Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 11, 2019.

Pop-cultural imperialism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 24#Pop-cultural imperialism

Brongniartia (trilobite)[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. Killiondude (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A circular redirect to a DAB page. It has an incoming link, and User:DPL bot is complaining about the WP:INTDABLINK error. I propose deletion to encourage article creation. (I suspect the name is invalid, but that's another matter.) Narky Blert (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Isotelus, per the dabpage statement Brongniartia isotelea, a junior synonym of the trilobite Isotelus gigas; the other value Serolis trilobitoides is an Antarctic isopod, and not a trilobite (thus should be Brongniartia (isopod)). -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Given that the other species name has "trilobitoides", this would at least be a plausible error for that topic. Until an article is written on the actual trilobite genus (is there an actual trilobite genus?), this is helpful. I can clean up the disambiguation page after this closes. --BDD (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Brongniartia (beetle) was described before the trilobite or the isopod and is thus the only animal that can use Brongniartia as a scientific name. Well it's important for scientific record-keeping to keep track of junior homonyms, I don't think Wikipedia redirects for junior homonyms are really appropriate; redirects get scraped by other websites and give too much prominence in this case to a scientific mistake that should be left to languish in obscurity. I'm not positive that Isotelus is the valid name for the trilobite. The trilobite family Olenidae links to Brogniartia and seems to be treating it as a synonym of Triarthrus; Triarthrus is quite distantly related to Isotelus (they are in different orders). Plantdrew (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pandorus sphinx moth,[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. Killiondude (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the species' common name with an extra comma. Not a probable typo or anything like that.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. An implausible typo. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 00:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Diversity clause[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 Diversity jurisdiction. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not finding what this redirect refers to. There are some resources that stated that "Article 3, section 2" refers to diversity, but that’s a section, not a clause. Steel1943 (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm seeing sources such as this appear to use this term in reference to a specific part of the 'article 3, section 2' text. At any rate, the overall concept seems to fall under the article 'diversity jurisdiction' in the broader sense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Shoot The Pyramid[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 25#Shoot The Pyramid

Arsak[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 feminist for making a draft. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible. Also means 'pomegranate' in Farsi.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 23:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for not having the time to properly look into that, but the term can be a plausible phonetic misspelling of the target (though how plausible you find it depends on how you segment it). So whatever happens to the redirect, its target ought to have a pointer to Artsakh (as well as to Arsac). Now, I'm not sure whether enough material can be extracted out of All pages with titles containing Arsak for a disambiguation page, but at least the redirect can be retargeted to the topic that seems to be split between the articles Ashk and Arsaces. Also noting that Arshak needs some attention too. – Uanfala (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I agree that Arsak is a plausible letter-to-letter phonetic transliteration of Artsakh (Armenian has a much more complicated consonant phonology than English and Artsakh is only five letters in Armenian, A-r-ts-a-kh, making Arsak a plausible alternative). But we have uncovered other options of what this might mean, so disambiguation might be the best thing to do. Deryck C. 16:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A draft of a disambiguation page could help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, or retarget to Artsakh. In any case, the current target needs to go. feminist (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency[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) 16:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has the potential to create errors with templates such as {{Old AfD}} or even the functionality of WP:AFD itself since its parent page is technically Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The redirect has no incoming links, and this redirect's existence could lead to technical issues since Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency (the page title sans the "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/" at the beginning) never existed, a title in the "(article)" namespace. This title was created/moved in error by a bot in 2010 (most likely as part of a task to move all pages with the "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" parent page to corresponding "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion" pages), but the move was then reverted about 4 months later, resulting in this leftover nominated redirect. (I attempted to have this deleted per WP:G6, but the request was denied.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hemogram[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since redirect term does not occur within given target. Hildeoc (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a synonym. Add it to the article if its absence bothers you. - Nunh-huh 18:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the target really needs a sourced explanation of the relationship between the two terms. As one of the people who is "bothered" by the term's absence I thought of adding it myself, but then I got contradictory information from sources: I found one saying that a hemogram is a complete blood count [1] and others saying that a hemogram is part of a complete blood count [2]. This is not my area of expertise and I have no idea whether that's right or not. In any case, readers who don't know what a hemogram is (likely a large fraction of people who type the term "hemogram" into the search box) should not be left wondering about the exact relationship and not being presented with any information to answer their question. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:43, 28 December 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) 18:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hemogramme[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since redirect term does not occur within given target. Hildeoc (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: strange as it may seem, that's not a good reason to delete a redirect. The questions you should be asking are: is this anyone is likely to search for while wishing to get to the information in the redirect target; is it confusing or mis-leading for the redirect term to exist or to use that redirect target; is it excessively promotional, spam, or abusive. Hemogram is effectively a synonym of complete blood count and is a redirect to it, although it is not mentioned in the article either (probably should be). Hemogramme is a mis-spelling (also foreign spelling) and can be tagged as such, but would still be a reasonable redirect. Lithopsian (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per the above comment for "keep"; even if it not mentioned in the target article, this specific redirect has a WP:FORRED issue. Steel1943 (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This spelling appears occasionally in English too, e.g. PMID 14127635. Though I suspect it may be erroneous, e.g. a sort of hypercorrection by someone who knew about the program/programme spelling difference and thought it applied to other -gram words as well. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:43, 28 December 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) 18:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bokashi composting.[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) 01:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently AFC approved Bokashi (horticulture) but encountered this old extra period redirect. No articles are linking to this. Do we still need this? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, I didn't realise you were talking about two different redirects. Over here a period is a full stop :-)) ... The real oddity here is Bokashi bucket, which is just one idiom among several for the bokashi fermentation vessel. It is not mentioned in Compost#Bokashi. Hardly a "notable subject". Left to me, I would get rid of it like a shot. Manofcarbon (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC) Malcolm[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

