Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 8

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 8, 2017.

Petira (passing)

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) 21:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Same as all the other redirects from this editor. This term will never be typed into a search bar. There is already a redirect for Petira. Creating a redirect that nobody will use is not required. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

author comment: The redirect, as has been noted in a prior discussion, is not just for searching, it's also for (and someone else indicated especially for articles. As with the discussion of whether a eulogy is for the living or for the dead, with the well known answer that it is for both, the redirect is to permit wiki-fying a quote
"After the Petira of the older ..." as
"After the [[Petira (passing)|Petira]]
so that when one moves the mouse to the appropriate spot, the parenthized "(passing)" becomes visible.
The "layering" that will result is
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Definition of famous

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 wouldn't say there's a strong consensus on the result here, but there's unanimous agreement that the redirect should be changed and limited agreement on an alternative target. Deryck C. 13:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

At this moment, this redirect is a WP:CNR to an article talk page. I'm thinking this needs to be retargeted to some sort of guideline related to WP:GNG. Also, on a related note, Wikipedia:FAMOUS currently targets Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
If retargeting is not the best option, how about dabifying the page? George Ho ( talk) 08:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't want to suggest that we're very concerned with the "definition of famous". -- BDD ( talk) 16:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Winter of 2010

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. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 16:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:XY as we also have Winter of 2010–11 in Europe, 2009–10 North American winter, etc. -- Tavix ( talk) 19:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Unless it's the title of some media, we don't have dabs or articles for "winter year" and it messes with MOS:SEASON so the redirect isn't helpful. Letting the user type in "winter of 2010" and picking from the suggested search options which list both 2009-10 and 2010-11 possibilities is more useful. Similarly typing in 2010 Winter will give lots of possibilities including "2010 Winter Olympics" which would be what I'd look for instead of weather in Europe. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 19:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf ( talk) 14:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 04:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
That dab might be useful. I just don't know if that means we should start adding (season) (year) dab articles in general. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree with BDD. I don't think an SIA is helpful here because that opens a big can of worms. Deryck C. 10:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While individually a set index article seems appropriate I don't think that massive number of overlapping large set index articles likely to result from this ("2010 winter" could refer to the 2009-10 northern hemisphere, 2010 southern hemisphere or 2010-11 northern hemisphere winters and events that happened in or related to any of them, and many in the northern hemisphere would each appear on two lists) is sustainable or worth the effort involved. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Naruto (season 6)

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 all. This discussion and the one below has shown that "Naruto season N" is ambiguous for N>5 because Shippuden is the successor of the Naruto series but restarts numbering at 1. There is some aversion against targeting a "Naruto season N" title to a general list that includes multiple seasons, so I'm defaulting to delete. Deryck C. 13:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Even though the show exist, the season don't exist. There's no need for this redirect. 1989 ( talk) 12:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC) reply

The problem is there is NO continuation of the series numbering from Naruto to Naruto Shippuden anime in neither the Japanese nor the English published versions. Note that in Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z those TV series also start over in numbering. This isn't Initial D where Second Stage does continue the volume and episode numbering of the anime show from First Stage on the DVD packaging. So it does not serve anyone to keep a chain of these around. How many extra seasons do you want? All of them? Given that Naruto Shippuden goes out to 15+ seasons, does it really make sense to keep redirects to Naruto (season 15) and create even more as they append more seasons? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Naruto (season 10)

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 all. See discussion immediately above. Deryck C. 13:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Even though the show exist, the season don't exist. It redirects to Part 2 of the series instead of the original. There's no need for this redirect. 1989 ( talk) 12:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC) reply

See above comments. Naruto (season 10-15) is getting ridiculous. There is no media that continues the numbering scheme for Naruto and Naruto Shippuden series. Dragon Ball to Dragon Ball Z for episodes and TV series volumes does not do this either. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

BMW motorcycle clubs

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. 11:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If I were to search this, I would expect to be redirected to a place that discusses various BMW motorcycle clubs. The current target does not do that. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

The history of the link suggests it was intended to cover two of the clubs in the United States, including BMW Motorcycle Owners of America and BMW Riders Association. But yes, given the international brand and use outside the U.S. UK and that there are a bunch of US ones that call themselves BMW Motorcycle Club of (state/city/etc.) that aren't associated with the two clubs, deletion would be best. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Editing Tips and Tricks

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 20#Wikipedia:Editing Tips and Tricks

