Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 10, 2017.

Microsoft Vista 2007[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) 20:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Vista and Microsoft Windows 2007 are already there, don't see how this is plausible. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:58, 10 January 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.

Correlation diagram[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. Feel free to disambiguate if one deems it necessary. -- Tavix (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too generic a term to point to Walsh diagram, which is just one specific example. It's also mentioned in Linear combination of atomic orbitals--not clear if this is an application/example of Walsh or a separate idea. But can't any plot of relationships ("correlation") be considered under this phrase? DMacks (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now or rename to disambiguate. There are many such "too generic" terms redirecting to other articles. If they are valid (as in this case), they typically stay until multiple meanings become apparent, then they get disambiguated by hatnotes or disambiguation pages. I propose to follow the same route here as well.
If, however, it is important to "free" the term "correlation diagram" right now, I propose to rename the current redirect into "correlation diagram (orbital energy diagram)" (or something along this line). This way, it will still show up in the list of article suggestions when a user starts to type in "correlation diagram" in the search box, but without actually occupying this place.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the best simple disambiguation term in the title would be, but even in the realm of chemistry, that phrase is used for something different in terms of orbitals (see [1] and extended to reactions [2], a subset of the latter also discussed in depth in Woodward–Hoffmann_rules#Correlation diagrams) or an Orgel diagram that talks about ligand strength for various approximately-fixed geometries. I could envision a disambiguation page at this generic title, and IUPAC supports that is really is a general concept (see [3]) with links to those other pages. But I don't support having specific redirects ("Correlation table (FOO)") for any of them. DMacks (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to either 'statistical graphics' or 'data visualization'. I've no strong opinion either way, but I suppose I prefer the former. Both articles talk generally about expressing mathematical information visually, which the vague term 'correlation diagram' is getting at. Of course, something can involve 'statistics' in the general sense and not 'correlations', but I feel like making this change is most helpful for readers. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now (and tag with "R with possibility") or convert to a disambiguation page: Walsh diagram mentions two other types of correlation diagrams: "Tanabe-Sugano diagrams and Orgel diagrams.", and I think the best description is at Woodward–Hoffmann rules#correlation diagrams. Searching at Google "Correlation diagram" gives 90% quantum chemistry. Christian75 (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 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.

Trump Hotel[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 Retargeted to Trump International Hotel and Tower disambig — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFG (talk • contribs) 02:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:R#D confusing. This is not an official name for the building, but the possible targets are vague, we have Trump_International_Hotel_and_Tower and many other dab pages, but this could be a plausible search term for a lot of things. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - While I'm not sure about this, retargeting it to 'The Trump Organization' would give an overview of the various buildings associated with Trump and his family and possibly be helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Trump International Hotel and Tower. "Trump Hotel", "Trump Tower", and "Trump International Hotel and Tower" all have so much overlap, but I think everything that would go on a separate "Trump Hotel" dab (which I initially set out to draft) is already found at the International Hotel and Tower dab. I also considered whether it would be worth moving that one over this more concise title, but then "Trump International Hotel and Tower" becomes an XY, which seems undesirable. And it doesn't look like any single property is officially, properly referred to simply as "Trump Hotel", unlike Trump Tower. --BDD (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of things named after Donald Trump so that people can find what groups of buildings they want. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Trump International Hotel and Tower per BDD. CapitalSasha ~ talk
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 10 January 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.

Crimea river[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both. The discussion below has shown competition between retargeting to some information about rivers in Crimea, the "cry me a river" pun, and other references in pop culture. In the absence of any independently notable topic called "Crimea River", the discussion below had no consensus on the appropriate target and a strong proportion of editors wanting to delete. Deryck C. 19:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are actual rivers in Crimea (including one that is the target of the capitalized Crimea River), I question the utility of having this redirect follow a pun. bd2412 T 05:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable meme. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Salhir River as {{R from miscapitalization}}. It seems to me that "Crimea River" and "Crimea river" should target the same article. — Gorthian (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and salt both. Leaving these as plain red links would just be invitations to more silliness. Even though there's at least one reliable source discussing the meme, I doubt it's notable enough for its own article. — Gorthian (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with a retarget to Salhir River as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it looks like the pun is so well-known that finding evidence that the one specific river is known as the "Crimea River" is difficult... yet I'm still not seeing solid evidence even after some searching. Given the situation, I guess I'd rather we just delete this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Salhir River, avoiding silly pun. PamD 10:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now pending the creation of Rivers of Crimea and also to deny the use of the obscure meme--Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding Crimea River to this nomination since concerns brought up right before this relist notification seem to warrant doing so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging current participants in this discussion in regards to adding Crimea River to this nomination: BD2412, Champion, Gorthian, CoffeeWithMarkets, PamD, Lenticel, Tavix and BDD. Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 10 January 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.

