Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 4, 2019.

Wikipedia:MORDOR[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Should not be a named redirect. Violates plenty of polices and guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As a LOTR fan I like this one, but no. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nominator has failed to specy the policies and guidelines it supposedly violates. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At-least until someone can tell me what policy this violates. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per vague hand wave towards invalidity and guideine violation. ——SerialNumber54129 12:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OK, this is a bit of a joke to old hands but it's not great for newer users. AN/I (whatever its flaws) is a place for users to raise conduct concerns and/or where issues regarding their conduct will be discussed. We need those bringing valid issues to AN/I to have confidence it it, and those who are validly reported for their behaviour at the noticeboard to take it seriously. I have no objections to reform/replacement of AN/I but until that happens, we should not "officially" denigrate one of our main dispute resolution forums. WJBscribe (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rationale presented in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 18#Wikipedia:Gorillas consuming gerbils Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too much confusion with this one. — Ched :  ?  — 15:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meh harmless, Hasn't done anyone any harm. –Davey2010Talk 16:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FANCRUFT - the target is not a policy page about Lord of the Rings. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we had Neelix who got spanked pretty hard for stupid redirects. Legacypac (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too confusing for Tolkien fans. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until someone can point to a specific policy that's being violated here. SQLQuery me! 04:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a nice one. WP:FANCRUFT is an essay, not policy, and on an entirely different topic on top of it. — kashmīrī TALK 18:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not harming anything and nom failed to provide a real rationale. Lepricavark (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Lord of the rings Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth. A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth. This is a relatively new redirect (created last year) and isn't usefully linked anywhere. We can't know about edit summaries, but given its relatively recent creation and lack of other uses, I think we can presume there aren't many. We have a wikiproject on Middle-earth which appears to at least not be inactive. That seems like the perfect target for something like this, and would certainly be more useful. Not to attempt to side-step the discussions around all these, but regardless of whether a redirect to ANI is funny or not, we ought to first favor a more useful option if available. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments for keeping are significantly stronger than those for deletion, but Amory's late and comprehensive argument for retargetting deserves further consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 4 March 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.

Effects on law and order[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) 00:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of what? The redirect title doesn't specify.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:00, 4 March 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:Room101[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 12#Wikipedia:Room101

French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports[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 to delete. -- Tavix (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports" is not found in sources and is not a plausible search phrase. RexxS (talk) 18:47, 25 February 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) 19:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Assuming this is an accurate translation, we should have a way to access this topic in English. If there's no official English name, a direct translation is fine. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 5 March 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.

Spanish Federation of Underwater Activities[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 to delete. -- Tavix (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Spanish Federation of Underwater Activities" is not found in sources and is not a plausible search phrase. RexxS (talk) 19:07, 25 February 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) 19:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Assuming this is an accurate translation, we should have a way to access this topic in English. If there's no official English name, a direct translation is fine. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 5 March 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.

Music to Make the Boys Cry[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 12#Music to Make the Boys Cry

Diana Vickers' Untitled Second Album[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obsolete and unnecessary redirect, the album in question was Music to Make Boys Cry released in 2013 which is of course no longer untitled. PC78 (talk) 17:27, 4 March 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.

List (abstract data type[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) 23:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB: malformed UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:10, 4 March 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.

