Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 17, 2017.

Aye karumba[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 ¡Ay, caramba! (non-admin closure) Strong consensus that if it is to be kept, it should point to ¡Ay, caramba!. – Uanfala (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-spelling of "Ay, caramba!" - I highly doubt anyone will ever search for this. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 23:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an {{R from move}} and 64 people used the redirect last year. Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page was originally moved to Ay-carumba (another mis-spelling) which now redirects to ¡Ay, caramba!. Google corrects "Aye karumba" to "Ay caramba" as well, so even if 64 people stumbled upon this redirect (hardly anything to write home about, that's just over one per week) it isn't really necessary as they would've been able to find the correct spelling using Google. WP doesn't need to get cluttered with redirects for phonetic mis-spellings of foreign-language terms.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 17:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on whether or not it should be kept, but if it is kept, it should be retargeted to ¡Ay, caramba!. -- Tavix (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix as the original expression. Bart Simpson might have popularized it, but it isn't his original trademarked catchphrase. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support a retarget change over to ¡Ay, caramba! as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above users. If someone is actually searching for Bart Simpson this way, they'll find him linked on the ¡Ay, caramba! page anyway. Daß Wölf 18:39, 3 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.

Mirage (Aladdin TV Series)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly confusing disambiguator. The subject is an Aladdin character, not a TV series. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Given there isn't actually a TV series about Aladdin by the name "Mirage", I don't see an actual potential for confusion.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 23:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep people using this are looking for Mirage from the Aladdin TV series, not an Aladdin TV series titled "Mirage". Per Newbiepedian, there is no likelihood of confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm sympathetic to the potential for confusion. It's safe to say this is unused as it registered only 8 pageviews in all of 2016. -- Tavix (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf as a search term that is sensible, if not much used. – Uanfala (talk) 23:49, 3 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 Sultan[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 Sultan (disambiguation) (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Disney character from the Aladdin series may be more notable as "The Sultan" than the current target of this redirect. For that reason, retarget to List of Disney's Aladdin characters#The Sultan. Otherwise, weak retarget to Sultan (disambiguation) since the subject of Sultan doesn't include the word "the". Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 17 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.

Agrabah[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 Aladdin (franchise)#Setting. I had actually typed out a keep !vote explaining that the current target is best since it describes Agrabah best. Then I had a WP:SOFIXIT moment and added the setting to the franchise article. I'll boldly refine the redirect to the new setting section I've created. -- Tavix (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should this actually target Aladdin (franchise)? Agrabah is a setting present in all Aladdin media, but I'm not sure if it is described appropriately enough there to help identify the setting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:03, 17 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.

Alexandra Bartee[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) 21:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY because she was also in Ivide. Search results would be better here as readers can decide which one of her films to read about rather than automatically being redirected to one of them. -- Tavix (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and per WP:REDLINK. The actress might be notable enough for an article --Lenticel (talk) 00:34, 20 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.

South Koreans[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 move North Korean (disambiguation) and South Korean (disambiguation) to base titles over redirect and point the other titles to them. All comments considered, this seems to be the most acceptable solution. Deryck C. 23:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible suggest a disambiguation page or the relevant sections in Koreans etc. We have similar dabs for other countries, I'm a bit surprised that it is not the case here. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. In the absence of separate articles differentiating language and demography from nationhood (as for Danish language, Danish people → Danes, etc) these seem really the best targets. Am I missing something here? Si Trew (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget "South Koreans", "North Koreans" and "North Korean people" to Koreans. Retarget the others to Korean (a disambig). Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete North Korean people, Retarget all others per Thryduulf Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 15:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SimonTrew; there is nothing requiring repair here. bd2412 T 23:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: It's just the same reason and the targets in the previous vote. (hmm, you might referring to WP:PERX?). KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 21:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@KGirlTrucker81: no, nothing to do with PERX, just it was unclear which suggestion you were endorsing given there have been more than one above comment. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per AngusWOOF or Uanfala, retarget "North Korean" and "South Korean" to dabpages. Also, retarget "North Koreans" and "South Koreans" to either "Demographics of <something> Korea" or Koreans. If neither is suitable, then dabpage for now. Same for "<something> Korean people" pages, including one that I added. George Ho (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Prisencolin. Used to refer to people, "North Korean" and "South Korean" are nationalities, not ethnicities. People like the Americans in North Korea could accurately be called North Koreans, even though they're not ethnically Korean (ok, one of them is, incidentally). --BDD (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In case it isn't immediately clear by looking at the discussion: 2–3 different article target sets have been suggested by commenters above who have stated "Retarget". For this reason, relisting again to give consensus a chance to form to clarify which set of articles these redirects should target. Or, does a WP:SIA of some sort need to be created?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SimonTrew, but Retarget North Korean people to Koreans for consistency. Ceosad (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move North Korean (disambiguation) and South Korean (disambiguation) to their respective base titles. Retarget the redirects related to North Korea to North Korean (disambiguation) and retarget the redirects related to South Korea to South Korean (disambiguation). I'm in agreement with Uanfala, but I'm a bit more affirmative that it's best to have the disambiguation occupy the base title. As Champion pointed out, most other country-level demonyms are disambiguations. -- Tavix (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Tavix above. Having the DAB page at the base title is particularly useful in the context of a politically touchy area like the Korean peninsula. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:09, 8 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.