Wikipedia:EDITASAP

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) 21:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Shortcut created in September 2016. The shortcut sounds more like it refers to Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Edit warring wouldn't be the first thing to come to mind. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Policy shortcuts are not about what first comes to mind when using them (in fact, we are discouraged to use them for someone who doesn't already know about the linked policy); they are about being a short, memorable reminder of the part of the policy being linked.
That section of BRD is not primarily or exclusively about edit warring. The shortcut tries to be a reminder about the purpose of BRD to avoid improductive discussion and return to editing as soon as possible. Diego ( talk) 23:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
"Policy shortcuts are not about what first comes to mind when using them." Possibly, but they also don't have to target the first thing that comes to mind to their creator. (If this redirect was years old, I wouldn't have nominated it since at that point, the risk of breaking links in editnotices would be too high.) Steel1943 ( talk) 00:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's not a helpful mnemonic for the section in question, and does appear to refer to WP:DEADLINE, so it's confusing. We don't need more policy/guideline shortcuts (much less ones to essays like this) that just seem nifty to someone as a passing fancy. We occasionally need additional ones that tie strongly to the content in section in an obvious way, if a particular section has no shortcut at all and is frequently referred to specifically.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 18:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:EDITAGAIN

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) 21:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Shortcut created in September 2016. I fail to see how this is the proper target, considering this short sounds more like an edit war or some sort of guideline regarding someone making consecutive edits to the same page. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Policy shortcuts are not about what first comes to mind when using them (in fact, we are discouraged to use them for someone who doesn't already know about the linked policy); they are about being a short, memorable reminder of the part of the policy being linked.
That section of BRD is not primarily or exclusively about edit warring. The shortcut tries to be a reminder about the purpose of BRD to avoid improductive discussion and return to editing again, as soon as possible. Diego ( talk) 23:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
"Policy shortcuts are not about what first comes to mind when using them." Possibly, but they also don't have to target the first thing that comes to mind to their creator. (If this redirect was years old, I wouldn't have nominated it since at that point, the risk of breaking links in editnotices would be too high.) Steel1943 ( talk) 00:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 18:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:EARLY

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:Deletion process#Early closure. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Shortcut using a standard word that redirects to a failed proposal proposed almost 10 years ago. There should be a better/more useful target for this ... but where? Steel1943 ( talk) 19:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 18:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:DUP

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 and retarget to Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merger, respectively. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Both should target the same page/location/section. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect both to the WP:MERGE section. The proposed-mergers process page doesn't even mention the word duplicate (or duplication, etc.) except inasmuch as some people's ephemeral comments there contain it. The #1 point at the information-page section, however, is "Duplicate: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject, with the same scope", so this is clearly the more appropriate target.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 18:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Disabling

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 20:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Is there a better/more helpful target for this than a long-historical page? Steel1943 ( talk) 21:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 17:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Devonshire

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 add tag so the redirect has both {{ R from alternative name}} and {{ R from historic name}}. -- Tavix ( talk) 16:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Should be tagged with {{ R from historic name}}, however Necrothesp has reverted this tag twice, hence my resorting here. Firstly take the lead section at Devon, where it states that the county is archaically known as Devonshire. Secondly take Devonshire (disambiguation), where we have Devonshire is a historical name for Devon, a county in South West England. The present tag {{ R from alternative name}} is really far too broad in my opinion, and should be changed to the aforementioned tag. -- Nevé – selbert 17:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Add tag per nom, especially when the lead sentence indicates so. Redirects can be given multiple tags. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Add tag per nom. It's factually correct and appropriate. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. The articles are incorrect (and I have changed them). Devonshire is not an archaic name (as Dorsetshire is, for example) and is only historic in the sense that it was formerly the official and common name, but has been superseded in those uses by Devon. It is, however, still used. Maybe not as commonly as Devon, but certainly not in an archaic sense. "Historic name" is not accurate. See Template:R from historic name. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • After your edit the lead now says Devon, also known as Devonshire, which was formerly its common and official name. Template:R from historic name says This is a redirect from a title that is another name, a pseudonym, a nickname, or a synonym that, more than just a "former name", has a significant historic past. For example, a region, state, principate's holding, city, city-state or such, and the subject has been subsumed into a modern era municipality, district or state, or otherwise has experienced a name change. Given that "Devonshire" is another name that has a significant historic past, and the subject has expereienced a name change to "Devon" it seems a perfect match to me. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Add tag. (e/c) Discarding the multiple alternatives that fog the template {{ R from historic name}} as cited by Necrothesp, the relevant part says "This is a redirect from a title that is another name ... that, more than just a "former name", has a significant historic past. For example, a region ... [that] has experienced a name change." It doesn't say anything about the name being archaic, and the use of this tag together with {{ R from alternative name}} seems to capture the present status of the word "Devonshire" quite accurately.  — SMALL JIM  11:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The point is, it hasn't had a name change. It's just now more commonly known as Devon. That's not a name change. "Historic" implies "former", and that is not contradicted by the template notes. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)-- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

