Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 5, 2017.

Wikipedia:Expand citations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 16#Wikipedia:Expand citations

Wikipedia:ExpandTemplates[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 16#Wikipedia:ExpandTemplates

Wikipedia:Exemption doctrine policy[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 harmonise to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Deryck C. 18:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either sync them with the same target, or delete them both. Either way, I advocate delete as unclear why these redirects targets either one of their targets. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion, support synching. Every Wikimedia project that allows fair use must have an "exemption doctrine policy" (see wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy), Wikipedia:Non-free content (WP:NFC) says at the start of the third paragraph "This document serves as the exemption doctrine policy of the English Wikipedia.", and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (WP:NFCC) says at the top "As per the Wikimedia Foundation Licensing policy resolution of March 23, 2007, this document serves as the Exemption Doctrine Policy for the English Wikipedia.". So the redirect is explained and quite possibly required - someone searching for the en.wp exemption doctrine policy will likely try one of these redirects first if they don't know we call it something different. I have a slight preference for the latter (WP:NFCC) as this is the actual policy (and is transcluded on WP:NFC), with the remainder of WP:NFC serving as explanation, examples, processes, etc., however I will not stand in the way of the other target if others prefer that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: Fair enough. In response, I'm striking out part of my nomination rationale. Steel1943 (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to WP:NFC, which according to the WMF licensing policy, is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content. WP:NFCC previously claimed to be the EDP (which is probably why one of these redirects went to it), but since the Foundation policy overrules anything to the contrary on our local projects, I've removed that claim. Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to WP:NFCC. Chatting with Masem, I've learnt that the pages have been moved around in the years since the licensing policy was created. At that time, the EDP was located at WP:NFC, but it's since been moved to WP:NFCC, and NFC is now an information about about NFCC. Masem and I have done a little work at clarifying the situation. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 6 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:Exclusion compliant[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 as most relevant target. Deryck C. 12:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XNR ... and what a surprise! Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale change: This is a WP:XNR, but it may be clear. However, is there a clearer, more useful target for this redirect, such as a page in the "Wikipedia:" namespace? Steel1943 (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:XNR is principally about main → project (or more broadly reader-facing to non-reader-facing) namespaces. Redirects out of project space do not generally have the same problems, and I see nothing inherently bad or problematic about Project: to Template: redirects. Template:Bots is the template that deals with the exclusion (and inclusion) of bots and the documentation of it (displayed on the template page) seems to be the principle place it is explained, e.g. Wikipedia:Bot policy does not feature the word "exclusion" and Wikipedia:Bots mentions it only once in passing. I'll leave a note at Wikipedia:Bot owner's noticeboard about this discussion though. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since as noted, project-to-template redirects aren't a significant issue per se, and since this is presumably the most relevant page for explaining the project-specific meaning of "exclusion compliant", it shouldn't be modified. No objection to retargeting if a better target is found, or if an explanation is added to the bot policy. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: I have changed/updated my rationale at this point. Steel1943 (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would really help if the bot policy were expanded with a short discussion of this topic, but as I don't know bots, I won't start any proposals; I'd be happy to support a proposal that looked useful, however. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would Category:Wikipedia bots which are exclusion compliant be more relevant? -- Tavix (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at that. My feeling is that someone using this redirect is likely to want to know what exclusion compliant means, and/or find some information about how it works, when it applies/doesn't apply, any policies/guidelines around it - the sort of thing you expect to find on a project space page. The category page does almost none of this, and implicitly points people wanting information to Template:Bots which is where they will currently arrive directly and will find at least most of what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - what Thryduulf said. No opinion yet on the suggestion to refine the redirect to the documentation subpage. On the one hand, it would prevent accidental transclusions. On the other, it makes it a little harder for a novice user to navigate back up to the actual category list. Rossami (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that on the page Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, each operator requesting approval is asked to answer this question:
<!-- Whether the bot skips articles and other pages with the {{bots}} template. If "no", please provide a reason in the Function details or Discussion.-->
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbm1058 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 12 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.

