Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 14, 2017.

History of the English penny[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 1#History of the English penny

A1 Capricorni[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 25#A1 Capricorni

Azidoazide azide[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. Deryck C. 22:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deleting this redirect because it is not a real chemical name. It is just a joke name that comes from a blog post (here) by Derek Lowe (chemist). It is a joke name for the chemical compound 1-diazidocarbamoyl-5-azidotetrazole. Neither "azidoazide azide" nor "1-diazidocarbamoyl-5-azidotetrazole" are mentioned at the target article azide. ChemNerd (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I still see news articles listing this version of the azide, usually among "five most explosive chemicals". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, every example that I see seems to rely on the Lowe blog post and completely miss the fact that "azidoazide azide" was just a joke. ChemNerd (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this term exists in real life then someone might find it useful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • That makes no sense: it is not useful in any way to redirect that person to an article that does not include information about what they are searching for. If we had an article about 1-diazidocarbamoyl-5-azidotetrazole it might make sense to redirect there, but we don't. ChemNerd (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. My keep withdrawn Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Guys, just because it sounds so technical doesn't mean it has to be kept --Lenticel (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noted above, it is not a currently useful redirect. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:24, 18 February 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.

Scattering event[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) 16:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion (or point it to scattering). This is a reasonably common two-word phrase with many meanings outside of the target. It should be sufficient to wikilink just the first word. Dukwon (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"with many meanings outside of the target" ... If true, thats exactly why I like making redirects. it could become a disambiguation page linking to the different meanings? then it would guide other editors to replace the instances with something more specific. Other than that I would per perfectly happy if anyone can find a better target. I'm surprised people dont like doing this. Surely grouping surrounding words for context allows wikipedia to yield more precise, relevant information in the hovercards, and when you click. 'scatter' itself has meanings outside of physics. 'scattering event' is more specific. You might think you know the context, but isn't the whole point of a resource like this to explain things to people who DONT yet understand what is going on. And what about foreign language speakers / autotranslation. The links can give a head start for translation, surely. natural language is hugely ambiguous. Fmadd (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Put it this way: if scattering is sufficient, why not delete 'event' every time it's used? Evidently pairing up with the word 'event' adds some significant context. So thanks to the power of hypertext, we should be able to get a clear direct explanation of exactly what that is. One surprising thing i found with other links like this is other meanings.. 'astronomical event' (an event in the sky).. 'astronomical event' (a conference on astronomy). Fmadd (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
It is not sufficient to replace the phrase "scattering event" with "scattering" because it loses the meaning of "a single instance when scattering happened". As an analogy, take the phrase "railway journey": the key concept is railway, but to replace all instances of "railway journey" with "railway" would change the meaning. Similarly, to create a wikilink to a redirect page for "railway journey" would be absolutely unnecessary. Dukwon (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
as well as event (particle physics)#SCATTERING_EVENT i made an anchor scattering#SCATTERING EVENT. I didn't know which would be best. Fmadd (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
see talk:Scattering event Fmadd (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about disambig: scattering event (particle physics), and scattering event, phonon scattering events (and whatever else). By listing all the possible meanings at this page, anyone who inquires about this in future will be guided more accurately. Ll928 (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Strike sock vote. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.The target has been changed by the creator to point to "scattering", and so we have "scattering event" pointing to "scattering" which is just unnecessary, especially since it's the scattering (and not the fact that it's an "event") that is important. Primefac (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not sure about this, but I guess that we can just let people search. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:49, 24 February 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.

Supplementary staffing[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 keep. Deryck C. 22:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per its target article, it seems as though this redirect could vaguely describe the subject, but it's apparently not an official term for the target subject. If it is not an official term, the redirect is ambiguous considering that its target is mainly exclusive to Australia. Steel1943 (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the term "supplementary staffing" is a well-known and well-used term for "labour hire" - examples (excluding the Wikipedia one) are easily found: https://www.google.com.au/webhp?q=%22supplementary+staffing%22 - you will note this includes references in the US, Scotland, and other countries as well as Australia. Given I made the page 10 years ago and there has not been any suggestion of ambiguity by any other visitor or editor I think the relationship to "labour hire" is fairly evident. I would suggest it is to Wikipedia's loss if you choose to delete this page simply because a person unfamiliar with the topic stumbled across it. I'm not sure what objective research has been applied in the comment "apparently not an official term" - as per the Google search, it is a well-known term in the industry and among companies who use such services. Davidmwilliams (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the page stats show people are visiting it / searching for this term. It is an erroneous (and time-consuming) assumption to state this page should be deleted because the term is not known to you. I trust this is now settled and I can undo your flagging of the page? Davidmwilliams (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep given that the labour hire article has a phrase in the lead saying mainly in Australia. And the google searches in Australia show use in news articles and books. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AngusWOOF: That's where I see confusion. The lead of the article states in parentheses the phrase "especially in Australia", but the article is titled "Labour hire" instead of "Supplemental staffing". So yes, the phrase "supplemental staffing" may have some sort of affinity in Australia, but since it is not mentioned in the redirect's target article, the redirect's affinity to its target is questionable. Steel1943 (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Supplemental/supplementary staffing seems to be a term-of-art in the medical business for a certain kind of nursing temp work; at least, that's what my searches show. The only quick hit linking it to the Australian practice appears to be a WP scrape. Mangoe (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously, given it is a valid term that people are searching for (as per Wikipedia's own stats) and given it is a valid term used in international usage for the same topic (as per the dead simple Google search I listed.) It seems a bit bizarre that people who don't know the industry are making judgements based simply on their own trite search on hearing the term for the first time. It's well-established and User:Mangoe's claims it is used in the "medical business for a certain kind of nursing temp work" is superficial both in terms of depth of search and in depth of reasoning. Want to know what that "certain kind" of nursing temp work is? That's right, it's labour hire. Why do you think it is "supplemental" staffing? It's because it supplements the company's payrolled workforce - not just medical but many fields. I'm pleased you, on hearing the phrase for the first time, found a reference to medicine/nursing but to then assume you have covered the entire range of literature on the topic is a little presumptious.