MLive.com[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 all to Booth Newspapers. WP:NPASR per low participation. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These should presumably all point to a single target; I'm not sure, however, what that target should be. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget all to Booth Newspapers since that article goes into detail as to when MLive was created or merged, and it does have the connections to Advance Publications. MLive should then be bolded there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Phraseology:Tian Gao Huang-di Yuan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 21#Phraseology:Tian Gao Huang-di Yuan

Bill of Rights (disambiguation)[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 restore disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target is not a disambiguation. (However, Bill of Rights was a disambiguation page ... twice ... since 2006.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - target should be Bill of Rights, which should be reverted from its current redirect status back to a dab page - Bill of rights, the concept, appears to be a valid primary topic, but many countries have "Bills of Rights", so that is rightly a dab page. Onel5969 TT me 13:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the target is not a disambiguation page and there are no incoming links. Bill of rights#List of bills of rights is much better as an aid to navigation that the (now-redirected) Bill of Rights. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore disambiguation page which lists specific bills of rights in certain countries. Deryck C. 13:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore DAB page. 'Bill of Rights' is an important but independent topic in both English and US history at least. (Yes, I did say English; and I meant to do so, not British or UK. It was 1689.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Quigibo & Quijibo[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 Bart the Genius. Consensus to keep in some form, and rough consensus for Bart the Genius as a target. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these terms are mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both are misspellings of kwyjibo a gag which is mentioned in the article of the episode Bart the Genius. If kept they should be retarged there I’m unsure if they should be kept since I’m not sure how plausible these misspellings are.--67.68.28.220 (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth redirecting to Bart the Genius?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kauffman (disambiguation)[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 Kaufman. Keep, retarget, whatever. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This had been nominated for WP:G14 speedy deletion using the additional rationale; "Title uses the ligature ff, no article title does. Implausible typo." I declined it as G14 does not apply to redirects and it wasn't recently created so WP:R3 doesn't apply. I then changed the target of the redirect to Kaufman (disambiguation) as that actually has items on it that use the Kauffman spelling and it is a disambiguation page. The IP that originally nominated the redirect for speedy deletion reverted that change in redirect saying it wasn't a better target for the redirection. So here we are. Either it should be deleted as an implausible redirect or redirected to the DAB page. ~ GB fan 17:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The ligature makes it an unlikely search term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not as likely as Kauffman with double-character f-f, but that is not a valid reason for deletion per WP:R#DELETE. (In fact, it is just the opposite, a reason to keep the redirect.) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it redirecting to the Kaufman (disambiguation) page, which combines the various spelling variants for disambiguation. This is not an "implausible redirect", but a perfect match per WP:REDIR and WP:R#KEEP.
If, as a surname, it is or was spelled with double-character f-f or with a ligature-ff is a matter of context (time in history, locale and publishing media), so it is obvious that we need to "catch" it through a redirect.
Also, OCRs of books will often pick up a double-"ff" as "ff", so people might end up putting that into the search box via copy & paste. This also applies to non-surnames.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2019 NCAA Division I FBS football season navbox[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 deleted. (non-admin closure) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cross-namespace redirect to a football navbox template that really serves no purpose. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Black Monday (January 2008)[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. SoWhy 18:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Target section has been deleted, and "Black Monday" is mentioned anywhere in the article UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's listed at Black Monday. I think it should probably either be removed from there or reinstated at the target article. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    29 September 2008 is listed there; there is no January 2008 date listed there. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, you're right. Struck. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can't find mention of this black Monday in other related articles either. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sony's Marvel Universe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 24#Sony's Marvel Universe

Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL[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 at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC. Participants here are fairly split, but do I find the arguments for keeping/retargeting to the noticeboard archive to be stronger; still, in a vacuum, I'd probably relist in the hope of finding a stronger consensus. That being said, this was discussed very recently, with the previous RfD having been closed a mere three weeks ago. The redirect was unfortunately never tagged for that discussion, so perhaps it makes sense to have had some back and forth over it since. Process-wise, that lends value to this discussion, despite having been opened so recently to the previous one.
With that in mind, there are a few ways to look at this. One is on its own, in a vacuum, as noted above, but I think we do ourselves a disservice to artificially put aside such a recent discussion. I think a more proper way to view this current discussion, given all the caveats above, is as a continuation and pseudo-DRV of the previous one. Time enough has passed that the facts on the ground have changed somewhat, so I think that's a fair consideration. In that light, I don't see a consensus here to overturn the discussion from three weeks ago, and continue to find the arguments for pointing to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC to be stronger. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Redirect to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC (again).
This was decided at the previous RfD (opened December 26, closed 3 January), but one editor is of the opinion that the previous RfD did not decide this issue because there was another, later RfC.[3][4][5] Also see [6]
I am relisting it and notifying all who participated in the last RfD. The only alternative that I can see would be edit warring.
I will leave it up to someone who is uninvolved to decide what to do here. My choice would be a WP:SNOW close this as already having been decided. Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC) (Edited for clarity 14:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