Twinkle, another anti vandalism tool[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) 16:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed and highly unlikely to be used. Avicennasis @ 22:35, 9 Shevat 5777 / 22:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a confusing and unneeded WP:XNR. Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with both of the above editors. This was created by a now-blocked editor who claimed to be a child and had CIR issues. Meters (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete. Relatively recently created unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. If we had an encyclopaedia article about the gadget then I'd have little problem redirecting this there, but we don't. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 6 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.

STiki, another anti vandalism tool[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) 16:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant and longer than STiki, and highly unlikely to be used Avicennasis @ 22:33, 9 Shevat 5777 / 22:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a confusing and unneeded WP:XNR. Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with both of the above editors. This was created by a now-blocked editor who claimed to be a child and had CIR issues. Meters (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and my comments re the Twinkle redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 6 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:Exclude in print[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) 15:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XNR that may need to be targeting elsewhere. I would think that there would be a page in the "Wikipedia:" or "Help:" namespace that could explain the content at the redirect's target category page, but I'm not finding one right now. Also, the title could be confused with the term "Wikipedia:Unprintworthy". Steel1943 (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete, otherwise known as "keep or retarget". I say this because I'm unclear whether you're considering deletion as an option. If nothing better exists, this should remain as a redirect to its current target, but if anyone can suggest a better target, I'm fine redirecting this there. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nyttend: Exactly. I'm not advocating deletion as this seems to be the best target I could find. The best alternative I can come up with is moving some of the content at Category:Exclude in print to Wikipedia:Exclude in print, overwriting the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, the closing admin should entirely disregard my vote, unless someone else comes along and advocates deletion. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget exactly per Nyttend. Redirects from the project namespace to project-related categories are completely unproblematic in the general case. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what content you could put at this title other than what is already documented at the top of the Category page. Creating a separate page without good reason strikes me as a bad idea. It would be all-too easy for the two versions to drift out of synch, leaving new readers/users confused as to which page is correct. The redirect keeps everything in one place. If there were a lot more to say, a separate page would make sense but I just don't see that yet. Rossami (talk) 02:42, 9 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.

ADW.Launcher[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 as proposed. Deryck C. 18:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of an AfD, this article now redirects to where it does. However I feel that it would be more appropriate to redirect it to List of Android Launchers. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:12, 5 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:Explaining NFCC[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 16#Wikipedia:Explaining NFCC

Wikipedia:Explain Jargon debate[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted, G7. -- Tavix (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect has a minor bit of history as a page: a misplaced talk page comment from 2002. Otherwise, it's a WP:XNR. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this page was created accidentally, by me, almost 15 years ago, back in the days when namespaces were a new invention. There's nothing of value in the page history to justify keeping it. Enchanter (talk) 20:27, 6 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.

[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 Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is current a redirect from project space to article space, there is nothing inherently wrong with such redirects (they don't have the same issues as redirects in the opposite direction), but I'm wondering if Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos - the project-space page about the history of Wikipedia's logos (including the present globe) would make a better target? It has the advantage of being a project space page like the redirect but is focused very differently to the encyclopaedia article that people currently arrive at (and was I think moved from here originally). The project space page is linked by a self-ref hatnote from the article currently but the article is only a see-also on the project page. Neither page is exclusively about the globe logo. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is, I think. Deletion is off the table because this was apparently part of a very complicated series of pagemoves of the content now at the current target. Given the dates, some of that history would be lost if the page were deleted and we might well break external links. Re: retargetting... Actually, I can't help wondering why we have two pages in two separate spaces. The WP-space content seems like content that could reasonably be included in the article-space version. Maybe merge? But if there's a reason not to merge (and there might be - I haven't dug through all the talk discussions yet), then I think the better linking on the article-space version argues as the more helpful target. Rossami (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos. It's a project space redirect, so it would make the most sense to redirect somewhere within the project space. -- Tavix (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos, which both keeps the redirect within project namespace and gives readers relevant information. Deryck C. 00:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos per Tavix and Deryck Chan. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:03, 21 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.

