July 21

Wikipedia:Kill

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)19:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:KillWikipedia:Kill →Project Kill (links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Why on earth is a WP: redirect linking to main article namespace? Delete or retarget to a more appropriate page for WP:Kill, like, say, WP:TNT.GSMR (talk)18:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @GSMR: It's because "Project:" is anWP:ALIAS for "Wikipedia:". If someone were to type in the official name of the film ("Project: Kill"), the software would translate that to "Wikipedia:Kill." SeeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 24#Wikipedia:Superior for another case. --Tavix^(talk)18:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tavix. We should really have a rcat template on these pages that explains why they exist.Thryduulf (talk)19:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see{{R restricted}} – since that rcat has tagged this redirect for more than a year, I don't see why the nom didn't see it. Does it need more improvement? On top of that, there is a hatnote that explains about "Project:" as an alias for the "Wikipedia:" namespace.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  20:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above as necessary for technical reasons.Sideways713 (talk)19:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.KGirlTrucker81^{talkwhat I'm been doing}22:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. There was an RfD discussion for the exact same thing about five years ago.PC78 (talk)23:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to the technical limitations of the wiki itself --Lenticel^(talk)00:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please see the Old rfd template on thetalk page, which shows this redirect as nominated for deletion on 23 May 2011. The result was "nomination withdrawn on realising technical issue". There is no fault for withdrawing this nomination for the same reason.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  07:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wheat belt (United States)

Guest of honour

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 wasdabify. I've retargeted the other redirects and tweaked relevant hatnotes. I haven't moved any pages, but I don't find consensus against any such moves. --BDD (talk)15:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Guest of honour →Guest appearance (links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The guest of honour is the most important person at a social occasion. It doesn't seem to have anything to do withGuest appearance.Paul_012 (talk)12:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Man this is a mess.Guest of honorGuest of honor redirects toGuest of Honour, a film.Guest of HonorGuest of Honor redirects to the absurdly-overspecificScience fiction convention#Guests of Honor.Guests of honorGuests of honor redirects toGuest appearance too. And finally there is also an opera calledA Guest of Honor and a book calledA Guest of Honour (which have nothing to do with each other or the film).210.6.254.106 (talk)15:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like howOrangemike made that specific sci-fi one, criticising the target in the nomination as "peculiar".[1] –FayenaticLondon21:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Create a disambiguation page andRetarget all the titles 210.6.254.106 mentioned to it (movingGuest of Honour toGuest of Honour (film),A Guest of Honor toA Guest of Honor (opera) andA Guest of Honour toA Guest of Honour (book))Pppery(talk)15:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Move, Disambig and retarget per Pppery's recommendations.Thryduulf (talk)17:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (As creator:) There are nine incoming links to the nominated version alone, so let's not delete it.Disambiguate perPppery. –FayenaticLondon21:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with disambiguation (as nominator). A Wiktionary link also seems warranted. --Paul_012 (talk)03:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Dab as above. Include Guest of Honor. Hatnotes can be cleaned up as a result.AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)17:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

21-1

MDY redirects

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. Neither desired actions nor the redirects affected are clear. --BDD (talk)15:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• January 1, 2003January 1, 2003 →2003#January (links·history·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Many of these dates are not specifically mentioned in the month section header, making the redirect point to something that doesn't exist. I am also nominating all other such MDY redirects (January 2, 2003,February 1, 2003,January 3, 2004) that do not have the date mentioned in the section for the same reason. Additionally, the presence of these redirects is quite random (why doesJanuary 1, 2004 not exist)?Pppery (talk)00:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I did not tag any of the redirects I mentioned.Pppery (talk)00:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• January 1, 2004 is a redlink becauseAnthony Appleyard has done a history merge of it intoPortal:Current events/2004 January 1. The discussion atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 11#Using archives of Portal:Current events for month articles says that "Month Year" articles for Year≥1997 now redirect to the year article instead of showing an archived portal and the archived portal is now at "Portal:Current events/Month Year". That madeタチコマ robot fix the double redirects. In fact, the non-redirect revisions ofJanuary 1, 2003January 1, 2003 up toDecember 31, 2004December 31, 2004 should all be moved toPortal:Current events/2003 January 1 up toPortal:Current events/2004 December 31; pingingWaldir for this.24.205.8.104 (talk)00:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Eitherhistory merge orretarget to the relevant "Portal:Current events" page. Straight up deletion is not an option here perWP:MAD as they are redirects from merges. --Tavix^(talk)03:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The relevantPortal:Current events subpages do not generally exist (Portal:Current events/2003 January 1 is a redlink). What is there to history merge into? Or are you intending to support the proposal the IP made, which is more of a history split than a history merge?Pppery (talk)13:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Current event pages for those dates don't exist because at the time the convention was to create day pages directly in the main namespace. Some of them have been moved to match the new pattern, but lots of the old pages still need to be moved. I just finished cleaning up the exceptions (moves that had been made leaving a redirect behind) from 2003 and 2004 pages. Now the remaining ones need to be moved to the corresponding page in the portal namespace, without leaving a redirect behind (seeUser:Waldir/DateMatrix#2004 for an overview). Unfortunately for bot edits I have normally used AWB, which doesn't support automatic page moves. Moving ~600 pages by hand is a bit daunting. I wonder if@Anomie: could do the remaining moves, considering his bot has done this before (e.g.Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 35) --Waldir^talk22:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indian states rankings

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)23:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Indian states rankingsIndian states rankings →Template:Lists of states and territories of India (links·history·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

SeeWP:R#D6. Note that this used to be an article.Stefan2 (talk)17:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Template seems to include what anyone searching for this would want inside of one jumbled mess like the old article at this name. No real target for this except to create a list of all the entries on the template, but that's busywork. ----Patar knight -^chat/_{contributions}19:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Patar Knight and my comments on other R#D6 nominations.Thryduulf (talk)11:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

County of Orange

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, so this will be kept as is. --Tavix^(talk)00:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• County of OrangeCounty of Orange →Principality of Orange (links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect toOrange County (which is a dab pagePrisencolin (talk)02:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I don't see anyone searching for any of the other topics with the phrasing "County of Orange". The American Orange Counties, not to mentionOrange County (film), simply aren't referred to in that way.--Cúchullain^t/c02:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While some, and perhaps all, of the counties might be formally named as County of Orange, that is a highly stilted manner of referring to them. Practically speaking, anyone searching for "County of Orange" is looking for the feudal state. A hatnote there should suffice for disambiguation.older ≠wiser03:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Do any of you have any proof of what you're claiming, I think I do. Also, it seems that the fiefdom was no longer referred to as County of Orange after it was upgraded to a Principality in the 12th century.--Prisencolin (talk)07:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no standalone article on the county at present, it is combined in other articles (and as far as I'm concerned,Prince of Orange#County of Orange might be a more apt target for the redirect than the principality, but that's a different discussion). Regardless, that doesn't mean the County of Orange is not a notable topic in its own right.older ≠wiser10:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A google web search indicates thatOrange County, California is the clear primary topic for the search"County of Orange" -Wikipedia. Doing the same search on Google books shows no clear primary, but the first three pages of results are all for US counties withOrange County, Virginia possibly the most numerous. The current target doesn't feature at all on either search.Thryduulf (talk)12:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget toPrince of Orange#County of Orange per Bkonrad since the two polities are considered distinct there. ----Patar knight -^chat/_{contributions}14:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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