  • This should obviously be targeted to somewhere that all the debates are summarised, and the perennial page seems the obvious one to me. The previous RfD discussion happened when there was a single large RfC: now there are two, the second much larger than the first and incorporating new data on editorship and so on. The obvious target now is the perennial page, where both RfCs are listed along with other discussions.
Second choice would be to the archive of the newer RfC. Or we could move all debates about the Mail from the time-based archives to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive - Daily Mail or something. It's nothing to do with thinking the previous RfC didn't settle it, the facts have changed. Directing only to the original RfC makes no sense in the light of subsequent debate. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per the above, we need some centralised place for the DM debates and RFCs, and it should point there. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree with this redirect going to any summary. Many people (including many people on other sites) have already used the redirect to link to the RfC and it shouldn't go to another page that they did not intend to link to. Given the contentious nature of the Daily Mail ban, I really think the link should go to the official close, not to anyone's summary of it.
The RfC at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC already has a link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#2nd RfC: The Daily Mail at the very top, so the interested reader can easily find both.
The second RfC is a bit malformed. The first RfC is much clearer.
We have no guarantee that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail will link to the two RfCs forever. Like any other Wikipedia page, it can be changed by anyone, and the change would not be obvious to those of us who are interested in where these redirects should go.
Moving the first RfC is a bit of a problem. While many people (including many people on other sites) have already used the redirect to link to the RfC. many others have directly liked to the first RfC.
When I link to, say, WP:BRD or WP:1AM, I don't expect my link to silently change to going somewhere else, and I don't want to have to watch every redirect to see if it gets changed. Heavily linked redirects should be stable. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Daily Mail. There are two RfCs on the Daily Mail, and the first one doesn't provide full context for the current community consensus. If an editor volunteers to write a new essay that interprets both of the RfCs in more detail than the perennial sources entry, and includes the verbatim closing summaries of both RfCs, then I would support retargeting the shortcut there. — Newslinger talk 14:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to me we should re target to the last RFC we have had (as I am sure we have not seen the last one).Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-target to RSPS seems fine. Target to either of the RfCs also seems fine, so long as they link to each other. Making an IAR RfC dab is also fine. Whatever means we don't have to spend any more time having discussions about our discussions about our discussions. GMGtalk 15:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Love the above idea. Brilliant! Don't want any existing redirects changed to point to it, because many people have already used those redirects to point to something else, and we should not alter the meaning of their posts. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That amounts to "never change any redirects ever". Historical stuff is historical, the most common use of this going forward is going to be in sourcing discussions for articles. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Daily Mail - This target, which is part of an explanatory supplement to a guideline (not an essay), has been vetted by the community and provides essential context about this blacklisted source. Specifically, 34 previous discussions and two RfCs are linked from WP:RSP, making it the most informative target imaginable. Linking to an isolated RfC does not help contributors who would otherwise benefit from a more thorough examination of this source. RSP has proven to be a very useful resource. Creating another metapage is not desirable per WP:NOTBUREAU. - MrX 🖋 18:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC (the first RfC), to avoid changing the meaning of existing links which refer specifically to this RfC and not whatever the current consensus happens to be. Perhaps WP:DAILYMAIL2 should be used for the second RfC. I also support Guy Macon's addition of a note, and it may be appropriate to include a link to RSP as well. –dlthewave ☎ 23:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail. That page provides summaries and links to the past RfCs so it would be always up-to-date. I don't understand how existing uses of the shortcut could be a problem because "per WP:DAILYMAIL" is easily understood as "per whatever was the latest consensus on it when the edit/comment was made". Nardog (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC . Best to redirect to an RFC over a essay that holds no weight, is hard to read and navigate ...and just leads (links) to the RFC anyways. Lots of targets already made best not to change the intended target of many many pass debates --Moxy (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Daily Mail best option that I can think of, since there have been several RfCs. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:POVN[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend retargeting to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Naming because WP:POVNAMING is too long. wumbolo ^^^ 13:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Most likely, "POVN" = "Point of view/Noticeboard". Also, the redirect has several incoming links. Steel1943 (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is about a hundred of them, not too bad. wumbolo ^^^ 15:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a good chance that these redirects are in edit summaries as well, which cannot he changed. In addition, it has been targeting its current target for almost 11 years, so I don't see a reason to change this considering that this is a "Wikipedia:" namespace shortcut. Steel1943 (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish it were easier to take account of redirects used in edit summaries. At least once I've followed an edit summary redirect and been puzzled at where I ended up before finding that it had been retargeted. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 08:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943. Also, shortcuts prefixed suffixed with -N are more often redirects to various noticeboards, so people will naturally use WP:ABCN if they want to link to the noticeboard for a certain topic (e.g. WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, WP:FTN, WP:ELN, WP:ORN etc.). And many people still use the abbreviation "POV" and not "NPOV", so they will also naturally use "POVN" and not "NPOVN". Regards SoWhy 16:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SoWhy: Sorry about the grammar-correcting part of me coming out, but ... don't you mean "suffixed"? Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Right you are. Thanks! Regards SoWhy 18:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SoWhy. If there's really confusion with WP:POVNAMING then add a {{Distinguish}} to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard instead, retargeting a decade old shortcut will potentially break too many old links and discussions. Nathan2055talk - contribs 01:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Teep[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems strange for this to go where it does when there are several other related topics that readers are also quite likely to search for. This includes the two previous targets: Telepathy and Overall equipment effectiveness (TEEP = Total Effective Equipment Performance). Here are some links to give an idea of this, though I know they're not reliable sources.

