Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 23, 2017.

MridangamLessons[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOWTO -- Tavix (talk) 23:13, 23 January 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.

Wikipedia:Donation header[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was restored and moved to Wikipedia talk:Fundraising, per suggestion by Tavix. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather surprising redirect. Note: This redirect is a {{R from history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't think it's a very surprising redirect, but it does seem slightly awry, but definitely not enough to warrant the deletion of its significant history. I'm wondering if this isn't the kind of stuff better treated at WP:MfD, although I'm not sure restoring the pre-redirect page and then renominating there would really be worth the trouble. – Uanfala (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm surprised that I can't find a page that archives the various banners that have been used for fundraising (eg: a personal appeal from Jimmy Wales). The history of the page is simply a talk page discussing fundraising before the "Wikipedia talk" namespace was set up. To be true to that purpose, it might be worth preserving by moving without redirect to Wikipedia talk:Fundraising and restoring the last revision before it was redirected. -- Tavix (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • move and restore per Tavix, an elegant solution if ever there was one. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 9 February 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.

Wikipedia:Does not have an article[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 13#Wikipedia:Does not have an article

Wikipedia:Doctors' mess[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. -- Tavix (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Umm, surprise! (2 links on "User:" pages, 2 links on "User talk:" pages, created over 10 years ago.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hmm. I guess the intent was to be a Village Pump/Teahouse kind of name (although the latter post-dates this redirect considerably), which is not harmful in and of itself, but targetting a deprecated talk page (the WikiProject was merged into WP:MED) is not helpful to anyone. If we had a medicine-specific reference desk then it might be a good target there, but medical questions are handled on the Science desk and I don't know that it works as a target for that. I'll ping WT:MED and see if that brings any good ideas to the table. Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At WTMED we also get a fair number of theoretical medicine related questions and as a group are happy to answer them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Leave it as a historical redirect. WP:SURPRISE applies to article-space. WT:MED is a medicine-specific reference desk, and no medical questions are not handled anywhere else. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, a surprise, at the target, is defined as avoiding the "Principle of least astonishment". That can happen in any namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: WikiProject Medicine is a very active project and the talk page is used as a general clearing house for issues related to medical articles. Many medics who edit Wikipedia can be found there regularly, so "Doctor's mess" is quite apt. I don't think that anyone following the redirect would be astonished at arriving at that page, and a glance over the variety of topics discussed there should be sufficient to persuade a viewer that the redirect could be useful by pointing there directly. --RexxS (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, which used to be labeled "the doctors' mess" (complete with a photo of a messy mess). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, per RexxS(its probably best to do this...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine yup Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 25 January 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.

Wikipedia:Distributed Language translation[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XNR. Hasn't been edited in over 10 years, but per its edit history, it doesn't look as though the page was created in error. Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I guess this was an idea to translate articles using this process, but that seems odd as the project described at the target ended 11 years prior to Wikipedia starting (none of the other entries on the DLT dab would make sense, and WP:DLT has never existed). I don't know of any suitable target for this. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The incorrect capitalization means no one would use this, even if there were still distributed language translation project, or Distributed Language Translation Project, or whatever. But nothing would be the "Distributed Language translation" project since there is no such thing as the "Distributed Language". While "distributed language" is a cognitive science term, it has nothing to do with translation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:13, 27 January 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.

Wikipedia:Disabling[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 8#Wikipedia:Disabling

Mr. Margaret Thatcher[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2016-12#Redirect request: Mr. Margaret Thatcher / Mr Margaret Thatcher / Mister Margaret Thatcher. --Nevé–selbert 12:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 29#Mrs Denis Thatcher. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the use of the term in the official Hansard record at the AfC/R link in the nom, which should have led the decliner to accept the creation of the redirects. I would also create the other two redlinks there for the same reason. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quick question Patar knight. Just to preface, I was joking when I wrote back in July that "Mr Margaret Thatcher" should be a redirect. What is this redirect referring to, anyway? Thatcher or her husband? Has anyone ever referred to her using the male courtesy title, without being sarcastic? I am unconvinced the nom at AfC/R was serious in making the request.--Nevé–selbert 17:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just checked the link at the nomination, and I am pretty certain that the "Mr." was a typographical error on the part of Hansard. Take this document from the very same website linked at AfC/R, using the correct form "Mrs. Margaret Thatcher".--Nevé–selbert 17:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's also used in the official Hansard [1], and it's also reproduced as recently as 2010 in some British [2] and Indian government sources. [3]. None of these are sarcastic, and if they are mistakes, their existence means that deletion would be undesirable, since it would be a plausible mistake. I wouldn't mind pointing this to Denis Thatcher or having a page directing readers to both pages, since the marriage field in infobox is prominent, but I wouldn't support deletion. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 23 January 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.

