Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin

July 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 10, 2016.

Summer ford[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. -- Tavix (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this Neelix redirect should be retargeted to Summerford because there are two places named Summerford in Wikipedia. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

WPANATOMY-barnstar[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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G6. This is a redirect left from moving a page obviously created in the wrong namespace, the move took place circa 1 day after creation in March 2014, so there is no longer any plausible use for it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kew liste[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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. (redirect to a page created in the wrong namespace and subsequently moved) Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[mistaken comment removed]. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

VolleyballAt2016SummerOlympics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 18#VolleyballAt2016SummerOlympics

Victoria Louise-class armored cruiser[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 Victoria Louise-class cruiser. -- Tavix (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User contrib CentralAuth simple[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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. The page history shows this was moved to the wrong namespace accidentally. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

University of Rhode Island presidents[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. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shameless tv show[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 Shameless#Television, a disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Redirect to Shameless (UK TV series) or Shameless (U.S. TV series) or disambiguate. Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Create DAB per nom. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget per below. Plausible search term and DAB exists. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searchers should find Shameless (TV series) which redirects to the DAB page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to existing dab page at Shameless#Television. Only a subset of users will see search results if looking for a page title that does not exist (others will be invited to create a page and/or invited to search for what they want), and even when they do we cannot guarantee search results will always place the desired target high or prominent in the list. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

4000 run / 200 wicket double[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If I thought this was a plausible search term I would be recommending retargetting it to the article at All-rounder. However it doesn't seem plausible (the stats back this up: it got only 2 hits in the 90 days before this RfD) so deletion is best. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lower limb muscles[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 Human_leg#Muscles as most plausible target. Deryck C. 11:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a fresh look at this, it doesn't say 'lower human limb muscles' so is there maybe a broader section about bipedal animals we could point this to? Kangaroos also have lower limb muscles, right? Ranze (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The point of avoiding cross-namespace redirects is to avoid readers looking for encyclopaedic content from accidentally falling into project space, but the target here is a navigation template that exists to help readers find encyclopaedic content and a dab-page would simply duplicate the template, so there is no harm at all from the cross-namespace redirect, and no better (or even equal) target in the article namespace. Ranze's point about this not being restricted to humans is a good one, but it seems we do not have any content specifically about muscles in non-human animals (we have a handfull at most of articles like limbs of the horse that contain relevant information, but only as part of larger articles about specific species) - even lower limb redirects to human leg and the "Limb morphology" entry on template:Fins, limbs and wings points to comparative foot morphology which deals primarily with bone structure and exclusively with terrestrial vertebrates. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Patar knight. -- Tavix (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Human_leg#Muscles, for consistency with Leg muscles. WJBscribe (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of universities in Montenegro[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 listified, taking Joy's advice. -- Tavix (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Montenegro#Education which lists all of them in the first paragraph. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of all the violations of not crossing namespaces, main and template are the least controversial because templates are typically transcluded into main articles anyway, and as you can see from the fact that in 5 years this redirect has existed nobody really bothered to change it. Feel free to point it elsewhere or hell just copy&paste the list from the template to the list (I wanted to avoid duplication, but hey). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redirects from mainspace to reader-facing templates are not problematic in the slightest when there is no better target in article space (see also my argument in the nomination above). Here the section of the Montenegro article noted by Patar knight is appropriate, but not quite as good as the template which shows readers exactly what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lunalilo family tree[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 Lunalilo#Family tree. -- Tavix (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Lunalilo#Family_tree where such a tree exists. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget to Lunalilo#Family tree. The content readers see is identical as the article simply transcludes the template meaning that there is no problem at all for readers landing on the template page directly - the reason we discourage (not prohibit) cross-namespace redirects is to avoid readers looking for encyclopaedic content finding editorial content or pipework instead, but this template is neither. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Lunalilo#Family tree as plausible search term --Lenticel (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Indian states rankings[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 21#Indian states rankings

