< January 9
January 11 >

January 10

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 10, 2017.

Microsoft Vista 2007

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) 20:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Vista and Microsoft Windows 2007 are already there, don't see how this is plausible. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Correlation diagram

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 no consensus. Feel free to disambiguate if one deems it necessary. -- Tavix (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too generic a term to point to Walsh diagram, which is just one specific example. It's also mentioned in Linear combination of atomic orbitals--not clear if this is an application/example of Walsh or a separate idea. But can't any plot of relationships ("correlation") be considered under this phrase? DMacks (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If, however, it is important to "free" the term "correlation diagram" right now, I propose to rename the current redirect into "correlation diagram (orbital energy diagram)" (or something along this line). This way, it will still show up in the list of article suggestions when a user starts to type in "correlation diagram" in the search box, but without actually occupying this place.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the best simple disambiguation term in the title would be, but even in the realm of chemistry, that phrase is used for something different in terms of orbitals (see [1] and extended to reactions [2], a subset of the latter also discussed in depth in Woodward–Hoffmann_rules#Correlation diagrams) or an Orgel diagram that talks about ligand strength for various approximately-fixed geometries. I could envision a disambiguation page at this generic title, and IUPAC supports that is really is a general concept (see [3]) with links to those other pages. But I don't support having specific redirects ("Correlation table (FOO)") for any of them. DMacks (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now (and tag with "R with possibility") or convert to a disambiguation page: Walsh diagram mentions two other types of correlation diagrams: "Tanabe-Sugano diagrams and Orgel diagrams.", and I think the best description is at Woodward–Hoffmann rules#correlation diagrams. Searching at Google "Correlation diagram" gives 90% quantum chemistry. Christian75 (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Trump Hotel

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 Retargeted to Trump International Hotel and Tower disambig — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFG (talk • contribs) 02:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:R#D confusing. This is not an official name for the building, but the possible targets are vague, we have Trump_International_Hotel_and_Tower and many other dab pages, but this could be a plausible search term for a lot of things. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Crimea river

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 both. The discussion below has shown competition between retargeting to some information about rivers in Crimea, the "cry me a river" pun, and other references in pop culture. In the absence of any independently notable topic called "Crimea River", the discussion below had no consensus on the appropriate target and a strong proportion of editors wanting to delete. Deryck C. 19:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are actual rivers in Crimea (including one that is the target of the capitalized Crimea River), I question the utility of having this redirect follow a pun. bd2412 T 05:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete both unless anyone can provide evidence that Salhir River is known as Crimea River. PamD 23:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now pending the creation of Rivers of Crimea and also to deny the use of the obscure meme--Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding Crimea River to this nomination since concerns brought up right before this relist notification seem to warrant doing so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging current participants in this discussion in regards to adding Crimea River to this nomination: BD2412, Champion, Gorthian, CoffeeWithMarkets, PamD, Lenticel, Tavix and BDD. Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Antivirus

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) 20:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just closed a separate discussion suggesting that Antivirus software should be moved over this redirect, which I closed as no consensus, but commenters there suggested that this redirect may not be specific enough to be useful (it conflicts with non-software computer antivirus applications, as well as biological antivirus topics). Listing to discuss options. I am neutral unless I comment below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

George Bush, President

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) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

President George Bush is a redirect to George Bush. Not sure whether ((R from sort name)) applies for redirects like these, could be wrong. --Nevé–selbert 21:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

July 2006 Sulawesi earthquake

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 consensus is, interestingly, that the earthquake list articles are undergoing some kind of reorganisation and this earthquake is too insignificant to deserve any mention anywhere on Wikipedia. Deryck C. 16:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No content on target article. This was a non-event (no reports of damage or injuries). Dawnseeker2000 23:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Hmmm, I wonder why certain editors are documenting non-notable earthquakes. WP:Earthquakes is certainly not interested in doing this. Dawnseeker2000 15:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Back in January I tagged List of earthquakes in 2006 and most of the other 2000-and newer yearly earthquake lists with cleanup tags for:
  • Very long (a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy)
  • Overly detailed (Content, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia)
  • Recentism (Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well—up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer. But in the long-term, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information)
  • These list articles are not being constructed by WP:Earthquakes members. The bulk of the entries are for meaningless events. What I mean by that is that the barrier to entry on those lists was picked by some unknown person way back when (I've no idea who it was) is a magnitude 6 earthquake. The problem is that most of the earthquakes in the list are non-events. They're low intensity earthquakes with zero consequences, but these editors still find it to be a good use of their time to document them. There exists this thing where there's a race to be the first one to add the event. Doesn't seem like encyclopedic content to me. It's void of any real value and meaning. For comparison:
  • As of about three weeks ago, the 2016 list contained:
  • Twelve intensity I (Not felt) events
  • Seventeen intensity II (Weak) events
  • Fifteen intensity III (Weak) events
  • Thirty-six intensity IV (Light) events
  • Twenty-five intensity V (Moderate) events
  • This is flimsy content. It's not encyclopedic. People want to be the first to add some ~M6 earthquake regardless if it's felt strongly or whether it has any significant effects.
  • Today I went ahead and removed the entry for the July 2006 Sulawesi earthquake per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As for the rest of the non-encyclopedic entries? The yearly lists do need an overhaul (there's practically zero discussions about the hows and whys of the content) but I'm working on it. Dawnseeker2000 22:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Choirmaster

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 Choir. -- Tavix (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term Kapellmeister is, as the article demonstrates, very specific, whereas "choirmaster" is a much broader term referring to the director of any choir. The Kapellmeister article gives zero information on the work of ordinary choirmasters in church or secular choirs, so all in all this redirect makes no sense to me. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 16:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Historical anniversaries/April 15

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 no consensus. Opinion remains split on what to do with these. -- Tavix (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there are a lot of similar ones, and that the redirects need to be there to retain history, but I suggest this be retargeted to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 1 and do the same for the other ones. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The 8th November 2016 Indian delegalization of 500 and 1000 rupee notes issued till that date

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 no consensus, default to keep. Deryck C. 18:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Highly implausible search term, and the topic itself is covered elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: With no proofs of its usage and given the fact that was only created out of movewars I see no reason to assume that it's being used outside wiki or so. Plus, the essay is way too long. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dharmadhyaksha: What do you mean "no proofs of its usage"? Click the "stats" link above and see for yourself that 109 human uses were recorded between 1 and 30 December. It has also received 98 hits between 1 and 4 January, some of them will undoubtedly be from this discussion but it is significantly more than any other redirect on this page received in the same time period (Choirmaster received 44 hits, no others exceeded 13). "Too long" is not a reason to delete or keep a redirect, and it is irrelevant whether it's being used only internally, only externally or a mixture of both (not that there is a way to know) - what matters is simply that it is being used. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The 1-4 January shouldn't count as that clearly attracts interest by editors looking to check whether it was the formal name of an event or bill. However, given that a fair number of editors have the long version linked on their talk pages, that might count for something. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this name coming from an actual news article? Or an agreed upon name by the Wikiproject? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

All the Books That Survive of the Histories of Alexander the Great of Macedon

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 No consensus. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausibly cumbersome title Peter Rehse (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Benjamin Franks

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 Ben Franks as primary topic. A hatnote can be added if any editor deems it necessary. Deryck C. 16:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of my own views on the subject, the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Franks was closed with a consensus that Dr Franks was not notable. No consensus was achieved for a redirect. To quote my comments at the AfD: "Am I the only person who thinks that this result is bizarre? [...] I am opposed to a redirect. Deleting the article would be a better result. Franks's career and work does not begin and end at that book." And with all due respect to Czar, for whose work on Wikipedia I have much respect: I agree with you that Franks's book is notable, but cannot share your view that we have no "basis for an article about" Franks, nor your view that "his career is best known for this book". Josh Milburn (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be more like redirecting an actor to a film article when the actor is primarily known for a single film, and their other film appearances don't have Wikipedia pages czar 07:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rugby player as primary topic works too. (Retarget to Ben Franks) Not sure if we would even need a hatnote in that case but ((redirects here)) sounds appropriate czar 07:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then send the book to AfD—I think it'll easily pass muster with six substantive reviews. The question here, though, is whether the redirect is useful while the book article still exists. czar 06:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Erde