The Legends of the Underzoo (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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. There's no film by this name, and I'm not even getting a hit at IMDb, which means a film isn't even in development. There's no mention anywhere on Wikipedia, so someone searching this isn't going to find anything. -- Tavix (talk) 20:32, 5 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.

Matthew Healy[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 as a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Healy is obviously notable separate from The 1975. There is also an article that has been written before the AFD page. Redirect should be pulled from the page. Wasabi,the,one (Talk Contributions) 19:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some history that the nomination left out: Here is the AfD discussion which was closed on 2016 Aug 1 as redirect for lack of independent notability. Following the AfD closure, there were repeated attempts to restore the original article, resulting in page-protection. The revert wars appear to have restarted almost immediately after the protection ran out. Rossami (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it as redirect until and unless sufficient evidence is presented to justify overturning the AfD discussion. I note specifically that the most recent attempts do not meet that threshold. They are essentially identical to the version that was evaluated in the AfD discussion and found wanting.
    As a process matter, RfD is not the appropriate forum to re-litigate an AfD decision. If you think the AfD decision was in error, take it to DRV. Rossami (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, at least for now, per Rossami. Nice to see you back at RfD by the way. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - I was involved in the original AfD. I see no reason to change this now. The OP hasn't indicated how he is notable outside of the band. Karst (talk) 23:05, 5 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.

American War[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 as proposed in discussion. Deryck C. 21:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague to be useful. List of wars involving the United States would be a better target, but the term implies a specific war, and I don't think any one conflict is best known as "American War" in English—and note that more plausible search terms like American wars already redirect there. The lowercase variant started as an article asserting that the Vietnamese call (what we call) the Vietnam War the "American War", which makes sense, though retargeting there would WP:SURPRISE. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there's also List of conflicts in the United States to go along with the List of wars involving the United States. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have enough different pages of wars, conflicts, interventions, etc. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Iazyges: your bolded !vote is "delete" but you appear to be arguing for a "disambiguate" outcome. Please could you clarify, thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Hm, I think I must have wrote it wrong, changed the contradiction. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • we have enough different pages of wars, conflicts, interventions, etc. is also confusing - enough for what? There is no limit to the number of pages on any given subject, so it's irrelevant how many already exist - if another redirect or disambiguation page is needed it should exist, regardless of what otherstuff exists. Whether it should exist or not depends only on whether it is a useful search term. On the other hand you could equally mean that we have enough articles to support a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I don't support deletion since the Vietnam War was definitely also known as the "American War". I'd support a retarget there, but I'm afraid it may be a surprise for someone looking for another war in which the United States was involved. Therefore, I believe disambiguation to be the most elegant solution. -- Tavix (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per above
Vietnam War [1]
American Revolutionary War [2]

- CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:29, 13 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.

Bush Quayle[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 consistent with similar redirects. Rossami (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous, could also refer to the 1988 campaign, not suitable for a disambiguation page, but we have Bush campaign, so I suppose retargeting there could be pretty reasonable. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bush-Quayle was brought up in the discussion, so I'm adding it to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Angus. Deleting it would be unhelpful, and since other President-Vice President pairs have redirects, we should treat this one like them. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 6 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.

