Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 27, 2017.

Elena (video game character)[edit]

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 Elena#Fictional characters (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Elena (video game character) should be redirected to Elena (Street Fighter) as it about the same subject Dwanyewest (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedurally relisting as the redirect wasn't tagged until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 23:31, 27 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.

Wikipedia:Efterspurgte artikler[edit]

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) 20:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. This is not the Danish Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 22:33, 27 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:Parlbio[edit]

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 discussion has not demonstrated any harm in keeping the redirect. Deryck C. 14:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect, and would save all of 3 characters. Avicennasis @ 22:20, 29 Tevet 5777 / 22:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As far as I can see, there is no rationale presented here for deletion of this redirect. Regardless if a template redirect is transcluded or not, it could still be used as a search term to locate its target template. Also, the redirect is a {{R from move}}. Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per lack of reason to delete, and the {{R from move}} being a reason to keep it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 27 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:Vg[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 9#Template:Vg

Wikipedia:UNACADEMIC[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 16:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

per @EEng:, a rather WP:POINTy redirect, created by a sockpuppet, with no incoming links. Obviously unused, let's just delete it. Avicennasis @ 21:11, 29 Tevet 5777 / 21:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Unacademic" does not appear on the target page. I did search to see if it was used in any other policy or similar page, but the search results were swamped by characterisations of various articles as "unacademic" in AfD discussions (particularly from circa 2010-12 for some reason). I wouldn't be opposed to a retarget if someone knows of a good target though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BTW, the OP is referring to this [1] and [2]. EEng 04:07, 28 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.

Matthew Underwood[edit]

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 Matt Underwood. Deryck C. 14:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Underwood is not notable, so be it, but he has appeared in more than Zoey 101. A redirect is not needed, and is, in this case, deceptive. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is primarily (overwhelmingly, actually) known for Zoey 101; his other roles are minor (known) in comparison. Honestly, I don't care if a redirect exists for this (it's probably smart to have one to prevent recreation of the problematic article), but if a redirect is to exist, redirecting to Zoey 101 makes by far the most sense. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Matt Underwood as his real name is "Matthew" and he's actually notable. (Be sure to unlink all backlinks if this is the solution.) -- Tavix (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: Wrong Matthew Underwood – this is the one who co-starred on the Nickelodeon TV series Zoey 101. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @IJBall: We're discussing what to do with the redirect "Matthew Underwood". I'm saying the best solution would be to have "Matthew Underwood" redirect to "Matt Underwood". I know they're not the same person, but that's irrelevant. There is a notable person with the name "Matthew Underwood" (the sportscaster), so the redirect should point to his article, located at Matt Underwood. -- Tavix (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List_of_Zoey_101_characters#Logan_Reese, his primary character. Add one of those redirects here and hatnote to Matt Underwood for the baseball sportscaster. Matt is the common name for the sportscaster. And Matthew is prominently pointing to the actor. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that's preferable to redirecting directly to Zoey 101, but it's a reasonable alternative. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Matt Underwood since per the above conversation, the actor doesn't have an article. If there is ever an article written about the actor, it can be written over the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Underwood. Upon looking at the close of that discussion, there may be a reasonable claim that this redirect targeting the character makes the redirect eligible for WP:G4 ... emphasis on the word "may". Steel1943 (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no – my original AfD proposal closed with "...after deletion, it can then be replaced by a redirect to Zoey 101." It's clearly right there in the AfD proposal. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how the AFD closer closed the discussion per their closing comments; the AFD was closed to "delete" with no additional comments or allowances mentioned. So, in a nutshell, there's not evidence to prove either one of us right. Again, as I said, "...emphasis on the word "may".". Steel1943 (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix. Hatnotes can be used to take people to the list of Zoey 101 characters if that is really relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I support switching to a redirect to Matt Underwood. I'm not sold on the thought of a hatnote unless we have an article with information about the actor rather than just the character. Underwood ≠ Reese. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Matt Underwood per above. Seems to be the best course of action. --Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 30 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.

Lampa disambiguation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 16:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Malformed link to a DAB page. NB Lampa (disambiguation) exists. Narky Blert (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this would have suggested that lampa is a type of disambiguation, which I'm assuming it isn't? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:35, 27 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.