New York education institutions[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 all. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Retarget to the appropriate section in List of high schools in New York City. Stefan2 (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget all per nom'. Not sure why this had to come to RfD. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Patar knight. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all. It seems that when I converted these to templates a few years ago (as they should have been in the first place), there were some article redirects that still existed, which I didn't seem to have noticed at the time. Kylo Ren (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2016 FIVB-Rexona Ades roster[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 Rio de Janeiro Vôlei Clube#Team. WJBscribe (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Template:University of Rhode Island presidents[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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 - page unambiguously created in error as it was moved by it's original creator when they noticed. No need to clutter up RfD with these sorts of nominations, just tag them for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a redirect with duplicate namespace. Stefan2 (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Template:1980–81 Big Ten ice hockey standings[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 Speedy delete per G6. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a redirect with duplicate namespace. Stefan2 (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

1980–81 Big Ten ice hockey standings[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 1980–81 NCAA Division I men's ice hockey season#Standings. -- Tavix (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maroon 6[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) 00:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created by vandalism page move. The1337gamer (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as plausible typo given adjacency on keyboard and similarity between "5" & "6" and possible confusion from some of the denser albumn covers. Nothing encylopedic is refered to as "Maroon 6" except for this neologism from Nate Silver [1]. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it's the title of one of their albums or the stylization of 5 makes it look like a 6, but I don't see this confusion in mainstream media sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Keepin this obviously incorrect name makes it more likely that it will be used as a wiki link in articles, thus broadening the impact of this incorrect name. Also, having many redirects of the patten "Maroon (followed by a digit)" is foolish. Senator2029 “Talk” 14:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sampoerna Hijau[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 speedily deleted as WP:G3.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect create by vandalism from page move. No relation whatsoever to target. The1337gamer (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The glitch pokemon missingno[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. Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the last one be repeatedly deleted if someone finds it useful and the glitch Pokémon (with accent) redirect has been retained all this time? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that sounds weird to me, especially with WP:DIACRITICS Patar knight cited. Maybe time to recreate that one. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's always plausible that someone would use a leading article, and in this case "the glitc" only turns up three choices (including this one) that begin with that string, so it's not adversely taking up space for useful searches. I would also support the recreation of the redlink per WP:DIACRITICS. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