Server 2008 and others[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) 20:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous for most significant word is left out, this can also refer to SQL Server 2008, either of those two can be abbreviated "Server 2008" after the full name is introduced, and we don't need a DAB because of the WP:PTM issue. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added Server 2012 and Server 2016. Either can also be a PTM for the corresponding versions of SQL Server - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig. Yes they are all partial title matches, but that is irrelevant as they all referred to by the partial title and so the search term is ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not support disambiguation for there are exactly only two titles that these can refer to, search results are still the best option, while I would not oppose a hatnote. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do no think search results are good solution here because there are many irrelevant articles brought up that it's not easy to find the article about what people are likely to be looking for. There is no rule that requires three ambiguous titles before a disambiguation page is required - only that there be two or more uses without a primary topic, which is exactly what we have here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Thryduulf. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as ambiguous. Other companies also produced servers in these years, so I think those are potential targets as well (see, e.g., macOS Server). I think the best solution is to let readers sort this out through the search function. FYI, I also added four related redirects to this discussion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:27, 16 January 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, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Notecardforfree: fine in theory, but the search results include so many irrelevant results that it's very difficult for readers to sort it out that way. Our goal is to make it easier for people to navigate the encyclopaedia not harder. If other articles are also known by this phrase then the correct thing to do is add them to the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thryduulf, I'm not opposed to the idea of disambiguation in principle, but I'm not sure how you would feasibly accomplish disambiguation here. Would you create a List of servers? We have List of display servers and List of FTP server software, though I don't know enough about computer servers to determine whether either would be an appropriate place to disambiguate these topics. Alternatively, would you disambiguate all servers made in 2008, 2003, etc.? I'm keeping an open mind about this, and if a good disambiguation page/pages is/are possible, then I would be okay with that. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My search overwhelmingly came up with results for Windows, so I think it's safe to say this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Tavix (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 18:25, 5 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.

DILLIGAD[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 19#DILLIGAD

Template:R from title[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 19#Template:R from title

Template:R from honorific[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 template:R from name with title. There is clearly no appetite for deletion here, so it's a choice between keeping as is and retargetting. On balance I feel that those proposing retargetting have the slightly stronger arguments, and not every "keep" vote counters those arguments (as opposed to arguments for deletion, which are countered). Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An honorific is not exactly a non-neutral name, consider Ms. Trump, President Trump etc, these are all common names, nobody would argue that they are not neutral. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's more accurate to say that an honorific is not always a non-neutral name, but they can be - particularly some of the east Asian honorifics. Perhaps template:R from other name would be a better target? @Paine Ellsworth: is always worth pinging regarding R cats. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mr. and Mrs. are honorifics per WP:HONOR. President is more of the occupational title MOS:JOBTITLES so that could get {{R from name with title}} instead, unless it's apparent from that job title that it is honorific as stated there: Her Majesty, His Holiness. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of rcat template redirects like this exist, to "funnel" various cases into a small set of generalized rcat templates. If they are removed, then people will fork actual new rcat templates to cover the cases they encounter; we've been merging these when possible rather than forking them, to reduce the number of maintenance categories and rcat templates. Even if there were something questionable about this redir, it would be retargeted to {{R from alternative name}} (to which {{R from other name}} redirects), not deleted. I would argue against that, since the redir in question isn't about alternate names (like Buster Poindexter for David Johansen) but about honorific titles being prefixed or suffixed to names, and undesirable article titles constructed with them, e.g. Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. WP does consider it a neutrality problem to tack these appellations onto names. They are signs of particular groups' respect for or recognition of the individual in question, and it is not universal. The previous commenter is correct that WP:HONOR includes even "Mr." and "M[r]s."; it's not RfD's job to second-guess that. Also correct that President Trump is a {{R from name with title}}, because it's an occupational epithet not an honorific one. Per WP:COMMONSENSE, it's perfectly fine for someone who encounters a redirect from something that might be classified as an honorific, but which doesn't seem present a neutrality issue (I can't think of an example), to use some different rcat template than this one. There is no WP rule that {{R from honorific}} must be used for any redir that anyone might classify as an honorific. The template redir exists because the vast majority of honorific titles will in fact qualify as non-neutral names.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. Template:R from honorific → Template:R from name with title – Thank you for the ping, Thryduulf! Assuming that the creator of this rcat meant for this to be used as a short form of {{R from honorific with name}}, I think that to redirect it to its present target, {{R from non-neutral name}} misrepresents the original meaning and usage of that target rcat and its Category:Redirects from non-neutral names. An honorific is a specific type of "title" used to address a person, usually with respect and "honor" (rather than mere occupational, as noted by SMcCandlish above). So these should fit much better in Category:Redirects from names with title than in the present target's category. Another rcat that would be used on such redirects is {{R from unsuitable title}} (a secondary alternative target?), since such titles would not be used to name articles.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 20:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I'm neutral on Paine Ellsworth's retargeting proposal. This is for situations like His Majesty King Fahd or (nonexistent) His Holiness Pope Francis, where the title isn't exactly a neutral descriptor for the person. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should the title be kept at non-neutral name, the description should be updated to include honorifics since right now it's focused on just the negative and pejorative ones. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Paine. "Non-neutral" usually means pejorative, so the correct target could be somewhat of a surprise. Paine's suggestion mitigates that quite nicely. -- Tavix (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-neutral does not usually mean pejorative, it means non-neutral, whether pro or con.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know what the definition is, but I'm referring to general usage in my experience. -- Tavix (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there is no point at all to proliferating endless variations of templates about redirects. The documentation at non-neutral could benefit from some wordmithing but the problem is not so bad as to justify forking the template entirely. I would also be okay with a retarget to Template:R from name with title instead. But deleting or creating as a separate template are out. Rossami (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Before I noticed that I'd already voted, I added another keep here. My rationale was as follows: Keep because WP:HONORIFIC is a section of a manual-of-style page on this subject. Unless you want to try to get consensus to replace "honorific" on that page with some other term, it seems rather pointless to get rid of this redirect for the reasons given by the nominator. Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 6 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.

