< November 20
November 22 >

November 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 21, 2015.

Draft:Transactive Energy

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 speedily deleted by Athaenara under G7. I can confirm that the author did indeed request deletion. If anyone starts a larger discussion about such redirects, please inform me. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a redirect from the draft page. Beagel (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @BDD: Good point. This one clearly serves a different purpose than that "(2)" redirect that appeared recently. Thus, I have changed my "Keep" to "Comment". Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • G13 uses six months as its "expiration date." Maybe we could work on a proposal to extend that to redirects? -- Tavix (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably a good starting point. If you'd like to work on something together, maybe let's let this resolve first and then proceed. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The six month deadline is only for AFC headers. There are plenty of old pages in draftspace without the AFC banner who aren't G13 eligible. You would have to expand to the greater idea of draftspace and people defend using draftspace without AFC. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's what the AfC program actually does and has been built in from the start, I don't recall we ever debated what it should do, as it's always seemed reasonable. Do you think it should be changed for some reason? DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For one, there's no attribution that needs to be retained. When the draft is moved to the main-space, the attribution moves with it. -- Tavix (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, DGG, could you clarify? As long as the article is properly moved, the redirect is unnecessary for attribution. If it's improperly moved, a histmerge is called for anyway. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
quite possibly, but take it up with the afc people. I didn't design the system., though I've been trying without much success to get it improved. There are at this point several thousands of these redirects. I'll notify their talk page. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN. Am I reading these correctly? There was strong consensus at AfC to delete leftover redirects after a period of time, that was overturned by CSD people, and now there's nothing? Either way, draft namespace wouldn't necessarily have to operate the same way—it seems G13 only applies there if an AfC tag is used—but it would be good to be clear on AfC practice, if that's possible. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: That appears to be the case. I'm unaware of any other further discussions, or if there were discussions in other fora. As you correctly stated, G13 only works for AfC-templated drafts, be they actual Drafts or talkspace submissions which was the system we had previously. There's a bot at the moment that tags the requisite old submissions and warns their creators. As for AfC practice, at present the AfC script places a redirect when a draft is moved to mainspace. There is no further action on our part after the fact. If we are to address what to do with these redirects, I would suggest a more general venue. I would also pertinently ping @Theopolisme: and @APerson:, our two experts. Technical 13 was also among that group, but he was banned following an ArbCom case. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:22, 25 November 2015 (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.

13 November 2015

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 2#13 November 2015

EMHC

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 dabify. Thanks to Tavix for doing the work. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change to a disambiguation page or redirect to Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion RJaguar3 | u | t 21:35, 21 November 2015 (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.

Gyprocks

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.The arguments for deletion are convincing and the pre-nomination stats are so negligible that it is not a likely misspelling. Just Chilling (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a correct spelling. It is the name of a .au company in the drywall business. Should point at an article about the company, if such an article is appropriate Legacypac (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

but remember Gyproc is like sheep-never spelled with an S.Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least in my area we buy gyproc- say "100 sheets of gyproc", or "You need to pick up some gyproc" even "there are 5 kinds of gyproc" in at Home Depot. There is no plural and everyone knows you mean drywall or gypsum board Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point I was trying to make as well. Nobody (that I know of or have ever heard) refers to "gyprocs" or "drywalls". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈(discuss) 14:07, 21 November 2015 (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.

Douzaine

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 Parishes of Guernsey. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just the french word - we are not a translation service Legacypac (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Passe currently redirects to Fashion, which doesn't mention it (or passé). I'm inclined to retarget that too if we do this. Manque redirects to manqué. impair is red, pair is a DAB with the entry "Even number, in roulette etc", and rouge a DAB that doesn't mention roulette, similarly noir. 'Sieurs et dames, faîtes vos jeux. Si Trew (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈(discuss) 14:03, 21 November 2015 (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.

Leader theory

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. WP:INVOLVED close given the backlog and unanimous consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems far too vague. Redirect to Leadership, perhaps, where various theories about leaders are included. I wouldn't object to ruling either of these an unlikely search term, though, especially the wordier "theory of the leader". --BDD (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2015 (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.

Dear Leader

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 List of Kim Jong-il's titles. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 18:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase isn't used at the target article, though "Great Leader" and "Sacred Leader" are. It seems like a rough match for Great Leader (a dab). And for what it's worth, it's been a target for political vandalism (e.g., redirecting it to Obama). --BDD (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why prefer the list to the bio, when the latter mentions the name early on? Are people likely to be looking for information on his other titles, or on him? Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2015 (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.

Donal Wales

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 withdrawn. Ivanvector, please let me know if that's not alright with you. --BDD (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a partial-title match and a novel or very obscure name for our Dear Leader. BDD (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But PTMs are proscribed for dab pages exactly because they're not likely search terms. --BDD (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jimbo himself wants it kept which works for me. -- Tavix (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2015 (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.
More