Wikipedia:Defunct WikiProject Wikipedia[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target WikiProject page is not a defunct WikiProject. Also, these redirects have no incoming links. Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 23 January 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.

Wikipedia:Definition of famous[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 8#Wikipedia:Definition of famous

New Age (Kylie Minogue album)[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing deletion - random redirect, nonexistant album. TheKaphox T 17:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No such title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No such album and no mention of it even a working title of an album.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 01:57, 24 January 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.

Wikipedia:Deferred revisions/[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. This redirect may potentially be misleading since its target page does not have any subpages. Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible. I can't think of any good reason for keeping this. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:11, 27 January 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.

Wikipedia:JUDGE[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this redirect be retargetted to Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges; at present it targets a section of a failed proposal, which is confusing for editors. PamD 17:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support retargeting. The current targeting is misleading. Usually when one sees shortcuts like this, one can safely assume they're guidelines or policy... or at least a well-regarded essay. But a proposal that tried for and failed to get consensus? That's not a good target. In the alternative, I would be okay with deleting it altogether. TJRC (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. FYI, WP:JUDGMENT redirects to Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion, but I think that if readers enter "WP:JUDGE," they are likely looking for WP guidelines for articles about judges. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:48, 23 January 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.

Current pendulum for the next Australian federal election[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. There was some discussion of a possible retarget and I close this with no prejudice against re-creating with a different target. However, I note that neither redirect has any inbound links, suggesting that editors have already cleaned up any uses of this phrase so that they point to less time-conditional pages. Rossami (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are both obviously out of date, the next Australian federal election likely being in 2018 or 2019. There is a section about a pendulum for the next election, Next Australian federal election#Marginal seat pendulum, but I don't know enough about Australian politics to know if this is a good target or not? I will ping WikiProject Australia about this and the discussion below. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the pendulum is not yet in existence. -- Tavix (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the "current/next" problem (which is essentially WP:CRYSTAL). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: I don't think this an XY issue. As I understand it, the title essentially means "current predictions for the composition of parliament after the next election" which is a single topic. If the predictions are notable and reliably sourced they are not CRYSTAL, but Frickeg explains that the there are no such predictions for the next election yet. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 10 February 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.

Winter of 2010[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 8#Winter of 2010

List of most viewed kpop music videos[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not needed at all; there is no longer a section regarding "YouTube Views" for the K-pop section since that was a trivial metric in the first place. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the headsup. Only just noticed that that section was removed on Christmas Day, and if the article stays the same way, there is no need for this redirect. I don't know if anyone will feel strongly enough to restore the section, it was removed on the basis of OR rather than being merely trivial, so if anyone is willing to do the work to source it, and there probably is enough third party sources for Gangnam Style at the very least, it should by the removing editor's criteria still merit its own section. I'd say give it a week or maybe two, enough time for the people who have invested their time trying to keep that section updated to notice that its missing, realise why its missing, and come up with a response; if after that period of grace there isn't a target for the redirect, then yes please do delete this.-KTo288 (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The table has remained in the article since it was re-added but it is tagged as "original research?"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 23 January 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.

Candidates of the next Australian federal election[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is redirect from a move left over after the date of the then next election became known. However, the 2016 election has been and gone, so it's no longer I think appropriate to keep it pointing where it currently is. There is an article Next Australian federal election but, perhaps unsurprisingly for an election not expected to happen until August 2018 at the earliest, there is no information in that articles about candidates yet so I'm unsure if that should be the target? Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Next Australian federal election for now. This is basically a placeholder until the election is close enough that the article would not be pointless, and saves deleting and recreating it every time. Having the next election article as a target at least communicates the fact that it's far enough away not to be terribly detailed yet. Frickeg (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Frickeg said. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redirect implies there is information regarding candidates for the next Australian federal election. Since that information doesn't exist, the only logical way to solve this would be via deletion of the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't believe that this is useful and worth keeping in the long run. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Next Australian federal election until more information becomes available for the same reasons as User:Frickeg. --SwiftyPeep (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. That information doesn't currently exist. This redirect will lead to information that isn't "candidates of the next Australian federal election", regardless of where it targets, for a period of time after each election takes place in a perpetual cycle.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:45, 31 January 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.