Sharknado 5 Earth Zero (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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonky naming, unlikely to ever be used or searched for. Lordtobi (✉) 18:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wonky naming" is not a good reason to delete a redirect. Redirects do far more than merely support the search engine. In this case, the redirect overwrote some highly speculative content that would have otherwise had to be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. To the extent that the overwritten content might someday be useful if/when the film does meet our generally accepted inclusion criteria, it's good to have that content available to all users without the bureaucracy of undeleting history.
    At this point, Sharknado 5 has been officially announced but I can't find any reliable sources confirming the subtitle "Earth Zero". I lean toward keeping it to preempt the re-creation of content that we don't yet want but, given that the full title cannot yet be confirmed, I could also see deleting it per WP:CRYSTAL. Rossami (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's worth nothing that Sharknado 5... Earth 0 already exists, so people searching for the term will find what they're looking for. I agree with the nominator that this redirect is poorly named, and superfluous. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for bad naming. Recent sources of the major RS kind list only Sharknado 5 as the working title. [3] [4] whereas Earth 0 subtitle was only posted by Dread Central back in October. Create Sharknado 5 redirect instead. No indication that it will be named Earth Zero with the Zero spelled out. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:19, 6 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.

Xbox Windows[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 Xbox One system software as the most plausible solution. Deryck C. 21:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These formerly targeted Xbox One, which seemed to have been done out of good faith since the console either uses or has been reported to use a version of Windows in its interface. However, these terms do not look like an "official" name or variation of an official or former name for any product in Xbox product line. Steel1943 (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created this redirect at the time when the Xbox One was announced, and during the keynote it was described that a version of Windows was running on the console. I agree that it should be retargeted to the correct article. --RaviC (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Xbox One system software per Thyduulf and the redirect creator. Pinguinn 🐧 23:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with a retarget to Xbox One system software as the most helpful thing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't like the retarget suggestion to Xbox One system software. Check out Xbox#Comparison, and there are other "Windows" products with the other two consoles. I'm admittedly WP:CRYSTALBALLing here, but what would happen if the next console also has a Windows(-like) system software? Wouldn't we then just be pushing the problem down the road? If we must keep it in some form, the current target would be best, although I'm ambivalent about keeping it in the first place. -- Tavix (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: If the next console also has a windows-like system software, and has an article or section, we can link it and Xbox One system software with hatnotes and/or create a disambiguation page. We should be retargetting this to the best target for the search term currently, rather than trying to predict what someone will want to read in the future if our crystal balls are working correctly. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • We should be retargetting this to the best target for the search term currently. Perfect idea! Let's retarget it to Xbox#Comparison then. -- Tavix (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that comparison had any actual details about the system software I might agree with you, but it doesn't contain anything significant and the trivial information it does have, which includes absolutely no mention of "Windows" at all, is below the fold so it will confuse and not help. Xbox One system software on the other hand explains in bold to people using this redirect why they have arrived where they have. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • which includes absolutely no mention of "Windows" at all. Nope, check again. All three consoles have something called "Windows", and the target mentions that. If a reader uses a vague search term, they should get vague results. -- Tavix (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Except it isn't vague! The other windows things are not plausibly referred to as "Xbox Windows", the system software for Xbox One is. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 17:29, 5 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.

Favouritism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 16#Favouritism

Tamara Duarte[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. Creation of an article here is encouraged. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters but this actress is not primarily/exclusively known for this role – her resume is varied enough that she could be known for other roles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or create article - First of all, @IJBall: has listed no recommended disposition for this term. Degrassi: The Next Generation is Duarte's most prominent role, which is probably why her name redirects to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. If this redirect cannot be kept per WP:CHEAP, then an article should be created using [5], [6] and [7]. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jax 0677: Degrassi isn't her most "prominent" role anymore – it's merely her first. As time has elapsed since this redirect's creation in 2011, Duarte has had several more prominent parts which are about as notable as Degrassi. Therefore, leaving this directed to Degrassi is now inappropriate, and is confusing to our readership. It terms of what I recommend, this is redirects for "discussion" so I was interested in seeing what others might propose. My personal opinion is that the redirect should now be deleted. While she's had a number of roles to this point, I doubt Duarte would get past WP:GNG currently – I can try to work something up in Draftspace, if there's any interest, but I've seen cases like Duarte's enough that I'm quite sure she won't clear the notability threshold at this time. (That may change in a year or two, especially if she lands a main role on a TV series.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but not necessarily as is. If you are confident that she meets our generally accepted criteria for biographies, then be bold and overwrite the redirect with content. No RfD discussion is necessary. There is an argument to REDLINK the title but given the lack of inbound links, I think that is a particularly weak argument in this case. Rossami (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, either WP:REDLINK or WP:XY. It's not fair to redirect her to just one of her roles, when that's not necessarily what someone is looking for. Duarte is also mentioned at Hard Rock Medical, Haven (TV series), and Longmire (TV series), so search results are better here. -- Tavix (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; redirecting a real person's name to a character's, just because the person played the character, is a bad idea. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are enough sources for a BLP, create an article. (I found local coverage in Toronto and Las Vegas, but it's a bit thin. She has an IMDB page.) Otherwise, delete per XY. Cnilep (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to show search results and encourage article creation. Deryck C. 11:48, 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.

WP:Basic topics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep. The arguments that these redirects are useful for attribution and links in old revisions, etc outweigh the speculation that they might be of limited use in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination covers the following redirects:

