Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 21

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 Halo: Combat Evolved.(non-admin closure) I'm not sure the primary topic argument is strong here, but retaregeting, which is supported by all participants, seems to correspond to established practice (which is reflected in the topic-specific naming conventions). Leaving to others (BDD?) to decide what to do with Halo (game). – Uanfala (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Halo (video game) → Halo (series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Propose retargeting to Halo: Combat Evolved, where this pointed for almost 8 years and was the article's title before then (per WP:SUBTITLE, you could even make an argument for moving back). While some subsequent Halo games might plausibly be referred to this way (those without numbers especially, like Halo: Reach), the search term strongly suggests a single video game, and I think the original is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. BDD (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support retarget to Halo: Combat Evolved. The other Halo games are never referred to as just Halo. Only Combat Evolved is. Other subtitled games like Halo: Reach and Halo 3: ODST are often shortened to their respective subtitles, Reach and ODST. This seems non-controversial in my opinion. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games) discusses using (video game) for articles about single games not series articles so the original game is the best target.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above. (video game) implies one game, and the series features prominently in the second sentence of the lede. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget - I agree with the arguments made above. The change makes sense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:49, 1 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 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) 20:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Tea Party Movement Opposition → Tea Party movement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Created a stub article, this is an awkward phrase that could refer to opposition to the Tea Party movement or to the movement as an opposition (the article used it as the former). It's an unlikely search term even without the ambiguity, though. BDD (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This stub was proposed to be merged into the target article, was anything actually merged? Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  This was the extent of it. Neither of those groups are mentioned in the article now, and this all happened when the Tea Party was a rapidly developing event. I'm a rather obsessive follower of American politics, if I do say so myself, and have never heard of either of those groups, so I think we can safely delete. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Lawabahn → Lawa Railway  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. This is a railway in Suriname, so a redirect in Dutch would make sense, but this is German, a language not especially relevant to the topic. This redirect only exists because the article was imported from German Wikipedia. Gorobay (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I imported this from dewiki, this was the article name there - no objections if it is not useful. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Great Illustrated Classics.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Cinderella & Other Stories → Cinderella  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not plausible search terms I see no point in redirecting to a list with a whole load of other entries. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 20:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's a book called Cinderella and Other Stories, but it doesn't look anywhere near notable enough for an article or a redirect. Narky Blert (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Redirect per AngusWOOF. Narky Blert (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Great Illustrated Classics which has this title listed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per AngusWOOF. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per AngusWOOF. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Electric current#AC and DC. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• AC/DC (electrical) → Electrical engineering  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• AC/DC (electricity) → War of Currents  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

(neelix) We do have AC/DC (disambiguation) but electrical engineering is not listed there, so I guess either XY or retarget to the dab. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Electric current#AC and DC, possibly with a hatnote to the disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to DAB page, which lists multiple entries for electricity and AC-DC. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought about that, but the target I suggest is the only place where we have a quick explanation in one place about the difference between AC and DC (which I think is the most likely someone using this search term is looking for) that doesn't focus on one or the other. Non-electrical uses of are clearly not what is sought here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the DAB page to mention the simple definitions of AC and DC up front, which is what the band originally named itself after, and organized the electricity section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The simple definitions are good, but I still think the explanations given at Electric current#AC and DC (and not linked from the dab) are significantly more useful than the dab page. I've also added AC/DC (electricity) to this nomination as they should point to the same place. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Electric current#AC and DC and add a hatnote to the DAB page. If readers add the "electrical" or "electricity" qualifiers, I think they willbe best served by being sent to the page about electrical current. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Thryduulf and add a hatnote to the dab. – Uanfala (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I also support a retargeting change given the above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Thryduulf. Beagel (talk) 19:43, 4 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Flash vs. Arrow → Flash vs. Arrow  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:CNR. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up comment: I was not aware of the VP proposal about draft namespace redirects until Godsy provided the link below. I can see the merit to maintaining a default policy where we keep these redirects, but in this case, the redirect has largely been unused since the article was moved out of draftspace and the author is aware of the new location. For those reasons, I still think we should delete this redirect. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete WP:G6. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135#Draft Namespace Redirects. That community discussion was about redirects of this nature, which happened due to discussions like Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 9#Draft:Arrow (season 2), and the closer described it as "a clear consensus against deletion of draft namespace redirects". — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Godsy. That, and the redirect leaves a "paper trail" of where the draft went, especially useful if its creator isn't aware of their draft being published. Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Godsy and Steel1943. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Easthambull → Istanbul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• East Ham Bull → Istanbul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Obscure synonym, appears to be invented. Only usage I could find was a user on certain social sites. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Frankly, this looks like nonsense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with CoffeeWithMarkets. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted per CSD G6/G7. See detailed comments below