Antivirus[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) 20:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just closed a separate discussion suggesting that Antivirus software should be moved over this redirect, which I closed as no consensus, but commenters there suggested that this redirect may not be specific enough to be useful (it conflicts with non-software computer antivirus applications, as well as biological antivirus topics). Listing to discuss options. I am neutral unless I comment below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment added a hatnote to Antiviral for the biology-related topics. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Antivirus is a common shorthand for antivirus software. Could be converted to a DAB if we have an article about antivirus hardware. CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Disambiguate vis-a-vis AntiVirus (show) per DanielPharos. CapitalSasha ~ talk 00:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is another article with this name: AntiVirus (show). Doesn't that have priority over a redirect? Although probably most people will be looking for the software article, so maybe a disamb page is needed? Or move the "show" page, and give it a "see also"-style notice pointing to the software article? --DanielPharos (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no evidence that the current target is not the primary topic of a term; if there are only two meanings for a term, this is best handled with a hatnote, as two-link disambiguation pages are disfavored per WP:TWODABS. bd2412 T 01:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD. A hatnote can acomodate links to Antiviral and AntiVirus (show), all the other articles with "Antivrius" in the title seem to be about specific antivirus software programs that are found at Comparison of antivirus software, Category:Antivirus software and Template:Antivirus software. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. This has probably happened before. I know I've been confused with DGG, and am flattered to be confused with either of them. I was also tickled to see that there's a Bddmagic, given that I took my name from a handle I used long ago for Magic: The Gathering forums. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops! On this occasion, BDD, I confused you with BD2412 - apologies to both of you! Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly redirects to the primary topic, according to Corpus of Contemporary American English. (I love to give you a link but that website is not really linking-friendly. You'll have to navigate to corpus.byu.edu/coca/ and search for "Antivirus" manually. Sorry.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Either hatnote or create Antivirus (disambiguation), but the software is definitely the primary topic for this. Daß Wölf 16:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that we have a case of a well-known 'primary target' here, although I've no objection to also creating a disambiguation page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:24, 13 January 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.

George Bush, President[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) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

President George Bush is a redirect to George Bush. Not sure whether {{R from sort name}} applies for redirects like these, could be wrong. --Nevé–selbert 21:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This seems plausible enough for me and it got 84 hits last year so I don't think I'm alone. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I am undecided as to whether it is really that plausible. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A reader who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies for disambiguating articles could plausibly search for this phrase. Ultimately, I don't see any harm in keeping this. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I declined a WP:G6 request from the nominator with the comment "no policy compliant grounds for deletion specified". This applies here, also. We keep redirects unless there is a reason to delete - see WP:RHARMFUL. I fail to see why it was brought here. Just Chilling (talk) 19:39, 14 January 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.

