< July 2
July 4 >

July 3

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 3, 2016.

José Rafael Cordero Sanchéz

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 Speedy deleted. Deleted per WP:G5 by Bbb23. Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this person at the target article. Also please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josercs1/Archive. Other itterations of the redirect are salted (see SPI for examples). ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:50, 3 July 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.

Metainstitution

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) 02:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Would Meta-power be an appropriate target? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:18, 3 July 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.

Uncharted 4: The Sunken Blade

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) 21:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rumoured name prior to the game's announcement. Ultimately just a hoax. The1337gamer (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article title even says "is probably fake". And it was. Just made up rubbish that occurs every single year prior to E3. We shouldn't be creating redirects for hoaxes that are forgotten about several weeks after they were posted. I could easily mock up a document in a couple of minutes now with fake game titles and post it on social media and it would probably get some attention.--The1337gamer (talk) 19:07, 4 July 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.

Template:Last Man on Planet Earth

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) 02:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned implausible redirect to the mainspace (doesn't seem like this is R2) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:49, 3 July 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.

Template:Editnotice/Page/The Last Man on Planet Earth

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. (G6 would most likely work on these.) -- Tavix (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect to the mainspace. (Doesn't seem like this is R2) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:49, 3 July 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.

Director General of Indian Coast Guard

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 move draft over redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a draft for the position of the Director General of Indian Coast:Draft:Director General of Indian Coast Guard. The position is eligible to have a separate article as it is the chief of a major military force. It is similar to the United States Commandant of the Coast Guard, and so is a notable position and is adequately referenced. So I propose that this redirect should be deleted and the subsequently the draft can be accepted. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 14:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Siuenti and Antiochus the Great: Unless User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga would like their ~33 edits on the draft page attributed properly. If that's the case, a move or histmerge is probably preferred. I vote delete to make way for the move. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac Forget about the AfC what would you suggest me if I want to create the article directly. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 12:01, 8 July 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.

Zac Holtzman

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 move draft page over redirect per creator request. Page is no longer in RfD's purview. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Holtzman is a musician. He's known as a member of two bands: Dengue Fever (band) and Dieselhed, both of which have articles. Currently Zac Holtzman redirects to Dengue Fever (band); even though I don't even know Dieselhed, it doesn't look like it does it justice. It should probably be deleted. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:17, 3 July 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.

Mongolian Barbecue Great Place to Party

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 barbecued. -- Tavix (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merged to the target after a 2007 AfD, but no longer mentioned there (or anywhere else in Wikipedia besides Mongolian barbecue (disambiguation)); removed in January by User:TechBear. Target has no other incoming redirects for individual parties. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 09:02, 3 July 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.

January 1901 (month)

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 Bot request rejected. No action taken here, since most of us who participated went only to the BRFA; it wouldn't be right to take any actions here without further input. SSTflyer, if you want, I'll create a new RFD and copy the votes from Tavix and Patar knight. Nyttend (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is to inform editors of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GTBot, a proposal to create 615 new redirects using an AWB bot. Please place all discussion about the bot task at the BRFA page, and discussion about this particular redirect here. I support keeping this particular redirect because it is unambiguous and harmless, and I have already expressed my opinions on this bot task at the BRFA. SSTflyer 08:21, 3 July 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.

Help:Curly braces

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 revert to old version. If there weren't history, I would've deleted to allow the creation of a new page. Since the previous version is so old, I'm going to tag it as historical until it's updated. --BDD (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect seems like it could be misleading since in wiki software, "curly braces" { and } aren't exclusive to templates. They are also used to transclude pages in general and used to activate magic words. Steel1943 (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that, modernized and with links would be fantastic. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:09, 3 July 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.

Help:Cite template

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:Citation templates. --BDD (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't include this one in the section below (#Help:Cite... redirects towards eponymous pages in Template namespace) since its name is not eponymous with its target. It's still a confusing WP:XNR, but this one probably has a more likely and helpful retargeting option than the others due to its name, such as Wikipedia:Citation templates#Examples. Steel1943 (talk) 04:12, 3 July 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.

Help:Cite... redirects towards eponymous pages in Template namespace

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 current target templates' respective documentation pages (Previous target + /doc). All participants in this discussion (including myself, the nominator) have arrived at the conclusion that this seems like a good option to assist readers with finding what they are looking for when searching these terms, so enacting this as the possibly-most helpful option. Steel1943 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: Per the result of this discussion, I also created Help:Cite AV media as a redirect towards Template:Cite AV media/doc since it matches the target template page's capitalization. Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These WP:XNR redirects seem misleading since the redirects do not provide the reader with a how-to guide about how/when to site these sources, but rather leads the reader to a template page. My original thought was to redirect all of these redirects to Help:Citations, but detailed information about the specifics regarding the "5 Ws" about citing related sources are not there either. Steel1943 (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the documentation is included in the main template page, at least for the ones I randomly checked. If that's not the case for all of them, then maybe the /doc page would be a better target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they all are because their corresponding "/doc" pages are included in the ((Documentation)) template in each template reference here (but do not appear when the template itself is transcluded since ((Documentation)) is contained in <noinclude> tags.) The idea with retargeting these redirects to the "/doc" pages instead no only ensures that the reader reads what they are intending to find, but also ensures that the actual template itself doesn't accidentally appear if the "Help:" namespace redirect is transcluded. Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That reasoning makes sense and I would support redirecting to the documentation page. Assuming I haven't misunderstood you, having "/documentation" show up in the search results would also help direct people searching for help with the template that there is relevant information there. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misunderstood. I'll use the first nominated redirect as an example of what I am proposing. I am proposing that Help:Cite DVD notes be retargeted from Template:Cite DVD notes to Template:Cite DVD notes/doc. The way I understood your comment, using my example above, you are essentially recommending for at least one of the following redirects to be created: Help:Cite DVD notes/doc or Help:Cite DVD notes/documentation. Steel1943 (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's fine. And for the record, I was talking about the actual search results page above, because IIRC the target of the redirect would always be the top search result. If that top search result includes "doc" in the title, that would help indicate to users that there is documentation there. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand better now what you mean. (I forgot to take in account that there were recently some changes in Wikipedia searches that allow more results to appear in the drop down search that are not exact spelling matches for the keystrokes used. It's still a bit of a foreign concept to me, but probably will not be soon.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:12, 5 July 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.