Mechanikles[edit]

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. Withdrawn because I cannot debate the sense behind AngusWOOF stating "The section even notes that his name is often misspelled with a k.". Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable misspelling of a not-very-notable character from Aladdin (TV series). 0 views in the last 90 days. So, delete per WP:COSTLY. Steel1943 (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As it stands, the Aladdin characters article has a section on Mechanicles under the TV series, and not in their huge list of "Others" characters. So it implies a recurring and somewhat significant role. The section even notes that his name is often misspelled with a k. Revisit if the character is subsequently removed from that list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:39, 27 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.

Anthony Borthwick[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 16:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Antony Borthwick (no "h") is a Borthwick baronet but Anthony isn't. Neither are Notable. Antony doesn't have an Article. It's not necessary to have a redirect from a misspelling, especially when there isn't a redirect from the correct spelling. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Antony Borthwick (a title the nominator essentially referenced) doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete this isn't going to be helpful when he's just a list item and not even spelled the right way. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:42, 27 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.

Heavy boots[edit]

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 discussion has established that (1) the current target is unsuitable and (2) there are multiple plausible retargets but none overwhelmingly better than the others. So deletion is the most plausible outcome. Deryck C. 15:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm failing to see a connection between the redirect and the target. -- Tavix (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak retarget (if not, delete). This originally targetted Walking on the moon, now a redirect to a song, but at the time was an article about people walking on the Moon. It included the sentence "However some people still believe that astronauts were kept from floating away by especially heavy boots." sourced to this 1989 newsgroup posting. In that context the redirect made some sense. However in the intervening decade our articles have been rearranged and expanded somewhat and the content about walking on the moon is now at moon landing and the sentence about boots being heavy has not survived, and there appears to be no content specifically about footwear in the space suit article either (which is mildly surprising). We appear to have no coverage anywhere else about boots that are notable for their heaviness, although there are many different types of boot which are sometimes described as heavy, so it's no more a useful search term for footwear than is "blue boots" or "sturdy boots". It is used metaphorically, and (according to those who have analysed the book) significantly in the novel Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, and it does get a sentence there, so this is where it should target if it is retargetted (but as noted, my preference for this is very weak). Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Weak retarget to Weighted boots. There's also Magnetic boots, but those don't have to be necessarily heavy whereas the former is expected to be heavier than normal for whatever physical therapy / training reason. The news articles do mention heavy boots but all as a general adjective and not as a specialized kind of boot. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:49, 27 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.

1st Presidential Inauguration[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 13#1st Presidential Inauguration

Template:R from legal name[edit]

