This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 7, 2016.
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)22:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to be a valid transliteration. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)23:08, 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.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 17#Template:Source
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep. --BDD (talk)22:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several different redirects on same subject, seems unnecessary to create individual disambigs/redirects for TYPES of spray-on clothing. Spray-on clothing is a catch all and does not need more detail in that respect.Chrissymad❯❯❯Talk18:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have combined the nominations due to them posessing the same rationale. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)19:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all misleading target, should anyone search for these, they will be disappointed. More Neelixism at its best. (No I don't mean created by him, I mean created by someone with similar ideologies). -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)19:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all as very likely search terms. If I was looking for information about any of these things I would find what we have at the target (that article coul be better, true, but that is not relevant to this discussion).Thryduulf (talk)21:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- redirects are supposed to be useful, correct? PerhapsChrissymad orChampion could explain their reasoning more fully? I'll remind them thatWP:Wikipedia is not censored. It sounds like you may be saying, in your personal opinion, the topic of spray-on-clothing is too trivial to be fully disambiguated, and that the stupid readers who search for it should be punished, if they don't initially try searching under the terms you will allow to remain. I hope you mean something other than that, because that sound like a bad reason to restrict search terms.Geo Swan (talk)21:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- They are misleading due to that the relevant terms are not mentioned in the target and thus unlikely to help a reader.Geo Swan's concerns can be raised elsewhere and not at RFD. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)22:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What you describe isan editorial problem. Thearticle didn't mention the redirection terms? Two possible reasons for that could be: first, that those terms weren't really related to the main article topic; or second that the article needed expansion, and the terms were meaningfully connected.
How do we figure out if the terms are connected?User:Champion, are you suggesting our only choice is to look to the article itself? Don't you think it would be appropriate to do a web search?
Please remember, we are all supposed to be here tobuild an encyclopedia, not tear it apart.Geo Swan (talk)01:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentGeo Swan I don't think anyone was implying that readers were stupid, particularly myself, so please do not put words in my mouth (or I guess in this case, keyboard?) I don't find it to be a helpful redirect and find it to be overly specific, especially in the case ofSpray-on garment andSpray-on clothes. They are just adjectives for the same word and would fall underSpray-on clothing. Imo, it would be like having redirects to cover every possible word used. Wiki search will generateSpray-on clothing if you search Spray-on clothes, it's not going to leave anyone in the dark and the original subject is not covered in the article or stub.Chrissymad❯❯❯Talk22:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many ways to search and browse Wikipedia, only some of which result in useful search results from the internal search engine and those results cannot be guaranteed even when they are seen. Take a look at some redirects tagged with{{R from search term}} to see that, yes we do routinely have redirects to articles from other terms people might use to find them but which have not been chosen as our article title.Thryduulf (talk)22:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep almost all per Thryduulf, as most of these are simply synonyms for "clothing". I'mneutral on "dress", as that one seems a bit more specific. (Can you have a spray-on dress? I'm not sure, and the target isn't helpful there). --Tavix(talk)22:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all, they all seem like plausible redirects to me. --AmaryllisGardenertalk00:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all as likely search targets. If companies produces even spray-on socks, and we have no separate article on that in particular, then that should redirect to this article as well. Redirects are cheap, and their job with regard to mainspace is getting readers to appropriate content. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all.Champion's argues that the redirects have to be deleted, since the redirected terms weren't explicitly used in the article.
Point of order -- which policy contains this requirement?
RS did use those terms, so I explicitly added them to the article.