I don't know exactly what should be done here, but a disambiguation page might be a good idea, similarly to those for other acronyms and initialisms. Given the number of well-known topics it can refer to, retargeting would probably not be justified. I'll also note that there are no incoming links except for a talk page archive, for what that's worth (not much). ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 09:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the number of possibilities in terms of definition, Support replacing with disambig page Dax Bane 09:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also in favor of the disambiguation option, since there's not likely going to be agreement on which target is the most notable/proper/whatever. Nathan2055talk - contribs 10:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I have provided a draft. A disambiguation page can only include entries that actually occur in Wikipedia (see MOS:DABABBREV). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice, thanks. I hope it's ok that I've combined the two telepathy-related entries, since the term occurs in at least one other notable work. I haven't worked with disambiguation pages much. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 02:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ekips39: happy to help. A disambiguation page entry must link to a target that actually mentions the term: your combined fictional character entry doesn't because Babylon 5 doesn't mention "teep". If teep is a term used a lot for fictional characters with telepathic powers, perhaps this is worthy of a mention at the Telepathy article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I have exchanged that link for a link to The Hood Maker, which does mention the term. The content relating to fiction in Telepathy was significantly cut down in 2014, leaving only the short section Telepathy#Use in fiction, so it doesn't seem appropriate to add this there. A better place would be Babylon 5. I see the main B5 article doesn't mention it but Psi Corps does. Clearly the term is used in the series, and it doesn't say it means members of that organization, but we can't link to the main series article. Difficult. As for other works whose articles mention the term, all I found was the TV adaptation of The Hood Maker and The War Against the Chtorr. I know there are others, but I suppose there's only so much we can say about this. Maybe we can't say it occurs in several different works including (etc.). It seems misleading not to, though. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 03:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lewis' law[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 25#Lewis' law

M. petiolaris[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) 18:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This abbreviation could be used for both Maxillaria petiolaris and Micranthes petiolaris, among others species not yet on Wikipedia. Delete per WP:XY. Redirects from abbreviated binomial scientific names are a bad idea. They are rarely unique, and don't have clear primary targets. C. elegans is on of the few abbreviations strongly associated with a single species, but C. elegans (disambiguation) is a monument to the folly of trying to associate these abbreviations with Wikipedia articles. Plantdrew (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also note that redirect was created by blocked user User:Nono64. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 00:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Department of Transport (Victoria, Australia)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 25#Department of Transport (Victoria, Australia)

Thatcherite fallacy[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. Killiondude (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This term is not mentioned in its target article. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can find no sources defining this particular term, either as a synonym for Politician's syllogism or any other possible definition. Nathan2055talk - contribs 10:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm in UK, and follow UK politics, and couldn't stand the woman; but I've never heard of 'Thatcherite fallacy' before. Narky Blert (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Narky, speaking as a fellow Brit who can't stand those who couldn't stand her, it's nonetheless rather sobering that we reached the same conclusion on this redirect. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "...Thatcherites, along with everyone else, talked as if the issue were about 'more' and 'less' government. And in doing so they reinforced the popular fallacy - which they should have been combating - the fallacy that a government can do only one of two things, intervene or not intervene."[1] This is not precisely the Yes Minister concept but it bears some resemblance. There's also this forum post from 2009[2] making reference to the concept before circularly referencing this redirect/article. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Letwin, Shirley Robin (2018). The Anatomy of Thatcherism. Routledge. ISBN 9781351294461. Retrieved 17 January 2019. (url encodes search reference)
  2. ^ "Making Light: Scenes From the Lives of the Great Economists". nielsenhayden.com. Retrieved 17 January 2019.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The dufflebag[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. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Includes article and misspelling. No links. Was originally created as a fork. Suggesting deletion. Bsherr (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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/2019_January_11&oldid=955597370"