Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 16, 2018.

Linux filesystem[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 File system#Linux. (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linux file system does not exist and could possibly be ambiguous. We have Linux file systems -> File system which is fine as the plural almost universally refers to it in that context, but the singular form could refer to either file system or Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. From my memory it is not ambiguous in a text because the context is usually obvious, but this redirect may be if a reader who in unfamiliar with the topic looks it up. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my remarks about the plural, see [1] as an example. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to File system#LINUX per nom as with Linux file systems. Jumping to Filesystem Hierarchy Standard may be a surprise unless the redirect was Linux FHS. Add redirects here and hatnote to Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to File system#LINUX per AngusWOOF. Filesystem and filesystem hierarchy are different concepts; I think AngusWOOF found the best target for this. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to File system#Linux (not sure why the all-caps). ext4 isn't a valid target, the general article on file systems is the best option for this semi-vague term. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's from the file systems redirect. I'll fix that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:02, 18 August 2018 (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.

Second Amendment and Cannabis[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Second Amendment isn't discussed in the target, and legal issues relating to cannabis and firearms are only mentioned once in passing. A reader who searches for this is left none the wiser as to the connection between the two mostly unrelated topics. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:XY AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AngusWOOF. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The redirect looks nonsense to me. How can the two topics be related? funplussmart (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article that was at this location for an hour and a half in 2015 was about a regulation that prohibits medicinal marijuana users in the U.S. from owning firearms. That regulation and related legal issues could potentially be a notable topic in their own right, but that would also be an argument for deletion per the tenth point of WP:RDEL. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2018 (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.

Mota Varachha[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 27#Mota Varachha

Linda Wong (actress)[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 Linda Wong. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Wong (singer) is also an actress, and unlike the pornographic actress, is a living person. The redirect should therefore be retargeted there, or otherwise to Linda Wong, the dab page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2018 (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.

Sackful[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 27#Sackful

Citizenship of the Caribbean Community[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that this is a real concept - redirect arises from an article which had one unsourced sentence and a gallery of passport images, tagged as "unsourced, OR, fiction", then just "unsourced", then redirected to the article about the passports. PamD 22:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete Citizenship of the European Union exists because an actual treaty among EU members (the Maastricht Treaty) defined the concept. There is no parallel among CARICOM treaties. There are three use cases of the phrase "CARICOM citizenship" out there (no one uses the phrase "citizenship of the Caribbean Community"):
    1. An aspirational proposal for a form of honorary citizenship in 1987 [2], that apparently never went anywhere
    2. A careless & legally meaningless turn of phrase by the promoters who refer clients to citizenship-by-investment (CIP) programs [3]
    3. A proposal to give some new CARICOM body a mandate to regulate member states' citizenship matters, because of problems with CIP programs [4]
There really do not seem to be enough sources about this concept (rather than just using the phrase without defining it) to even give it a section in Caribbean Community, since nearly anything you could say (including everything I've said above) is WP:OR. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2018 (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.

Calms[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. It's a little weak, but despite some of the wishy-washy comments, keep is the only real consensus here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is ambiguous, can refer to many things B dash (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment can refer to many things The only competing target at calm (disambiguation) is calmness. Nothing else there can take -s as a suffix. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per the IP as "calms" isn't a good search term for "calmness" but it absolutely is for the ITCZ. There is a frequently used acronym in the field of DevOps but we don't have any content about it that I can find and I'm not immediately convinced of its notability or encyclopaedic relevance anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to disambiguation at Calm or keep. On its own, "calms" may be a plural noun or a singular verb, making it possible that the reader could be looking for calmness or something else on the existing disambiguation page. I agree though that one is more likely to search for a noun than a verb, so I can see why Intertropical Convergence Zone is a tad more plausible and I won't oppose keeping. Deryck C. 13:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was about to !vote "keep" on account of the fact that among the entries on the dab page only the current target can be referred to as "calms" (the plural can be used figuratively for a variety of situations, but none of them seem to overlap with Calmness, which is about the mental state). But then I looked up the term in a dictionary (OED), and it turns out that "calm" can also be a countable noun referring to: 1) cames of a window pane; 2) heddles of a loom; 3) a mould for casting metal objects (and the source of the expression "in the calms" meaning "in a state of contstruction"). I've added the first two to the dab page Calm (but not the the third one as it appears to be obsolete). However, I don't think we should be retargeting there: only three of the two dozen entries are relevant, so if "disambiguation" is preferred, then it had better be done with a separate page. I don't know if I would go for disambiguating though: the current target is the primary topic for the plural term and readers looking for any of the other two are most likely to type the singular after all. – Uanfala (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2018 (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.

