Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 13, 2017.

It Takeis 2[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 now that the nominator's rationale no longer applies. -- Tavix (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment short web series with Takei and Brad [1] Leaning towards keep and add R without mention. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a small paragraph for the series. It lasted nine episodes, but was discussed on multiple media sources. It doesn't have the "2" though in any of its marketing so I would delete that variant unless that's attracted a bunch of views. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:25, 15 November 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.

Codigo Postal[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 Código Postal by AngusWOOF. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN, also this is Spanish for "postal code" not ZIP Code. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've boldly retargeted this to Código Postal and put the literal translation in the lead sentence. Hopefully it won't need a hatnote to postal code. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:03, 14 November 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.

Dr. Laura Skandera Trombley[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. We do not generally use "dr." and other titles (as king, saint, etc.) - Nabla (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The scholar is not actually a doctor. The redirect was retargeted following a revert of page move vandalism. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She can't take over the moniker for Dr. Laura. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no more reason to use this than for all the other Ph.D.'s in Wikipedia.Or, for that matter, having a redirect for every Mr. people might refer to Mr. whomever, butthey know to look for the name without the title and they know here also. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 20 November 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.

World Café (conversational process)[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". After almost a month, I don't foresee another relist making the consensus any clearer than it is currently. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary disambiguation, and not a very plausible search string.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This was created out of distinguishing it from the radio show. Does it still have value now that it's primary topic and that World Cafe (all caps) is for the radio show? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because the huge parenthetical string isn't anything anyone would really use, and it doesn't really properly describe it anyway (it's not a "process"). Given that we only have two articles, and they're WP:SMALLDETAILS disambiguated as world café and World Cafe, and we don't even have more obvious redirects like World Cafe (radio show), there's no point to retaining this pair of impractical redirs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  11:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible search term - and when you start typing it in the search box, the target World café is the top hit anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and is useful when an unambiguous link is desired. Furthermore, one of them is an {{R from move}} of the title for about two years, and the other is {{R without diacritics}} of the former title. There's no harm in keeping them, but there is is potential harm in deletion from link rot. -- Tavix (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that there's only one article link to one of them (and none to the other), from Unconference, and that is actually piped to the current article title as [[World Café (conversational process)|World Café]] - so it says "World Café" in the text, that is piped to World Café (conversational process) and that in turn is redirected to World Café - I really don't see what actual practical use these are. I don't see why an unambiguous link is needed when the target is already at the primary title - I can only see the need if the primary title was itself a disambiguation page. Can you help me understand how these might actually be used? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. altogether unnecessary. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Tavix, and a sort of inverse WP:SURPRISE. It may be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but "world café" sounds like a restaurant, not a conversation practice. It's entirely plausible that a reader would think disambiguation is necessary. And the usual reasons for {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} also apply. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix and BDD. {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and {{R without diacritics}} would apply. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep as a bog-standard {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, bordering on an {{R from other disambiguation}}: the difference between the titles of World café and World Cafe is small, it was even smaller before the former article's move to a lower-case title, and the vast majority of readers can't be expected to know which is which off the top of their head. I'm not even sure that the neat distinction between the two titles is to any large extent upheld in reality, so deletion wouldn't make sense even in the alternative universe where all wikipedia readers search using perfectly capitalised and diacriticced search strings. Also, the first redirect is a recent {{R from move}}, so deleting it risks breaking incoming external links. – Uanfala 12:05, 22 November 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.