July 2006 Sulawesi earthquake[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. The consensus is, interestingly, that the earthquake list articles are undergoing some kind of reorganisation and this earthquake is too insignificant to deserve any mention anywhere on Wikipedia. Deryck C. 16:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No content on target article. This was a non-event (no reports of damage or injuries). Dawnseeker2000 23:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Hmmm, I wonder why certain editors are documenting non-notable earthquakes. WP:Earthquakes is certainly not interested in doing this. Dawnseeker2000 15:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Back in January I tagged List of earthquakes in 2006 and most of the other 2000-and newer yearly earthquake lists with cleanup tags for:
  • Very long (a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy)
  • Overly detailed (Content, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia)
  • Recentism (Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well—up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer. But in the long-term, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information)
  • These list articles are not being constructed by WP:Earthquakes members. The bulk of the entries are for meaningless events. What I mean by that is that the barrier to entry on those lists was picked by some unknown person way back when (I've no idea who it was) is a magnitude 6 earthquake. The problem is that most of the earthquakes in the list are non-events. They're low intensity earthquakes with zero consequences, but these editors still find it to be a good use of their time to document them. There exists this thing where there's a race to be the first one to add the event. Doesn't seem like encyclopedic content to me. It's void of any real value and meaning. For comparison:
  • As of about three weeks ago, the 2016 list contained:
  • Twelve intensity I (Not felt) events
  • Seventeen intensity II (Weak) events
  • Fifteen intensity III (Weak) events
  • Thirty-six intensity IV (Light) events
  • Twenty-five intensity V (Moderate) events
  • This is flimsy content. It's not encyclopedic. People want to be the first to add some ~M6 earthquake regardless if it's felt strongly or whether it has any significant effects.
  • Today I went ahead and removed the entry for the July 2006 Sulawesi earthquake per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As for the rest of the non-encyclopedic entries? The yearly lists do need an overhaul (there's practically zero discussions about the hows and whys of the content) but I'm working on it. Dawnseeker2000 22:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To clarify my earlier statement: I removed the entry about this earthquake from List of earthquakes in 2006. This means that the encyclopedia no longer contains any information about this non-notable event and that there is no reason to keep the redirect. The event we're talking about is this one:
  • M 6.0 - Sulawesi, Indonesia
  • There is no information regarding intensity on this listing. There are also no details about any effects. These sections are empty when there are none. The USGS' EXPO-CAT catalog lists the computer generated ShakeMap intensities for events worldwide. The entry for this event does show a maximum Mercalli intensity of VII (Very strong), but since there is little in terms of buildings or infrastructure in this remote part of the world, nothing was damaged. It was a non-event. We don't need to create articles or list entries about these kinds of things because it's void of any encyclopedic content. No need to worry; there's dozens of notable earthquakes in Indonesia to write about. Dawnseeker2000 18:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the entry has been removed. -- Tavix (talk) 20:11, 18 January 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.

Choirmaster[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 Choir. -- Tavix (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term Kapellmeister is, as the article demonstrates, very specific, whereas "choirmaster" is a much broader term referring to the director of any choir. The Kapellmeister article gives zero information on the work of ordinary choirmasters in church or secular choirs, so all in all this redirect makes no sense to me. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 16:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 10 January 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.

Historical anniversaries/April 15[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. Opinion remains split on what to do with these. -- Tavix (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there are a lot of similar ones, and that the redirects need to be there to retain history, but I suggest this be retargeted to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 1 and do the same for the other ones. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and leave as they are; we try to avoid cross-namespace redirects. Graham87 13:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Graham87, and per {{R from subpage}} - these redirects date from 2002. Further users will find historical anniversaries for the given date at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are either keep as they are, or delete. They definitely should not be modified to cross-namespace redirects. Personally I favour delete as I reckon leaving them is more encouragement for more, or other discussion, that said I am comfortable with any retention. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible subpage. Pppery 20:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pppery and Billingshurst: what part of "the redirects need to be there to retain history" do you disagree with and why? Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Missed the history. How about Move to Wikipedia space without leaving a redirect. Pppery 20:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as useless remnants of a bygone era. — JFG talk 02:32, 18 January 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 8th November 2016 Indian delegalization of 500 and 1000 rupee notes issued till that date[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. 18:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Highly implausible search term, and the topic itself is covered elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Pointless redirect. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This redirect is a {{R from move}}. The article was at this title for about 6 hours on 19 November, but it has continued to get non-trivial numbers of page views more than a month later, so despite how implausible it seems at first glance, it is proving useful for some people. Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to 2016 Indian delegalization of rupee. I don't see any news articles that use this exact phrase so it leads me to believe this isn't the formal name of a bill/law. Not a useful search term. A shorter alias would suffice if someone doesn't want to search for demonetization. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AngusWOOF: a redirect that gets this many uses is, by definition, useful. Why do you want to inconvenience readers? Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No one is gonna key in this whole essay. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dharmadhyaksha: I agree that typing this in is an unlikely thing to do, but as people are actually using this they are probably following a link from somewhere external to Wikipedia that Google hasn't found. How people are using it doesn't matter though, the only thing relevant here is that they are using it and I see absolutely no reason to make it harder for them. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: With no proofs of its usage and given the fact that was only created out of movewars I see no reason to assume that it's being used outside wiki or so. Plus, the essay is way too long. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dharmadhyaksha: What do you mean "no proofs of its usage"? Click the "stats" link above and see for yourself that 109 human uses were recorded between 1 and 30 December. It has also received 98 hits between 1 and 4 January, some of them will undoubtedly be from this discussion but it is significantly more than any other redirect on this page received in the same time period (Choirmaster received 44 hits, no others exceeded 13). "Too long" is not a reason to delete or keep a redirect, and it is irrelevant whether it's being used only internally, only externally or a mixture of both (not that there is a way to know) - what matters is simply that it is being used. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The 1-4 January shouldn't count as that clearly attracts interest by editors looking to check whether it was the formal name of an event or bill. However, given that a fair number of editors have the long version linked on their talk pages, that might count for something. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an inherently difficult article to name and it's been renamed a bunch of times. There's no need to remove a {{R from move}}. Mihirpmehta (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this name coming from an actual news article? Or an agreed upon name by the Wikiproject? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from move}}. As ridiculous as this is as a search term, the title appears to be getting links from other websites. I see no reason to break those links. Daß Wölf 18:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the page was only at that title for a few hours, so there's negligible risk of breaking external links. If the redirect was a little less awful, I might be sympathetic to the "keep" argument, but a few page views aren't a trump card to keep every redirect imaginable. -- Tavix (talk) 20:12, 11 January 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.