I am pleased User Steel1943 believes s/he contributes to Wikipedia by getting people to discuss their 10yr old Wikipedia pages in light of his learning of them for the first time, but you would do better to refer it to people who know the field than other randoms who look at it once and then make a pronouncement with no knowledge. Davidmwilliams (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, forcing a search for the two terms, exactly, gets only 83 hits. Eliminating "labour hire" and forcing an exact search on the phrase 3460 hits. Mostly the term is used outside an Australia context; mostly what I find is the nursing usage, which I see both in the US and (for whatever reason) Scotland.
Possibly "labour hire" is the Australian term for what in other countries is called a "temporary agency". From what I can see "supplementary staffing" tends to imply temp agencies providing nurses, but perhaps the whole thing could be solved by making a centralized article that is less focused on Australian terms, or perhaps better still folding everything back into temporary work and expanding the section on use of agencies. Mangoe (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:22, 14 February 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.

Extra embryos[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. Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For one, the word "extra" is nowhere in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better to redirect to In_vitro_fertilisation#Leftover_embryos_or_eggs. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • AngusWOOF, you should be careful with linking usernames; I initially saw "'Retarget and Mikael Häggström and thought you were suggesting a retarget to an article about Mikael Häggström :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:17, 14 February 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.

Supplemental angle[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) 16:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a likely {{R from incorrect name}}. 0 views in the last 30 days. Steel1943 (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as used in some book searches concerning surveying, astrology, and AutoCAD. But the tag about incorrect name can stay or be converted to an alternative name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even if the term is rarely used, it seems like a plausible typo that somebody would make, especially given that the average person doesn't have that much understanding of geometry and could mishear things. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:11, 23 February 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.

Supplementary question[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 25#Supplementary question

Supplementary oxygen[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 Oxygen therapy. --BDD (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term of the redirect isn't mentioned in its target section or even in the section's entire parent article. Otherwise, the redirect could refer to any other "supplemental oxygen" source as that is not exclusive to oxygen masks. Steel1943 (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This option would be okay for redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to oxygen therapy since that seems to be the most common use of this term, with the option left for adding a hat-note to something else if need be CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:52, 16 February 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.

Supplementary budget[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. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not present in the target article, so the connection between the terms is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added a sentence about supplementary budgets to the target article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:17, 14 February 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.

Wikipedia:Garbage[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 so they're both redirecting to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Poorly written article. -- Tavix (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These should both point to the section in the essay for they are synonyms, considering one is an obscure synonym for the target, I think the latter target is preferred. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also recommend regardless of what is decided WP:Trash should also redirect to the same location since it currently links to a proposal that failed in April 2008 so I doubt that anyone would be looking for that.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This may sound odd, but when I see 'Garbage' as a capitalized word (at least, well, in terms of just a moment ago) my first thought is not 'a collection of refuse' but 'an American-Scottish rock band'. Is the group notable enough, though, to be a complicating factor here? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the first per nom. "Wikipedia:Trash" is interesting, but I'm comfortable with it diverging, since the proposed namespace is clearly based on Trash (computing), which is not typically referred to as "garbage" or "rubbish". --BDD (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:17, 14 February 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.

List of other Happy Tree Friends characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, but refine to List of Happy Tree Friends characters#Minor characters. --BDD (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what characters this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 13:42, 14 February 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.