FWIW the article should be at"spray-on fabric"; "spray-on clothing" should be one more redirect, as the website for the site of the first manufacturer of this kind of product says that it can also be used for "spray-on bandages". Apparently the product is sterile.Geo Swan (talk)04:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all per above, since they're useful search terms.@Tavix:, I would think "dress" is fine if understood in the sense of "formal dress" instead of the specific item of clothing.----Patar knight -chat/contributions04:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all as plausible synonyms for "clothing." --Notecardforfree (talk)02:02, 13 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 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)22:19, 16 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.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 17#Cooked sliced ham
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep. --Tavix(talk)17:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never referred to by this name, it is not a name like "The Donald" or even "The Wikipedia". Disregarding my comment atWikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_21#The_Truro_by-election.2C_1987. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)02:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Likely to be used by people less familiar with the internet, or those who pretend to be those people. Since the target is unlikely to be moved, it's mostly harmless and cheap. ----Patar knight -chat/contributions01:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Patar knight: How do you know that people will look for this, people "less familiar with the internet" would probably not know what Wikipedia is, and is the "those who pretend to be part" of your comment a joke, "The Wikipedia" is a plausible name for I have seen it being used even in professional sources, but this name suggests something specific. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)02:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above, and because en.wp should at least attempt to account for common errors by non-native speakers. Full mastery of when to use or not use the definite article in English is not only challenging but a moving target. In my own lifetime, it's been dropped from Gambia, Ukraine, and Crimea by most native speakers, but not The Hague. And it has never been consistent for many major organizations ([the] ACLU), bands ([The] Pixies), etc. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:31, 8 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 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep Inaugurated → Inauguration;keep Graduating → Graduation;retarget Graduated → Graduate. There is consensus to adoptUser:AngusWOOF's proposal (which interesting de-harmonizes analogous redirects).Deryck C.19:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neelix-ish redirect, not plausible search terms. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)04:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - the target confusion identified by AngusWOOF is exactly the reason that the creationness of redirectionings from every plausiblish variantation of a word is harmfulinglyishness.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)16:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse Angus Woof's recommendations per his reasoning.Thryduulf (talk)21:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget the one per AngusWOOF, keep the others as plausible search targets. Ivanvector's complaint appears invalid to me, because it's about fake, made-up pseudo-words like "redirectionings" and "variantation", but these redirs are in fact common, everyday English words. Redirects are cheap and, with regard to mainspace, exist to get people to actual pertinent content. It is not our job to torture incoming readers into learning the nit-picks of WP naming conventions by osmosis. It will not be at all immediately obvious to the average user that we have articles usually at nouns like "inauguration" not at other parts of speech. And we're not even entirely consistent about that, having many articles at names that are gerunds (i.e., verbs which can also be used as nouns in particular constructions). Be reader-friendly not "reader-hateful". >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse AngusWOOF, he's correct for the correct reasons.Tazerdadog (talk)04:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree withAngusWOOF's proposal. --Notecardforfree (talk)02:22, 13 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.
Bear versus bull (Reality)
[edit]Natalie Imbruglia: The Collection
[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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasProcedural close Due to the overwhelming consensus that this should be reverted and discussed at AfD and not RfD. I'll go ahead and nominate it. Being bold here as I believe such a discussion can almost be unanimous.(non-admin closure) -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)05:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Album is not mentioned in target. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)06:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Rubbish computer (HALP!:I dropped the bass?)10:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- revert tothis version, the last revision prior to being unilaterally changed from an article to a redirect (in good faith), and send to AfD. I don't think it's notable, but RfD is not an appropriate venue to discus the deletion of articles.Thryduulf (talk)21:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thryduulf: I did a quick check and confirmed that this does not meetWP:NALBUM due to that I cannot find any sources that would otherwise make it meet the criteria, (Update:on second check, I cannot even confirm whether such an album ever existed in the first place, due to there beingabsolutely no sources) so sending it to AfD would be a waste of time and undoubtedly unanimous "Delete" so I guess its better to prod it if this RFD is closed. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)22:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- PROD or AfD is fine, and I agree that it is almost certain to be deleted, but it is important to get deletion processes right even if it may seem bureaucratic.Thryduulf (talk)22:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thryduulf: Upon further investigation, I'd strongly be against restoring this as this is almost certainly thesecond-longest hoax in the history of the 'Pedia. I didn't realize that this was an article before you pointed it out, so thank you for the heads up. I repeat, I foundabsolutely no evidence that this ever existed. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)22:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You make good arguments for an AfD, but this is not an AfD, this is RfD and this is not a competent venue to determine if an article should be kept or deleted.Thryduulf (talk)00:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thryduulf: I'm worried that if I restore the article mirror sites would quickly pick up this hoax and thus it would be spread on several websites, that is why I said I'd be against doing it, but if you have any objections, please do state them and I sure will reconsider. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)00:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I repeat the objections I have made above at least twice directly above: It is completely inappropriate to delete an article at RfD, regardless of why you want to do it. If you tag the article with{{Hoax}} that should be enough to alert anyone who sees this directly or via a mirror.Thryduulf (talk)01:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert andlist per Thryduulf. The current nomination, while made in good faith, amounts to backdoor deletion and is not appropriate. -Eureka Lott04:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert & AfD per the above. I would expect this to get merged into the main article as a discography entry without dwelling on details, but whatever. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @SMCandlish: Are you kidding me, I just basically proved that this was almost certainly a hoax, what is the point of merging with another page. While I'm at it, I'd now be happy to close this and take it to AfD if nobody objects. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)04:58, 8 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 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasKeep both(non-admin closure). --Notecardforfree (talk)20:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure is a plausible abbreviation, support dabifying by all means if other usages can be found. Couldn't find other abbreviation, just delete for these two redirects don't conform to one another. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)06:44, 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.