All the Books That Survive of the Histories of Alexander the Great of Macedon[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausibly cumbersome title Peter Rehse (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, don't remember why I created it. --Vladis13 (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This appears to be the translation of the long title of this work, "Historiarum Alexandri Magni Macedonis Libri Qui Supersunt".--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 16:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as the translated long title of the target. Unfortunately the page views tool is not working for some reason, and the search string "All the Books That Survive of the Histories of Alexander the Great of Macedon" -Wikipedia -"Historiarum Alexandri Magni Macedonis Libri Qui Supersunt" seems too long for Google. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 10 January 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.

Benjamin Franks[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 Ben Franks as primary topic. A hatnote can be added if any editor deems it necessary. Deryck C. 16:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of my own views on the subject, the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Franks was closed with a consensus that Dr Franks was not notable. No consensus was achieved for a redirect. To quote my comments at the AfD: "Am I the only person who thinks that this result is bizarre? [...] I am opposed to a redirect. Deleting the article would be a better result. Franks's career and work does not begin and end at that book." And with all due respect to Czar, for whose work on Wikipedia I have much respect: I agree with you that Franks's book is notable, but cannot share your view that we have no "basis for an article about" Franks, nor your view that "his career is best known for this book". Josh Milburn (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The phrase "Benjamin Franks" is an expected search term as the author of Rebel Alliances, hence the redirect. The AfD discussion didn't preclude the redirect, as the discussion was about the author's independent notability. Not sure what policy-backed rationale we'd use to delete this redirect czar 05:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's misleading. Franks has done plenty in his career beyond authoring this book. It'd be like redirecting an actor to a film article when she has appeared in multiple films. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be more like redirecting an actor to a film article when the actor is primarily known for a single film, and their other film appearances don't have Wikipedia pages czar 07:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rugby player as primary topic works too. (Retarget to Ben Franks) Not sure if we would even need a hatnote in that case but {{redirects here}} sounds appropriate czar 07:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It would make more sense to delete the article for the trivial book, which is only 106 worldcat libraries. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then send the book to AfD—I think it'll easily pass muster with six substantive reviews. The question here, though, is whether the redirect is useful while the book article still exists. czar 06:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ben Franks and hatnote, as Ben Franks has more notability. -- Tavix (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. I'm not sure a hatnote is required, but I have no objection to there being one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 24 January 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.

Erde[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 24#Erde

Thalassenchelys foliaceus[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) 15:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirects to Congriscus maldivensis yet references to fishbase are old, and when looking at new references they are listed differently

If redirect stays then the data needs to be sorted out here and at wikidata — billinghurst sDrewth 10:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


My input was requested and as far as I am concerned go with the current thinking. If they are no longer considered to be the same organism, do away with the redirect.Divingpetrel (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a redirect. Congriscus maldivensis cites a 2016 paper by Chow et al. that synonymizes T. foliaceus. Catalog of Fishes treats T. foliaceus as a synonym of C. maldivensis and cites an additional 2016 paper as well as the study by Chow; see here. It seems more likely to me that Fishbase isn't quite up to date, than that they are rejecting Chow's synonymy. Plantdrew (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. If readers really want to search for this term, I think the search tool will be most helpful. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:39, 10 January 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.

