This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 26, 2016.
National Public Alert System
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) 20:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Create that too then. No need for an RFD. Valid search term ViperSnake151 Talk 22:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' as likely typo. Si Trew (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reasonable per a few of the WP:POFR criteria.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure now. There are/were other national alert systems such as the British Four-minute warning or the American it says at KWO35 the "NWR public alert system" which I know what it means but don't know what officially it is called (and can't find it), the alerts on National Public Radio in the United States and broadcast to all television stations, National Warning something I imagine (not at the dab at NWR)... perhaps that was just in Houston where I lived (flood warnings mostly) but I thought the system was national (i.e. the US). Perhaps this is a bit of a DAB job (or delete to help search)? National emergency -> State of emergency which is probably going the wrong way. Si Trew (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2016 (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.
Relief 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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator and refined to sectionTerrain#Relief. (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC). User:Bermicourt has added WP:RS to target and thence is to argue on its talk page. If only everything were so easy.[reply]
Not at target. This is used, an article I have been copy-editing on request at Climate of Hungary, and I linked it was not linked before the words were used. This is not at the target. Relief terrain and go there, but not this one. Could mean kinda any kind of hydrokinetic energy or stored energy, in the article I am ce'ing this means the amount of snergy stored by heat absorbtion in the soil, roughly, but this is no good WP:RFD#D2 not at target. If it is a technical term we should either have something about it or delete it per WP:REDLINK. Si Trew (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relief energy is a geographical term meaning referring to the ruggedness of an area of terrain. I've added this at the target with a reference. HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bermicourt: thanks for doing that, but I think perhaps undue prominence in the lede per WP:UNDUE? But that is for article talk, perhaps knock it down to section Relief? Not sure you are the expert. But I am quite happy to Withdraw my nomination and thanks to Bermicourt for adding it. Si Trew (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yes I think you're probably right. Let me tweak it. And thanks for drawing this to my attention. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2016 (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.
Low-Flying Aircraft
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 newly written disambiguate page at low-flying aircraft. (WP:involved closure to enact unanimous consensus that is overdue for a week.) Deryck C. 09:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Low-flying aircraft redirects to Low flying military training & this page (Low-Flying Aircraft) redirects to a Portuguese film, so I nominate it to be renamed as "Low-Flying Aircraft (Portuguese film)" Houdinipeter (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Since this RfD was first posted, Low-flying aircraft has been made into a dismabig page and is no longer a redirect. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's named after a J. G. Ballard short story which was made into a Portuguese film which is often referred to by its English name. If this redirect is confusing, I suggest the short story collection Low-Flying Aircraft and Other Stories instead - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the same destination asLow-flying aircraftand put a "for" link on the destination page. Many visitors will not distinguish between capitalisations and to send them each to different destinations is unhelpful. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC) [Updated due to change in Low-flying aircraft page status. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)][reply]
That looks iffy as well. Not all low-flying aircraft are military aircraft, let alone military aircraft in training. Perhaps that is the only notable topic about low-flying aircraft, though. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There should really be a discussion of the general legal framework in the major countries, any international understandings, safety issues, etc., with civil and military cases as subsections. Yes the military focus is iffy but at least the article exists. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not "bleedingovious" (sic) that this would create a forbidden double-redirect? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to Low flying military training, to match Low-flying aircraft, but both should probably be deleted since that's too narrow a topic. There should be no prejudice against renominating for deletion on those grounds. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify per Deryck. Yeah, that sounds better. Either this or the lowercase variant should be the dab, and other should redirect there. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My first inclination was "delete as an obvious phrase with no unique encyclopedic content". Low-flying aircraft is not the same as the military training and most any airplane can be "low-flying" with the right pilot (or the wrong pilot but usually only very briefly). But the other findings are sufficient to allow this as a disambiguation page. More precisely, make Low-flying aircraft the disambig and retarget this capitalization variant there. Rossami(talk) 20:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yep, the lowercase terms in the general and the uppercase for the specific. Si Trew (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the DAB at Low-flying aircraft , which I have turned from a redirect into a DAB, as ((R from other capitalization)). Nobody nominated that R for discussion here, nor did anyone create a draft DAB, so I took WP:BOLD. Any discussion about the DAB content (not perfect by any means) should continue on Talk:Low-flying aircraft because it is no longer a redirect. Si Trew (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2016 (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.