User talk:Aliaume Damala Badara Akon Thiam
[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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep, now that the page is just a legitimate message for the user (which happens to be the notification of this discussion). As noted, user talk pages really need to function as such, unlike user pages, which can at least soft redirect to almost anywhere the user desires. --BDD (talk)22:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate CNR. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)06:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to a soft redirect. The user in question made the redirect, so they obviously want it. The soft redirect lets them keep the link while avoiding the serious problems with a user talk → article hard redirect.Thryduulf (talk)21:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a rather interesting paradox at play here. The user needs to be notified of this discussion, but placing a notice on their talk page would mean that their talk page is no longer a redirect. Once the user talk page is no longer a redirect, this discussion could then be procedurally closed as it'd no longer be in RfD's jurisdiction. With that in mind, just notify them of this discussion andremove the redirect. Probably leave the discussion open to give them time to respond, but there's no need to debate this. There's better things we can be doing. --Tavix(talk)21:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and did just that. --Tavix(talk)21:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as wholly inappropriate to begin with. The purpose of user talk pages is for communication between editors, and this is an attempt to thwart that. If the user really wants a redir (or, rather, a soft redir) in their user space for this article, they can create one that doesn't get in the way of everyday WP process. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:07, 8 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.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 17#LH Server
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)22:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what this is supposed to refer to, but it seems more likely to refer towindows than the operating system, delete nevertheless, vague search term. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)06:16, 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.
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)22:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Term not mentioned in target. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)06:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't this a screensaver for, I think,Windows 3.1? Whether that's useful to have, I don't know. (We haveFlying toasters). Searching the Interweb for "Flying windows.scr" tends to indicate that it is/was, and has been retrofitted by various third parties to Win8/10, but how much use that is to Wikipedia I don't know.Si Trew (talk)07:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @SimonTrew: I remember XP did have like a Windows flag screensaver that folded, I don't have access to an XP PC or a virtual machine, not sure if it is notable for a separate article though. My personal favourite would have to be the Maze one in Win98/2k. But your typical Linux distro has literally hundreds more than any Windows OS, such as the flyingGNOME feet etc. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)07:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment seeWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flying_Windows. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)10:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this is an ancient article, that only in 2014 was redirected to Microsoft Windows. While I wouldn't call this specific screensaver notable, a general article on Windows screensavers might be, and the threshold for redirects is lower than notability (the redirect target should be notable, though). Consider redirecting toScreensaver instead. – gpvos (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Reluctantdelete. This was merged into the current target, but a discussion on the talk page (archive 4) indicates that the content has since been removed. I am very surprised we don't have a list of Windows screensavers to retarget this to, but I can't find one so I have to relucantantly recommend deletion.Thryduulf (talk)21:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with no prejudice against re-creation and redirection to an article on Windows screensavers (or even an article on screensavers generally) if this one is mentioned in it. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - We have a main article on the concept and history ofscreensavers, but there's no specific list of notable screensaver options that have gotten popular, nor should there be (in my opinion, although I've no strong feelings here really).CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)07:15, 8 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 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)22:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not plausible, there is a non-notable operating system by this name. The closest target I could find wasWind River Systems but I still support deletion. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)06:11, 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.
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)22:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this isn't the primary meaning of "tied together." --Tavix(talk)03:46, 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.
List of earthquakes in 2018
[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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)22:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perWP:TOOSOON. Page can be recreated when we have information about earthquakes in these years. --Tavix(talk)03:32, 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.