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. With just about every possible option receiving support and two relistings already I don't think it likely consensus will be reached here any time soon. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target WP:RCAT template is exclusive to redirects that target biographical articles about individuals. Legal names are not exclusive to people: See Legal name (business). Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or move over redirect. The primary topic is people, see legal name and is less confusing than the current title. -- Tavix (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To expand, I believe "personal name" is too vague to have any meaningful use. It seems from reading the article "personal name", it would correspond with {{R from full name}}. However, the rcat we're discussing here is for people's "real names" who are known by a pseudonym. Therefore, the rcat should have the title "R from legal name" to correspond with the article legal name. -- Tavix (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A personal name need not be a full one. Let's say we have a kid whose parents named him Tavix Pilot Inspektor Jones, entered as Tavix Pilot Jones on his birth certificate, and he becomes notable as a DJ, under the stage name DJ RFD. "Tavix Jones", "Tavix Pilot Jones", and "Tavix Pilot Inspektor Jones" all redirect and get tagged as personal names (the Neelix redirect "Tavix Pilot" having been deleted). Assuming a separate Rcat for legal names, only "Tavix Pilot Jones" should get it. ({{R from full name}} just redirects to {{R to long name}}, so we currently don't distinguish between longer names and full ones.) --BDD (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A discussion about an rcat template couldn't do without a ping to Paine Ellsworth. – Uanfala (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. I see differences between the two that might call for two different rcats. A personal name might not be the subject's legal name, for example, Mark Twain's personal names Samuel Clemens and Samuel L. Clemens, which are different from his legal/birth name of Samuel Langhorne Clemens. Then there are legal name redirects such as Martha Helen Stewart that are neither birth names nor (common) personal names. The redirection of this rcat to the personal-names rcat is just a matter of convenience, probably because there has been no need in the past to categorize and monitor legal names apart from personal names. Of course if editors do think there's such a need and want to monitor a legal-names category, then two separate rcats would be needed.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 17:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? How is "Martha Helen Stewart" not a personal name? Are you using the term in the sense of "given name"? Because the Rcat isn't... --BDD (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't clear – middle names, in this case "Helen", are usually alternative names and sometimes birth surnames (maiden names), and while they are certainly a part of one's personal name, they are not commonly used as a personal name. Martha Stewart's common personal name would be the article title. While "Martha Helen Stewart" is her legal name, it is not her common personal name, which is simply "Martha Stewart".  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 09:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I follow. But "Martha Helen Stewart" both her legal name and a personal name. I don't see {{R from personal name}} as limited to common personal names, though perhaps some of the less common ones simply wouldn't get created. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A better example might be when celebrities legalize their pseudonyms. If their stage name or pen name is their legal name, then it could not also be their personal name. Unfortunately, while this probably happens fairly frequently, it would be very difficult to reliably source the info, and that would be a necessity especially for living people.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 18:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would think a "legalized" name would be a personal name, then. Disregarding other uses of the term "legal name", legal name in the context of persons seems like a narrower concept within personal names. So I can see the argument for keeping. Maybe there's no real benefit to separately categorizing which personal names are legal. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think it would be better to come up with a (new?) rcat for the legal names of businesses, rather than changing this usage. Maybe {{R from legal entity}}? The rcat instructions can offer guidance as to which one to use, as they do for rcats like {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} vs. {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The more I think about this, the more I feel the target RCAT should be deleted altogether. If used according to the template code, it should only be used when the personal name differs from the subject's name when born. That seems to be a fairly rare situation, but when that name differs, we also have {{R from married name}} (if it's because of marriage) and {{R from alternative name}} (if it's for a different miscellaneous reason). What's the need to monitor this situation? I do think there is an argument for the creation of business legal names, and perhaps this redirect stands in the way of that being created, or would be confusing if that does get created, so I'll concede to delete this redirect in favor of a new RCAT for that purpose. -- Tavix (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create RCAT here that would encompass all legal names. Legal names seems like useful RCAT outside of application to biographies. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a gentle reminder: a new rcat requires an accompanying maintenance category and either a bot or one or more editors willing to "maintain" the category entries.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 05:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It occurs to me that I'm reading "personal name" in the library science sense. In authority control, a personal name is any name that refers to a person, as opposed to a corporate name, geographic name, etc. I don't think that tells us what should happen to this redirect, but it may clarify my remarks above. This looks like no consensus to me, but I don't know if I'd be considered to be WP:INVOLVED. I believe I've only opined on definitions rather than what should happen with the redirect. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either deprecate and delete or create new R tag. Don't keep. I agree with the nominator's statement that "legal name" can refer to organisations too, so it is somewhat problematic to redirect this to {{R from personal name}}. We can either say we don't need a separate tag for legal names of people and organisations and tell people to use {{R from alternative name}}, {{R from personal name}} etc instead, or create a new tag for the specific purpose of legal names, which would have a tagline like From legal name: This is a redirect from a person or an organisation's legal name to a more common name. Deryck C. 11:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate or replace per Deryck. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 7 February 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.

China (pottery)[edit]