One One Se7en

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. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

No longer mentioned in the target article, whose status is Good Article. I'm thinking possible targets: 117 (number) or English numerals. If neither, what else to do with it? George Ho ( talk) 07:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Also spelt "Se7en", not "Seven". George Ho ( talk) 07:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

One One Seven is created as a redirect page. George Ho ( talk) 07:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

Wikipedia:LZD

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. Consensus beyond that is unclear. Further discussion on the redirect's Talk page may be appropriate. Rossami (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:R#D5 as nonsense. FWIW: LZD redirects to an airport in Connecticut. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC) reply

  • This apparently stands for "Led Zeppelin, Deletions" and is listed among several similar shortcuts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Led Zeppelin/Led Zeppelin miscellanea#Shortcuts. – Uanfala (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for the information. I've removed that line from the table as it incorrectly makes it seem like the project has their own deletion sorting category, which is misleading because they don't. On a WikiProject level as specific as a single band, the proper way to set this up would be via article alerts. If the project wasn't defunct, I'd be interested in setting that up for them, but I don't really see the need currently. What's interesting about this shortcut is it wouldn't even cover most of Led Zeppelin anyway. If the band or one of the members were up for deletion via AfD, then it'd be listed there. But if any of their albums or songs were listed, it'd go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs. It's a bit of an WP:XY issue. -- Tavix ( talk) 14:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is part of a series of several WP:LZx redirects to pages relevant to the Led Zeppelin project, e.g. WP:LZA, WP:LZP, WP:LZT, etc. (all the ones at Wikipedia:Shortcut table/uppercase starting with LZ) and it's getting uses so unless there is something more prominent or more expected at this shortcut I see no reason to delete it. Thryduulf ( talk) 03:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: stats show it has hrrrrrad 69 hit over the last year so it's definitely in use, and if there's nothing better we want to use the TLA for then no reason to delete. ( WP:R#D5 is irrelevant because it is not nonsense. User:UanfalaZ explained is basis.) Amisom ( talk) 13:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply
    • You just used what I call the "page view fallacy". You can't assume that something is automatically useful because it has a certain number of page views. We don't know who is using it, whether they are using it deliberately, and if someone using it is satisfied with where they end up. Seeing as it's an incorrect and misleading shortcut from a defunct WikiProject, I think it's a safe bet that those page views are not coming via people wanting to see if this particular band or their members are being nominated for deletion via AfD. -- Tavix ( talk) 14:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply
      • We can never know why people are using a redirect, all we can know is that they are using it. It is the responsibility of the person wanting to change the status quo (in this case you) to show that the change will be beneficial. We know people are using it, and we haven't identified anything else they could be looking for, so why must we assume that it is not useful without any evidence to support that? Thryduulf ( talk) 19:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict) Weak keep Since there isn't a page of Led Zeppelin-related deletions, anyone who does know the significance of this is likely to be disappointed. I would expect that most days, the target page would have nothing related to the band. However... the obscurity of the term gives me pause. Surely no one is expecting a project page about the little airport. It's certainly possible editors interested in music-related deletions has gotten into the habit of using this without any specific expectation of Led Zeppelin content. Given that this is extremely low-value real estate, I'm inclined to just let it slide absent direct evidence of confusion or harm.
As a measure of how weak my vote is, I actually changed it from "weak delete" mid-writing. I'd also like to stress that this is just concerning "LZD"; I haven't looked into uses of the other LZx redirects, and may feel differently about some of them. -- BDD ( talk) 19:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for the evaluation of the WP:XY argument made towards the end.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

KOF Index of Globalization

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 wrong forum. If a redirect is in the way of a page move you need Wikipedia:Requested moves ( WP:RM) not WP:RfD. Thryduulf ( talk) 02:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Draft:KOF Index of Globalization has been reviewed and approved for creation, but can't be moved to main space because this redirect is in the way. Triptothecottage ( talk) 01:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_8&oldid=1231657889"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 8

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 8, 2017.