Contain (disambiguation)
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep. --Tavix(talk)18:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ex post facto note: After closing this, I took it upon myself to try to expandContainContain into an actual disambiguation page. However, the only thing I came up with were definitions that are already present inContainment (disambiguation). Because of that, I'veWP:BOLDLY mergedContain withContainment (disambiguation), adding the links towikt:contain andContainer (disambiguation). It seems obvious to me, but do let me know if you disagree and we can talk about it. --Tavix(talk)18:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Target is a soft redirect to Wiktionary that has several "see also" entries on it. This page has "(disambiguation)" in the title, and the target is not a disambiguation page, so this should be deleted to leave the search engine free to find the page. Speedy declined. —Gorthian (talk)03:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The target may not, technically, be a disambiguation page but it clearly functions as one.Thryduulf (talk)22:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep perThryduulf useful to the reader, does have the function of a dab page. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)22:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The current target,Contain, was PRODed byUser:JHunterJ because there are no articles with ambiguous titles.User:Bkonrad removed the PROD and made the soft redirect. It seems to me thatContain is not necessary, though perhaps older≠wiser disagrees. Perhaps we should decide what to do with the target, and then what to do with the redirect.Cnilep (talk)03:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, target is not a disambiguation page. Keeping such redirects dilutes the purpose of intentional links to disambiguation pages. I've no opinion regarding whethercontain should remain as a soft redirect.older ≠wiser12:40, 11 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.
Conelrad (disambiguation)
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)22:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect with "(disambiguation)" in its title that no longer targets a dab page; it needs to be deleted as housekeeping. Speedy was declined. —Gorthian (talk)03:03, 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.
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep and hatnote. --Tavix(talk)19:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguous, it could refer to the default browser on Android, which is just called "Browser" but not sure if we have an article on that. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)05:58, 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.
Communist Party of Nepal (disambiguation)
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasno consensus. --Tavix(talk)17:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy was declined, so I bring this here. This page used to be a dab page, until it was moved toList of communist parties in Nepal as a result of aRM. That was over three years ago. Now, with "(disambiguation)" in its title and no dab page to target, it needs to be deleted. —Gorthian (talk)02:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominated. The target is an article (a list article), and articles shouldn't be targets of (disambiguation) redirects. --JHunterJ (talk)
- Keep serves the same purpose as a disambiguation page, points to where the readers expect it to point, there is also a link to the target atCommunist Party of Nepal. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)19:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- List articles do not serve the same purpose as disambiguation pages. --JHunterJ (talk)13:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not always, but on this occasion there is nothing that would be listed on a disambiguation page for "Communist Party of Nepal" that is not included on the "List of communist parties in Nepal". If that changes in the future then this can be revisited, but for now there is no benefit in inconveniencing the user because of semantics.Thryduulf (talk)13:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if someone is searching for this title (and people do search directly for titles such as this when they know there are multiple articles but don't know what the one they want is called) then they want to find links to articles about communist parties in Nepal, which is exactly what they find at the target.Thryduulf (talk)22:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Obviously, from the looks of it, this increases readers' curiosity.George Ho (talk)18:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, target is not a disambiguation page and keeping only dilutes the meaning of such intentional redirects to disambiguation pages.older ≠wiser01:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Opinions so far appear to be split between members of WP Disambiguation (who are for deleting) and the RfD regulars (who are for keeping). It seems to me that there is some scope for a broad discussion (although maybe not an RfC) to decide on that, as redirects like this are bound to come up again and again. – Uanfala (talk)12:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The target article has the content that readers looking for a disambiguation page would be looking for. This is not a case where the list article contains extensive details on each entry and a separate DAB page may be justified, since it merely lists the different parties that use or have used that name----Patar knight -chat/contributions23:13, 12 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 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)22:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not related to whatever language this is. -CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs)02:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The language is Navajo. As in the prayerHózhǫ́ naashá (in beauty I walk). The best spelling ishózhǫ́, buthózhó is very common because it's hard to writehózhǫ́ without a Navajo keyboard. I think the only reason I addedhózhó was because it was better than eitherhozho orhozhó. So I don't care whether it is kept or deleted.—Stephen (talk)09:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget toNavajo. The term is used throughout that article, and explains it a little better than the Beauty article.AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)00:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete them all This is not what the word means at all. Its just for dumb white people who want to sound cool and then come to our lands and think they know it, like I read that on wiki so it must be true. you dont know shit. delete. learn the true meaning.— Precedingunsigned comment added by75.172.214.119 (talk •contribs) 01:06, December 3, 2016 (UTC)
- delete all, Beauty is not a Navajo specific concept, so we do not need such redirect from another language. Also, we do not link more or less random words in foreign language to the language article. -Nabla (talk)15:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget toNavajo, where it is described. --Tavix(talk)02:02, 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.
Seraikistan, a movement against Punjabi and Pushto
[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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)22:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perWP:RDEL #3. This redirect is a remnant of a page move from Feb 2007, when a user apparently decided to share their personal opinion onSaraikistan by renaming the article. As this wasn't undone until six months later, it's conceivable there might be incoming external links, but I don't think this is very likely. – Uanfala (talk)02:08, 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.