Elizabeth Hourihane[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 3#Elizabeth Hourihane

Overrated fat shit[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, G10. This redirect attacks its subject and serves no other purpose, so I'm comfortable deleting it as such. -- Tavix (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this weren't pointing to a fictional character this would be a WP:BLP speedy; as it is this seems to be one editor's opinion. I'm sure there are other characters which have inspired the same opinion, and it's pretty likely that people have expressed this pejorative phrase about many people, real or imaginary. Mangoe (talk) 17:17, 17 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.

List of articles about Alberta CCF/NDP members[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 3#List of articles about Alberta CCF/NDP members

List of platforms Linux is ported for[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, without prejudice to recreation if a suitable target is written in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vague as to what is meant by "platform". the closest I could find was List of Linux-supported computer architectures, but a platform can also be generic like a desktop, laptop, web server etc, it is not always the same as a processor architecture. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a bit redundant, I know, but I doubt it's going to mislead. None of the other Rs to this target have the word "platform" in it, and although a little vague, I think it's reasonable enough in context for people searching for "platform" e.g. as in platform support (a platform is a support, how redundant). List of Linux platforms would perhaps have sufficed, though. Si Trew (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It existed as a list for less than an hour a decade ago and should have been deleted then. -- Tavix (talk) 20:48, 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) 16:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There might be a possible target that makes sense, but it doesn't exist. The "principle of least surprise" demands that it at least be moved without redirect, but I cannot think of a new "co-target" (analogous to "domain" and "co-domain".) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 16:08, 28 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.

Taka-Toolo[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) 16:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) WP:RFD#D8. While, slightly to my surprise, Toeoeloe seems a common transliteration of Töölö, used in real human-written texts on Swedish, Finnish and English websites, these does not seem at all common. The only search results I get are for these exact terms are "rent a car in", "find a hotel in", etc, i.e. search engines probably matching when they themselves take the diacritics out on their side of the fence (as indeed does our own: that is, the algorithm is not "let's see what diacritical marks I can add to this to match a search term" but "let's see what index entries I have that, removing diacritical marks with my algorithm, would match this term: oh, I have a list I prepared beforehand"). Created from Taka-Töölö, of course. That will serve plenty enough, and these are not common misspellings so there is no justification to keep them when they are WP:RFD#D8 novel and obsure synonyms. Si Trew (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 21:56, 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) 16:08, 17 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:LISD[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 move to Template:Laredo Independent School District without leaving a redirect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be either a notice of disambiguation or deleted. There are multiple Texas school districts called "LISD" so the template name could be potentially used for any of them. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW while Template:UISD (for United ISD) may also be ambiguous between two school districts, one of them only has one high school (and therefore no basis for a template) so I don't know if this counts too. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It looks like "LISD" is used as an abbreviation for "Laredo Independent School District." The schools in that district are listed in this template. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without redirect to Template:Laredo Independent School District as there's significant history. "LISD" could also refer to most of List of school districts in Texas#L, so the shortcut as it stands is more than useless. -- Tavix (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Tavix's suggestion seems good, except I don't think there's really any history we need to preserve here. It's not used anywhere, and it looks like the navbox is going to remain organized by county rather than school district. Even if the remaining redlinks were filled in, it wouldn't be too large. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Webb County, Texas Schools was recently created by merging several templates, one of which was Template:LISD. I'd say that meets the preservation requirements of WP:MAD. Even if it didn't, I don't see the harm in preserving it in case there is future consensus to split the templates or perhaps someone might want to add more to the Webb county template from the LISD template. -- Tavix (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Not sure what I was looking at, but I didn't see the actual page history. Move without redirect per you. --BDD (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without redirect per Tavix as {{LISD}} appears to be too ambiguous for a template shortcut. – Uanfala (talk) 00:43, 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:Violent Factionalizing Debate[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 9#Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate

國慶節[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 国庆日, without prejudice against a new discussion if new evidence is presented. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are interchangeable terms that can refer to either topic, both simply mean "national day" and should not be pointing to different targets. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 國慶日, because the zh:wp article about the ROC day is entitled zh:國慶日 (中華民國). Not sure about 國慶節, because those three characters don't appear consecutively in the corresponding PRC article, zh:中华人民共和国国庆节. The characters in the ROC article's title don't appear in the PRC article, aside from a see-also link to the ROC article. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nyttend:No the two terms are interchangeable, for they mean the same thing, and FYI "国庆节" is the simplified form of "國慶節". The fact the zhwiki prefers whatever term is no business for us here. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - why is this even an Afd (article for discussion)? If I cannot decipher it then it aint even approximating English. I would say to both Nyttend and Champion to take your somewhat elitest love of symbolism to another place - this is the ENGLISH wikipedia. MarkDask 03:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are either of you aware that we routinely keep foreign-language names for articles when those names are the local names for the subjects of those articles? See WP:FORRED for information. If 國慶日 is not the local name for the ROC holiday, convince zh:wp editors to change the name of their article; don't attempt to convince everyone else that the existence of a synonym is reason to get rid of the local name. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am fully aware, but I am just making a point, independent from what is described at WP:FORRED, I'm not going to start a lengthy discussion on zh.wp, for politically-related debates usually get nowhere over there, I am just saying that either of those names can refer to either two topics and therefore there is no redirects. PS, either of these can also refer to National Day (Singapore). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not as useful as Chinese language redirects about Chinese persons and places (e.g. 蔣中正 & 汕頭).--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 国庆日 which should solve any ambiguities inherent in the current set-up. -- Tavix (talk) 17:57, 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) 16:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 国庆日 per Deryk C. Considering the Chinese terms are ambiguous, this seems to be the best solution. Daß Wölf 18:35, 3 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:Discussion forums[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:Request directory. -- Tavix (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many "forums", including RfCs, talk pages and deletion discussions, redirecting to just one of them is just not helpful. I'll also note that there is also WP:NOTFORUM. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The target page serves as a portal where there already are links to many other discussion forums. I can't think of a better page to target for "forums". -- œ™ 03:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Wikipedia:Request directory. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Wikipedia:Request directory, which is a directory of the various discussion forums on en.wp. Note that WP:Forum and WP:FORUM both target the "not a forum" section of WP:NOT, I do not propose to alter these. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I think "forums", I think general discussion. Someone looking for forums doesn't necessarily have a specific request they're looking to make. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: if they're looking for general discussion forums then the proposed target will inform them of what is on offer, if they do have a specific request in mind then they will get to the appropriate venue easily rather than post it at the VP only to be told they got it in the wrong place and to try again in some other place. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes... but there are a ton of pages listed there that really aren't discussion forums in any meaningful sense. This seems primarytopic-esque. --BDD (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree there is any primary topic for a Wikipedia discussion forum given the multitude of things that can mean depending on what you want to discuss. Thryduulf (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Wikipedia:Request directory - "Discussion forums" can mean absolutely any forum on here - Would make more sense to retarget. –Davey2010Talk 21:59, 17 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.

Goelhisar[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) 21:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) Turkish, not Germanic. ö is a distinct phoneme here, not an o-umlaut, and not equivalent to oe. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as I am seeing lots of relevant google hits, albeit among lots of other rubbish scraped from Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Look at the Eastwood reference here. It's a different spelling for [1]. It's a valid spelling or it's an understandable misspelling, and if it made it into an academic publisher, it probably belongs here as a redirect. 208.95.51.72 (talk) 19:41, 17 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.