Help:Collapsing.

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 11#Help:Collapsing.

Help:Archiving a talk page/Archive. Old 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'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) 02:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not clear about what it refers to. Steel1943 (talk) 03:48, 3 July 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.

Help:Archiving a talk page/Archive 1

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) 02:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, these redirects would qualify for WP:G6 or WP:R2, but since they are in the "Help:" namespace, I am not sure since they definitely cannot apply for WP:R2. Also, these redirects formerly targeted their base page Help:Archiving a talk page, but that is misleading since the base page is not a numbered archive. Steel1943 (talk) 03:44, 3 July 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.

WWikipedia:Your first article

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 speedy deleted by its creator per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 08:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this is a likely misspelling (per the redirect's creation notice) if the redirect hasn't been viewed once in at least the last 90 days. Steel1943 (talk) 03:34, 3 July 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.

Great Darkness

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. --BDD (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing that this be retargeted to Grande Noirceur, a major topic in Quebec history whose English translation is "Great Darkness" (see [2], [3], [4]. Seems this would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over what seems to be a few sentences (paragraphs?) from Tolkien. A hatnote can always be made to the relevant Tolkien article, links can be changed, and the history would be preserved in the redirect page history. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we break this down to results from Google books only, there are still 337 hits for "Great Darkness" Tolkien and 667 for "Great Darkness" Middle-earth while "Great Darkness" Quebec has 557 and "Great Darkness" Duplessis scores 327. Certainly there are many redundant results but the general internet search suggests that the Middle-earth context is much more common than the political connotation. Add to this the number of incoming wikilinks (2 from Tolkien-related articles vs 0 from Quebec topics) plus the page view statistics of Grande Noirceur vs Treebeard vs Great Darkness, I think the primary target should be one that explains Tolkien's fictional era of darkness rather than a past political phenomenon of Quebec. De728631 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My search results are different from yours. "Great Darkness" Quebec gets me 5480 Google hits and 724 hits in Google Books, and "Great Darkness" Duplessis gets me 480 Google Books hits, which would both be higher than the Google Books count for Tolkien. If we do a Google search with the current target, "Great Darkness" Treebeard gets 3130 Google hits and 198 hits in Google Books, so even if this was kept, Treebeard doesn't seem like the best target. We must also keep in mind that Quebec is primarily French, so the relative importance of the proposed targets are not perfectly represented by an English google search; "Grande noirceur" Duplessis gets 12700 Google hits and "Grande noirceur" Quebec gets 14,300 Google hits.
Google hits are a poor measure for this since the two aren't at a level playing field. Relatively minor things mentioned in LOTR will more likely than not have more hits simply because of how immensely popular the series is. What's truly important is depth of coverage. As far as I can see, the majority of coverage of "Great Darkness" in Tokien available online simply restates what Treebeard says to some Hobbit characters ("great darkness" is only said four times in the entire LOTR series) without further analysis. When it does get a paragraph or two of coverage (see: [5], [6], [7]), it seems to be refering to events in the Simarillion, which only uses "great darkness" twice and never as a capitalized term of art (one of the mentions is clearly using it metaphorically).
On the other hand the coverage for Duplessis and the Great Darkness tends to be longer and more in depth (An entire newspaper column, Several pages here, Ditto here, along with bibliographies for the time period, four paragraphs here, several pages here, at least four paragraphs here, etc.]. It always explicitly refers to the period of rule under Duplessis. It seems the case here is that the most common topic by quantity of mentions is for Lord of the Rings, but almost all of them are in passing, while the most important topic by the quality of the references is the Quebec political era.
The page view comparison in this case is useless because Treebeard is a famous character in a wildly popular series, so people would look for him anyway. Say if Voldemort said "the die is cast" in one scene, comparing Voldemort's page views to that of alea iacta est wouldn't be a fair comparison, and neither is this one. And if you compare the last 90 days, the two are almost equal, with Treebeard only getting 8 more hits per day. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:27, 3 July 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.

Obdurate

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 Obdurate and relist Obdurately. Most of the discussion focused on "Obdurate" and not "Obdurately," so it's impossible to find a consensus on that one at the moment. With no one supporting the status quo, however, something needs to be done. You may find that discussion at: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 10#Obdurately. -- Tavix (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Yes, "obdurate" means "stubborn." Which is why it does not belong in an encyclopedia, even as a redirect. KDS4444 (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obdurate may refer to:

==See also==

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