Yowsers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 24#Yowsers

Political positions of Bill Clinton[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Thanks, Tavix. Improvements would still be good, but after the merge, the target article is no longer in a state where I would've nominated this. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure the target article should even exist, per WP:NEO, but given all the fleshed out "Political positions of [Politician]" articles out there, I think this redirect is likely to mislead and disappoint readers. BDD (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Wrong forum: The nominator's rationale seems to advocate either 1) deleting Clintonism, or possibly 2) moving Clintonism to Political positions of Bill Clinton. Neither is appropriate to be discussed here. The first sentence of Clintonism reads, "Clintonism is the political and economic policies of Bill Clinton", making it pretty damn clear that this redirect is appropriate. pbp 20:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I am not advocating either of those things at this time. Just for the deletion of this redirect. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with BDD's analysis. It'd be nice to have an actual article on Bill Clinton's political positions, similar to what we have at Political positions of Hillary Clinton. Perhaps a WP:REDLINK deletion would be a step in the right direction, but I also agree with PBP that the ideal first step would be deciding what to do with Clintonism. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clintonism if you'd like to join in. -- Tavix (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD has been closed, and I have performed a merger as proposed there. The article now actually has some semblance of showing Bill Clinton's political positions. I think with some careful editing, what we've got could take the shape of a "political positions" article if that's the route we want to go down (the move argument). -- Tavix (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 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.

Jakarta earthquake[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 not sure, default to keep for now. This is different from "no consensus" in the sense that the latter implies marked disagreement, but in this case we're heading towards a middle-ground where we agree the case is very close to the inclusion threshold. After two relists it seems that opinions aren't very strongly held and the nominator switched sides. In the absence of demonstrable harm, I'm defaulting to keep. Deryck C. 17:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion for the same reasons as the 2007 Java earthquake redirect. We don't have any details on it because it's not a significant event. Dawnseeker2000 23:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response – The redirect was created for a M7.5 event that was not notable. Even its M6.1 aftershock had several hundred Indonesians responding to the USGS "Did You Feel It?" survey with responses no higher than V (Moderate). These types of shocks are a dime a dozen in Indonesia. They are not notable and we don't need to keep any related redirects. If there were any effects, they would be listed in the "Impacts" sections (the USGS describes the smaller shock as "no people dead or missing; no people injured; no buildings damaged or destroyed"). I expanded the target list around this time last year with entries from the NGDC's significant earthquake database. There were no significant earthquakes in Indonesia in 1699 or 1808 so it seems a bit desperate to find some reason to keep it. If there happens to be a deadly, injurious, or damaging earthquake in the future that affects Jakarta, redirect creation might be OK, but for now the point is to clean up after a failed article attempt by someone with a whole two edits to WP. That person obviously did not have larger concepts in mind about how to present earthquake details to the public in one of the gnarliest encyclopedias around. Here are the two USGS reports on them:
  • M 7.5 - Java, Indonesia
  • M 6.1 - Java, Indonesia

Dawnseeker2000 18:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response – There is a threshold, and I've added this note at the bottom of many of our 'earthquakes by country' lists: "The inclusion criteria for adding events are based on WikiProject Earthquakes' notability guideline that was developed for stand alone articles. The principles described also apply to lists. In summary, only damaging, injurious, or deadly events should be recorded." The country lists are pretty good about not having non-notable events, but there's some polishing and fine tuning to be done. It's the yearly lists (list of earthquakes in 2013 etc.) that are the trouble spots. The events that are being recorded by non-WP:Earthquakes members are mostly not notable (low intensity earthquakes with no deaths, injuries, or damage). Those involved with the content on those lists are often young and or ESL editors. Dawnseeker2000 00:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I was doing an AWB run through all of our timeline series of articles and it when it stopped at the Jakarta listing I had to take another look at this. I came across a source from a respected historian (Anthony Reid) that describes the January 1, 1699 Batavia earthquake. I've added an entry to the list of earthquakes in Indonesia. Let's leave the redirect in place. Seismological sources are preferred for these lists, but the source that I found appears to be solid, and I trust it. Reid's paper opens with this statement "Despite its role in the ‘Ring of Fire, where the India-Australia plate subducts beneath the Eurasian plate, Java has been thought to be relatively aseismic" Dawnseeker2000 19:05, 11 January 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.

Parc Étang[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 Parc de l'Étang. -- Tavix (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. We have an article, Parc de l'Étang, so we could retarget there; no parc/k is mentioned in the target (I can expand that from fr:Étang_de_Saint-Quentin, but it would still only mention the Parc de Versailles which we haven't in English at all yet).

The current target is in Ile-de-France, whereas Parc de l'Étang is in Haute-Saône. User:Plantdrew might possibly be able to help with references as it has a botanical garden. Si Trew (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabify? The most prominent "Parc de l'Étang" on Google is this one in Maine-et-Loire, though we don't seem to have an article for it. Variants of "Parc Étang" are awfully generic, it wouldn't surprise me if there are some others out there. The botanical garden doesn't seem notable (it's not listed in international directories of botanical gardens), though I don't know if the park in Haute-Saône is notable aside from the botanical garden it contains. Plantdrew (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start at Draft:Parc de Versailles, then will take the other one, then I'll get back to you.... the Google link is to an adventure playground (to my mind, a misadventure playground would be more fun, but I may have strayed into a Hitchcock film somewhere through the third reel). Si Trew (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:04, 10 January 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.

Template:CC-BY[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 convert Template:Cc-by into an error template, and retarget Template:CC-BY there. -- Tavix (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused No transclusions, overly ambiguous, could refer to *any* version of CC license FASTILY 02:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - ~15 pages link to this template.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of those are database reports, and the couple talk pages can easily be edited to bypass the redirect. I've also clarified my nom statement to avoid confusion. -FASTILY 09:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, and these redirects create confusing situations where users who intended to apply another version of the CC license get defaulted to 1.0. -FASTILY 09:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I boldly went ahead and added Template:Cc-by to this nomination.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that one is in use (transcluded ~15 times as a file license).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a landing page/disambiguate in a fashion similar to {{IMDb}}, {{OTRS}} and {{R from real name}}. (Maybe we need to create a category for templates like this since there seems to be a great need for such pages.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A draft of the sort of page Steel1943 is describing could help build consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: I've lowered the protection to template. -- Tavix (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Thanks! ...but if only I saved my edit before yours. (Either way, good to have that page's protection downgraded.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's there in case you change your mind again (that's entirely plausible :P). Speaking of protection, do you think the other redirect needs template protection as well? -- Tavix (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Oh yeah, I took the phrase "on the fence" to a new level there. I think I managed to turn that fence into a seesaw. Steel1943 (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: You totally edit conflicted me. Either way, yes, I would say that the other template would need template protection as well to match the other. Also, Template:CC BY and Template:Cc by probably would need to be created with the same protection level. Steel1943 (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have created the "draft dab" at Template:Cc-by (per my comment in this edit.) If the draft in its current state is acceptable for consensus purposes, the best way to enact it at Template:Cc-by is to restore this revision. (I'm placing this revision here since I added some code so the page will not break while it's listed for RFD and to help non-technical folks with closing this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A proposal has been put forth by Steel1943. Inviting the other participants to comment: Tavix, Fastily and Godsy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: As an FYI, WP:PINGs don't work within the relisting template. I wouldn't consider myself a "participant" as I've only commented in an administrative capacity, but I'll send pings to Fastily and Godsy on your behalf. -- Tavix (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tavix! I did have the suspicion that might have been the case. I tried testing this by using my newly created sock to send a ping to myself [5], which worked. Now I'm completely mystified. – Uanfala (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but this didn't work. My working hypothesis is that an edit won't send a ping if the added text contains signatures from other users. So, there's a workaround: to make the relist template send pings, just add it by itself in a different edit, with the discussion pasted in a previous edit. – Uanfala (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for testing that, Uanfala. It makes sense when read with Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events, which explains what has to happen for a ping to trigger. -- Tavix (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala and Tavix: If I recall, {{subst:Relist|COMMENT PING ~~~~}} will notify the editors, but just have to remember to remove the duplicate signature afterwards (if you want to remove it.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steel1943's plan works for me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steel1943's suggestion sounds good; let's move forward with that. -FASTILY 03:30, 11 January 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.