List of alternate history United States Presidents[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) 16:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear if all of the fictional presidents on the redirect's target's page portrayed a United States president in an "alternate history" role, considering that "alternative history" is considered a sub-category of fiction. Steel1943 (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as useful gathering point to find POTUS in fiction. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm not thrilled that this is going to make readers take further steps to find what they're looking for, but the phrase is ambiguous in a sense. Readers may specifically be looking for outright fictional characters or actual historical figures with fictional presidencies. I don't know that we'd ever have a list that distinguishes "alternate history" portrayals from other fictional presidents, so I think I can live with this. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: Unless I misunderstood you, wouldn't actual historical figures with fictional presidencies be listed at Lists of fictional presidents of the United States#Historical Presidents? -- Tavix (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes—my point was that the target page is a decent starting point for either type of alternate-history president. --BDD (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - The targeted article is likely to be expanded as time goes on, and this seems somewhat reasonable. While I'm not sure, I'd rather that we just leave the redirect alone. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:54, 24 February 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.

List of other media for 24[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) 00:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what "other" is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it means everything besides the TV series which is precisely what the article covers. Had the article covered the entire franchise including the TV series home media, then it would not be a useful redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think this is a reasonable enough assumption. I wasn't aware of any of the non-TV media for 24. --BDD (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 13:42, 14 February 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.

List of other South Park residents[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. Deryck C. 22:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "other" could also refer to other main characters, making this redirect unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List_of_South_Park_characters#Other_characters I suppose that's the distinction for now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I could see this referring to "other" residents besides the iconic four protagonists of the show, and was prepared to weakly support AngusWOOF's suggestion when I thought that's what the "Other characters" section would include. But I think precedent has shown us that these "other" redirects are generally not helpful, since they make vague assumptions readers may not share. --BDD (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Striking my previous vote. It's too vague what "other" would contain. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:26, 17 February 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.

Argyll Ferries LTD[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 28#Argyll Ferries LTD

Phone connector[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 wrong forum. If you want to move a page over a redirect, see Wikipedia:Requested moves. If you want to disagree with a recently closed move discussion, see Wikipedia:Move review. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A non-disambiguated title should not redirect to a disambiguated version of the same title. Therefore, either the target page should be moved back or the redirect retargeted to somewhere else. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Objection I find Geoffrey's claim, "A non-disambiguated title should not redirect to a disambiguated version of the same title.", specious. WP:RPURPOSE includes "Less specific forms of names, for which the article subject is still the primary topic." It gives as an example "Einstein redirects to Albert Einstein". Note that a hatnote here offers "Telephone connector" and "RCA connector" as alternative pages, so it is not as if there are no other candidates for "primary topic" here.
More: The name here ("Phone connector (audio)") is not new. It was decided upon in October 2012 (n.b.: over a year before Geoffrey's first edit to Wikipedia), as a result of extensive discussion at the article talk page. (The name before that was "TRS connector".) As one can see there, multiple Wikipedia editors, most with considerable experience in related technical fields, participated.
"Phone connector" was discussed, but the qualification was added to avoid the possible confusion with connectors used for telephones, such as the "RJ11" connectors used in North America. With the exception of one move in early 2013 (still over a year before Geoff's first edit), which was quickly reverted, the article has had this title ("Phone connector (audio)") continuously since then.. until a few hours ago when another editor moved it to "Phone connector" without discussion. The redirect here is simply a result of my moving it back to its long-standing title. (Geoff, did you carefully review the page's name history?) It therefore should not be deleted, nor should the target page be "moved back". It is fine where it is.
If absolutely necessary to satisfy the rules (again I ask: is that actually a rule? And even if so, is blind obedience to it here actually helping the reader?) I suppose we could create "Phone connector" as a DA page, pointing to "Phone connector (audio)" and "Telephone plug" and "RCA connector", as the hatnote does now. But as this is the primary topic, I don't see that anything is broken. The hatnote is sufficient. And the redirect is in compliance with WP:RPURPOSE.
Accordingly, I urge Geoffrey to withdraw this RFD. Jeh (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong forum. This is a disputed page-move. Arguments about page titles should get sorted out on the Talk page of the article itself. If you need additional help or want more input, you can discuss it at Wikipedia:Requested moves (WP:RM).
    Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, we are not going to delete the redirect that's automatically created during a pagemove unless there is very good reason. Linkrot is evil. Rossami (talk) 07:32, 14 February 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.

Tionne Watkins[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 wrong forum. See Rossami's comment for details. -- Tavix (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every sources referred to her as Tionne "T-Boz" Watkins or T-Boz only, please change the title. Beyoncetan (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another wrong forum. You want Wikipedia:Requested moves (WP:RM). That said, I would strongly urge you to get consensus on the proposed change to the title on the current article's Talk page before taking it to WP:RM. I would also recommend that you look over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) as you do so. While there is some deference to stage names, the nickname-in-the-middle format is generally discouraged. Rossami (talk) 07:47, 14 February 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_February_14&oldid=1138581499"