21-1[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 21#21-1

Wikipedia:Number[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 all as suggested. This is a marginal case with valid arguments on both sides, though I find the retargeting arguments stronger: these shortcuts have incoming links but existing incoming links almost exclusively come from listings of shortcuts. Deryck C. 11:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing redirects. What do these have to do with the targets? Stefan2 (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tavix: Just curious, have you seen the amount of incoming links to these redirects? Apparently, these redirects were formerly part of some sort of welcome template (that maybe no longer exists as these redirects have no incoming links in the "Template:" namespace) that was substituted on user talk pages, and thus, these redirects have more than 3000 incoming links each. Steel1943 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The welcome message was User:TomasBat/Welcome. FWIW I'd dub that a "non-semantic usage" of the shortcut: people aren't linking to, e.g. WP:2 because they specifically wanted to talk about Portal:Contents/Outlines, they're linking to WP:2 in order to link to every one-letter/one-number redirect, and I doubt either the senders or the recipients cared or even knew exactly where those shortcuts went. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose keep per nominator. We should strongly discourage internal use of obscure & confusing shortcuts with no apparent relation to their targets. There are basically unused outside of that welcome message I mentioned above; e.g. from article talkspace, WP:2 has a grand total of one incoming link (by its creator) and the others have none. I'd be happy with retarget per Tavix, since if we delete them someone would probably recreate them with an even more confusing target. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all per Tavix. We should probably discourage the further use of confusing redirects and actually use them for something useful. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Stefan2, Steel1943, The Transhumanist, Tavix, Patar knight, and 210.6.254.106: I'm going to list a couple more of the same nature (i.e. single number redirects to Portal:Contents subpages) below that should also be considered. The keeps will seemingly equally apply, but new potential targets could be suggested on the retarget side.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7 and 9 added to the nomination.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Godsy: Thanks for fixing my bullet. Just so you're aware, WP:PING doesn't work within the relist template and IP's can't get pinged. -- Tavix (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would support Tavix's proposed targets above. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Godsy, my opinion is that the current targets are inappropriate and that Tavix's proposals are better. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget. No opinion on where these should go, but deleting shortcuts just because they're obscure or unusual isn't a problem in projectspace; if people decide that WP:NGFO (to hit a few random characters) gets a lot of use as a shortcut for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others (to pick one of the longest projectspace names I could find), it doesn't hurt anything. Unless someone wants to use WP:2 for some other purpose, as is being suggested here, there's no reason to take it away from its established Portal:Contents/Outlines target. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the very large number of incoming links that would be broken by deletion or retargetting. It may not be an intuitive organisational scheme for everyone, but it was a structured system that was promoted by at least 1 welcome template. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: That's not the case here. If you look at User:TomasBat/Welcome, the welcome template is not trying to promote the current targets, but simply listing every single single letter/number combination, no matter what the target is. Retargeting to more intuitive targets doesn't break that. -- Tavix (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't break that welcome template, but that template is not the source of all the incomming links. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but Wikipedia:Shortcut directory is the only other place, and that's not an issue since it would just be updated after the closure of this RFD. You still haven't refuted my point: since these shortcuts are not being deliberately used "in the wild" to point to their current targets, retargeting these shortcuts would not break any incoming links. -- Tavix (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lisie Hospital, Ernakulam[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 at new target after the page move. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved from here only_nonsense (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other ones are notable. This is the one that shows up in the news so it would be primary topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of whether there are other Lisie hospitals, this is precisely what I'd type in the search box if I was looking for this article. Uanfala (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Unafala. Also it's a {{R from move}} which are kept unless there is a good reason to delete them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Regions khanate[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 Khanate. -- Tavix (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to retarget to Khanate per Patar knight. I didn't investigate this very well. — Gorthian (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fine arts movie[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 as refined. -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It'a unclear what this redirect refers to. Apparently, this may be a rough term for Film, but it's a rather unlikely search term if it is. Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nomination updated in this edit to reflect the retarget. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Current target. I added art film to the see also in the proposed target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Obdurately[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 the disambiguation page at obdurate. There's some split of opinion, but all in all there's a majority for disambiguation = retarget "obdurate" ≈ soft redirect to Wiktionary. Deryck C. 21:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a procedural relisting from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 3#Obdurate. Note that Obdurate is now a disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in current form, as dab. Boleyn (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no point in keeping it redirected to Stubborn as there's nothing relevant at target. It's either delete or soft redirect to wiktionary per Patar knight's comment in the previous discussion. Is there consensus on the lower threshold of pageviews for creating a soft redirect? To me, five views per month looks borderline. Uanfala (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My sense is that no one is going to enter the word "obdurate" as a search term and be pleased to arrive at "stubborn" as its redirect ("Oh! Of course! What I really meant was 'HMS Stubborn'! I thought it was the HMS Obdurate!"). I don't see a purpose in having a redirect to a synonym disambig page that only relates to the original term thesaurically (?). Are there topics under "Stubborn" which deserve a Wikipedia article? Absolutely. Are there terms under the disambig page for "Stubborn" that are legitimate alternate terms for "obdurate"? (Little Miss Obdurate, Louis the Obdurate). No. -KDS4444 (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per previous RfD; gets 6 hits a month and the DAB page for obdurate is not related to the adverb form at all. Per the page view tool's FAQ, this is all actual readers, not webcrawlers or other robots. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Obdurate, add to the wiktionary entry on that DAB page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and Wiktionary exactly per AngusWOOF. — Gorthian (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, largely per KDS4444 since Wikipedia doesn't have anything that could be considered "obdurately." There's the word, but we're not a dictionary, and per {{wi}}, a Wiktionary redirect needs to be something people search for on Wikipedia, and the stats show that people aren't searching for it at any meaningful level. -- Tavix (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_10

Leave a Reply