Mysandbox[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, salt, and add an edit notice. This solution was widely supported in this discussion, and seems to be an elegant way to solve the issue. -- Tavix (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace fully-protected useless redirect. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. This is one of those cross-namespace redirects that we want to keep because it helps very new users. The history shows that without a protected redirect here the page gets used for sandbox experiments and drafts that are intended to be done in the user's sandbox. This means we have to have either a soft redirect (hard redirects do not work to the special: namespace) or a salted title and the latter does not help or encourage new users so deletion would be unnecessarily WP:BITEY. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. The link for editors' sandboxes on most, if not all, Wikipedia skins is located at the top of the page, making this redirect rather unnecessary, As the nominators states, since this is a cross-namespace redirect, this should be deleted. And as Thryduulf has hinted, measures need to be taken to ensure no edits are done on this page. And also per Thryduulf, there needs to be some sort of mechanism in place for editors directing them to their own sandbox in the event they look up this page: This can be accomplished by creating a editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Mysandbox. Apparently, editnotices can appear when creating pages as well as editing them. See 沙盒 and Template:Editnotices/Page/沙盒 for reference. Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the perspective of a new user, the wall of text presented to users at 沙盒 before the editnotice is big, pink, complicated and scary, then there is a small edit notice, then more scary stuff. I would run a mile from that thinking I've broken something rather than start to contribute. Just no. Keep the existing, simple page. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "wall of text" on this redirect wouldn't be nearly as large as the one on 沙盒 if this redirect was deleted. To compare, the size of the "wall of text" is directly proportional to how many times a page has been deleted at that title. 沙盒 has been deleted 10 times whereas if the nominated redirect was deleted, it would only be deleted a total of 3 times. Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I came to this discussion intending to vote keep, figuring a new editor using it really needs a hand and shouldn't end up working in mainspace yet. But it does seem better to just make an editnotice at this title. It's not at all difficult to imagine someone seeing this suggested in the search box and following it, expecting something other than their own sandbox. --BDD (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: What else, other than their sandbox, is someone going to be expecting? Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can—and should—strike a balance between accommodating new users who don't know how to use Wikipedia and trying to teach them along the way. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way is a wall of scary text and no clear link to where they want to go going to teach them? Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assuming we leave an edit notice, as referred to above. If text to the effect of "Hey, your sandbox is located here" frightens or overwhelms a user, perhaps editing Wikipedia is not for them. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the "Hey, your sandbox is located here" that is frightening, it is the big pink box saying something has been deleted multiple times and filled with complicated looking messages before you get to any edit notice (which is small and unobtrusive by comparison) that is off-putting. It really will make users who are not confident think they have broken something. The aim is to encourage new editors not send them running away - and there is a large overlap between groups of people who are underrepresented in the Wikipedia editing community and groups of people who are not naturally comfortable with computers. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: A smaller wall of text is still a wall of text and does not address my objections to presenting that to the people most likely to be using this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Thryddulf's or Steele's version seems okay to me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:36, 10 January 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.

United Airlines Flight 935[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. Either G4 or snow should work, as both roads lead to Rome. -- Tavix (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created by the same editor that earlier created United Airlines Flight 953, this time explaining in the edit summary that the flight number was wrong the last time. Last time the redirect was proposed for deletion and snow deleted within 27 hours. No more reason to save this one any longer. T*U (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence that "Flight 935" or the longer version is used as a label of anything, the way various disasters and hijackings and such get that kind of treatment. I don't think anyone will be looking for this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not a plausible redirect. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G4. No one in the previous RfD noticed that the number was wrong, so we can safely surmise that the RfD's outcome would not have changed if it was for #935 rather than #953. A slightly unusual case, but I'd say it meets G4's scope of sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. If the creator would like to contest the previous RfD's outcome, that can be done at deletion review. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per PinkAmpersand. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:52, 10 January 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.