Evan Hoffman
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. Deryck C. 11:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect leads to a page which does not mention the subject. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to this link, he was formerly employed there as an Assistant Rabbi. While it is acceptable and often encouraged to redirect a non-notable topic to a more notable parent, a former employer of no especial note is too tenuous even for me. Delete. Rossami(talk) 20:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'll be blowed, Rossami has said Delete – and Rossami is usually on the Keep side, so that itself is good enough for someone who says more often delete, but it is indeed too tenuous and WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. If we have no information we should own up and say so, WP:REDLINK. Si Trew (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoffman not mentioned at the target, not even under key_people. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:30, 30 April 2016 (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.
Preben Elkjar-Arsen
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. JohnCD (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it probably is a plausible ((R from typo))Keep as harmless WP:RFD#K5, someone finds it useful. There are eight other redirects to this target, all with name and caps variations; none other has the missing "L", but keep as ((R from typo)). The fact that Preben Elkjar is at that target without the Larsen bit of the surname (even though that's in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE) I could quite easily see that someone would add the "Larsen" and just miss the L. Si Trew (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except there are two typos in this redirect: it should be Elkjaer not Elkjar, and it seems like "Arsen" is a little bit pejorative. – PeeJay 11:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can't expect English-language speakers to know Scandinavian transliterations, but I hadn't considered that, you think it is someone saying Arse? It had not occured to me, honestly. I had assumed it was just a typo. If it's pejorative (in English) it should definitely go, but I don't think it is particulary. People might pun or take the mick out of the English soccer manager Arsen Wenger but it is never meant harmfully, it is just English sarcasm.
But if there is any doubt it was created deliberately as a slur, it should definitely go, thus
Delete per User:PeeJay2K3, plenty o' other redirects to this target, plenty of ways to find this person. No internal links, stats are well below noise level (zero beyond this discussion.) Si Trew (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2016 (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.
Paso doble
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, keep, and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to Pasodoble as {[tlx|R from misspelling)). The Romanian film is more obscure than the Spanish dance, although both of course are Latinate languages. Each of these three R's has a different creator. None has any tag on it (not sure these are all English words forms; have not looked in any dictionaries yet.) Genuine confusion for me between the three, when not sure how to spell. Delete all as WP:RFD#D1 all three hinder search. Si Trew (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first two. It is a proper alternate spelling of the topic pasodoble, and is shown as such in the intro sentence. The film can be indicated in a hatnote, just like the band Paso Doble (band) is indicated in the hatnote at pasodoble -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Might be better to DAB all of them (including the band) because these are not common English spellings but perfectly reasonable English usages (I think). What say you 70.51? As it is, we always should favour an article over a redirect so Paso Doble (band) (which I had noticed) should actually move over the redirect, but I am trying not to confuse things with another WP:RM right now, probably leave it where it stands and disambiguate all fourPaso Doble then? I read the variant spellings in all four of the targets. Si Trew (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page is also fine by me. -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all exactly how they are. Passo Doble is an exact match for an alternate title of the film, and the other two are exact alternate/alternate caps matches for the Spanish dance. Hatnotes would help, but this ain't broke. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, actually, delete Passo Doble, as it is an error. Passo is Portuguese but doble is Spanish; the title is nonsense. Per IMDb, the actual alternate title is Paso Doble. I will correct the article. The Spanish dance is primary topic here, the band and the film can be hatnoted. Also worth noting that the Portuguese name for the dance is also pasodoble. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you so far, passo doble is not at the target Pas în doi, but then, "Paso doble" is, so if we're not careful we will have to make a decison between the two remaining which is WP:PRIMARY for the redirect Paso doble: Pas în doi (in lede) or Pasodoble (in lede). Is a bit WP:XY I think. Certainly whatever we do I think a few hatnotes are in order. Since Pasodoble is essentially a stub if you watch past the needs improvement from Spanish wikipedia tags, it is hardly any more length (with no more reliable sources, i.e. none either.) Si Trew (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bobody is doubting I think that they are the same root words as pas de deux is (Father of Twins?) but not pas-de-deux. The thing is to an Énglish-speaking audience what would they mean? Si Trew (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Passo Doble" isn't in the film article any more because I corrected it. You're probably right about the word origin (roughly "two-step") but pas de deux is a partner dance specific to ballet, while pasodoble is an entire (unrelated) genre of music and associated dance. Both are well known in English, to the extent that ballroom dances can be well known. I'm not sure the same can be said about the Romanian film. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I hadn't thought to look up Two-step which is a DAB at which Two-step (dance move) is the first entry, but that doesn't mention the term (in any kinda approximate form), so that's out. Just ruling that one out, that's all. Our dance move coverage seems pretty poor overall, I must say. Probably they're all too busy watching Strictly Come Dancing to write on Wikipedia. We do have WP:WikiProject Dance but since this is just a matter of linguistics not dancing I don't think it is worthwhile notifying them, do you? No doubt it is the same word in lotsa other Latinate languages, I just not sure that any of them get people to where they would want to go. Si Trew (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first two and Delete the third per Ivanvector. --Tavix(talk) 02:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, Tavix, but then Paso Doble (band) sticks out a bit like a sore thumb – an article usually trumps a redirect. A bit of a mess all round, I agree (my nominations usually are.) Si Trew (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we could put a "See also" at Two-step (dance move) to Pasodoble saying "A Spanish dance, literally, a two-step" (and maybe to the Roma dance by same token) since it describes essentially the fundamentals of the dance move in plain English, unfortunately without any pictures of your feet like wot I learnt from when dancing in front of a mirror. Si Trew (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but it's just a name. Two-step (dance move) is yet another entirely different style of dance from pasodoble and pas de deux. And these are all their names in English, which typically doesn't bother translating the native names of dances into English. Maybe because so many of them translate to things like "two step". Point being, someone looking for info on pasodoble is quite unlikely to look by typing two-step. These could perhaps be see-alsos to each other, but I don't think hatnotes will help. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, no, I'm thinking of quickstep. Our two step article is just describing a component of dance. I'm not really sure it should even be an article. (Might also be confused with dubstep). Argh, this topic. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2016 (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.
Youssof
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 Yusuf. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is very satisfactory as an ((R from personal name)) considering the very many other similar spellings we have of this name. Essentially reopening the previous discussion, it is not clear to me this had any consensus, but only for this one (thanks to User:Tavix for making name DABs at the other two I nominated.) The result was "Name index/keep" with admin User:Deryck Chan closing but it is not clear from the previous discussion which if any had consensus to keep. No harm if it is but I have no desire to open the other two (I listed all three, but not just because I were the nom, but that I think only this one may not have had consensus.) Si Trew (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or DAB, or add to an existing DAB of similar spellings). Directing a first name to a specific article is just absurd and incredibly misleading. Softlavender (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, just because you don't like the result, doesn't mean you should keep listing it. (Honestly, this isn't even the correct juristidiction. Problems with a close should be addressed at the admin's talk page, and, if still not resolved, WP:DRV.) It's an ((R from given name)) (not ((R from personal name))) and is used when there is only one person with a certain given name. The rationale is WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT: he's the only person with this name on Wikipedia, so he is the primary topic for "Youssof." Like I mentioned last time, the proper way to solve the fact that there are similar spellings is to employ a hatnote that lists all the plausible spelling someone could be looking for instead. --Tavix(talk) 12:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You made clear your opinion but the closing remarks did not, because we have one closing remark for all three of them without my knowing which meant to keep and which to do otherwise, there was no clear consensus to me reading User:Deryck Chan's closing remark. We are all big boys here and it would not serve any good for me to revert the whole discussion, list all three separately as having no clear consensus, and doing the whole turnaround. I thought the right forum to list redirects for discussion was redirects for discussion. Thank you for the two dab's (once again) I think you did them better than I could have, nice job. I don't "keep relisting it", I have done a second listing which is what a lot of admins do regularly'here at RfD when they see no consensus that they see; not being