Diocese of Jerusalem[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. After a couple readings, I was unable to find consensus for any of these proposals. The status quo will remain. -- Tavix (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deletion of the redirect and move of the page Anglican Diocese of Jerusalem Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem to Diocese of Jerusalem. None of the bodies listed at Patriarchate of Jerusalem are commonly called the Diocese of Jerusalem, so I contend that (and a quick Google looks like I'm probably right) the Episcopal/Anglican diocese is clearly the primary usage for "Diocese of Jerusalem". DBD 08:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, it is right now, but as you may notice, I have recently renovated the article to refer to the Diocese primarily in preparation for this move. But I see what you mean now — I mistyped the proposal! Thank you. DBD 17:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem on its own website, calls itself a diocese. [2] Multiple sources also refer to Orthodox Diocese of Jerusalem as being part of the patriarchate itself. [3], [4] [5] I don't see a reason to favour the Anglican religious unit, when this name is used by multiple other faiths. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "keep" as an option is that Patriarchate of Jerusalem is a disambig page on which the Anglican diocese is not listed! Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is listed. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments of Patar knight. Listing only the Anglican entity under the heading "Diocese of Jerusalem" in the article Patriarchate of Jerusalem is problematic for the same reason. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT: change to disambig listing the Anglican and Latin dioceses specifically and then the other patriarchates below. I can see some small argument for disambiguation between the Anglicans (always referred to as a diocese) and the Latins (apparently so referred to with some frequency); GHits show that for the others the usage is rare. In any case the solution needs to make the Anglicans as one of the primary targets, since they are the only ones who aren't referred to in some other way! Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would oppose this as duplicative of Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Creating a new DAB would just be the existing DAB but with a new name. Changing the current DAB according to your suggestion would unreasonably promote the Anglican diocese to a position of prominence, especially since patriarchates are technically higher in the non-Anglican religious hierarchy . Google Hits here is a poor metric because while the Anglican diocese is the name of the diocese, the others all have dioceses, but are usually referred to as patriarchates. Given that "diocese" as a hierarchical term and Jerusalem are both strongly associated with Christianity, I think that someone searching for "Diocese of Jerusalem" is more likely to be thinking about Christian parish organizations in Jerusalem in general, rather the Anglican diocese of Jerusalem in particular, especially since the Anglican Diocese does not have the same historical connection to the area as the other denominations do. Pointing them to the existing DAB would seem to work best. I would keep the current format, but maybe change "Diocese of Jerusalem may refer to" to "Diocese of Jerusalem may refer to any diocese-level unit of the above patriarchates or:" ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The existing DAB represents an unsatisfactory first attempt at dealing with this issue. And I think you're wrong about the searching: someone searching for "diocese" is more likely to be searching for something named "diocese" than something named "patriarchate", because if they are aware of the overlap they're more likely than not to be aware enough not to be searching for a vague diocese as opposed to a specific church. And as below, this comes across as an attempt to deny the Anglicans recognition. Mangoe (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I would ask for better arguments than that for the priority for the Anglican entity. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it's on you to provide an argument at all that addresses your reason for making sure that the one thing that is always called "Diocese of Jerusalem" isn't reached by Diocese of Jerusalem: it is you, after all, who pointed the redirect away from the Anglicans. And referring to the Anglican "entity" is a sign of parochialism. Use its real name. Mangoe (talk) 11:14, 21 November 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.

Molly Ann[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 Molly Ann Brook. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous title for a redirect where the subject isn't even mentioned in the target. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If there's no mention at the target, having the redirect is misleading. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Molly Ann Brook because I think it's plausible to refer to a body of water without the suffix. -- Tavix (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    When you type "Molly Ann" in the search box, Molly Ann Brook is already the top match - and because of the way that works, we don't really need redirects from such partial-name abbreviations. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly enough, WP:PTM uses a body of water as an example of something that is not a PTM: the example being that Mississippi River is commonly referred to as the Mississippi. In fact, it's not uncommon to see a body of water article with the suffix omitted completely (eg: Rhine and Nile). In my experience, that holds true for most bodies of water. Without any competing use, I think the best solution would be to retarget the redirect to the the brook, and we can revisit if it becomes wiki-ambiguous. -- Tavix (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I now agree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talk) 15:07, 13 November 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.

Lua:Error[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. Please do alert me if this ends up breaking something—or if you can fix it yourself, feel free to bypass notifying me, fix it, and leave a comment about it here and/or the redirect talk page. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for WP:R2 deletion, but User:Ritchie333 removed the tag stating decline speedy, not mainspace. However, we do not keep unused redirects from mainspace to the module namespace, so this redirect from mainspace should be deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't we got a Lua namespace then? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the namespace is called Module. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well js code and such may not show up as linking. If you are completely sure that this won't break a bunch of scripts or mess with Module:Error then it seems ok. Dysklyver 14:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as invalid namespace. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talk) 15:03, 13 November 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.

Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area[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 but unrefine, since a source to verify the claim has been provided. -- Tavix (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also listed:

These redirects target Washtenaw County, Michigan#Metropolitan Statistical Area. The section "Metropolitan Statistical Area" does not exist and I don't think it ever did. The target article's lead suggests that the Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area = Washtenaw County. I have not yet found that claim to be supported in WP:RS. What should be done?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep The second sentence of the county article begins, "Washtenaw County comprises the Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area[.]" A look at the 2013 Michigan MSA map from the census bureau shows this to be the case. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess, given the source provided by Mangoe. But remove the anchor as the target section doesn't exist. – Uanfala 14:26, 27 November 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.

War in Iraq, 2003-present[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget as suggested. I take BDD's proposals as fairly uncontroversial. If there's any objection whatsoever, I'm ready to re-open the discussion. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 13:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target only covers events through 2011. While these redirects made sense when they were created, they are now several years outdated and may be seen as misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy retarget to Iraq conflict (2003–present). I think we must have just overlooked this! (Not too surprising, given how many varied articles we have on the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.) --BDD (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I think I was a bit too speedy myself. Vote above stands for the first item ("War in"), but the general "History of" should go to History of Iraq#Recent history (2003–present). Still a very clear call IMO. --BDD (talk) 15:02, 20 November 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.

