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. The proposed hatnote edit is adopted but editors should feel free to boldly improve upon it. Deryck C. 14:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bushes → Shrub  (talk · links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Bush is a dab, and Obamas redirects to Family of Barack Obama, so this should possible go to the dab although a retarget to Bush family can also be considered. Right now, I am against the latter option due to the dab being present at the title. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Bush as ((R from plural)). Si Trew (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as ((R from plural)), ((R from related)). There are I think nineteen articles that use this, and all of them mean it in its botanical sense and not as the notable Bush family: for example, members of that family are not obstacles nor scenery in the racing game Driver 3, nor are they the natural habitat of the gold-striped salamander. Si Trew (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SimonTrew, but 'change hatnote to includes Bush family as the first link, before linking to the DAB:
  "Bushes" redirects here. For the Bush family, see Bush family. For other uses, see Bush (disambiguation).
  ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:26, 21 November 2016 (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.

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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• First Lady of the World → Robert Muller  (talk · links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should this redirect to the author of the book "First Lady of the World" (Robert Muller) or the subject of the book "First Lady of the World" (Eleanor Roosevelt, who also had the nickname "First Lady of the World"). If the current redirect to Muller is preserved, there should be a hatnote to Roosevelt. Personally, I'd rather it redirected to Roosevelt.

There was once an article on the book First Lady of the World, but it was merged with Muller in 2012 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Lady of the World. pbp 20:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per nom, basically. You've explained quite succinctly how this redirect came to be, how it could help users find the content they are looking for, and how to add a hat note to avoid any confusion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add hatnote. Without prejudice, I've catted as ((R from work)). Si Trew (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The first lady of the world → Isabella d'Este : raised at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_16#The_first_lady_of_the_world and xreffed to this. Si Trew (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add hatnote per above. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It looks like the hatnote is added. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2016 (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.

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, although this isn't an invitation to create the others. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Former President George W. Bush → George W. Bush  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is pointless. President George W. Bush already exists, the purpose of this redirect is practically null. --Nevé–selbert 22:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to delete this simply because it doesn't like it's being used (ten hits in the last 90 days). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as occasionally used. Since "former president George W. Bush" is the typical style used in the news media, I can see some users choosing this string. And, in fact, in the twelve months preceding this redirects for discussion, page view analysis shows 36 total accesses. Thus, according to WP:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting, # 5, I choose Keep. I recognize this unnecessarily long phrase is rarely used as a search term; Bush and President Bush exist as more plausible (and shorter) search terms, that, through redirects, will lead to the user's goal. But still, "former president George W. Bush" is widely used, and it should be keot as a rarely used, but still useful, redirect. — Neonorange (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 5 November 2016‎

• Keep: Does us no harm to have this redirect. pbp 20:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete why should we have 43 other similar redirects, President X redirects can still be valid. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - harmless, points at the correct target. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Entirely valid, harmless redirect. Target page is unlikely to be moved, so this is WP:CHEAP. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:33, 22 November 2016 (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.

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 Muslimish to List of ex-Muslim organisations and delete Muslimly. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Muslimish → Muslim  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Muslimly → Muslim  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These are Neelix-esque clutter that seem like unlikely search terms or misleading. Can you imagine a reader looking for information on Muslims but searching with these terms instead of just "Muslim" or something? --BDD (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly retarget Muslimish to List of ex-Muslim organisations, where it's mentioned. – Uanfala (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If the account that created these was still active, I'd be tempted to open an SPI due to the similarity between these and the massive loads of crap redirects created by Neelix. Users should not let their imaginations run wild making up new words and creating redirects like this. Beeblebrox (talk)

• Delete MuslimlyMuslimish per nom. Just because it could be fashioned a word, doesn't mean there's value in redirecting it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AngusWOOF: there's an organisation called "Muslimish" and it's listed in List of ex-Muslim organisations. – Uanfala (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough for that one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've listed many of the other redirects created at the same time by the same user, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_16#Muslimites. Si Trew (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "Muslimish" seems to me to refer to "Cultural Muslim", although I know that it's clumsy. Still, a re-targeting appears to be a good idea. "Muslimly" is just pure nonsense that should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2016 (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.

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) 16:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:ANV → Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Wikipedia:AN/V → Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There seem to be an over abundance of shortcuts to the page that most users know as WP:AIV. There's no need for more than two or three, and in the eight years this one has been around it has been linked to less than a hundred times. This therefore seems to be an unnecessary bit of clutter. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you want to add WP:AN/V to this nomination, and/or merge it with that for WP:RVAN? --BDD (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't even know about that one, I just noticed that there were five shortcuts in the header, which seems silly. I guess we should roll that ne into this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've bundled it in. AN/V has been around for six years and only has nine incoming links (excluding those related to th deletion nomination) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep But if there are any incoming links, then why delete? It's entirely possible that someone else will link to them in the future and find a redlink. Since redirects are cheap and I don't know of a better target for these, why not just leave them be? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because, unlike article redirects, we expect policy shortcut redirects to be useful to the project, which can only be measured by how much they are used. Normally, project pages have one or two shortcuts that are obvious nicknames or initialisms. AIV has like seven, and several of them, like these two, don't really make any sense and are not really used. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't incoming links a fairly limited way of judging how may people use shortcuts? It tells you how often they are used when typing text, but not how often they are used by someone navigating the wiki. WJBscribe (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Do not need more shortcuts. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think these are useful for someone reporting vandalism whose primary wiki is not enwiki. A vandalism subpage of the Administrator's Board is a sensible thing to be looking for to report vandalism and "Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism" is a location used for equivalent noticeboards on other projects, e.g. on Commons. WJBscribe (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Due to other RFDs, the number of listed shortcuts at AIV is now down to three, which is a much more reasonable number. Per WJBscribe's comments and these new developments I am ok with leaving ANV in place and listed, and leaving AN/V in place but unlisted as they may in fact be of use to visitors from other projects. I won't formally withdraw the nom as others have commented in favor of deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - harmless, points at a correct target and no better targets have been suggested. Target is the noticeboard for administrators to intervene against vandalism; administrators' noticeboards are commonly known to be shortcutted with AN (i.e. WP:AN, WP:AN/I, WP:AN/3) so this makes sense even though the noticeboard itself is not a subpage of AN like the others are. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I actually just used this yesterday and when I clicked on it I found this discussion. I don't see there being a need to remove it, there are no other conflicting pages that would clearly need this - meaning there isn't a chance of any confusion by keeping this link. Garchy (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2016 (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.

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 (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Richard Pence → Mike Pence  (talk · links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, there's no evidence he's known by his middle name. From the history it appears this was created by mistake. Nohomersryan (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was created by a bot (User:Polbot in 2007) and then moved over to Michael_Richard_Pence, which I have now tagged as ((R from full name)). which is why it's an ((R from page move)). Stil, this vestige can be safely deleted. Si Trew (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the above information I believe this qualifies as simple housekeeping and have speedy deleted the redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2016 (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.

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. after checking it was decided to remove the QRpedia plaque. Gnangarra 13:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• St John the Baptist Church, Toodyay (1963- ) → St John the Baptist Church, Toodyay  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• St John the Baptist Church (Toodyay ) → St John the Baptist Church, Toodyay  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Space before closing paren makes this unlikely. These redirects was previously deleted as part of a mass nomination by XXN, then restored by Gnangarra citing something related to QR codes, but I think that some external usage does not justify retaining this incorrect spacing. Pppery 19:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Keep for now I restored the redirects because one of these maybe linked via the WP:Toodyaypedia project, to check requires 200km drive once done I would delete if they have no impact. messaging me directly instead of breaking the redirects links would have got the same response. Gnangarra 23:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. You restored this redirect out of process, when consensus was shown that such spacing shouldn't exist, and I think it should still be deleted. Technically, this is a G4, but I went to rfd instead of speedy tagging it. Why was WP:Toodyaypedia using the stray space in the first place. Pppery 00:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In regards to Toodyaypedia using a "stray " space it would come down to preference of the original article creator. The cost of a redirect is 400 bytes(one redirect), the cost of replacing a QR plaque is about $250, the cost break links to outreach projects can be 1,000 of hours of volunteer time. Its 200km drive for me to check the code used on the plaque thats a day of my time plus costs, I have stated I'll clean up the redirects after I have checked the plaques how about some WP:AGF. Gnangarra 23:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Don't be querulous. Breaking QR links is a huge nuisance in terms of would-be readers actually being able to access these articles, even if doesn't hit your sweet spot about your favourite formatting. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia shouldn't keep redirects in the "Article" namespace that are misleading just for the sake of links. (...With the exception of redirects to freely-licensed images in some cases, but this example is obviously not one of those cases.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • a redirect from an outreach project link isnt "misleading" its making the content accessible and the foibles of MOS, AFD, RFD, CFD, XFD is such that redirects are a necessity to maintain years of Outreach work. Our core purpose is to share the sum of all knowledge we cant share if we keep breaking the links that do that some WP:AGF, maybe some WP:IAR as I have already state I need to check the QRpedia code on site to confirm which if any is needed to ensure the QR links works. Gnangarra 23:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there's evidence these redirects are potentially being used externally. Deleting these redirects would be harmful as it could prevent some people from accessing the article they're trying to find. On the other hand, retaining these redirects do no harm nor are they confusing in any way. (COI declaration: I was the closer of the previous discussion.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but make it clear in whatever guideilnes/rules there are for future QR plaque projects that redirects do not and are not supposed to work this way. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article was created in January 2014, the QRcode was created in April 2014, the redirects were created due to subsequent multiple moves after it was arbitrarily decided that despite there being 2 building of the same name in the same town this should disambiguated based on the town and the other based on when it was in use where as previously both building where disambiguated based on the date. Its hard create rules or guidelines for changing of names on individual whims. I have taken time out of my week to make a special trip on thursday to clarify the links would anyone like to contribute to my costs? Gnangarra 11:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No thanks, User:Gnangarra, every year I contribute something to Wikipedia's costs (besides knowing how much my time is worth, to the fraction of the penny, because the taxman tells me). You do it voluntarily, like everyone else does: nobody forced you to do that and nobody should pay for it. Si Trew (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