an admin I thought best to discuss it with the participants themselves before taking it through being a point of order. Si Trew (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with Deryck Chan's closure, then talk to him about it on his talk page. He has been very good about clarifying closures when requested. If you still disagree with him, then WP:DRV is the correct forum to air your grievances. Per WP:DRVPURPOSE: Deletion Review may be used if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. It sounds like that is the case here. Reopening it here is just going to rehash the previous discussion, which, IMO, is a waste of time. --Tavix(talk) 14:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think if an admin is pinged (twice) on a discussion the admin should reply here. Until then, I don't think it should go farther. There is not a lot of point putting it on Talk:Youssof, very few replies are got for talking on an redirect's page. It does not seem to be to be me the one who is saying WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. I have notified the admin, in the politest way I could, by mentioning the admin here. I notified Tavix, and I said that I was the original proposer of all three. It is not me who is standing on ceremony, here, Tavix. If an admin does not wish to reply then I don't have to go hunting them, I can request them to remove admin rights for not replying promplty to a discussion. That is patently not the case here, since Derkck C. User:Deryck Chan is probably on a different time zone from you or I and has not had a chance to reply yet. ]WP:DROPTHESTICK, I listed here with a genuine feeling this had not achieved consensus, I would rather hear people's views about where they think it should go than an argy-bargy between thee and me. I would have notified the admin if he had left his user talk page on the RfD closure, as I always do even as a ((nac)). Since it is a piped username without a talk link, I do not think I am out of order bringing it back here. I have duly notified the admin of both discussions as requested by Tavix. Si Trew (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Requested discussion back here at Talk:Youssof. If you want to take the discussion there, fine by me, whichever WP:FORUMSHOP you wish. Si Trew (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-keep per the last discussion. If someone wants to convert it to disambiguation content, just do it. If you're hesitant, ask for second opinions on the respective Talk pages. I appreciate you're wanting to be sure you have consensus before making a change but that's not really the point of this forum. Rossami(talk) 20:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already listed it on its talk page, referring back to here and the previous discussion. It is easier to keep the discussion in one place. I mentioned that up there read up and note that the talk page was created and my reference to it before your entry here. Si Trew (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Yusuf - name can also be transliterated as Youssef (according to the article) or Yousef (according to Google Translate). Peter James (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Yusuf per above. Mr. Kohzad is not the only notable person referred to as "Youssof"; e.g. Yusuf ibn Tashfin is also referred to by that spelling in The Historical Dictionary of Mali. Between Mr. Kohzad (whose name is spelled Youssof 100% of the time, but who does not appear to have a great deal of long term significance) and Yusuf ibn Tashfin (whose name is spelled Youssof only some of the time, but who has a far greater claim to long-term significance), I do not see that we have a Wp:PRIMARYREDIRECT (recall that The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term; Mr. Kohzad does not qualify automatically just because he's the only person whose Wikipedia article is spelled Youssof). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix and SimonTrew: When one has a concern about the closure of some subset of a bundled RfD nomination, I think unbundled renomination is a sensible course of action, though I agree that it'd be better if the closing admin was consulted before the renomination took place. But that doesn't matter now, because the big debate we're having here about keep vs retarget suggests that renomination would have been the correct course of action anyway.
I also personally agree with the notion that given names should be blue links as long as there is at least one biography on Wikipedia whose subject's given name has exactly that spelling. Youssof should remain a bluelink that leads to someone called Youssof; but I'm open to disambiguation either on Youssof or at Yusuf with other people who are also referred to as "Youssof" in English-language sources. So, my personal vote is don't delete; ambivalent about keep/dab/retarget. Deryck C. 13:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Deryck, to unbundle was possible, but since I think there was consensus for the two Tavix made a bloody good job of DABing, it only left this one, so to renominate the other two would be absurd. I just shepherded this one out as I felt not having consensus, I was trying not to do makework by adding the other two to it.~Let it go, it's done, let's concentrate on where this little bugger should go. I don't think anyone is suggesting it is deleted. Si Trew (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender suggested delete ;) Deryck C. 16:53, 28 April 2016 (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.
Judiciary of Iceland
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.
