This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 29, 2017.
- 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 as this is no longer a redirect. This is without prejudice to an AfD if anyone desires.Thryduulf (talk)08:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mention of "Spyz" at the target article. Someone seeking information on something named "Spyz" will not find what they're looking for via this redirect and end up disappointed or confused. --Tavix(talk)23:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it looks like someone is trying to turn this into an article. So this should go through AFD instead.AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)01:21, 30 March 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.
- 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. --Patar knight -chat/contributions19:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any usefulness to this redirect? --Tavix(talk)23:22, 29 March 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.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 6#Search Wikipedia
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 7#Samurai Gourmet
Carboniferous Peirod
[edit]Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 7#Carboniferous Peirod
- 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 wasretarget. This was a difficult call; I gave some weight to the result of the January–February discussion, where a more general target for "Mrs. Trump" was preferred. This is the right decision for now, but it's one of those cases where I wouldn't at all be surprised to seeconsensus change in the future. --BDD (talk)21:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Retarget toFamily of Donald Trump, an article that delves into further detail concerning his three marriages. --Nevé–selbert22:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I still don't think it's a useful search term. --Tavix(talk)23:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or retarget'. The very recent consensus was that this is a useful redirect so it should not be deleted. The suggested target was not discussed last time to a speedy close is not appropriate either, but I don't at present have a strong opinion between the two.Thryduulf (talk)00:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- See alsoWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 23#Mr. Trump, including discussion on the redirectMrs. TrumpMrs. Trump. --BDD (talk)15:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support retargeting – I think this is a much more logical target, as the current target suggests that Donald Trump is a woman, and Donald Trump's wives are discussed in very little detail on that article. ~Mable (chat)18:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to either the family article orDonald_Trump#Family, where his wives are immediately discussed. This style of referring to husbands is dated, but still used. ----Patar knight -chat/contributions20:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget toMelania Trump as originally created. If this is ever used by anyone at all, it's probably someone looking for Donald Trump's wife who can't remember her first name. But it doesn't matter much.Station1 (talk)22:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @UpsandDowns1234: I disagree with you and I agree with@Patar knight:: this is a dated but common way to refer to someone's wife. --Mr. Guye (talk)19:41, 31 March 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.
Richard Gough (footballer)
[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 wasretarget. --BDD (talk)21:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose retargeting toRichard Gough asWP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Other footballer only appeared in one game and so just barely meets ourfootball notability guideline. --Patar knight -chat/contributions15:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only two Richard Goughs I had ever heard of "off wiki" are the author ofThe History of Myddle, about whom we do not have an article, andRichard Gough (antiquarian), of whom I had only heard because it's important not to confuse him with theMyddle gentleman. I believe that the idea of a Primary Topic is often unhelpful, as it tends to both reinforce cultural biases and to make it hard to find and fix incorrect links. In this specific case, I do not see that any harm is done byRichard Gough (footballer) pointing to the dab page, and some harm - incorrect links - can be avoided by it. So Ioppose the proposal, but frankly I am not overly bothered by the wikifate of these two muddied oafs.DuncanHill (talk)15:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Systemic bias issues are important to consider in considering what a primary topic is, but in this case the only two footballers by this name are markedly at the opposite ends of the notability spectrum. The page views argument for retargeting is stark: witha 166:1 ratio in former of the more prominent one (or 165:1 if we assume that every single pageview for the Welsh footballer came from people who used the hatnote on the Scottish footballer's page). ----Patar knight -chat/contributions17:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The bias is treating a footballer as more important than an antiquary.DuncanHill (talk)18:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless the antiquary is also a footballer, his importance doesn't impact whether "Richard Gough (footballer)" should go to the more prominent Scottish footballer or to the DAB. Anyone is free to move pages around/start RMs independent of this RFD. IfRichard Gough becomes a DAB, the current page should be at Richard Gough (footballer) as the primary topic.----Patar knight -chat/contributions18:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, I seem not to have made myself clear. I was objecting to having either footballer, or indeed anyone else, as Primary Topic. As well as that I think that as long as we have two footballers of the same name then the "(footballer)" page should redirect to the dab. But I really can't be bothered, so do whatever you like.DuncanHill (talk)18:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, and if you can be bothered, start an RM. Your edit summary that we're dealing with "two utterly trivial footballers" is plainly wrong. The current page at the base name notes of the Scottish footballer that:
He then captained Rangers to nine successive Scottish league championships. He also played for Scotland 61 times and played in the finals of three major international tournaments.