Draft:List: Cast of Avatar: The Last Airbender[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. While I don't find the pseudo-namespace argument particularly strong in this case, I do think the delete arguments, in particular the call to confusion, still have the day. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redirects that impersonante a non-existent "List:" namespace, similarly to how we have handled the Quote: and Slogan: redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as they are mostly leftovers from moves (precisely because the titles were bad), they continue to serve as opportunities for confusion, and they're unnecessary. Two of them had incoming links from other articles but I've fixed those articles to skip the redirect. Largoplazo (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the non-Draft ones. These all take people to exactly the content they are looking for without any risk of confusion. This is a key difference to the "quote" and "slogan" redirects which did not take people to articles about and/or lists of quotes or slogans. Simply having a colon in the title does not mean that it is impersonating a namespace - the existence of ABBA: The Album and Access:d does not imply we have "ABBA" "Access" namespaces. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This formatting is not well-enough used to give the expectation that one find a list by searching with this formatting. It is misleading to suggest that List:Foo would lead you to List of foo, so there is no utility in these redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Unintuitive and misleading pseudo-namespace. There should be a very clear and obvious distinction between these and the examples given by Thryduulf. PC78 (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm guessing you are talking about official names, but that's not relevant to my argument in the slightest, and take a look at other examples I could have included - 12:00, A:\, ADP-glucose:D-glucose 1-alpha-D-glucosyltransferase, C18:0, CSR_103:9, European sovereign-debt crisis: List of acronyms, Library of Congress Classification:Class M -- Music, P300 Test:, PBA Bowling Tour: 2007–08 season, Wannabe (D:TNG episode) (there are over 116,000 in a recent database dumb, although this does include pseudo-namespace redirects) - none of these mislead anybody into thinking we have these namespaces, nor can I imagine why anybody would be confused into think we have a "List" namespace when they use these search terms at arrive at a list of exactly what they were looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not going to unpick all of those examples, but the first few represent common usage. Again, they are not the same as what is being nominated here. This use of "List:" quite clearly emulates "Category:", "Template:" and other namespaces. I doubt anyone would seriously be confused into thinking there is a "PBA Bowling Tour:" namespace. PC78 (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if someone is able to distinguish "A:" from a namespace but not "List:", why does it matter? If someone searches for "List: Cities in Afghanistan" what else could they possibly be wanting than a list of cities in Afghanistan? Why should the be required to know in advance that we distinguish categories from articles but don't distinguish lists? Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the colon redirects that exist are an WP:INDISCRIMINATE subset. Someone typing List: is almost certainly NOT looking to get one of only 14 that exist; they are looking to get one of the thousands of List: redirects that (appropriately) do NOT exist. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other potentially useful redirects do not exist, does not mean that we should delete useful redirects that have been created - and if a human created List:Cities in Japan as a redirect to List of cities in Japan because they found it useful then absolutely it would be correct to keep that redirect - they fulfil WP:R#KEEP points 2, 4 and 5 (and 3, but to a lesser extent). There will be no benefit gained from deletion - they're not misleading anybody, they're not in the way of anything, they're not incorrect, or any other reason why they might not be appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But these weren't created because someone found them useful; they were created because someone did not know our article naming conventions, and then were automatically created when the article was moved to the correct title, correcting the article creator's error. It is disingenuous for you to suggest someone created them as useful redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone created the lists at the title they thought best. Therefore they, and probably other people, will also look for them at this title - making them demonstrably useful redirects. We do not require readers to learn our naming conventions before being allowed to find what they are looking for - we create redirects from the terms they use to the location of our article either directly or automatically following a page move. You are making my point for me. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, Largoplazo, and PC78.  — Scott • talk 15:10, 8 March 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:WPOOKA[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No obvious connection between this unused shortcut and the target. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:46, 4 March 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.

State institution[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect term not mentioned in target article, and not to be considered synonymous. Hence, this is a misleading redirect. Hildeoc (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Some public universities are state institutions, but not all are and universities are just one example of things that can be state institutions. We don't appear to have any article dealing with the concept - Institution is not relevant, Formal organisation is too broad, State institutions of Cambodia is too specific and doesn't actually deal with the concept so much as being a list of institutions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Government agency. Government agencies are institutions of the state, and institutions of the state are government agencies. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nyttend: In this case, it should be taken care that the term "state institution" is included in the new target, as per WP:R#PLA.--Hildeoc (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nyttend: Not all institutions of the state are government agencies - e.g. universities, museums, and similar. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 27 February 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) 11:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect might cause confusion. And if it didn't exist, we wouldn't invent it as a redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:30, 4 March 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.

Concordia Lutheran Church (denomination)[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) 19:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely search term. This is much more likely to be the name of a local church. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:02, 23 February 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) 11:35, 4 March 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.