Israeli intervention in the Syrian Civil War[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. I leave tagging of the redirect as an option to be debated and decided on the redirect's talk page. Rossami (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to delete the redirect as implausible - there has been no official intervention of Israel in the Syrian War to date (see community consensus at Talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel) and it can barely be even described as "involvement" (there has been some spillover well described at Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line incidents during the Syrian Civil War article and several unclear explosion incidents possibly associated with Israel by external sources, which is already listed at Iran-Israel proxy conflict and Hezbollah involvement in the Syrian Civil War articles) GreyShark (dibra) 07:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The distinction between 'intervention' and 'involvement' is a fine one, and redirects don't have to be strictly accurate to be useful. Whether or not the Israeli actions in Syria are properly called 'involvement' and if they're justified is an ethical and legal question that's beyond the scope of this discussion process. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - accuracy is not necessary for a redirect. It simply has to take the searcher where there is information for which they are likely to be looking. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly tag with {{R from incorrect name}}. It's a somewhat plausible search term and was also the title of the article for the first two weeks of its existence two years ago. – Uanfala (talk) 19:37, 5 February 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.

Home Credit[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was wrong forum - see Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, Home credit (disambiguation) should be moved to the base title. The redirect Home Credit→Home Credit Group appears to be a misunderstanding because there's a bank of the same name (Home Credit Bank). I think that the base page Home Credit should be a dab for the variants and each of the two articles (Home Credit Group and Home Credit Bank) should be alternatively labelled. --Ungesellig (talk) 08:59, 23 January 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.

Mr. Trump[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget all to Trump (surname). The consensus for this was weakest for "Mr. Trump", but I still find the arguments for there not being a primary topic at this time slightly more persuasive. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_12#Mr._Trump, Mr Trump was newly created, I suggest retargeting back to Donald Trump due to the PTOPIC, but I guess the outcome will be influenced by the discussion on Talk:Trump. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom and as creator of redirect. MB298 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point both to Trump (surname), to align with Mr. Bush, Mr Jackson, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Lincoln, etc. Mr. Ford pointed to a video game until I retargeted it just now. Mr. Grant targets a fictional character, Mr. Johnson points to a singer, and Mr. Kennedy redirects to a professional wrestler. Mr. Carter is an article about an album, and Mr. Wilson is a disambiguation page of its own. The only example I see pointing to a president is Mr. Obama, and that has a much stronger case for being a primary topic. - Eureka Lott 01:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm adding two similar redirects to Melania Trump to this nomination, thinking we have the same issue. Pinging Champion, MB298, and Eureka Lott in case they want to separately comment on them or object to my action. (Note that Mrs. Donald Trump also redirects there. It's not entirely unambiguous, but enough of a primary topic for me.) --BDD (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for adding those, BDD. I think Ms./Mrs. Trump is more ambiguous than Mr. Trump, and should also point to Trump (surname). It could easily refer to different people. Even thinking WP:RECENT-ly (which you shouldn't), Ivanka Trump has received quite a lot of media attention. - Eureka Lott 22:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could not find an instance where Ivanka is referred to as either of those names, surely Melania is the primary topic, I would prefer outright deletion to retargeting to the surname page, though. Compare Mrs. Obama, although Ms. Obama is red. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Having redirects for superfluous modifications of an ambiguous name make sense only if they're likely as search terms. – Uanfala (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These are needlessly ambiguous and no one in the Trump family uses "Mr. Trump" or "Mrs. Trump" as a nickname like Mr. Rogers or Mrs. Doubtfire. If they need to be kept, retarget them to the surname page. -- Tavix (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking most of my previous comment per BDD. However, these redirects are still vague and I believe vague search queries should give vague results. Many other individuals of the Trump family are notable enough, anyway, and I'm not really liking the prospect of having to add a link in the hatnote to the surname if kept. That being said, I'm still fine with deleting Mrs./Ms. -- Tavix (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Trump (surname) consistent with our usage for other redirects with honorifics (and, yes, "Mr" is an honorific even though not an especially high honor anymore). Redirects do much more than merely support the search engine. These will trap any links created by users attempting to link a name that's written in the article as "Mr. Trump". Deletion serves no purpose. These redirects meet none of the deletion criteria listed above. Rossami (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget "Mr. Trump" to Donald Trump, keep "Mr Trump", and retarget Mrs./Ms. to Trump (surname). There's actually a pretty well established tradition of people deferentially referring to Donald as "Mr. Trump". See, for example, the Politico story, "The Executive Mr. Trump" ("His tiny campaign team is in many ways a classic Trump operation, veterans of Trump world told me, staffed with fiercely loyal near-novice players handpicked for crucial roles by the man they call Mr. Trump."). His official biography page from the Trump Organization website refers to him as "Mr. Trump" throughout.
"Mr. Foo" and "Mrs. Foo" redirects strike me as somewhat of a legal fiction. How many readers use them, and how many of them want surname pages? Where there's strong established usage, as with "Mr. Trump", it might be more helpful to call a primary topic where otherwise we might not. On the other hand, there isn't as much of an established pattern of calling Melania Mrs., let alone Ms., so I'm fine treating those as ambiguous. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 7 February 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.

