Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 3

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 article created with hatnote as suggested. Nothing more for RfD to do here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• GMFA → Good Music For All (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Deletion. This links to an existing page. I wish to add a new page with the same name as the redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serenditious (talk • contribs)

• I'm not sure what you are wanting to do here -
  • If you are wanting to create an article with the title GMFA, then just overwrite the redirect with your article but add {{for|the Indian Christian music label and distribution company|Good Music For All}} to the top line.
  • If you want to create an article with the title Good Music For All then you'll need to add a parenthetical disambiguation to the title. Without knowing the subject of the article though I cannot suggest anything.
  • If you want to create an article with a different title with the initials GMFA then go ahead and create it and change the GMFA article to a disambiguation page between the two articles; or add {{redirect|GMFA|<subject of your article>|<title of your article>}} to the top of the Good Music For All page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. The desire is to write an article entitled GMFA so I will add the {{for}} label. Serenditious

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 to delete. The last pre-dab version has been restored as the proposed "disambiguation page" violates

WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Non admin close. B.Wind (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Google Guys → Google (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Pointless redirect. mono 05:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - (Excerpt from
  Google Guys"..." Not sure what to do with it...maybe some sort of dab page? Redirecting it to Google doesn't make much sense. It does have a strangely enormous amount of page views, so an alternative to deletion would be preferable, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ah, it actually used to be a dab page, until it was changed. I personally don't see much wrong with the dab page, it seems useful, and redirecting to Google is just irrelevant.

But what do you think? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore dab page. While it technically does not disambiguate articles that would otherwise share the same title, it does perform a useful function equivalent to a dab page and, as Lord Spongefrog says, redirecting to Google doesn't really help anyone find the biography they were most likely looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore dab per above. –Grondemar 19:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is mentioned in the lede of the target article. The proposed dab page runs afoul of
  MOS:DAB as there is simply no disambiguation. The links to the articles of the two individuals are actually in the same sentence as the one mentioning the phrase "Google Guys". 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - IMHO, this is one of those rare occasions when we should WP:Ignore all rules. The current target mentions them, but isn't actually about them — it isn't immediately obvious. It's a relatively widely used term, and has hundreds of page views; I think it deserves its own page. MOSDAB itself says "ignore these guidelines if doing so will be more helpful to readers than following them", Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore this version, pre-dab. Per the references listed, reliable sources seem to refer to them jointly as "Google Guys" or "the Google Guys". (But see Talk:Google Guys for contrary opinions.) Cnilep (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore pre-dab - In fact, I think this idea is better than the dab. There's a lot of good information in it that would be better presented in this article than in two separate ones. Hell, it even passes
  WP:NEO, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 Hair removal#Hair removal methods. Ruslik_Zero 19:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Photoepilation → Laser hair removal (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Photoepilation is not equal to laser epilation. It is more general term. There are enough methods and devices for photoepilation without lasers - for example with high-energy lamps or diods. Alex Spade (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/question. The stats show that this title is consistently getting around 15-20 hits a month, so there probably should be something here. Would a change of target to Hair removal or more specifically Hair removal#Hair removal methods be better? Is there scope for an article about photoepilation separate from the Hair removal article? Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intresting variant, it's better than current one. I have edited the article that it can be even more better. Alex Spade (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's discussed in the lede of the target. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]