, while the Welsh footballer literally only played one international match. Even if you don't like football, it's pretty clear that the two footballers are not both inconsequential with no clear primary topic between them for the (footballer) parenthetical disambiguator.----Patar knight -chat/contributions20:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]- He could have captained Rangers to the moon, he'd still be an item of pub trivia. You clearly haven't understood what I have been saying, so I'll try to make it as clear as possible - I don't care what you decide to do. I don't care about either footballer, I don't care about the stupid, anti-intellectual, and counterproductive "Primary Topic" rule, and I don't care any more about incorrect incoming links, the editors who lazily introduce them, and the readers who end up on the wrong pages because "Primary Topic" trumps all good sense and logic. I don't care. I wish I hadn't bothered, I wish I hadn't bothered trying to fix DPLBot's stupid errors, I wish I hadn't read the sodding dab page, and I wish I hadn't tried to bow out of this discussion gracefully in my very first post in this thread. I should have just ignored it.DuncanHill (talk)20:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget as proposed. IfDuncanHill or anyone else wants to make the disambiguation primary then they should propose this atWP:RM, but that is not relevant to the RfD as we deal with the situation as it might be after a discussion that has not even been started.Thryduulf (talk)08:50, 30 March 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.
- 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 wasrestore disambiguation. --BDD (talk)20:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DoesJanet Young, Baroness Young qualify for aWP:PRIMARYREDIRECT? I can't see why not, she is the only British peer to be known solely as "Baroness Young" without a territorial designation, and considering that she was the only female member ofthe Thatcher government (while a peer) she has a better than fair claim towp:primary topic status. For those looking for a different baroness, the{{distinguish}} hatnote at her article should adequately disambiguate. Note that when the redirect was created about a decade ago, it wasmade as a redirect to Janet Young, so I boldly restored it to that revision a number of days ago.Patar knight reverted my edit yesterday so I've resorted here, where hopefully a consensus can be reached. --Nevé–selbert14:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore DAB. These titles are really just baronies awarded to women with the surname Young, and don't have a geographic or ex officio component (e.g.Duke of Somerset,Duke of Cornwall).Many reliable sources refer to the other two peers just as Baroness Young without the geographic component (e.g.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6]). The other two Baronesses Young are also qualified, one used to be the Labour Whip in the Lords, headed numerous charities and public agencies and is the chancellor of a university, while the other is an accomplished actress and an emeritus professor.The three pages' page views are balanced, which is another argument for not having a clear primary topic. ----Patar knight -chat/contributions15:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore Dab - whenever someone mentions Baroness Young I feel compelled to check whether they mean Janet or Barbara, and often find that they themselves do not know. Such ready confusion seems to me to require clear disambiguation.DuncanHill (talk)16:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore Dab per others. Also retargetLady Young to this dab page. Note that the See also on the dab page is especially important because Baroness Young of xxxx could also be the wife of Baron Young of xxxx, of which there are a few.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)10:38, 4 April 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.
- 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)20:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RDEL #10, entry was removed from target last year, no other suitable targetParadoctor (talk)05:50, 29 March 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.
- 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)20:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RDEL #10, entry was removed from target last year, no other suitable target, and disambiguation is not needed anyway for this termParadoctor (talk)05:49, 29 March 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.
Book (musical theater)
[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)14:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wasconfused when the page targeted to such a general article. It doesn't even target a section. I know what a musical is. Tell me something I don't know.
This redirect should be refined, retargeted, created as an article, or deleted.Mr. Guye (talk)02:24, 29 March 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.
Disagree withNeve-selbert in that I think retargeting to the Immediate family section in the Trump family article is superior to targeting the general article, as you proposed. -Mr. Guye (talk)19:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]