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.
From 2005 until the middle of September 2021, this pointed toSon. It was changed toSon Kolis after an editor built a page on top of the existing redirect, and then moved it. I believe that aretarget is in order so thatSons points toSon. —Mikehawk10 (talk)22:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toSon: Revert to the long standing consensus, and common sense. Sons is plural of son, so that's what people will most likely be looking for.Joseph2302 (talk)10:47, 20 October 2021 (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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Keep ordisambig. This is indeed far from the only notable storm to happen in October, but it seems to be one of only two referred to as the "October Storm" as a proper noun, the other being theGreat storm of 1987 - and the latter is far more commonly the "Great October Storm" and so a hatnote to that would be appropriate. As a second choice a disambiguation page between the two of them and would be OK, but I don't think it's necessary as the current target is primary and the only other uses I found are a racehorse and a song, neither of which seem to be notable and three see also entries: theSt. Jude storm (briefly referred to as the October Storm 2013 in Danish, i.e.Oktoberstormen 2013);Typhoon Songda (2016) (also known as the "Ides of October Storm"); andThe October Storm of 1800 (about which we have less than a paragraph of information). The 2006 storm is also known as theSurprise October Storm, and is unquestionably the primary topic for that phrase but it does If we have list of notable storms that happened in October that should be hatnoted/dabbed too, but I don' t think we do.Thryduulf (talk)22:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that a two-sentence "article" was independently created about this storm at this title 6 years before this redirect, beforebeing speedily deleted for no context (incorrectly as it was clearly about this storm, I would have speedily deleted it for no content though).Thryduulf (talk)22:11, 18 October 2021 (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.
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.
This is created as a redirect from the name of a television episode, but there does not exist any television episode with the redirect source as its title.Therefore, I propose that this bedeleted. —Mikehawk10 (talk)21:25, 18 October 2021 (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.
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.
This may be, per its creator's edit summary, a "shorter title", but that's because it strips away the thing that makes the phrase notable: all the "had"s. That would be fine if this were an abbreviation that people use, butthat does not appear to be the case. This is essentially a shortcut title, which we don't do in mainspace.--Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)15:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like this clipping because then you don't have to guess how many additional hads are in the sentence. One 'had' had a better effect on Tavix. --Tavix(talk)18:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Tavix. The correct form certainly comes up in search results, so the utility of this redirect is questionable, but I suppose it could be useful for creating piped links and whatnot as an alternative to having to find and then copy/paste the cumbersome full title. Could possibly be confusing in that it could suggest the short version is also notable, however. On the fence here,Mdewman6 (talk)21:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems useful with respect to us not having to type in a million "had"s and it may be useful when searching. This isn't harmful in any real way, so I see no reason to delete. —Mikehawk10 (talk)21:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep keep keep keep keep keep keep keep keep keep keep per the "keep" voters above. It doesn't hurt hurt hurt hurt hurt hurt hurt hurt hurt hurt hurt to have a shorter title in cases like this, in fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact it can also be helpful to people searching it. Regards regards regards regards regards regards regards regards regards regards regards,SONIC67804:06, 19 October 2021 (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.
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 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.
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.
Keep: Better to have it pointed at a general article rather than a specific one for the US. It's the same text but different capitalisation, we shouldn't be assuming that everyone wants to read about the US-specific content.Joseph2302 (talk)10:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joseph2302. If the capitalised title was US committee's proper name then it might be different, but as things stand there is no primary topic for "Ways and Means Committee" in any capitalisation.Thryduulf (talk)11:21, 19 October 2021 (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.
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 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.
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.
Delete: No idea why this redirect from draftspace to an existing article was created recently. Makes no sense, and there's no history to preserve (which is generally why we keep sensible redirects from draft to mainspace).Joseph2302 (talk)21:56, 18 October 2021 (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.
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.
Delete: Pointless redirect, looks like an IP just wanting to cause disruption (as they can't create in article space, it's gone into draftspace).Joseph2302 (talk)21:57, 18 October 2021 (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.
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 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.
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.
Almost all the hits for that exact phrase are related to yoga so this one might be correct, but I'm not certain it's the only "central channel" related to yoga - someone with more understanding of the subject than me needs to look. I've added a hatnote toCentral (TV channel) which was the only other specific thing I found (everything else was channels that happened to be central in some way or a Comedy Central channel). There are quite possibly other things I haven't found of course.Thryduulf (talk)23:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Two potential targets are being discussed... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk!00:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toside-channel attack. The cyber term seems to be the primary term for "side channel" and it would make little sense to redirect the singular and plural to different locations. A hatnote on top of the new target would suffice to guide users to the yoga concept. There is no need to create a new disambiguation page over this, though if we create one it should be atside channel (disambiguation) rather than atside channel. —Mikehawk10 (talk)00:33, 20 October 2021 (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.
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. I see skepticism towards the possibility of a disambiguation page or broad-concept article, not unalloyed opposition. So no prejudice against the idea, but if you're considering it, please read and consider the concerns here. --BDD (talk)20:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The target is a specific US law regarding regulations of interstate commerce, but the search term could also refer to general travel between states, whether in a US context or elsewhere. I think that deletion is probably the way to go heresigned,Rosguilltalk20:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment these terms are clearly not exclusive to the US. The first page of search results for the exact phrases on Wikipedia brings up topics related to (in order of first appearance: Travel: US, US and Canada (with a globalise tag), Malaysia and Australia. Transport: Australia, US, India, Australia and New Zealand. The status quo is clearly not correct, but I have a feeling that we should be able to do better than search results, which are a real hotchpotch of mostly (transport) and entirely (travel) articles that are too narrow to be useful (e.g.Interstate 20 in South Carolina). That said I haven't actually found anything existing that is better, a dab page wouldn't work and so I'm left at maybe a broad concept article?Thryduulf (talk)00:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither of these terms have anything to do with the Commerce Clause; they're more closely associated with thePrivileges and Immunities Clause. But the concept of interstate travel is much broader than a single clause in the U.S. Constitution, so that's not a very good target either imo.Mlb96 (talk)05:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as ambiguous. There doesn't seem to be a broad article about this covering all countries, so better to let the reader choose which country's interstate travel they want, rather than assuming everyone wants US.Joseph2302 (talk)10:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. If it's ambiguous, then disambiguate it. Don't delete it just because there's not a single natural thing to point to. A DAB would be much more helpful to users than to not have the term there at all. —Mikehawk10 (talk)00:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What entries would you put on the disambiguation page? The lack of obvious articles that could be at this title is why I suggested a broad concept article rather than a dab.Thryduulf (talk)00:43, 20 October 2021 (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.
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. Not a strong consensus but no alternative target was ever suggested and the deletion recommendation was not explicitly objected to.Thryduulf (talk)19:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shhhnotsoloud: Here's what I seem to gather: Timothy Dalton was contracted for three films. "License to Kill" and "The Living Daylights" were made. The third one was in production, but never finished, due in part to a dispute over the ownership of the Bond franchise. "Property of a Lady" may have been the working title of that film. But it's not laid out in those words, with the phrase "Property of a Lady", at the targeted article.pbp15:00, 10 October 2021 (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.
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.
Comment the target has information on this star, and this star was deleted at AfD under redirection outcome, so cannot be easily recreated, and should not be encouraged by being a redlink. Therefore, the current redirect seems to be serving its purpose, discouraging recreation, while pointing to a target that contains information. --64.229.90.53 (talk)03:19, 19 October 2021 (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.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Moral supremacy