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 China (disambiguation)#Ceramics. -- Tavix (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is ambiguous; not only porcelain but tableware in general is known as "china", while Chinese ceramics is also pottery (from) China. I changed it to target China (disambiguation)#Ceramics and then fixed the links that were now pointing to this redirect, which confirmed that many were not meant for porcelain. But my retargeting was undone by Johnbod; see the redirect’s history. Bringing it here for wider discussion. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as was. I'm doubtful that it is actually true that tableware in general is known as "china". This was absolutely not the case historically. The great majority of modern Western tableware is porcelain, which these days is dirt cheap. I shouldn't think this redirect is much used in practice, but it should remain pointing at porcelain, where the usage is explained. Failing that (and there is no need for this), it should go to pottery or tableware (though these do not mention the usage), but absolutely not to Chinese ceramics (a subject area where I am the most active editor), for which "china" has not been a synonym in English for some 250 years, since Europe also began to make porcelain. I'm fine with the disam page staying as it is (although it's not really accurate), but what is the point of sending a redirect there - the sort of thing the disam rules strongly discourage? A useful hatnote was also removed. Johnbod (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • [non-porcelain] tableware certainly is known as "china": see wikt:china, or e.g. this "china set" made of stoneware not porcelain. This is maybe a particularly British usage, but it’s a common an long standing one. Re "what is the point?", redirects are often created or retargeted to dab pages when the redirect is a partial disambiguation: see WP:INCOMPDAB, and the category with over 20,000 other such redirects. There are no longer any article links to the redirect, so there are no problems with articles linking to a dab page through it; if anyone in future uses it and so creates such a link this can be repaired as normal.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with JohnBlackburne here. Targeting the disambiguation page section allows the redirect to serve a useful purpose and encompass non-porcelain "china". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deryck Chan (talk • contribs) 14:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget China (disambiguation)#Ceramics. This is an occasion where an encyclopedia needs to be specific and as a result requires compromise in its dealing with common nouns. I don't think we can refer to all tableware as "china" (e.g. a metal spoon is definitely not china, but a porcelain spoon probably is) but it does cover the whole spectrum of stoneware and porcelain. Deryck C. 16:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to China (disambiguation)#Ceramics per nom and Deryck. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 7 February 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.

Wikipedia:Política de uso de imágenes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 16:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFOREIGN, this is not the Spanish Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If there was something specifically related to Spanish(-speaking editors) at the target I might reconsider, but if you know the policy name in $other_language but not in English the best way to find what you are looking for is via interwiki links. This specific redirect is also misleading, as "Política de uso de imágenes" translates as "Image use policy" and es:Wikipedia:Política de uso de imágenes interwikis to our Wikipedia:Image use policy so a Spanish speaker using this redirect would likely not end up where they wanted anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 27 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.

Wikipedia:Pages that has been on VFD[edit]

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. *Adds this redirect to its non-existent self* I suppose the original idea would be similar to what we now do on WP:RFDCO. Deryck C. 16:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is unused, bad grammar, outdated, and potentially misleading. I would expect this to be redirected to a list of articles that have been nominated for AfD, not the main AfD page. -- Tavix (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looking at the page history, the original idea was for a page to provide examples of articles that had been nominated for deletion but have neither been deleted nor kept as is (redirected, disambiguated, broadened, etc). The original format wouldn't have scaled and it never got expanded beyond it's original edit, but the idea was not a bad one. I don't know that we have such a page now, but even if we do nobody would look for it at this title and anyone using it would be expecting something like a Category:Pages kept at AfD which does not exist (to my knowledge anyway). Even if such a category did exist, the grammar and old acronym mean that retargetting it now would make it unlikely to gain any uses. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 27 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.

Wikipedia:Page de description d'une image[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 16:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFOREIGN. This isn't the French Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator, although at least this one is pointing at the correct target. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 27 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.

Rockmusic[edit]

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 rough consensus is that this redirect is old and plausible enough to be retained. Deryck C. 16:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COSTLY redirect due to lack of space. However, this may be a valid {{R from CamelCase}}; this redirect was created in 2004. Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's not camel case, but it is old, harmless, occasionally used, and already tagged as a misspelling. - Eureka Lott 00:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EurekaLott. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kellymoat: Please could you elaborate on why you believe this redirect should be deleted? Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rockmusic - one word? Nah. Not needed. It is not a plausible misspelling. Therefore, no redirect is justified. Kellymoat (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this had some use as a hashtag although not for any particular notable event or thread. Other than that I see one camel case use as an example name in Macromedia Flash [3] However rock-music is used often enough in books. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term. – Uanfala (talk) 19:48, 5 February 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.

Wikipedia:Current wildfire[edit]

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. Deryck C. 16:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR that may mislead readers looking for a project-namespace guideline. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire#Guidelines which is exactly the project-namespace guideline regarding current wildfires that people are likely looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually, after thinking about this, the current target is a guideline about what constitutes a "current wildfire". It's in an unusual place but it is guidance about current wildfires that would usually be found on a Wikipedia page. I'm about to suggest (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wildfire) merging it in with the other guidelines, if that is done then I'll revert to me retarget recommendation. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this has routinely been a source of conflict and it is really important to have this link as reference. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:15, 27 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_27&oldid=1088107302"