Wikipedia:HAPPYPLACE[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. From a numerical standpoint: there were nine in favor of retaining the status quo, and five (two or three of whom also expressed alternative suggestions) in favor of retargeting this to Wikipedia:Department of Fun. A summary of the rationales: the former state that this redirect does no harm and find it humorous, while the latter state that it is harmful and surprising and at least some do not find it humorous. Strength of the arguments: Fairly equal, especially taking into consideration the leeway that is extended to projectspace shortcuts (as opposed to the more stringent standards concerning mainspace redirects). Lastly: To quote one of the participants, "ANI should be ... [a] place for calm resolution of problems that stop the encyclopedia being improved" (emphasis added by me), and though there is disagreement about this redirect, I hope we can all agree on that. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This was previously closed as no consensus at RfD in 2012, but I think it should be discussed similar to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 6#Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate, I see no value in keeping it "as is" because the target certainly does not make sense, except to me, I am not someone who appreciates sarcasm. OTOH I don't see much value in deleting it for there are plausible targets such as Wikipedia:Department of Fun etc. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Department of Fun. Naturally, this should redirect to a place that is actually happy. The current target would be a WP:SURPRISE for someone looking for a happy place. -- Tavix (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I imagine the surprise of users who are looking for gorillas consuming gerbils. – Uanfala (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, I can't imagine someone looking for that. WP:HAPPYPLACE is actually somewhat plausible. -- Tavix (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. If the consensus isn't keep, I'd rather it be deleted than retargetted. Retargetting it will cause confusion in the existing talk page archives where people used it knowingly to refer to ANI. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anyone looking for a happy place wouldn't be on wikipedia in the first place, and if they were, I find it hard to imagine they might type this oddly capitalised unspaced WP-prefixed phrase. Let's leave this redirect to its primary use in humorous linking in conversations between editors who already know about ANI. – Uanfala (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I simply do not find it humourous for this to point to ANI, I know what ANI is and this is altogether inappropriate, I simply don't appreciate sarcasm or consume it, I just can't take the connection between this and ANI as humour of any form, I can imagine this being a plausible redirect. A WP:SURPRISE factor is also involved. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's humorous precisely because it's surprising and there's no straightforward connection to its target.– Uanfala (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, but I somewhat perceive this as harmful having looked at it again, people who don't know what ANI is will simply be mislead and might even engage in vandalism when it is in fact very serious business over there, thus it is almost harmful, I can imagine a newbie getting used to the "WP:" shortcuts wanting to find something along the lines of WP:FUN and is instead mislead. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the nominator doesn't find it humorous, but I do. Causing absolutely no harm. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Juliancolton: Could you at least explain how this does not cause any harm, just because you find it humourous is not a reason towards keeping this, and neither is the fact that I don't find it that way a strong enough argument for any outcome, I have explained that it could be potentially harmful for it can be surprising in a harmful way, they could instead assume that there is no "happy place" in the encyclopedia. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Champion:: I think the burden of proof rather falls on you to show that it is harmful. I'm open to the argument, but I can't really see it. Redirects like this are used on a small handful of user talk pages to refer to ANI as a rather drama-prone and often ridiculous place. What's the actual harm here? —Tom Morris (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Tom Morris: I have already give an explanation several times now in this discussion, I could imagine this being harmful in every way, I really don't think we need a whole bunch of these redirects, I'm not going to continue repeating what I said, I think this is getting ridiculous. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 20:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Champion: You haven't given any explanation, you've given a hand-wavy made-up scenario, but you haven't actually shown any evidence of harmfulness or offensiveness. You have assumed it is offensive due to your complete immunity to anything approximating humour. If you seriously think an old, jokey redirect pointing to ANI "causes harm", you need to explain what that harm is. So far your explanation starts with "I can imagine...". That's not evidence, that's a just so story you made up. I'd be happy to change my !vote and support deletion if some actual evidence of harm can be shown rather than just ridiculous outrage-for-the-sake-of-outrage. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Tom Morris: Seeing as you are a regular at ANI (I am not), you must be aware that Neelix (talk · contribs), who was an admin at the time, was discovered having created a whole bunch on immature or inappropriate redirects back in late 2015, I'm not going to go into depth as to what the redirects are, because I hate even to think about topics like that, if you don't know (I assume you do), look that thread up. Anyway, Neelix was basically the only editor that thought those redirects were harmless, when those are the sorts of redirects that a vandal would make. So I don't see how redirects like these could be any less harmful or any more useful than the several thousand ones discovered back then. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Champion: Yes, I am aware of the Neelix case. I nominated some of his less savoury redirects for deletion after they were discovered and I recall (speedy) deleting a fair few of them. I can imagine scenarios where redirects can do harm, especially to BLPs (if we, say, redirected "chronic manipulative liar" to an individual person), as well as the trivialisation of a serious mainspace topic (e.g. some of Neelix's now-deleted redirects to breast cancer topics). That's not what the question was. I asked how this particular redirect is harmful because all I have seen from you is rather strange hypothetical scenarios. (I am also not a "regular" at ANI. I go there every so often, generally find it repulsive and then try to forget it exists.) —Tom Morris (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Tom Morris: I'd argue it is harmful for similar reasons that the Neelix redirects are, people coming across one of the offensive redirects that he created will think that Wikipedia is an immature playground for they are childish redirects to a serious topic, people coming across this one will do the same, for this is also just childish to redirect it to a serious noticeboard, redirect it to a place where the actual content is childish, if you may. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no evidence that this is, or is likely to be, harmful (Champion, just because you assert something is true multiple times does not make it so). ANI should be a happy place as it should be a place for calm resolution of problems that stop the encyclopaedia being improved. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe, but I'd say any place where serious business is involved should not be called a "happy place", well, if you argue that, I can argue anything is a happy place. I never asserted anything is true, by the way, an opinion is just an opinion, it is not fact. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I have said before, to me, this redirect reads "Happy Place" which is very offensive, very hurtful and completely irrelevant to its target. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Codename Lisa: I agree, but would you support a retarget as outlined by Tavix. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Retarget would be great too. After all some meanings are target-sensitive. It is not rude to have a "prick" redirect that goes to "goad" but it is very rude to have it go to "George W. Bush". —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Codename Lisa: Why do you think it is offensive and hurtful? —Tom Morris (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you ever been to ANI? —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. That's precisely why I created the redirect. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then my opinion of you just took a plunge. —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll be sobbing about that all night. Meanwhile, neither you nor Champion have explained exactly how it is offensive or hurtful. I'm very much sensitive to not causing harm or distress, and if someone can show me any logical, reasoned path between a six-year-old jokey darkly sarcastic redirect used on a dozen or so user talk page archives and any actual real-world harm, I will change my !vote in a heartbeat. WP:IDONTLIKEIT ≠ evidence of harm. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, you want an explanation as to why it is hurtful? I'll tell you. ANI is a place where people with grave figurative wounds open threads seeking administrative assistance. A pack of insensitive, obnoxious non-admins who dream of receiving the blessed mop one day, frequent there, seeking to fulfill the community participation prerequisite of adminship by adding insult to the injuries of the assistance seekers. Eventually, they may or may not receive any administrative help, as Wikipedia admins have very little influence over those who cause grievances and are forbidden from taking punitive actions. ANI is a dark, chilly, sad little place. And yet, oblivious to the sordid state of affairs there, you call it a happy place and think it is an amusing joke! Well, guess what? I am not amused. —Codename Lisa (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • "oblivious to the sordid state of affairs there". As an admin and someone who has seen altogether far too many ridiculous and awful ANI threads, I'm fully aware of how much ghastly a place ANI is for all involved. I've watched the community struggle to slowly create more positive and productive alternatives (like WP:DRN), and yet ANI stays put like a bad smell. And instead of properly fixing ANI (or dispensing with it entirely), the community deletes pages like WP:ANISUCKS that point out how broken, nasty and cruel ANI is. Do you really think I, or anybody else who uses WP:HAPPYPLACE as a shortcut on user talk or project pages earnestly and genuinely thinks that ANI is actually a generally happy, useful or productive place? Do you actually think anyone who uses this shortcut on a talk page does so because they genuinely think ANI isn't a pretty bloody awful place? That's precisely why WP:HAPPYPLACE points to it, to darkly satirise how appalling it is, to cast it in stark relief. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. I honestly don't see the resemblance to the Violent Factionalizing Debate discussion but I do like Tavix' suggestion. Mihirpmehta (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a pretty harmless joke I created back in 2011 and is being used on about a dozen user talk pages since. Nobody seems to have fleshed out the claim that it is offensive, harmful or rude in a compelling way. There's nothing wrong with a bit of Wikipedia-related humour. Nobody is forcing anyone to use this redirect if they have a chronic and life-threatening aversion to sarcasm. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (weak delete, oppose retarget), per Tom Morris — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sorry, I just couldn't help noticing that the discussion here seems to have taken on some of the characteristics of the redirect's target. – Uanfala (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect and tag as humour or retarget Wikipedia:Department of Fun. Deryck C. 19:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems unlikely that there will be consensus to delete or retarget this, but I thought Deryck's suggestion to add a sort of disclaimer might be worth discussing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its humour. I realize ANI isn't fun, but anyone who has been around Wikipedia long enough to know what shortcuts are who see WP:HAPPYPLACE and is redirected to it, will most likely get it is a joke. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's nothing offensive, rude or hurtful about it, It's a harmless an humorous joke, Will Wikipedia:Great Dismal Swamp or Wikipedia:CESSPIT be up here next week I wonder?. It's an inoffensive joke and therefore should be kept. –Davey2010Talk 21:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To those who are offended by the dark, sarcasm of this redirect as it targets its present page, please consider... that while I'm sorry to see such hurt feelings in others, I have found that the harder one tries to remove a smile from someone's face, the wider that someone's grin grows. You don't have to believe me; however, if you've ever tried to get a child to stop grinning, then you know precisely that to which I allude. By the by, this works especially well with someone who just doesn't seem to want to smile! Perk up – and Happiest of New Years to all!  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 17:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Oh, and no smiling allowed in this discussion. No – no, don't start smiling; it's not allowed! No, I said wipe that smile off your face. No smiling aloud!!! PS added by  Paine Ellsworth  u/c
  • Keep as harmless fun. We can even tag it with "Template:R from antonym" --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 20 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.