Theodoros Tawadros[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. Deryck C. 12:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion per WP:RDEL #2 (might cause confusion) and #8 (obscure synonym). This is a compound phrase made up of two different transliterations of the same name 'Theodore' ('Theodoros' is Greek, while 'Tawadros' is Coptic). I initially changed the redirect from the article Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria to the disambiguation page Tawadros because it was not unambiguous that this phrase would only refer to a specific Coptic Pope, but I have realised that it is not even clear whether this phrase should redirect to the article on the Greek form (which is at Theodoros) or the disambiguation page on the Coptic form (which is at Tawadros). In addition, it is unlikely that any reader would search for these two different transliterations of the same name in the same phrase. This redirect has never been linked to, and has only received 5 page views in the last 30 days, so its deletion will unlikely be missed. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: I have no opinion one way or other. I would had created the redirect because some English based news article I was reading when Tawadros II became pope named him as Theodoros Tawadros. If no one is using it, then delete it, but on the other hand redirects are cheap. -- KTC (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It does appear to be obscure because I was unable to find a source calling Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria that. I did see a few using "Theodoros (Tawadros)" though. -- Tavix (talk) 20:19, 3 March 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) 11:35, 4 March 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.

Rat creature[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 16#Rat creature

Catgegory:Molloy College alumni[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) 00:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate WP:CNR, not a valid WP:RTYPO either. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom, it was only there for a minute before being moved to its current title. I think this could be deleted under R3 but considering its been here over a year that probably doesn't meet "recent". Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Recent" for R3 purposes doesn't have a strict definition, but the consensus is definitely somewhere in the 1-4 week range. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no consensus for what qualifies as "recent". The time range you suggest is simply your opinion. -- Tavix (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no firm consensus certainly, but nothing longer than about 4 weeks has ever come close to getting consensus in any discussion I've been involved in. Things such as 3 months have be been suggested a time or two, but they've been outliers and not supported by almost everybody, and certainly not 1 year. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:20, 4 March 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.

Hazeldean, Buckinghamshire[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 13#Hazeldean, Buckinghamshire

Wikipedia:AIRINGOFGRIEVANCES[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. On this one at least, the advocates for keep have stronger arguments ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:30, 4 March 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:PITCHFORKS[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikipedia:Witch hunt. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget to Wikipedia:Witch hunt?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Witch hunt as a more relevant target. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already !voted "retarget" above, just elaborating. In the past I've gone looking for a shortcut describing the mob mentality that occurs in discussions at ANI, basically to use as a shortcut on ANI to refer to a discussion in which participants have abandoned logic and reason and are instead gathering torches and pitchforks, and found it disappointing that the shortcut was circular. So, the retargeting argument is this: Wikipedia:Witch hunt describes the mob behaviour, it just happens to occur most often at ANI. A shortcut to the essay would be much more useful. In any case, the two shortcuts should target the same page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:PITCHFORK doesn't make sense as a redirect to Wikipedia:Witch hunt. Pitchforks are more of a mob chasing Frankenstein's monster kind of thing. If anything, that one should be retargeted to ANI. Anyway, no reason to delete this.  — Scott • talk 15:17, 8 March 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:IMAGE[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikipedia:Images. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These two should have the same target. DannyS712 (talk) 01:53, 4 March 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.

Unused redirects to Template:Commons category[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) B dash (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are far too many redirects to Template:Commons category. This is a pain when using a regex to modify a category page.
Removing this unused pair will simplify the job a bit. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm not sure what negative impact it has on regex, could you please elaborate. As far as the redirects themselves, there perfectly plausible, both because the project is commonly known as "Wikimedia commons" (that is the location of the article Wikimedia Commons and what the main page is called) and is an accepted long name due to the existence of Commons which Wikipedia doesn't have a generic meaning. And the categories are frequently abbreviated as C cats. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Crouch, Swale: here's the obscenely long regular expression needed to match a link to commons: {{([Cc]ategory[ _]+commons|[Cc]cat|CC|[Cc]c|[Cc]ommonscategory|COMMONSCAT|[Cc]ommonscat|[Cc]ommonsimages[ _]+cat|[Cc]ommons[ _]+category|[Cc]ommons[ _]+Category|[Cc]ommons[ _]+cat|[Cc][ _]+cat|[Ww]ikimedia[ _]+commons[ _]+cat). It's from rdcheck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BrownHairedGirl: Sorry but having tried to read the Regular expression article I still don't really understand how that works. Unlike category redirects (which as I have suggested on Commons the software should be changed), template redirects just function like normal redirects and generally don't clutter up the search results/suggestions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Crouch, Swale. Authors of automated tools need to deal with the encyclopaedia as it is, we don't alter it for their convenience - even if that means complicated regexes. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 4 March 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.

Yn Deherree[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 12#Yn Deherree

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_4&oldid=888047153"