mention the term. Siege engine does mention plutei which might or might not be a related term -- but as an English language user I have no way of knowing. Unless and until articles that specifically mention the ambiguous term are identified on the proposed disambiguation page, I think the best option to clearly describe the current situation for readers is to use {{Wiktionary redirect}}. older ≠ wiser 13:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plutei is, trivially, the Latin plural of pluteus, which the OED gives as a meaning of "plute". It can be argued that this term is only mentioned in passing in the target article, so we dont' have enough of a coverage to justify the dab entry. The other two terms, however, are simply obscure alternative names for the target articles (so DABMENTION is irrelevant). Each of the entries is followed by an html comment indicating the source. If anyone believes these should be moved to the respective articles, feel free, but bear in mind that wikipedia is not a dictionary and articles generally shouldn't strive to enumerate all possible obscure synonyms of their topics.. – Uanfala (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fail to see how WP:DABMENTION is irrelevant. If the topic is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic. MOS:DABSYN is not an exemption from WP:DABMENTION. Linking to articles that do not provide any context about the usage of "plute" is somewhat WP:ASTONISHing. older ≠ wiser 16:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll note there's discussion also on Talk:Plute here..DABMENTION doesn't seem to apply as it is about subtopics, not synonyms. MOS:DABINITIALS is applicable for initials and the like, however I don't think there is any explicit guideline on synonyms and whether they have to appear in the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Applicability of WP:DABMENTION inviting additional opinions. older ≠ wiser 16:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given Bkonrad's ping at WT:MOSDAB, it would seem wise to relist and allow for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICT / WP:NOT#DICT. We should not have pages existing for random barely-ever-used-even-historically slang, nor obsolete variants of words that happen to have entries in the OED. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE also covers this. Three policies should be enough, especially given that none of the articles even use this term, and adding it to them would be patently just the mongering of unencyclopedic trivia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  10:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
May want to just redirect to Plutocrat. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't do that for terms that are not used (and sourced) in the target article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  13:58, 31 December 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.

Hefei fat old mother hen West Dining limited liability company[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. Killiondude (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would search for this. feminist (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - @Feminist: This is a literal translation of the Chinese name "徽肥西老母鸡集团" and the company did use that form of its name here http://web.archive.org/web/20100511070557/http://www.fxoh.com/en/ (Yes, English names in China can be bizarre sometimes!)
    • "Hefei fat old mother hen West Dining limited liability company, is a unique Chinese-style fast-food chain business."
  • If somebody would write that on the company's official site somebody (perhaps a Chinese person looking for the company under its old name) could search for it.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly not a "literal translation" or "English names in China can be bizarre sometimes", but the output of bad statistical machine translation (e.g. the 2010 version of Google Translate or Baidu Translate): the word "Dining" does not appear anywhere in 安徽肥西老母鸡集团, and the word "West" has inexplicably moved several places to the right. Gets zero Google Hits outside of Wikipedia scrapers. No evidence of ever having been used outside of that one deleted webpage. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fat West Anhui old hen group that's what it is now from gtranslate. Seems more likely that "chinese names being bizarre". Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what Google Translate gives today. Google Translate was very different seven years ago back when they first put that webpage up. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even back in 2010 I doubt "dining" would have spontaneously appeared on Gtranslate. My guess is that the original text they used had a version of the corporate name with 餐饮公司 "canyin gongsi" in it (there is a section heading canyin gongsi in the Chinese homepage). I tried to find the original but had no luck yet. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i know, just was pointing out what it is now. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, it was used for a time on the official website, but that's a block of text that was clearly just run through a machine translator. If the term had any currency beyond that, I might be inclined to keep, but I just don't see it. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears just from machine translation. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 59.149. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as implausible synonym. Seems to be an old machine translation of the name. --Lenticel (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2018 (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.

Politics and government of the United States[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. Killiondude (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY, could also refer to Government of the United States. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 11:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Politics of the United States describes the structure of the government too - the federal and state governments, executive branch etc, and is clearly what people want. It may be possible, however, for such redirects to point to a location in which both topics are discussed. Government of the united states refers to and redirects federal government of the united states, which is not what people would be looking for. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom, as overly confusing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:38, 29 December 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.

Infracaninophile[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. Killiondude (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable neologism that is rarely if ever used in anything of note. Isn't mentioned in the redirected to article, nor do I think it should be, as that would just be promoting the word, and wouldn't be encouraged per WP:NEO. I can just make up a word with "Foo-phile" for pretty much anything but that wouldn't make it notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment can we give it that soft redirect wiktionary treatment? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a neologism, I don't think it's in common parlance enough to merit a Wiktionary entry.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment created wikt:infracaninophile (wikt:WT:Criteria for inclusion#Attestation is extremely generous: three independent printed usages spanning a year or more. "infracaninophile" meets that quite well; goes all the way back to the 1930s). No opinion on soft-redirect. The guy who invented the word, Christopher Morley, was noted [15] for his habit of making strange coinages like this, so it might be possible to include some content in his article and retarget this there. I'm not particularly opposed to deletion either, but the concerns about "promoting the word" and "notability" seem misplaced. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:37, 29 December 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.

Falcon 9 Block 0[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. Killiondude (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This "Block 0" doesn't exist. The first version of the rocket "v1.0" is Block 1. — JFG talk 03:52, 29 December 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.

Gembaku[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 5#Gembaku

Jupiter![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. Killiondude (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think people would add the exclamation mark unless they were searching for a work called Jupiter!. If such a work exists and is notable, then it should be deleted to make room for an article. Otherwise, it is not a plausible search term. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:52, 29 December 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.

WP:NOTCREATECONTENT[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. Killiondude (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused cross-namespace redir to something that's just someone self-quoting something without any context. No one's ever going to cite this with a shortcut.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  00:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - this is a counter-essay to Ritchie333's User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content, which carries the WP:WRITE shortcut. I'd prefer if it was more well-formed essay and not just a difficult to parse quotation, but it doesn't seem harmful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't mind people creating WP shortcuts to my essays. I have been asked in the past to move "Why admins should create content" into project space, but declined as it only contains my personal opinions. And with that in mind, I have no issue with somebody creating a counter-point essay that disagrees with it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Harmless redirect Luna935 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2018 (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.


We should create a redirect to Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.171.117.31 (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_December_29&oldid=1089516504"