Violet-blue (color)[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) 20:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should be redirected to List of Crayola crayon colors after information about the color was removed from the Indigo article Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment BlueViolet is a HTML colour. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Those searching or linking to this exact title want a colour. Give them a colour. Deryck C. 13:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think this redirect makes sense since the Indigo article describes it as "the color between violet and blue", and it certainly gives more information about the color than the Crayola page. Also I'd like to note that Violet-blue and Blue-violet also redirects to Indigo, so regardless of how this discussion turns out, all three pages should redirect to the same page for consistency. -Sonicwave (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've added those two redirects to this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sonicwave (though Violet-blue should just point to Indigo rather than a nonexistent section, and whatever target Violet-blue ends up pointing to should have a hatnote for Violet blue). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A reader searching for the name of a colour shouldn't be presumed to want to read about a crayon. "Blue-violet" is discussed at Indigo, which makes it a salient redirect target for "violet-blue (color)". (Agree with Arms & Hearts that "Violet-blue" shouldn't point to a section that doesn't exist) › Mortee talk 22:22, 17 August 2018 (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.

Denim (color)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 27#Denim (color)

Oplan Double Barrel[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. Essentially no consensus, but the inclusion of the phrase addresses the nominator's concern. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title not mentioned at target. I know that these two subjects are related, but I'm not sure in what way. I read it was a police program to target high-level drug personalities ([5]) but I am not sure if it is the same exact thing as the drug war.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I see some news articles about it and Oplan Tokhang. [6] So if these refer to the same thing as the article, then it is legit. There aren't any other operations of the same name that would require a MOS:DABMENTION AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The name was mentioned in the lede at the time the redirect was created (as was Oplan Tokhang – should this be added to the nomination?) but removed a few days later by Hariboneagle927, who noted that "Oplan Tokhang and Oplan Double Barrel (along with the anti-drugs campaign in prisons by another name) is just part of the larger campaign against drugs". There are lots of sources discussing both names in reference to the target, so we ought to be able to find a way to define both in the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We'll benefit from more eyes looking into this to figure out the relationship between the redirect title and the target topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Added a new sentence to the opening paragraph of the article to provide mention of the phrase Oplan Double Barrel (as well as Project Tokhang). Bagoto (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2018 (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.

Endowment ceremon[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) 20:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Highly doubtful misspelling. Naraht (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Raymond1922 (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Typos or misspellings that differ from the correct spelling by only one letter are not implausible and do no harm to the encyclopaedia. "Ceremon" doesn't seem to be a word in any language, so there's no risk that this might cause any confusion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia searches don't have a character limit this low to think this is a common typo. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:37, 16 August 2018 (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.

Ligma[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. H/T to Angus, per usual ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable redirect target. Delete and salt (because memecrufters will just recreate if it isn't salted). Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 00:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: "Ligma" and "Ligma VIP" are songs by the target, and redirects from non-notable songs to their artists is standard. The two vandalisms so far were the accounts' only edits and that can be deterred by semi-protection. 93 (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 93. We have around 25,000 redirects from songs because song titles are often plausible search terms even when the song is not notable in itself. The only other mentions of "ligma" or "LIGMA" in the encyclopaedia are at LGBT rights in Croatia#Post-communist era, which could be worthy of a hatnote at the target, and Ninja (streamer)#Ligma death hoax, which probably would not be. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Arms & Hearts' findings. I think the other mentions are at least as noteworthy as the song and they all pass WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think it's worth discussing the merits of a dab page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. The recent meme, in my opinion, has been more covered than the song. Users are probably looking for the death hoax more. Abequinn14 (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguare. I got a Draft:Ligma (meme) about this topic of meme and this should not be redirected to the song. Superabnoxious (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, I've created entries for these as well as a Ligma Corporation which was a manufacturing company in Nashville, Illinois. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The page had lost the RFD notice. I’ve restored it, along with the original redirect. — Gorthian (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: valid dab page. PamD 08:20, 21 August 2018 (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:WikiProject Karnataka[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 to function as a wrapper, as discussed. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This makes it look like there is a WikiProject banner. I had to cleanup several things tagged with this by accident. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There are several links from user pages but no transclusions – the links seem to all be via transclusions of Wikipedia:WikiProject Karnataka/Article alerts/Table and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Article alerts, rather than uses of the userbox. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete confusing as this isn't a WikiProject talk-page banner, but an alias for a userbox. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • An alternative to deletion is to convert the redirect into a wrapper for the correct talk-page banner: {{WP India|karnataka=yes}}. – Uanfala (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would this be useful, given that the Karnataka Wikiproject is marked as inactive? I think we might be better off deleting this in order to encourage that articles be correctly tagged with {{WP India}}, but I'm not sure how we normally deal with talk page banners for inactive projects. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pinging @Redrose64: who probably knows that sort of thing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Simplest is to amend Template:WikiProject Karnataka to contain the following: 
        {{WPBannerMeta/inactive
|PROJECT=Karnataka
|BANNER_NAME=Template:WikiProject Karnataka
}}
        Best is to convert it into a wrapper for {{WikiProject India}} but you would really need to pass all the parameters through, not just the obvious ones (|class={{{class|}}} |importance={{{importance|}}} etc.) but even such things as |andaman={{{andaman|}}} that might never be relevant. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2018 (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:ITSCRUFT[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) 20:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking re-target to WP:Discussing cruft.As many AFD regulars will know, LISTCRUFT and all that stuff are immensely cited in AfDs and the new target provides a comprehensive outlook, rather than branding it as a ridiculous argument (which, it is not). ∯WBGconverse 13:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There are numerous crufty essays including Wikipedia:Fancruft; Wikipedia:Example cruft; Wikipedia:Cruftcruft; Wikipedia:Discussing cruft; Wikipedia:Schoolcruft; etc. The shortcut WP:ITSCRUFT was orginally created to point to the relevant section in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The latter essay is commonly cited in AfD discussion and seems to be the most relevant place to consolidate the guidance. The proposal to redirect to the page Wikipedia:Listcruft instead is inappropriate because that's not the only essay about cruft and there's no reason to prefer it over the others. The original target remains best. Andrew D. (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you unable to parse characters? Or do you find Seeking re-target to WP:Discussing cruft to be indicative of The proposal to redirect to the page Wikipedia:Listcruft.Incompetency and........ ∯WBGconverse 13:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't retarget. Retargeting this would introduce unnecessary ambiguity to the 423 pages that link to this shortcut. Editors who've linked to the shortcut have presumably mostly intended to refer to the current target rather than the proposed alternative target. "Keep per WP:IDONTLIKEIT" (i.e. per the current target) is something different from "Keep per WP:TALKCRUFT" (i.e. per the proposed target) – in fact, the latter doesn't make very much sense at all. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Different enough, and projectspace shortcuts can be ambiguous. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:02, 18 August 2018 (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.