Transport delay[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 7#Transport delay

President Business[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to The Lego Movie (non-admin closure). Thryduulf, I haven't added a hatnote at President (corporate title), but you're welcome to do so. – Uanfala (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure synonym. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy retarget back to The Lego Movie, President Business is a character in that film. The redirect to Trump appears to be vandalism. -- Tavix (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix, but a hatnote to President (corporate title) might be useful. If Trump becomes known as "President Business" at some point in the future (it's not implausible) then we can discus retargetting at that time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix. Main character in the film. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:51, 28 January 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.

Ste.[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to STE. -- Tavix (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend retargeting the following redirect, based on Regnal years of English monarchs:

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.

Joh.[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend retargeting the following redirect, based on Regnal years of English monarchs:

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.

Ph.[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 7#Ph.

Ja.[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep, adding King James (disambiguation) to the dab page. -- Tavix (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend retargeting the following redirect, based on Regnal years of English monarchs:

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.

Ann.[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep and hatnote to Ann (disambiguation). There's almost a unanimous sentiment that the name is ambiguous, but I find consensus to keep it as a primary topic. -- Tavix (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend retargeting the following redirect, based on Regnal years of English monarchs:

  • Ann. to Anne, Queen of Great Britain (based on 14 Will. 3 – 1 Ann. 1 for the year 1702) --Nevé–selbert 02:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would dabify Vict. It's used in various contexts to mean Queen Victoria or the Victorian era, and it's the standard abbreviation for Kirouac in botany. Kirouac wouldn't be appropriate on the Victoria dab. "Ann." might be similar, though Liebigs Annalen might be OK at Ann. Cnilep (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for "Ann." All incoming links to the redirect are intended for the journal Liebigs Annalen, so it is the primary topic. ChemNerd (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ann per ChemNerd, but add a hatnote to the dab page at Ann and list the queen there. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: As this is quickly becoming a WP:TRAINWRECK, I have decided to boldly split this nomination. Please feel free to clarify any remarks that might need clarifying. -- Tavix (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Retarget to Ann. "Ann." is the ISO 4 standard abbreviation for "Annal", "Annals", "Annelen", &c., which means it appears in the abbreviations of a lot of scholarly journals (although WP:PTM should prevent the majority of these from appearing on a dab page). If kept, we should add a hatnote to Ann on Liebigs Annalen and, in either case, add Queen Anne to the dab page.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 01:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the current arrangement or apply disambiguation V8rik (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or disambiguate. Besides what's given above, this is a reasonable abbreviation for "Anno", e.g. "Anno Mundi" or "Anno Domini". Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 6 February 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.

Vict.[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. I'm not too sure what the disambiguation is supposed to look like, so feel free to edit it as necessary. -- Tavix (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend retargeting the following redirect, based on Regnal years of English monarchs:

No. Vict. is the standard botanical abbreviation by which the botanist Marie-Victorin Kirouac is cited. See, for example, Purdiaea. If there is another meaning, then by all means convert the redirect into a disambiguation page. To retarget, as though your regnal years are the only legitimate use, is not appropriate.
Vict. is the only one of the above that I've looked at, but presumably they all have legitimate targets.
Hesperian 02:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vict. could mean a lot of things, so a redirect to Victoria sounds better. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose for "Vict." This is the standard botanical abbreviation, appearing in taxoboxes where this person was the author. If it's ambiguous, then as Hesperian says, create a disambiguation page. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would dabify Vict. It's used in various contexts to mean Queen Victoria or the Victorian era, and it's the standard abbreviation for Kirouac in botany. Kirouac wouldn't be appropriate on the Victoria dab. Cnilep (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig Vict, in addition to the uses above it's used frequently to refer to Victoria (Australia) and the Victoria International Container Terminal (which should probably get a mention in the Port of Melbourne article). Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: As this is quickly becoming a WP:TRAINWRECK, I have decided to boldly split this nomination. Please feel free to clarify any remarks that might need clarifying. -- Tavix (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Cnilep and Thryduulf.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 01:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Has incoming links intending the botanist and likely will continue to attract incoming links for the botanist. Dab page will ensure that links (eventually) get pointed to the right place. Plantdrew (talk) 18:00, 26 January 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.

Favouritism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 5#Favouritism

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_23&oldid=1138581589"