• 1901-02East Stirlingshire F.C. season → 1901–02 East Stirlingshire F.C. season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 1901–02East Stirlingshire F.C. season → 1901–02 East Stirlingshire F.C. season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely typos (they're both missing a space between the year and the word East), but they don't qualify under CSD R3, as they no longer count as recently-created. Delete. - Eureka Lott 04:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete both. The second one (with an en-dash) was an accidental creation and moved almost immediately to the current target, it gets no pageviews and was tagged as G7 by it's creator and is also eligible for G6, so I'll speedy delete that one for those reasons. The first, with a hyphen, was automatically created by Anomie's bot based on the existence of the en-dash redirect. This was tagged for G8 speedy deletion, which it is not eligable for as the correctly spaced title, to which it has always pointed, does exist. I'm happy to delete this one under criterion G6 also though as its creation was entirely due to an error and a previous time something like this happened Anomie speedy deleted their bot's creation under G7 when they became aware of it so they are unlikely to object - Anomie: if I'm wrong please let me know and I'll restore the redirect for further discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: As far as I'm concerned, the real target for the bot-created redirects is the endash version of the title as stated in the {{R from modification}} template, so I'd consider a G8 valid in this situation. The only reason the actual redirect doesn't point there is because of the need to avoid double redirects. But G6 works for me too. Anomie⚔ 14:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• United Stated → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Makes zero sense. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; what are you talking about? It's an easy typo to make on a QWERTY keyboard, since "s" and "d" are next to each other and next to the "e". Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since the target doesn't mention what the United Stated. Steel1943 (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Abstain/neutral per further discussion in this section. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not terribly useful to link to just a common term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Would either of you please explain why this should not be kept as a plausible typo? Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm underestimating how many searches there are for United States, which apparently is a lot (50-70k a day). This consistently got about 1-6 hits a day in the past 90 days. There's also United sates as a plausible typo, although there are organizations that begin with United Sates. Striking vote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - This is a typo that I can see some people making, but I'm not sure to what extent this is useful. I guess that I lean to leaving it alone. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a very plausible typo. It's one I've made myself on several occasions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a plausible typo that gets regular hits. Sideways713 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a plausible typo. "Makes zero sense." is not a valid ground for deletion. Just Chilling (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. It's a plausible typo but it looks like this doesn't get used very often. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WWW.google.COM → Google Search  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Bizarre capitalization, WP:COSTLY just typing "www.google.com" will get where they want to go. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete–implausible use of capitalization. –Grondemar 02:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inappropriate stylization. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We should just be rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Aboutmcdonalds.com → McDonald's  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Non-notable website not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no one will ever search on this. Largoplazo (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 181 people (up to 10 a day) viewed this redirect (whether by searching or following a link from somewhere, it is not possible to know which) between 11 January and 10 December, that's a hell of a lot more than "no one", meaning that the basis for user:Largoplazo's recommendation is unsupported by the facts. The website in question is presently an alternate URI for the "Official Global Corporate Website" (corporate.mcdonalds.com) but google hits seem to show that it was the primary domain name as recently as 2015, and official websites of notable corporations are certainly not non-notable. If nobody were using this then I would agree with the nomination, but the figures clearly show this is useful and it's pointing at the correct target so keeping it seems to be the best course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: Thanks for reminding me about making the nominations explicit, however, even if this has received lots of hits. This certainly does not help the reader for they want at least something about the website itself, which we don't have. Also see WPR#DELETE criterion 10. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 20:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do we know that most or all of those visits weren't by people looking through the New Pages list, wondering what this article was that had been there for so long without anyone reviewing at it, and clicking the link there? I'm just really skeptical that that many people come across an obsolete URL for a company's website and become so fascinated with it at a meta level that they come to see what Wikipedia might have to say about it. Therefore, it strikes me as more likely that there's another explanation than that people care about this topic. Largoplazo (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. When searching "Aboutmcdonalds.com" using a web browser, it redirects to http://corporate.mcdonalds.com/mcd.html, obviously associated with McDonald's. However, this redirect is not Mcdonalds.com, the actual domain name of the target web page, so thus my "weak" keep. (Hmm, Mcdonalds.com doesn't exist yet, so I'd better create it.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless there is some demonstration that encyclopedic content on this subject is in the public domain there is no reason to have this redirect, because there will be no content at the destination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep used in many press releases, and there are some articles that imply it was used to identify the first McDonalds store and museum.[1] It was also referenced in some various news articles. [2] [3] [4] [5] It might be worth listing for the corporate website part of the infobox. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf and AngusWOOF. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. There wasn't a clear proposal here, and I doubt relisting this will somehow bring clarity to this discussion. That being said, editors are encouraged to be bold when creating and/or updating disambiguation pages when there is ambiguity. It seems to me that a bit of boldness is all that is needed here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 民主党 → Minshutō  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is also Singapore_Democratic_Party, Democratic Party (Hong Kong) etc, with the same name, not sure if we need a separate disambig, though. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea what you're proposing here. Could you please be more specific when making nominations? - Eureka Lott 02:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EurekaLott: I am just saying that this particular name could also refer to the entities listed above, don't know why that wasn't clear to you, and if you still don't get it. I'm sorry, I don't know who will. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this an issue for RFD? If they share a name, why not simply update the disambiguation page? - Eureka Lott 03:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree it is unclear what the issue is with this nomination. I'm only speculating, but perhaps the concern is that while these other entities may share some of the same characters they are not known as Minshutō. Although for Democratic Party (Hong Kong) the third character is different (黨 not 党) and on Singapore Democratic Party it seems to be only part of the name there is no indication of ambiguity with simply 民主党. But if these entities are in fact known as 民主党, first recourse would likely be to add them to the see also section of Minshutō, and if there are many such entities, then a separate disambiguation page may be warranted (in which case we might want to consider whether to make Minshutō redirect to that rather than vice versa. older ≠ wiser 13:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 党 is the simplified form of 黨. And "Minshutō" is the Japanese romanisation of the characters, in Mandarin it would be "Mínzhǔdǎng", so the Japanese romanization is not applicable to the entities relating to the Chinse-speaking regions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate between all the entities that this name can refer to at whichever title you think best and redirect others to there. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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