ADAPTIVE BRAKE[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) 20:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong target and brand overemphasis / MOS inappropriate full caps - the Mercedes-Benz ADAPTIVE BRAKE is for hill starts and other features not this topic. Redirect in use in MB only articles. The obvious target is Brake (rather than subtopics e.g. Electronic brakeforce distribution) Widefox; talk 10:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per MOS:TM "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"... avoid: TIME, KISS, ASUS, SONY Mobile" Adaptive braking and collison prevention assist is not exclusive to Mercedes either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Delete all sounds like a plan. Do they need listing or will someone boldly do it? Widefox; talk 20:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Widefox: they all need to be explicitly tagged for RfD and listed here (if there are more than listed above). You can ask an AWB user to do it if you want. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi Thryduulf, I'm just finished the admin stats, so I'll leave for others. Widefox; talk 12:49, 17 August 2018 (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.

This Week (BBC News TV series)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 27#This Week (BBC News TV series)

Cinnamon stix[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 27#Cinnamon stix

Death of Andrew Fisher[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 per G5, along with all other creations by LR.2002. -- Tavix (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LR.2002 has created similar redirects for many Australian PMs; there's no significant content. Opening for discussion in case there's some reason I'm missing to have these. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: I added the other three to this nomination. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're in use for Template:Living Prime Ministers of Australia LR.2002 (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC) (4~)[reply]
    Piping would should work fine, e.g. [[George Reid#Later life and legacy|Death of George Reid]] which displays as Death of George Reid. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Pipe links will not work with the template. Believe me, I tried. YBG (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted above, they are designed to make {{Living Prime Ministers of Australia}} work, a template currently under development by LR.2002. They are in most ways comparable to the similar redirects which support {{Living presidents of the United States}} and {{Living vice presidents of the United States}} which I created some months ago. The only significant differences are that the US template links to inauguration articles which are in all cases but one stand-alone articles. I reckon about 8-10 of the US death-of are either stand-alone articles or redirects to stand-alone articles, the rest are section links. Very few, if any, of the Aussie PMs have stand-alone articles for either their swearing-in or for their inauguration; the only one I'm certain exists is concerns the disappearance of Harold Holt. Without these redirects, the template would have to be restructured somewhat, which is possible, but I think it would be best to keep the templates as comparable as possible. It would be good to transform the redirects into section link redirects, but that can wait until LR.2002 has completed the heavy lifting. YBG (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that makes some sense. I'm not sure that the vice-presidential lists at Living presidents and vice presidents of the United States are necessary either (the US president ones probably are; most of the inaugurations/deaths are stand-alone articles, and there's lots of talk in the US press about living presidents at any given time). I'd recommend piping a link to the person instead of creating the redirects. That said, these are the types of "mostly harmless" redirects that shouldn't be deleted once they're around long enough and if there's support for having these pages, there's not much harm in a standard format between countries. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:G5, the template has been deleted by G5, these redirects should be too. Iffy★Chat -- 12:47, 16 August 2018 (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/2018_August_16&oldid=1086855728"