Petira (passing)

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) 21:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Same as all the other redirects from this editor. This term will never be typed into a search bar. There is already a redirect for Petira. Creating a redirect that nobody will use is not required. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

author comment: The redirect, as has been noted in a prior discussion, is not just for searching, it's also for (and someone else indicated especially for articles. As with the discussion of whether a eulogy is for the living or for the dead, with the well known answer that it is for both, the redirect is to permit wiki-fying a quote
"After the Petira of the older ..." as
"After the [[Petira (passing)|Petira]]
so that when one moves the mouse to the appropriate spot, the parenthized "(passing)" becomes visible.
The "layering" that will result is
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Definition of famous

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 wouldn't say there's a strong consensus on the result here, but there's unanimous agreement that the redirect should be changed and limited agreement on an alternative target. Deryck C. 13:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

At this moment, this redirect is a WP:CNR to an article talk page. I'm thinking this needs to be retargeted to some sort of guideline related to WP:GNG. Also, on a related note, Wikipedia:FAMOUS currently targets Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
If retargeting is not the best option, how about dabifying the page? George Ho ( talk) 08:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't want to suggest that we're very concerned with the "definition of famous". -- BDD ( talk) 16:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Winter of 2010

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. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 16:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:XY as we also have Winter of 2010–11 in Europe, 2009–10 North American winter, etc. -- Tavix ( talk) 19:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Unless it's the title of some media, we don't have dabs or articles for "winter year" and it messes with MOS:SEASON so the redirect isn't helpful. Letting the user type in "winter of 2010" and picking from the suggested search options which list both 2009-10 and 2010-11 possibilities is more useful. Similarly typing in 2010 Winter will give lots of possibilities including "2010 Winter Olympics" which would be what I'd look for instead of weather in Europe. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 19:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf ( talk) 14:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 04:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
That dab might be useful. I just don't know if that means we should start adding (season) (year) dab articles in general. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree with BDD. I don't think an SIA is helpful here because that opens a big can of worms. Deryck C. 10:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While individually a set index article seems appropriate I don't think that massive number of overlapping large set index articles likely to result from this ("2010 winter" could refer to the 2009-10 northern hemisphere, 2010 southern hemisphere or 2010-11 northern hemisphere winters and events that happened in or related to any of them, and many in the northern hemisphere would each appear on two lists) is sustainable or worth the effort involved. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Naruto (season 6)

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 all. This discussion and the one below has shown that "Naruto season N" is ambiguous for N>5 because Shippuden is the successor of the Naruto series but restarts numbering at 1. There is some aversion against targeting a "Naruto season N" title to a general list that includes multiple seasons, so I'm defaulting to delete. Deryck C. 13:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Even though the show exist, the season don't exist. There's no need for this redirect. 1989 ( talk) 12:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC) reply

The problem is there is NO continuation of the series numbering from Naruto to Naruto Shippuden anime in neither the Japanese nor the English published versions. Note that in Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z those TV series also start over in numbering. This isn't Initial D where Second Stage does continue the volume and episode numbering of the anime show from First Stage on the DVD packaging. So it does not serve anyone to keep a chain of these around. How many extra seasons do you want? All of them? Given that Naruto Shippuden goes out to 15+ seasons, does it really make sense to keep redirects to Naruto (season 15) and create even more as they append more seasons? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Naruto (season 10)

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 all. See discussion immediately above. Deryck C. 13:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Even though the show exist, the season don't exist. It redirects to Part 2 of the series instead of the original. There's no need for this redirect. 1989 ( talk) 12:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC) reply

See above comments. Naruto (season 10-15) is getting ridiculous. There is no media that continues the numbering scheme for Naruto and Naruto Shippuden series. Dragon Ball to Dragon Ball Z for episodes and TV series volumes does not do this either. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

BMW motorcycle clubs

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. 11:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If I were to search this, I would expect to be redirected to a place that discusses various BMW motorcycle clubs. The current target does not do that. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

The history of the link suggests it was intended to cover two of the clubs in the United States, including BMW Motorcycle Owners of America and BMW Riders Association. But yes, given the international brand and use outside the U.S. UK and that there are a bunch of US ones that call themselves BMW Motorcycle Club of (state/city/etc.) that aren't associated with the two clubs, deletion would be best. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Editing Tips and Tricks

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 20#Wikipedia:Editing Tips and Tricks