suggest you look at your talk again, want others to consider your issues then show some WP:AGF and consideration to others. The trip was solely in response to this discussion, others who have commented here I know had the ability to make the same journey but chose not to. Gnangarra 13:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no evidence of external links at all, or at leat none has been provided here. Probably either bot hits or just autocompletion, which deleting these will help not hinder. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. These are patently just really weird spellings and can be quiet happily deleted just as part of housekeeping. Redirects are not there to list every possible misspelling or typo, to help one person and hinder many. I have a few books where the index is bigger than the content: I don't read those books much. You do realise we have seven times more redirects than we have articles? So, on average, we have just by redirects alone, seven ways to find the same information. Let alone categories, list articles, projects, links in articles, the WP search engine, external search engines. Keeping these kind of things does not make WP better, it makes it worse. Deleting them makes it better, because it's easier for people to find what they are lookking for amidst all this clutter. Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Cowboy admin here. I've posted a geonotice that covers the Perth, WA area in the hope that someone even closer to Toodyay than Gnangarra might pick it up. Deryck C. 11:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is there a QR plaque in Toodyay that links to one or both of the redirects proposed for deletion? Gnangarra's post of 23:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC) says (with my emphasis):[reply]

... one of these maybe linked via the WP:Toodyaypedia project...

then on 11:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

... the QRcode was created in April 2014, the redirects were created due to subsequent multiple moves ... I have taken time ... to make a special trip on thursday to clarify the links

but there is no explicit statement that a plaque links to either page. An explicit statement that a plaque links to page/redirect XXXX, and/or a plaque links to page/redirect YYYY - rather than just might/maybe - would probably significantly increase the chance of the redirect being kept. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yeah it could never have been both, end result to remove the existing plaque Gnangarra 13:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if an existing plaque points to it. If a plaque links to a page/redirect, then WP:RFD#KEEP 4 and 5 apply and we should keep the redirect. This problem - QR plaque or similar created, and then (for whatever reason) article is renamed - may happen elsewhere; QRpedia is not limited to Toodyay. Thus I suggest that we should:
  • Create a template to put on such redirect pages saying something like "this page is the target of a QR code, please don't delete it", with an parameter to state where the QR code is (so that the QR code's continued existence, and thus the need for the redirect can be verified). Putting a notice on the redirect ought not be a problem, because readers don't normally see them, but editors would when proposing to delete it - and we already do it, eg ((R from move)).
  • Perhaps also add an explicit mention of QR codes to WP:RFD#KEEP, if there are enough of them. (It's actually a specific case of 4 "You risk breaking incoming ... links", but without a notice to say so it's probably not feasible to determine that the redirect is QR target.)

See also previous similar comments: WT:WA#St John the Baptist Church
Mitch Ames (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the talk pages were tagged with a notice that incoming QR code links exist, as we arent allowed to put such comments on the article page itself. Gnangarra 13:06, 15 November 2016 (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.

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 at Trump, which is now a disambiguation page per this RM which closed in the middle of this discussion. Thankfully everyone clarified what they meant by "retarget to Trump", which made parsing this discussion a lot easier. While there were a few opinions that "Trumps" would primarily refer to the card games or the family, the clear majority advocated that this should direct to the disambiguation page. For what it's worth, it's also a good compromise solution between those other two options as both articles are listed prominently at the dab. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Trumps → Trump  (talk · links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is more likely to refer to Family of Donald Trump or Trump family, I'll also note that the various articles are in a mess right now. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget back to Trump as ((R from plural)). I thought it would refer to a family of card games, and before User:SSTflyer retargeted it on 3 March 2016, it did: it targeted Trump, which is about the term in card games. Donald Trump will only be President for eight years max, whereas the card game will outlast him. I can't really see that this is primary, but see my List of countries that are not the United States for confirmation. Si Trew (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Trump card game term. Trumps is associated to the card game long before recent events. Hatnote is fine as is. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Trump (disambiguation) (which, judging by the RM, will soon occupy Trump). I don't think the card game is the primary topic for this term and I see no evidence that a U.S. president is recentism or that he will be "outlasted". Nohomersryan (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will lay that Trump has max of two terms, thus eight years, and the card game will still be there when he isn't. One doesn't need to know about card games to do that, one only needs to know about the US constitution that presidents may only have two terms, after F. D. Roosevelt had four. I imagine we have an article on it, but even this British thickshit knows that. Si Trew (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously Trump won't be serving for 20 years, but people are still going to know him as "Trump" after he's dead. He's one of the most controversial presidents in history and brands his surname all over the place. The average person would likely recognize Nixon and Reagan and they're long gone with their presidencies 40+ years in the past; I'd definitely bet on "Trump" being recognizable in the same way in 2056. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but Thatcher is not primary for Margaret Thatcher nor Heath for Edward Heath nor Wilson for Harold Wilson etc. the whole world is not the United States. But even if Trump becomes primary for Donald Trump – and you're taking it as a fait accompli that it will – then that has nothing to do with this redirect, which is not Trump but Trumps. F'rexample, Trews does not go to Trew as don't put families in plurals. Addams does not go to Addams Family, for example. Si Trew (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think Trump or Trumps has a primary topic. There's good arguments for a primary topic redirect to Trump (card games), but pageviews for "Trumps" went up when Trump won the presidency, so I don't think it is the primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really I think it is a question of wait and see, and this is WP:TOOSOON. The hits are kinda self-wossname, that it gets hits because it goes there, the question to ask is "where would it go were it not to exist"? We do have to assume a minimum of intelligence from our readership, i.e. WP:Competence is required. We have neither The Trumps nor Trump Family, for example, and I don't think that in the public eye they are seen as a family, as are e.g. the Addams Family or the Flinstones. Trump did not campaign as a family, in fact one thing that always sticks out in British politics to me is they always bang on about "helping families" by which they mean mum dad and two point four children, ideally dieing the day before they are entitled to a state pension, as if the rest of society can sod off but it catches votes. I don't think really that Trumps refers to Donald Trump's Slovakian wife or their children or Ivana Trump or his father or mother or anything, "Trumps" I would say means the family of card games. Si Trew (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, "I will lay" is an offer of a bet. I lay the bet and you take it (or not). I really must get round to sorting out the mess off our bookmaking articles. For the first thing I have to do some animations or something for tic-tac, since I seem to be the last person who understands it (my grandtather was a bookie) but I'm not very good at doing those little animations in SVG or whatever, to do top of the head or shoulder or neves a vier or a Burlington. If I get two gloves abstract and have them move around, that should do most. Well I need a face too. I can see this becoming rather Art Deco or minimalist, it will look rather cool. What do I use to make it, any suggestions?Si Trew (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew:British thickshit, lol, many of us here in Australia are not familiar with the US constitution or how the elections work there, in fact, I admint I've never read the Australian constitution. If there is one country I have respect for more than any other, it is the States, despite the fact I'm an ethnic Chinese in Australia. (The politics here are quite immature IMO) The Obamas does not exist but Obamas does. A quick Google for trumps (with no quotes) reveal nothing about the card game, all of the results are about The Donald. A search for the word in quotes show a lot of results relating to his family but there are a couple of dictionary definitions for the word. And FYI, Melania Trump is Slovenian, not Slovakian (technically Yugoslavian at the time of her birth). - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I always get Slovenia and Slovakia mixed up, which is not very helpful considering they both border Hungary and that one of my wife's best friends is Slovakian (or Slovenian). Si Trew (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew: Just found this [1]. In Chinese Slovakia is "斯洛伐克" (Sīluòfákè) which is just a transliteration of "Slovak" whilst Slovenia is "斯洛文尼亞" which is a transliteration of Slovenia rather than "Slovene". Also see this [2]. Hopefully the First Lady will clear up this confusion once and for all. But is that possible? To tell you the truth IDK.- CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I have no knowledge of Slavic (Slovic?!) languages.... oddly enough, in Budapest on the outsides of some of the trams Slovenia is running an add campaign of "visIt sLOVEnia" or something like that... which seems ill-advised to me. While it's quite common to advertise in English rather than Hungarian, to emphasise the "love" which doesn't sound like that in "Slovenia" seems a bit far-fetched. I'm never sure when Slovene (a DAB) is preferred to Slovenian (an R to Slovenia) or Slovak (a DAB) to Slovakian (an R to that DAB), either. Si Trew (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the dab page now at Trump. If there's a primary topic here, it isn't the concept of trumps in card games versus other uses.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the new Trump dab page given that Trumps may refer to a lot of things--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget over to 'Trump family' appears to be best for me, but I can live with going to the disambiguation page over at 'Trump' instead CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to DAB page per above. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:49, 22 November 2016 (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.