Yahoo! Canada[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. No prejudice against recreation if any of these are individually covered. -- Tavix (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not covered, see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 22#Google Spain. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. These were/are independent legal business entities, and but very unlikely to ever have their own articles. It's entirely sufficient that they redirect to the main corporation article, without being individually covered, because no confusion is going to result. If one of them was named "SnorkelWeasel!", and why that term redirected to Yahoo! was unclear because it was never mentioned there, then that would be an issue. Yahoo! Europe redirecting to Yahoo! is no kind of problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The situation currently is certainly unhelpful, these are nowhere near being implausible search terms, considering we have similar articles (see Category:Yahoo!_international). So after stumbling acrosdd one of the articles in that category, it is only natural that a reader might then want to look for Yahoo!'s operations in another country or region, since there is no relevant info at the main article, they will not be helped, if they want info on Yahoo! as a whole, they would not add a country/region name to the search term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I agree with SMcCandlish that no one would confuse any of these with non-Yahoo entities, but precisely for that reason, they would have no trouble finding the main Yahoo article if that's what they wanted. Where confusion could arise is, "Why are they giving me general Yahoo information when I've specified I want to know about Yahoo Canada?" These will mislead and disappoint readers. --BDD (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I find BDD's argument convincing. We have List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services but that is not for local Yahoo! sites but things like Yahoo! Groups and Flickr, and with the absence of any article or list that does include these I think it better we make it clear we have no information to offer. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 19 January 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 Religion of Islam[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) Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant leftover from page move vandalism from 11 years ago, nobody that searches for this would be looking for the Islam article in general, there are many books with titles similar to this [6], and we have articles on similarly named books. If any of the books are notable, an article can be created, but as-is, this redirect isn't helpful. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, since this is an entirely plausible search phrase. Millions (at least) of people do not know our disambiguation patterns by heart. Millions more are unsure of capitalization of things like this (not least of which because so many WP editors engage in the specialized-style fallacy and keep overcapitalizing things, to the extent that capitalization cleanup is one of the commonest WP:RM discussion types, but that's another issue for another time).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a term that is used in other sources (see, e.g., this recent article from Vox). Readers may also enter this phrase to distinguish the term "Islam" from its other uses (see Islam (disambiguation)). FYI, we also have Islamic religion, which sends readers to Islam. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SMcCandlish and Notecardforfree. Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Although I'm not sure just how helpful it is, I still think that a good number of readers are likely to use this. The exact wording, as stated above, features in many sources. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a problem keeping as is, but if we ever get an article on one of the books by this name, it should go here. In case of conflict, the article on the religion itself wouldn't be primary topic. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 13 January 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.

MS Antivirus[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 MSAV. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should this target MSAV instead? Seems to be used in reliable sources like [7], but if not, the target should be moved over this title. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to MSAV, otherwise there is no point to MS Antivirus (malware) having been disambiguated in the first place. Just make sure hatnotes connect the articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and hatnote per SMcCandlish. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 11 January 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 Action Channel[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 Action. --BDD (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent company when the article could stand alone by itself. Parent company article also has no information on the subject. Laurdecl talk 04:36, 10 January 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.

Arch-Linux[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 20#Arch-Linux

Amerossa[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) Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a plausible typo, potential BLP issue for this name is not discussed in RS. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is not a plausible typo, but google searches show that it is a very plausible misspelling for people who have likely only/mostly heard rather than seen the name. It got 138 hits last year so it's clear people are looking for her at this name. Misspellings and typos, etc are not BLP issues unless they are deliberate and (intended to be) derogatory or otherwise offensive (and even then they can be reported and/or used as redirects in certain cases). Please read WP:CRYBLP - calling things like this a BLP issue when it clearly is nothing of the sort makes it much more difficult to identify real BLP issues when they occur. Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: We should not throw out reasonable attempts at phonetic searching. I my own self have found many WP articles this way after watching documentaries, news, etc., with unfamiliar names in them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible misspelling, per above. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:01, 10 January 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.

22nd and 24th President 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this redirect is strictly necessary. It's a pretty unlikely search term (rendering a mediocre performance at pageviews, versus the other two more likely ones). Note that this redirect was retargeted this October past, following nearly eight years of being redirected to Grover Cleveland. --Nevé–selbert 00:57, 10 January 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_January_10&oldid=1142586873"