Wikipedia:EDITASAP

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) 21:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Shortcut created in September 2016. The shortcut sounds more like it refers to Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Edit warring wouldn't be the first thing to come to mind. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Policy shortcuts are not about what first comes to mind when using them (in fact, we are discouraged to use them for someone who doesn't already know about the linked policy); they are about being a short, memorable reminder of the part of the policy being linked.
That section of BRD is not primarily or exclusively about edit warring. The shortcut tries to be a reminder about the purpose of BRD to avoid improductive discussion and return to editing as soon as possible. Diego ( talk) 23:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
"Policy shortcuts are not about what first comes to mind when using them." Possibly, but they also don't have to target the first thing that comes to mind to their creator. (If this redirect was years old, I wouldn't have nominated it since at that point, the risk of breaking links in editnotices would be too high.) Steel1943 ( talk) 00:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's not a helpful mnemonic for the section in question, and does appear to refer to WP:DEADLINE, so it's confusing. We don't need more policy/guideline shortcuts (much less ones to essays like this) that just seem nifty to someone as a passing fancy. We occasionally need additional ones that tie strongly to the content in section in an obvious way, if a particular section has no shortcut at all and is frequently referred to specifically.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 18:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:EDITAGAIN

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) 21:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Shortcut created in September 2016. I fail to see how this is the proper target, considering this short sounds more like an edit war or some sort of guideline regarding someone making consecutive edits to the same page. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Policy shortcuts are not about what first comes to mind when using them (in fact, we are discouraged to use them for someone who doesn't already know about the linked policy); they are about being a short, memorable reminder of the part of the policy being linked.
That section of BRD is not primarily or exclusively about edit warring. The shortcut tries to be a reminder about the purpose of BRD to avoid improductive discussion and return to editing again, as soon as possible. Diego ( talk) 23:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
"Policy shortcuts are not about what first comes to mind when using them." Possibly, but they also don't have to target the first thing that comes to mind to their creator. (If this redirect was years old, I wouldn't have nominated it since at that point, the risk of breaking links in editnotices would be too high.) Steel1943 ( talk) 00:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 18:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:EARLY

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:Deletion process#Early closure. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Shortcut using a standard word that redirects to a failed proposal proposed almost 10 years ago. There should be a better/more useful target for this ... but where? Steel1943 ( talk) 19:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 18:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:DUP

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 and retarget to Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merger, respectively. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Both should target the same page/location/section. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect both to the WP:MERGE section. The proposed-mergers process page doesn't even mention the word duplicate (or duplication, etc.) except inasmuch as some people's ephemeral comments there contain it. The #1 point at the information-page section, however, is "Duplicate: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject, with the same scope", so this is clearly the more appropriate target.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 18:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Disabling

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 20:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Is there a better/more helpful target for this than a long-historical page? Steel1943 ( talk) 21:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 17:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Devonshire

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 add tag so the redirect has both {{ R from alternative name}} and {{ R from historic name}}. -- Tavix ( talk) 16:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Should be tagged with {{ R from historic name}}, however Necrothesp has reverted this tag twice, hence my resorting here. Firstly take the lead section at Devon, where it states that the county is archaically known as Devonshire. Secondly take Devonshire (disambiguation), where we have Devonshire is a historical name for Devon, a county in South West England. The present tag {{ R from alternative name}} is really far too broad in my opinion, and should be changed to the aforementioned tag. -- Nevé – selbert 17:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Add tag per nom, especially when the lead sentence indicates so. Redirects can be given multiple tags. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Add tag per nom. It's factually correct and appropriate. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. The articles are incorrect (and I have changed them). Devonshire is not an archaic name (as Dorsetshire is, for example) and is only historic in the sense that it was formerly the official and common name, but has been superseded in those uses by Devon. It is, however, still used. Maybe not as commonly as Devon, but certainly not in an archaic sense. "Historic name" is not accurate. See Template:R from historic name. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • After your edit the lead now says Devon, also known as Devonshire, which was formerly its common and official name. Template:R from historic name says This is a redirect from a title that is another name, a pseudonym, a nickname, or a synonym that, more than just a "former name", has a significant historic past. For example, a region, state, principate's holding, city, city-state or such, and the subject has been subsumed into a modern era municipality, district or state, or otherwise has experienced a name change. Given that "Devonshire" is another name that has a significant historic past, and the subject has expereienced a name change to "Devon" it seems a perfect match to me. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Add tag. (e/c) Discarding the multiple alternatives that fog the template {{ R from historic name}} as cited by Necrothesp, the relevant part says "This is a redirect from a title that is another name ... that, more than just a "former name", has a significant historic past. For example, a region ... [that] has experienced a name change." It doesn't say anything about the name being archaic, and the use of this tag together with {{ R from alternative name}} seems to capture the present status of the word "Devonshire" quite accurately.  — SMALL JIM  11:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The point is, it hasn't had a name change. It's just now more commonly known as Devon. That's not a name change. "Historic" implies "former", and that is not contradicted by the template notes. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)-- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