Extended content
  1. Wikipedia:Agricultural sciences basic topics → Outline of agriculture
  2. Wikipedia:Archaeology basic topics → Outline of archaeology
  3. Wikipedia:Architecture basic topics → Outline of architecture
  4. Wikipedia:Biochemistry basic topics → Outline of biochemistry
  5. Wikipedia:Biology basic topics → Outline of biology
  6. Wikipedia:Chemistry basic topics → Outline of chemistry
  7. Wikipedia:Classics basic topics → Classics
  8. Wikipedia:Communication basic topics → Outline of communication
  9. Wikipedia:Cooking basic topics → Cooking
  10. Wikipedia:Critical Theory basic topics → Outline of critical theory
  11. Wikipedia:Education basic topics → Index of education articles
  12. Wikipedia:Engineering basic topics → Outline of engineering
  13. Wikipedia:Family and Consumer Science basic topics → Home economics
  14. Wikipedia:Game basic topics → Index of gaming articles
  15. Wikipedia:Geography basic topics → Outline of geography
  16. Wikipedia:History of Science and Technology basic topics → History of science and technology
  17. Wikipedia:Library and Information Science basic topics → Outline of library science
  18. Wikipedia:Linguistics basic topics → Outline of linguistics
  19. Wikipedia:Literature basic topics → Outline of literature
  20. Wikipedia:Mathematics basic topics → Outline of mathematics
  21. Wikipedia:Movies basic topics → Outline of film
  22. Wikipedia:Music basic topics → Index of music articles
  23. Wikipedia:Painting basic topics → Index of painting-related articles
  24. Wikipedia:Philosophy basic topics → Outline of philosophy
  25. Wikipedia:Physics basic topics → Outline of physics
  26. Wikipedia:Political Science basic topics → Outline of political science
  27. Wikipedia:Political science basic topics → Outline of political science
  28. Wikipedia:Public Affairs basic topics → Public affairs
  29. Wikipedia:Recreation basic topics → Recreation
  30. Wikipedia:Religion basic topics → Outline of religion
  31. Wikipedia:Statistics basic topics → Outline of statistics
  32. Wikipedia:Theater basic topics → Outline of theatre
  33. Wikipedia:Transport basic topics → Outline of transport

I'm weakly in favor of deletion, but I'm not at all sure. My future comments will depend on the agriculture one, which appears to have been created in projectspace as some sort of article directory before being moved to mainspace and eventually being redirected to the existing target. In favor of keeping, these are very old redirects (this one was created by the conversion script in early 2002, demonstrating that it existed in the UseModWiki days), and normally we don't delete old redirects if they're not significantly harmful. In favor of deleting, these are potentially confusing (projectspace titles generally shouldn't redirect to mainspace titles; CNRs are unhelpful if there's no reason for a specific one to exist); we keep old titles because people are likely to be linking to them from off-wiki, but nobody links to projectspace pages (except big ones like WP:ANI) from offsite, and an average list wouldn't get this kind of link; and the page apparently existed at this title for only a very short while, because nost:Wikipedia:Agricultural sciences basic topics returns a Noarticletext, and the only relevant content is a previous title of the target page. Basically, I don't think that we should be keeping a mildly confusing redirect that really isn't likely to have gotten internal use and has essentially no chance of external use having occurred, but I'm not confident enough to assert that deletion is definitely the right course. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. As you point out, many of these are old redirects. We can check for current inbound links to any given title but we have no way to know how many old links are buried in various pagehistories or scattered in external links. Even if you think the odds are low (and they probably are), the costs of leaving the redirect in place just in case are indistinguishable from zero.
    I'll also point out that the CNR argument is only a concern for redirects from the article space (where pages are well-monitored and controlled) to private spaces. No such problems exist for redirects from project spaces to the articlespace.
    Finally, I echo your finding that some of the redirects document the history of pagemoves. Some of those predate the change to our logs that recorded the pagemove in the pagehistory. The redirects themselves may be the only record of the move that still exists. Rossami (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep all They do have links from mainspace, and I'd imagine links from external sites as well, I'm not otherwise convinced. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nominator lays out a good case for why these aren't being used and are potentially confusing. They might have been useful when they were created, but I fail to see the utility for them 15 years later. -- Tavix (talk) 15:26, 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.

Nigerian prince[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 13#Nigerian prince

Wikipedia:European Union Frequently asked questions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 16#Wikipedia:European Union Frequently asked questions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_5&oldid=1088107495"