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 24#Erde

Thalassenchelys foliaceus

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 no consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirects to Congriscus maldivensis yet references to fishbase are old, and when looking at new references they are listed differently

If redirect stays then the data needs to be sorted out here and at wikidata — billinghurst sDrewth 10:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


My input was requested and as far as I am concerned go with the current thinking. If they are no longer considered to be the same organism, do away with the redirect.Divingpetrel (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Yowsers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 24#Yowsers

Political positions of Bill Clinton

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. Thanks, Tavix. Improvements would still be good, but after the merge, the target article is no longer in a state where I would've nominated this. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure the target article should even exist, per WP:NEO, but given all the fleshed out "Political positions of [Politician]" articles out there, I think this redirect is likely to mislead and disappoint readers. BDD (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD has been closed, and I have performed a merger as proposed there. The article now actually has some semblance of showing Bill Clinton's political positions. I think with some careful editing, what we've got could take the shape of a "political positions" article if that's the route we want to go down (the move argument). -- Tavix (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jakarta earthquake

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 not sure, default to keep for now. This is different from "no consensus" in the sense that the latter implies marked disagreement, but in this case we're heading towards a middle-ground where we agree the case is very close to the inclusion threshold. After two relists it seems that opinions aren't very strongly held and the nominator switched sides. In the absence of demonstrable harm, I'm defaulting to keep. Deryck C. 17:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion for the same reasons as the 2007 Java earthquake redirect. We don't have any details on it because it's not a significant event. Dawnseeker2000 23:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response – The redirect was created for a M7.5 event that was not notable. Even its M6.1 aftershock had several hundred Indonesians responding to the USGS "Did You Feel It?" survey with responses no higher than V (Moderate). These types of shocks are a dime a dozen in Indonesia. They are not notable and we don't need to keep any related redirects. If there were any effects, they would be listed in the "Impacts" sections (the USGS describes the smaller shock as "no people dead or missing; no people injured; no buildings damaged or destroyed"). I expanded the target list around this time last year with entries from the NGDC's significant earthquake database. There were no significant earthquakes in Indonesia in 1699 or 1808 so it seems a bit desperate to find some reason to keep it. If there happens to be a deadly, injurious, or damaging earthquake in the future that affects Jakarta, redirect creation might be OK, but for now the point is to clean up after a failed article attempt by someone with a whole two edits to WP. That person obviously did not have larger concepts in mind about how to present earthquake details to the public in one of the gnarliest encyclopedias around. Here are the two USGS reports on them:
  • M 7.5 - Java, Indonesia
  • M 6.1 - Java, Indonesia

Dawnseeker2000 18:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response – There is a threshold, and I've added this note at the bottom of many of our 'earthquakes by country' lists: "The inclusion criteria for adding events are based on WikiProject Earthquakes' notability guideline that was developed for stand alone articles. The principles described also apply to lists. In summary, only damaging, injurious, or deadly events should be recorded." The country lists are pretty good about not having non-notable events, but there's some polishing and fine tuning to be done. It's the yearly lists (list of earthquakes in 2013 etc.) that are the trouble spots. The events that are being recorded by non-WP:Earthquakes members are mostly not notable (low intensity earthquakes with no deaths, injuries, or damage). Those involved with the content on those lists are often young and or ESL editors. Dawnseeker2000 00:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Parc Étang

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 Parc de l'Étang. -- Tavix (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. We have an article, Parc de l'Étang, so we could retarget there; no parc/k is mentioned in the target (I can expand that from fr:Étang_de_Saint-Quentin, but it would still only mention the Parc de Versailles which we haven't in English at all yet).