One One Se7en

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. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

No longer mentioned in the target article, whose status is Good Article. I'm thinking possible targets: 117 (number) or English numerals. If neither, what else to do with it? George Ho ( talk) 07:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Also spelt "Se7en", not "Seven". George Ho ( talk) 07:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

One One Seven is created as a redirect page. George Ho ( talk) 07:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

Wikipedia:LZD

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. Consensus beyond that is unclear. Further discussion on the redirect's Talk page may be appropriate. Rossami (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:R#D5 as nonsense. FWIW: LZD redirects to an airport in Connecticut. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC) reply

  • This apparently stands for "Led Zeppelin, Deletions" and is listed among several similar shortcuts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Led Zeppelin/Led Zeppelin miscellanea#Shortcuts. – Uanfala (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for the information. I've removed that line from the table as it incorrectly makes it seem like the project has their own deletion sorting category, which is misleading because they don't. On a WikiProject level as specific as a single band, the proper way to set this up would be via article alerts. If the project wasn't defunct, I'd be interested in setting that up for them, but I don't really see the need currently. What's interesting about this shortcut is it wouldn't even cover most of Led Zeppelin anyway. If the band or one of the members were up for deletion via AfD, then it'd be listed there. But if any of their albums or songs were listed, it'd go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs. It's a bit of an WP:XY issue. -- Tavix ( talk) 14:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is part of a series of several WP:LZx redirects to pages relevant to the Led Zeppelin project, e.g. WP:LZA, WP:LZP, WP:LZT, etc. (all the ones at Wikipedia:Shortcut table/uppercase starting with LZ) and it's getting uses so unless there is something more prominent or more expected at this shortcut I see no reason to delete it. Thryduulf ( talk) 03:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: stats show it has hrrrrrad 69 hit over the last year so it's definitely in use, and if there's nothing better we want to use the TLA for then no reason to delete. ( WP:R#D5 is irrelevant because it is not nonsense. User:UanfalaZ explained is basis.) Amisom ( talk) 13:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply
    • You just used what I call the "page view fallacy". You can't assume that something is automatically useful because it has a certain number of page views. We don't know who is using it, whether they are using it deliberately, and if someone using it is satisfied with where they end up. Seeing as it's an incorrect and misleading shortcut from a defunct WikiProject, I think it's a safe bet that those page views are not coming via people wanting to see if this particular band or their members are being nominated for deletion via AfD. -- Tavix ( talk) 14:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply
      • We can never know why people are using a redirect, all we can know is that they are using it. It is the responsibility of the person wanting to change the status quo (in this case you) to show that the change will be beneficial. We know people are using it, and we haven't identified anything else they could be looking for, so why must we assume that it is not useful without any evidence to support that? Thryduulf ( talk) 19:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict) Weak keep Since there isn't a page of Led Zeppelin-related deletions, anyone who does know the significance of this is likely to be disappointed. I would expect that most days, the target page would have nothing related to the band. However... the obscurity of the term gives me pause. Surely no one is expecting a project page about the little airport. It's certainly possible editors interested in music-related deletions has gotten into the habit of using this without any specific expectation of Led Zeppelin content. Given that this is extremely low-value real estate, I'm inclined to just let it slide absent direct evidence of confusion or harm.
As a measure of how weak my vote is, I actually changed it from "weak delete" mid-writing. I'd also like to stress that this is just concerning "LZD"; I haven't looked into uses of the other LZx redirects, and may feel differently about some of them. -- BDD ( talk) 19:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for the evaluation of the WP:XY argument made towards the end.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

KOF Index of Globalization

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 wrong forum. If a redirect is in the way of a page move you need Wikipedia:Requested moves ( WP:RM) not WP:RfD. Thryduulf ( talk) 02:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Draft:KOF Index of Globalization has been reviewed and approved for creation, but can't be moved to main space because this redirect is in the way. Triptothecottage ( talk) 01:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_8&oldid=1231657889"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE