November 13

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 13, 2017.

It Takeis 2

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 now that the nominator's rationale no longer applies. -- Tavix (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a small paragraph for the series. It lasted nine episodes, but was discussed on multiple media sources. It doesn't have the "2" though in any of its marketing so I would delete that variant unless that's attracted a bunch of views. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:25, 15 November 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.

Codigo Postal

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 Código Postal by AngusWOOF. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN, also this is Spanish for "postal code" not ZIP Code. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:12, 13 November 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.

Dr. Laura Skandera Trombley

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. We do not generally use "dr." and other titles (as king, saint, etc.) - Nabla (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The scholar is not actually a doctor. The redirect was retargeted following a revert of page move vandalism. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She can't take over the moniker for Dr. Laura. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:59, 16 November 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.

World Café (conversational process)

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". After almost a month, I don't foresee another relist making the consensus any clearer than it is currently. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary disambiguation, and not a very plausible search string.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  01:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 13 November 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.

Diocese of Jerusalem

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. After a couple readings, I was unable to find consensus for any of these proposals. The status quo will remain. -- Tavix (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deletion of the redirect and move of the page Anglican Diocese of Jerusalem Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem to Diocese of Jerusalem. None of the bodies listed at Patriarchate of Jerusalem are commonly called the Diocese of Jerusalem, so I contend that (and a quick Google looks like I'm probably right) the Episcopal/Anglican diocese is clearly the primary usage for "Diocese of Jerusalem". DBD 08:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, it is right now, but as you may notice, I have recently renovated the article to refer to the Diocese primarily in preparation for this move. But I see what you mean now — I mistyped the proposal! Thank you. DBD 17:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "keep" as an option is that Patriarchate of Jerusalem is a disambig page on which the Anglican diocese is not listed! Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is listed. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I would ask for better arguments than that for the priority for the Anglican entity. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it's on you to provide an argument at all that addresses your reason for making sure that the one thing that is always called "Diocese of Jerusalem" isn't reached by Diocese of Jerusalem: it is you, after all, who pointed the redirect away from the Anglicans. And referring to the Anglican "entity" is a sign of parochialism. Use its real name. Mangoe (talk) 11:14, 21 November 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.

Molly Ann

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 Molly Ann Brook. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous title for a redirect where the subject isn't even mentioned in the target. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talk) 15:07, 13 November 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.

Lua:Error

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. Please do alert me if this ends up breaking something—or if you can fix it yourself, feel free to bypass notifying me, fix it, and leave a comment about it here and/or the redirect talk page. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for WP:R2 deletion, but User:Ritchie333 removed the tag stating decline speedy, not mainspace. However, we do not keep unused redirects from mainspace to the module namespace, so this redirect from mainspace should be deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't we got a Lua namespace then? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the namespace is called Module. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talk) 15:03, 13 November 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.

Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area

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 but unrefine, since a source to verify the claim has been provided. -- Tavix (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also listed:

These redirects target Washtenaw County, Michigan#Metropolitan Statistical Area. The section "Metropolitan Statistical Area" does not exist and I don't think it ever did. The target article's lead suggests that the Ann Arbor, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area = Washtenaw County. I have not yet found that claim to be supported in WP:RS. What should be done?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talk) 14:55, 13 November 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.

War in Iraq, 2003-present

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 as suggested. I take BDD's proposals as fairly uncontroversial. If there's any objection whatsoever, I'm ready to re-open the discussion. (non-admin closure)Uanfala 13:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target only covers events through 2011. While these redirects made sense when they were created, they are now several years outdated and may be seen as misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talk) 14:54, 13 November 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.

Corporate terrorism

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) 17:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate "terrorism" ≠ actual terrorism. Note this redirect was originally targeted to Corporate crime. --Nevéselbert 20:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talk) 14:31, 13 November 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.

Back and to the left

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 22#Back and to the left

Orlando In Heaven

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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry for bringing this here. This redirect was the result of a page move. Typically, I speedy the version with improper capitalization and that last we here of it. For some reason, the tag hasn't been followed as it usually is. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - This has regularly not been the case. Look at my CSD log for October alone and anyone will see examples exactly like this which were rightfully speedily deleted without issue.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should not expect readers to know the exact capitalization of insignificant words in the middle of proper nouns, especially when many title case capitalization schemes have different rules for them. There's no good reason why "Foo in Foo" should be a red link if "Foo In Foo" is an article except pedantry. Miscapitalizing words like "in", "and" etc. are more likely to be made in links than last names are, and I've noted below why those are useful. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:18, 13 November 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.

Kay turner

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. Any longer discussion here is unlikely to result in a consensus either way. Of course, there's no prejudice against starting a more general discussion about the current RfD practices with regard to miscapitalisations like this. (non-admin closure)Uanfala 13:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I had to bring this here. The redirect is the result of a typo. Last names are always capitalized unless stated otherwise. Sorry for wasting everyone's time here; usually no one removes a speedy tag for something this obvious. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - It has been common practice for me to see typos exactly like this speedily deleted. Whether a redirect existed for this typo or not, the search would still direct to this article. Not only is the capitalization incorrect, but the redirect is also completely useless.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then those speedy deletions were wrong and contrary to both our guideline on redirects and the CSD policy, which only allows the deletion of an implausible typo. Not all navigation is through searching. Some people navigate through URLs, whether through direct URL editing or from external links. Having a redirect from this alternative capitalization also prevents duplicate articles from being created via links. A well-meaning editor could try to link to "Foo foo", see the redlink and create an article, even when a perfectly good article exists at "Foo Foo". Having the redirect would avoid the workload that comes from fixing situations like this. Creating articles for "Foo Foo" at "Foo foo" is an extremely common situation for new pages which frequently arises at CSD, and was the case for this redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone through the log and restored the articles where WP:R3 would be inapplicable because they would normally be kept at RFD because of WP:RCAPS. @RHaworth and Alex Shih: Deleting redirects with reasonable capitalization mistakes should not be done via CSD.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:42, 13 November 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.

2018 in country music

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 moot. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add 61 days and dark horse to the artist's page as well? They don't need separate articles yet, but a mention on the artist article should help. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax 0677: WP:OMGWTFBBQ. -- Tavix (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - @Tavix:, "VOLUNTEER" is not an acronym, and "JFDI" is only one acronym. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jax 0677: The point is that it's hard for others to understand what you're trying to say when you just throw WP shortcuts at them. "Avoid cryptic language" is the first sentence of the nutshell, and that is the applicable part that applies to your comment. Defending yourself with the fact that you've only used one acronym misses the point of the essay (and in a way, proves the point I'm trying to make). -- Tavix (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added them to their articles, but if they are deleted for the same problems, those entries will have to be removed from the list. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:46, 15 November 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.

Provo Central (UTA station)

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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to move the article to this page title to make it uniform with other stations on this rail passenger line. RES2773 (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry. Please disregard this discussion, it is not in the correct location. RES2773 (talk) 00:42, 13 November 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.