June 24

Fancy Pants (Lady Gaga song)

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. --Tavix^(talk)19:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Fancy Pants (Lady Gaga song) →Lady Gaga (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the article or inList of songs recorded by Lady Gaga.Peter James (talk)19:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A bit of search appears to state that this is an officially unreleased song done as a kind of collaboration, and no widespread publication is planned at this time.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)01:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nomination and CoffeeWithMarkets. —IB^{[Poke ]}04:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not included on any of her official releases, and it doesn't look like this will be anytime soon (if ever)Snuggums (talk /edits)04:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. ---Another Believer_(Talk)19:29, 1 July 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.

Revolution (Beyoncé album)

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. --Tavix^(talk)19:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Revolution (Beyoncé album) →Beyoncé (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Revolution (Beyonce album) →Beyoncé (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This was a redirected article about an unofficial album that is not mentioned here or in theBeyoncé discography.Peter James (talk)19:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if there's no article to which this page should redirect. ---Another Believer_(Talk)19:29, 1 July 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.

That One

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. Usually after I close a discussion, I'll check for other similar redirects and take care of those at that time. I obviously forgot to do so afterThat one was deleted. I'll do so now, noting that it'shighly unlikely that a different outcome will transpire here, taking both discussions into account. --Tavix^(talk)20:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That One →United States presidential debates, 2008#October 7: Second presidential debate .28Belmont University .E2.80.93 Nashville townhall.29 (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Delete. Same rationale as forthat one which was deleted perWikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_19#That_one. It is an overly generic redirect attached to an obscure incident and therefore it is more likely to cause confusion than to be helpful.Slideshow Bob (talk)17:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)18:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We came to a decision before. Everything still stands.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)07:49, 25 June 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.

CSS filter

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.Anarchyte(work |talk)14:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• CSS filterCSS filter →CSS hack (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Inaccurate redirect. Although "CSS filter" is a term for the techniques described atCSS hack, CSS filter now is more likely to refer to this:https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/filter.User:GKFX^talk20:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The page was at this title for more than a decade, and the term is used to describe these techniques. Until there's information about the other usage of the term, I don't see a problem with the redirect at this time. If the other usage becomes more significant, consider hatnotes and/or a disambiguation page. --Tavix^(talk)14:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tavix.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT)17:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tavix. I wasn't able to find any content on wikipedia about the CSS filter property, so until such content is added the current target is appropriate. –Uanfala12:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to disambig The "new" meaning of CSS filter has been around for a few years now[1]. It is established and stable. The "old" meaning is covered atCSS hack. Our best solution is to disambiguate (yes, with a redlink) and to write an article on the new meaning, as soon as possible.Andy Dingley (talk)21:26, 1 July 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.

Principality and Diocese of Monaco

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 wasconvertPrincipality and Diocese of Monaco to aset index article andretargetMonaco, Principality and Diocese of to the former.

The consensus for the SIA is pretty clear. As for the retargeting, Nyttend's argument, echoed by Aervanath and Salvidrim!, that multiple such redirects already exist, is more convincing, since it also refutes the "can of worms" argument (Wilson, Woodrow exists since 2004 after all).SoWhy14:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Principality and Diocese of Monaco →Monaco (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Monaco, Principality and Diocese ofMonaco, Principality and Diocese of →Monaco (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

where should these point?Monaco - the article on the principality (country) orRoman Catholic Archdiocese of Monaco - the article on the (arch)diocese (whereDiocese of Monaco redirects)? "Principality and Diocese of Monaco" is the title of the article in theCatholic Encyclopaedia, and both got an above noise level of hits last year (13 and 49 respectively) so I don't favour deletion.Thryduulf (talk)13:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a title in the Catholic Encyclopedia, so that's why it's there. I think it should stay and keep pointing toMonaco.JASpencer (talk)13:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic encyclopaedia article covers both the political and ecumenical areas in one article, Wikipedia covers them separately (see alsoWP:XY).Thryduulf (talk)19:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete perWP:XY since Wikipedia treats these separately. They could equally refer to thePrincipality of Monaco (the country) or theDiocese of Monaco. --Tavix^(talk)17:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, if I'm correct in assuming that the diocese is coterminous with the country. If that's the case, I could just imagine a reader thinking this was the country's name and thinking it might need some sort of disambiguation. XY deletion would be my second choice; I don't see benefit in retargeting to the diocese. --BDD (talk)20:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• SIA (1st choice) orkeep (2nd choice). So far the discussion has shown that this is a reasonable and unambiguous search term, used primarily by Catholic sources, to give a title to the place Monaco. This is more like a case ofDave Carter and Tracy Grammer thanillness and death. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't cover these topics with a different article structure means that we should point readers to the right place by having either a set index or a redirect. I've drafted an SIA under the RfD template for consideration.Deryck C.09:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both only used in that Catholic Encyclopedia, which would favorDiocese of Monaco. Not a common term used in other books on the subject. It doesn't seem to be a formal title, but if it is then redirect to Diocese of Monaco. The second term would open up a can of worms with search terms like "America, United States of". Alternatively, you could do something likeDiocese of California, although that SIA two different possible dioceses and also links to California.AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)18:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - Although, I'd be alright with the first staying and going over to 'Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Monaco' instead. The latter sets up a bad precedent as stated above. Pretty sure that it should be deleted.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)01:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteMonaco, Principality and Diocese ofMonaco, Principality and Diocese of to avoid setting precedent; andConvertPrincipality and Diocese of Monaco to aWP:SIA in the way that iscurrently drafted. Ben – Salvidrim! · ✉00:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily care too strongly about the deletion ofMonaco, Principality and Diocese ofMonaco, Principality and Diocese of; it could be kept and retargetted to the ensuing SIA. Ben – Salvidrim! · ✉04:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Dothis toPrincipality and Diocese of Monaco. It's a title in a significant encyclopedia, so we ought to havesomething at that title. And retargetMonaco, Principality and Diocese of toPrincipality and Diocese of Monaco; we have plenty of redirects from alphabetisations that work best in print (seeWilson, Woodrow orTolstoy, Lev Nikolayevich for examples), and I don't see how this one's different from many others. By the way,America, United States of has existed as a redirect toUnited States for almost three years.Nyttend (talk)03:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nyttend your diff points to a redirect version, but your edit summary says SIA... wrong diff? Ben – Salvidrim! · ✉04:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, yes, you're right. I've now changed the link from[2] to its new target.Nyttend (talk)04:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ConvertPrincipality and Diocese of Monaco to aWP:SIA as perSalvidrim andretargetMonaco, Principality and Diocese ofMonaco, Principality and Diocese of as perNyttend.--Aervanath (talk)11:51, 1 August 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.

Inchoate