Comment Actually I was thinking of the old Icelandic Parliaments of the Vikings in Norse mythology which were judge and jury, but that would be not so good a target either. as it stands, this takes English-speaking readers exactly where they are likely to go. I was just looking for ~plausible alternatives. Si Trew (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. If you turn it into a redlink, only listing will be in the template and there is a general (though obviously not universal) rule that redlinks are subject to pruning from templates with little notice. If that happens, the redlink may turn into an orphan. That said, I see your point about the historical perspective of judiciaries in the geographic location of Iceland as different from the judiciary of the current political entity known as Iceland. I don't know of any articles on that historical perspective. The Politics of Iceland page could most plausibly be turned into that historical perspective, in which case the current target is best. That page has multiple issues noted so there's hope for a rewrite. In the meantime, this looks least-bad to me. Rossami(talk) 20:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think there is any policy to remove redlinks from navboxes, and the specific navbox I assume Rossami means is ((Judiciaries_of_Europe)), which has plenty of redlinks, those are just "stuff we haven't done yet" and is fine by me, per WP:REDLINK and WP:NOTFINISHED, and I agree with Rossami there is a tendency to take them out in a lot of projects (I presume so they "look nicer" or "look more complete" or something) but this one seems happy to keep them in. Certainly I know when I was editing a few years ago for a series of articles on the ((Hungarian Revolution of 1848)) I used the navboxes, as an editor not as a reader, to work out what I hadn't done yet. Four are still red, and that is fine. To link a redirect via section (in a navbox or any other kind of navigation, a DAB for example per WP:DABPIPE [sic]) is not so great, because it suggests we have a full article and not just a section, but we do have some content, and it is at the target, so this is WP:RFD#K5 useful. If an editor navigating through that felt, sheesh, I could expand on that, then all to the better, and for a reader, it gives them as much as we have got. (Of course most editors are readers too, but I am making the distinction of which hat they are wearing.) Si Trew (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You are correct that there is no such policy but that there is a tendency. In my experience, it depends on whether the template is intended to be an exhaustive list or not. Contrast, for example, the template used here (an exhaustive list of the Judiciaries of Europe) with the one holding the Singapore taxation link (which lists only 43 of the 200-odd countries in the world). The challenge for us is that the intended exhaustiveness of any given list is a judgement that can be changed at any time by the editors working the template. It makes for difficult judgement calls. Rossami(talk) 20:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think it's better to provide readers with the minimal information that is available at the target than no information at all. If an editor wants to create a standalone article about Iceland's judiciary in the future, there is nothing stoping them from doing so. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Useful, as it leads to content. This redirect points to what we have on the topic, which is exactly what redirects are for. Many of the country-related redirects were created to reduce the number of red links in the country outlines, so that they could serve their purpose better as tables of contents for the material on Wikipedia about their respective countries. When the section grows big enough, the redirect can be deleted and the section split off to that title. The Transhumanist 00:54, 28 April 2016 (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.
Judiciary of Tanzania
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.
Notable topic should have its own article, rather then redirect to an article about on of the country's courts. Misleading blue link redirect in the judiciaries of Africa lists/templates (see ex. the template at the bottom of Judiciary of Egypt). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as ((R to section)) to Politics_of_Tanzania#Judicial_branch. The High Courts are not linked there, to the current target or anything else, but that may be a sensible thing to do too; then we could redlink the other four branches of the Tanzanian judiciary there. Si Trew (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Si Trew. The section is thin but the concept of the entire judiciary is broader than a single court. I have cross-linked the High Court article within the section. Rossami(talk) 21:01, 26 April 2016 (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.
Judiciary of Uganda
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.
Keep. It's better to provide readers with some information than no information. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Useful, as it leads to the relevant content. Many of the country-related redirects were created to reduce the number of red links in the country outlines, so that they could serve their purpose better as tables of contents for the material on Wikipedia about their respective countries. When the section grows big enough, the redirect can be deleted and the section split off to that title, to maintain continuity. The Transhumanist 01:00, 28 April 2016 (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.
Silver Taps
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.
Comment Going round the houses I thought of electroplating, silver bath (as a Photography (developer)) but that is me in my British English assuming that silver faucets meant (Br. Eng.) taps plated (coated) with silver. Not at the target there and we don't have gold taps or brass taps or bronze taps or chrome taps, but we do have gold plating and chrome plating. I haven't checked the other two because they are alloys not plate metal (or metal plate), a bronze plate would be a kinda gong awarded at a sporting event not a base metal coated with bronze, so WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Godsy as a slightly more refined target. Silver tap and Silver taps with the lowercase T are red. Silver Tap also red. As a proper name, I think this is OK. I just went around checking other possibilities, within and without Wikipedia, and as far as I can see it couldn't refer to anything but this organisation. Current target has it, but Godsy's suggestion has it better. Si Trew (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget. "Silver Taps" is just another name for "Echo Taps" and despite their self-serving literature, it is not unique to Texas A&M nor, by any reliable source I can find, did it originate there. The section retarget has its own problems but they are probably more manageable. Rossami(talk) 21:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that it is not unique to Texas A&M is an argument for WP:REDLINK delete. What's the problem with the proposed ((R to section))? It is usual under WP:RSECT to leave a courtesy note at the section that it is thus marked, if you are thinking just as a procedural worry. Si Trew (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Si Trew: I believe their meaning was that the content itself within the section of the proposed retarget could use work (i.e. "has its own problems").—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rather a lot of work, yes. Not something I'm up to tonight, unfortunately. Rossami(talk)
Well I agree, I wouldn't even attempt it, but we're not discussing the content', we're discussing the redirect. Content discussions should go at the content page. Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2016 (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.