The current target is in Ile-de-France, whereas Parc de l'Étang is in Haute-Saône. User:Plantdrew might possibly be able to help with references as it has a botanical garden. Si Trew (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start at Draft:Parc de Versailles, then will take the other one, then I'll get back to you.... the Google link is to an adventure playground (to my mind, a misadventure playground would be more fun, but I may have strayed into a Hitchcock film somewhere through the third reel). Si Trew (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:CC-BY

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 convert Template:Cc-by into an error template, and retarget Template:CC-BY there. -- Tavix (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused No transclusions, overly ambiguous, could refer to *any* version of CC license FASTILY 02:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of those are database reports, and the couple talk pages can easily be edited to bypass the redirect. I've also clarified my nom statement to avoid confusion. -FASTILY 09:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, and these redirects create confusing situations where users who intended to apply another version of the CC license get defaulted to 1.0. -FASTILY 09:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A draft of the sort of page Steel1943 is describing could help build consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: I've lowered the protection to template. -- Tavix (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Thanks! ...but if only I saved my edit before yours. (Either way, good to have that page's protection downgraded.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's there in case you change your mind again (that's entirely plausible :P). Speaking of protection, do you think the other redirect needs template protection as well? -- Tavix (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Oh yeah, I took the phrase "on the fence" to a new level there. I think I managed to turn that fence into a seesaw. Steel1943 (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: You totally edit conflicted me. Either way, yes, I would say that the other template would need template protection as well to match the other. Also, Template:CC BY and Template:Cc by probably would need to be created with the same protection level. Steel1943 (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A proposal has been put forth by Steel1943. Inviting the other participants to comment: Tavix, Fastily and Godsy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: As an FYI, WP:PINGs don't work within the relisting template. I wouldn't consider myself a "participant" as I've only commented in an administrative capacity, but I'll send pings to Fastily and Godsy on your behalf. -- Tavix (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tavix! I did have the suspicion that might have been the case. I tried testing this by using my newly created sock to send a ping to myself [5], which worked. Now I'm completely mystified. – Uanfala (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but this didn't work. My working hypothesis is that an edit won't send a ping if the added text contains signatures from other users. So, there's a workaround: to make the relist template send pings, just add it by itself in a different edit, with the discussion pasted in a previous edit. – Uanfala (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for testing that, Uanfala. It makes sense when read with Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events, which explains what has to happen for a ping to trigger. -- Tavix (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala and Tavix: If I recall, ((subst:Relist|COMMENT PING ~~~~)) will notify the editors, but just have to remember to remove the duplicate signature afterwards (if you want to remove it.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mysandbox

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, salt, and add an edit notice. This solution was widely supported in this discussion, and seems to be an elegant way to solve the issue. -- Tavix (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace fully-protected useless redirect. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

United Airlines Flight 935

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. Either G4 or snow should work, as both roads lead to Rome. -- Tavix (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created by the same editor that earlier created United Airlines Flight 953, this time explaining in the edit summary that the flight number was wrong the last time. Last time the redirect was proposed for deletion and snow deleted within 27 hours. No more reason to save this one any longer. T*U (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Yahoo! Canada

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. No prejudice against recreation if any of these are individually covered. -- Tavix (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not covered, see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 22#Google Spain. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Religion of Islam

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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant leftover from page move vandalism from 11 years ago, nobody that searches for this would be looking for the Islam article in general, there are many books with titles similar to this [6], and we have articles on similarly named books. If any of the books are notable, an article can be created, but as-is, this redirect isn't helpful. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

MS Antivirus

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 MSAV. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should this target MSAV instead? Seems to be used in reliable sources like [7], but if not, the target should be moved over this title. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Action Channel

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 Action. --BDD (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent company when the article could stand alone by itself. Parent company article also has no information on the subject. Laurdecl talk 04:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Arch-Linux

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 20#Arch-Linux

Amerossa

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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a plausible typo, potential BLP issue for this name is not discussed in RS. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

22nd and 24th President of the United States

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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this redirect is strictly necessary. It's a pretty unlikely search term (rendering a mediocre performance at pageviews, versus the other two more likely ones). Note that this redirect was retargeted this October past, following nearly eight years of being redirected to Grover Cleveland. --Nevé–selbert 00:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
More