Corporate terrorism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate "terrorism" ≠ actual terrorism. Note this redirect was originally targeted to Corporate crime. --Nevé–selbert 20:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete possibly a real concept, maybe worth a future article, but not discussed anywhere in Wikipedia right now. Corporate crime doesn't mention terrorism, and terrorism doesn't mention corporations as perpetrators. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Write an article at least as a stub. It's an important and rational valid topic. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 20 November 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.

Back and to the left[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 22#Back and to the left

Orlando In Heaven[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry for bringing this here. This redirect was the result of a page move. Typically, I speedy the version with improper capitalization and that last we here of it. For some reason, the tag hasn't been followed as it usually is. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - This has regularly not been the case. Look at my CSD log for October alone and anyone will see examples exactly like this which were rightfully speedily deleted without issue.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should not expect readers to know the exact capitalization of insignificant words in the middle of proper nouns, especially when many title case capitalization schemes have different rules for them. There's no good reason why "Foo in Foo" should be a red link if "Foo In Foo" is an article except pedantry. Miscapitalizing words like "in", "and" etc. are more likely to be made in links than last names are, and I've noted below why those are useful. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar knight. Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects with improper capitalisations might be deletable if the capitalisation error is either too gross (e.g. Orlando in HEAVEN), or where it occurs in within the disambiguator (..(Album) instead of ..(album)). However, in this case the capitalisation is plausible (I'm not even sure it's an error) and it's part of a proper name. Of course, the redirect can be tagged with {{R unprintworthy}} so that it doesn't clutter the search box drop-down suggestions. – Uanfala 13:27, 21 November 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.

Kay turner[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. Any longer discussion here is unlikely to result in a consensus either way. Of course, there's no prejudice against starting a more general discussion about the current RfD practices with regard to miscapitalisations like this. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 13:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I had to bring this here. The redirect is the result of a typo. Last names are always capitalized unless stated otherwise. Sorry for wasting everyone's time here; usually no one removes a speedy tag for something this obvious. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Likely alternative capitalizations" is explicitly listed as one of the main purposes of redirects per WP:RPURPOSE. The inverse of the nomination statement is true: unless there's a good reason why a redirect from a reasonable alternative capitalization should be deleted, they should be kept. Yes, almost all last names in the title of articles are capitalized, but the rules for article titles do not apply to redirects. Messing up the capitalization for the first letter of the surname is an extremely common mistake. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - It has been common practice for me to see typos exactly like this speedily deleted. Whether a redirect existed for this typo or not, the search would still direct to this article. Not only is the capitalization incorrect, but the redirect is also completely useless.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then those speedy deletions were wrong and contrary to both our guideline on redirects and the CSD policy, which only allows the deletion of an implausible typo. Not all navigation is through searching. Some people navigate through URLs, whether through direct URL editing or from external links. Having a redirect from this alternative capitalization also prevents duplicate articles from being created via links. A well-meaning editor could try to link to "Foo foo", see the redlink and create an article, even when a perfectly good article exists at "Foo Foo". Having the redirect would avoid the workload that comes from fixing situations like this. Creating articles for "Foo Foo" at "Foo foo" is an extremely common situation for new pages which frequently arises at CSD, and was the case for this redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone through the log and restored the articles where WP:R3 would be inapplicable because they would normally be kept at RFD because of WP:RCAPS. @RHaworth and Alex Shih: Deleting redirects with reasonable capitalization mistakes should not be done via CSD.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar knight. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. there is no more need of this than for every individual in Wikipedia. If this is justified , then we also need redirects for kay Turner and kay turner., and the same three for every bio. (if by any chance thisis kept, it's time to have a discussion on the guideline, because this is hopelessly unrealistic.) DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 20 November 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.

2018 in country music[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 moot. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add 61 days and dark horse to the artist's page as well? They don't need separate articles yet, but a mention on the artist article should help. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax 0677: WP:OMGWTFBBQ. -- Tavix (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - @Tavix:, "VOLUNTEER" is not an acronym, and "JFDI" is only one acronym. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jax 0677: The point is that it's hard for others to understand what you're trying to say when you just throw WP shortcuts at them. "Avoid cryptic language" is the first sentence of the nutshell, and that is the applicable part that applies to your comment. Defending yourself with the fact that you've only used one acronym misses the point of the essay (and in a way, proves the point I'm trying to make). -- Tavix (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added them to their articles, but if they are deleted for the same problems, those entries will have to be removed from the list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 15 November 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.

Provo Central (UTA station)[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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to move the article to this page title to make it uniform with other stations on this rail passenger line. RES2773 (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry. Please disregard this discussion, it is not in the correct location. RES2773 (talk) 00:42, 13 November 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_November_13&oldid=1138581960"