Fox War 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 No consensus. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This seems to be a pejorative term for the target and the redirect does get uses, and someone encountering this term will understand what it is referring to when they use this redirect. We have {{R from non-neutral name}} for these sorts of redirects and so I'll tag it as such without prejudice. Thryduulf (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I'm seeing this turn up in use by a bunch of different publications, such as in this opinion article and this book, and while the wording is totally pejorative... yes, I agree that the redirect seems helpful. I'm not sure, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may be true but I'm not changing my vote until this is actually mentioned in the target because it is unlikely to be helpful to readers. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not every pejorative alternative name needs to be, or should be, mentioned in the article. Someone using this will have encountered the name and will just be looking to see what it is referring to and this redirect will therefore be exactly what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My first thought was War Stories with Oliver North, a program that airs on Fox News Channel. -- Tavix (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The uses I'm finding in search results are all for the channel as a whole not a specific program on it, so retargetting to that would be confusing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't suggested to retarget there. I'm just saying that Fox News does have war programming. -- Tavix (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:51, 17 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.

Ear Prosthesis[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 - nomination withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect's title does not follow WP:TITLEFORMAT and, in my opinion, should be renamed to "Ear prosthesis". 114.75.78.136 (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Redirects don't have to follow TITLEFORMAT. See Template:R from other capitalization, which is meant exactly for this kind of case. 208.95.51.72 (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will admit, I was not aware of this; thank you for notifying me of it. Perhaps instead a separate redirect page for Ear prosthesis should be created instead, while retaining the above redirect. 114.75.78.136 (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no reason not to have it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. I'll create the lower-case redirect now. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Nom seems to be okay with keeping it as well --Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the nominator of this discussion: my IP address has changed. Since the alternative redirect with a sentence case title has been created, I no longer wish this redirect to be renamed. I would close this discussion now, but I am unsure if I have the authority to do so: could someone who does have the authority please close this discussion as Keep? 122.104.1.161 (talk) 06:07, 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.

A.V. Software[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 rename redirect to AV software and hatnote the article but don't keep existing redirect. A straight application of the vote tally would've been misleading. The discussion below has established that (1) antivirus software is the primary topic, but (2) there is ambiguity with audiovisual, nevertheless (3) revealing search results doesn't help the reader. With these in mind, moving the redirect over to AV software without retaining the punctuated "A.V. Software". Deryck C. 11:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous, in IT, the abbreviation A.V. can also refer to audiovisual, and note we don't have AV software itself. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to AV software and keep pointing to Antivirus software which is the primary topic. Hatnote to AV (disambiguation) for other cases. I don't see any articles that refer to it with the periods. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given the ambiguity with audiovisual. -- Tavix (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix, even if the antivirus meaning is probably the most likely. – Uanfala (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to AV, where many software options for "AV" are listed. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The periods are pretty much wrong for either "audiovisual" or "anti-virus", and the term isn't formatted as "AV (software)" or something else that makes pointing to a disambiguation page the logical thing to do. If anything, this looks like a proper name, like that of a specific company. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 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) 14:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Given the ambiguity, I'd rather just let people search. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Searching this gives none of the suggested possible targets in this RfD or the listed entries at AV. You can try it yourself. It literally helps nobody. At least keeping would give someone searching this a likely topic and a hatnote (if AngusWOOF's suggestion is adopted). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and hatnote per AngusWOOF. Per Patar knight straight deletion would be harmful here. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 28 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.

Chris O'Connell (tennis)[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 Although it is not necessary to keep this redirect for attribution purposes, there is consensus that it is plausible as a search term.(non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Chris O'Connell (tennis) article was created 4 days ago in what I deem was a mistake. Another article had already been created at Christopher O'Connell. Now if this article was at "Chris O'Connell" or had been longstanding, I could understand turning it into a redirect. But it was only a couple days and "Chris O'Connell (tennis)" isn't some natural phrase that everyone assumes is a great title that they mistakenly go to. It seems best to simply delete this recent creation. I tried a speedy delete but that didn't fly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The target is a tennis player who goes by the name Chris, and who could easily be at this title as Chris O'Connell is a different person, so some form of disambiguation is needed and "(tennis)" is a very common way of naming articles about tennis players. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As mentioned, this isn't a common search term, as someone would most likely search Chris O'Connell instead of Chris O'Connell (tennis). I went ahead and linked the tennis player in the Chris O'Connell article, so if anyone is confused, they can be directed to Christopher O'Connell. This redirect doesn't really serve any purpose. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just spotted that this is a {{R from merge}}, so in addition to being a useful search term it serves to maintain attribution too. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This redirect doesn't really serve any purpose. Well, it prevents a duplicate article from being created at this title. If the redirect was created when Christopher O'Connell was created, there never would've been a duplicate. -- Tavix (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's been merged, we aren't allowed to delete it. 208.95.51.72 (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at what was merged? User Biblioworm merged in incorrect info. A key that was useless and a ranking that was wrong. It was promptly removed. If you all feel it should stay because it's a legit name for the player, that's fine. But the merge didn't help and was removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It appears the Camogie Association president is primary topic, so the tennis player gets the dab and it's a plausible redirect. I'm a bit confused about the merging stuff though; was there another tennis player? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @AngusWOOF: "Christopher O'Connell" was the article created for the notable tennis player a couple weeks ago. It's the name he prefers and there was no problem. Some editor later created "Chris O'Connell (tennis)". I tried to speedy delete the new article since I felt that "Chris O'Connell (tennis)" wasn't a redirect that would naturally be looked for and it was only a day or so old. I was shot down on the speedy delete. It was simply redirected to "Christopher O'Connell." Another editor then merged this content and tagged the two articles with merge tags. The thing is that content was incorrect and was deleted along with the merge tags. I brought a formal request for delete of "Chris O'Connell (tennis)" here, and that's where we stand. To be fair "Chris O'Connell (tennis)" is normal for tennis project if there had been multiple Chris O'Connell articles on wikipedia and the subject was known as Chris O'Connell... But he prefers Christopher per his registration with professional tennis. This is where we stand. No problem with making it a redirect as most here seem to prefer, I just thought it was useless. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining the background on this. I see a news article where he is referred to as Chris [2] and then there's his twitter [3]. The article itself can go by Christopher as his preferred name and for dab purposes but I think the tennis dab is useful. Agree with removing the R from merge tag. There was nothing to merge from the created article that wasn't already in the first one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing. The main reason to go by Christopher is that in professional tennis you are REQUIRED to register your name with the International Tennis Association or you can't play. You can spell it however you want as long as it's in the English alphabet. He could spell it "Crissssss" if he wanted to and that's how pro tennis would refer to him. It's his choice. He can even change his mind as long as he lets the ITF know about it. Right now he has chosen to go by Christopher. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:43, 21 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.

Lost (TV Series)[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 SNOW retarget. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest retargeting to Lost (TV series). I can't figure out why one capitalisation gets disambiguated and the other one doesn't. Daß Wölf 01:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nominator. This had always been the target, until it was changed by Neelix back in 2013. I see nothing problematic about restoring the original target. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the only other entry on the list that can even remotely be considered a TV series was the short lived UK reality TV show and a believe that a hatlink could help the few people that may have been looking for that show.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 15:47, 17 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_17&oldid=1141906034"