Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 20

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 4CT → Four color theorem  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This concept is not known by the acronym "4CT". -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes it is: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I guess my search was obscured by Nokia phones. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:32, 21 October 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 (

non-admin closure) Pppery 22:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Four colour map problem → Four color theorem  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete,

• Keep, plausible search term. The article makes plenty of references to the fact it's a problem and the fact that it involves four colors and a map. There's nothing wrong here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  There is something slightly wrong here, but I am not sure what it is,

  WP:ENGVAR. Perhaps the best solution is to create them, in this case, but my search for "four-colour map problem" came up with no results, strangely. I doubt it will now repeat that behaviour, because it will probably now find this discussion: you have to believe me when I did it, I got zero results. I note it simply so I can report it somehow, but I don't really know how to do that. Pretty obviously withdrawn, I never intended it really to be deleted. But my reasoning for why is absolutely sound: no links, three hits in ninety days. Many a redirect has thus gone. Si Trew (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep Definitely a plausible redirect. The 4 colour map theorem has only been a theorem since it was proved in 1976. Before that it was a conjecture, or problem. Meters (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  4 colour map problem goes there but not 4 color map problem. I think I have conjectured enough. Si Trew (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The latter now blue, created by User:Tavix at 01.22 this morning with this edit. One has one blue, expect others to go the same. The ones I said or implied were red, were red when I said so. Si Trew (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Very obviously a valid alternate name. This is the title of the Britannica entry on this topic. [9] A Google Book search for this gets circa 200 hits. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep used in multiple places [10] [11] just for starters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:34, 21 October 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) 19:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Deletion request → Template:Article for deletion  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not needed. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 20:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ambiguous, can refer to {{
  prod}} etc. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - This is, as stated above, unhelpful given the ambiguity. We should just be rid of this redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:12, 22 October 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 and restore

Boner Law. WJBscribe (talk)

• Boner law → Bonar Law  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Keep and Restore example in nomination as {{R from misspelling}}. Phonetically, this is extremely similar (or the same depending on accents) to how it is properly said, so this will aid searches. Highly unlikely that "Boner law" can refer to anything else. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Restore. I fully agree with Patar knight, these are useful search terms. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Restore - Yes, there's plenty of jokes that can be made about this, but the above arguments make sense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as creator) and restore capitalized version - The reason I created the redirect is because I was searching for the PM and thought it was spelt "Boner". I don't think I'm the only one to make this error. ... discospinster _talk 15:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the miscapitalized version as redundant and annoying. Restore the other one. Siuenti (talk) 15:38, 24 October 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, noting that this is

WP:NOTAVOTE. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• OBAMA! → Barack Obama  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should be deleted or retargeted to

• Redirect. HarryKernow (talk to me) 19:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't see a good reason to keep this. It's not really helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as with THATCHER!. REAGAN! etc. are red. It's implausible, unlike e.g. Jeb! where common usage can be shown.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:59, 27 October 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. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Sun (newspaper) → The Sun (United Kingdom)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Perhaps retarget to

• Keep, unfortunately. Looking at the internal links, they are overwhelmingly for the British newspaper. It would have been far better, in my opinion, to have the target at The Sun (British newspaper). But as it stands, there are about 4,000 articles that link through this, and the vast majority look to me like things the British Sun is likely to talk about (celebs, British politicians, etc etc.)

  The history has a nice

  WP:ES by User:DMacks about a "long-term slow-moving war over target of this redirect." (quite long-term, User:DMacks made that comment on 9 March 2012 and it had been rumbling for years before that). So I very much doubt an RfD will achieve any lasting effect. Resignedly, I say keep, but this should probably be sorted once for all at some higher level. The page was edit-protected (by DMacks) from 9 March to 28 April 2012 (by User:Tbhotch) but has been stable since then. We'd probably be better off opening some full-blown discussion at somewhere more prominent than RfD, I don't know where: its talk page is red but really talk pages for redirects are almost invisible and despite what WP:Redirect etc says I wouldn't recommend putting anything on a redirect's talk page if you actually expect it to be read. Si Trew (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Retarget to
  Sun (newspaper). There are many such newspapers, current and discontinued. Wikipedia should be a timeless work, not obsessing over the recent, the older newpapers are as notable as the current. Recentism is a bias to avoid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and hatnote per
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The most notable newspapers at the proposed target that might challenge this for primary topic all do not actually call themselves "The Sun", but have some qualifier (e.g. Toronto Sun, Vancouver Sun, Baltimore Sun, Daily Sun). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Retarget to
  WP:INCOMPDAB. "Sun (newspaper)" is disambiguated, but still too ambiguous to refer to any one target. When this happens, it's best to retarget to the most relevant disambiguation (or in this case, a list). -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:35, 20 October 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. There is consensus that Sun is the primary topic for "The Sun". -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Sun → Sun  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This has undergone several edit wars but was never discussed at RfD. IMO people searching for this term would likely be looking for a newspaper or something else on the disambiguation. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 09:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Champion: Just an FYI, this redirect was subject to an RfD in January 2010. Steel1943 (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sun > →

WP:COMMONNAME

for the thing. There's really not a very good solution to this one.

I notice The world and The World both go to World and not as The World (newspaper) does (to World_(disambiguation)#Periodicals). It's all a bit unsatisfactory, I agree, but I can't think of a solution that would be less so. Si Trew (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Sun and The sun both have incoming links. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, and while technically we could hatnote Sun with {{redirect2|The sunThe Sun}} and so on, presumably the aim is to keep the poor old fellow cluttered at the top of seven hundred hatnotes. Sure, it means that we only have a hatnote there for Sun (disamiguation) and not, e.g. The Sun (disambiguation) – we could perhaps add that into the existing hatnote – but what good even would that do? It would be saying "We now have two disambiguations. Messieurs et mesdames, faites vos jeux, please now place your bets, which of the two disambiguation pages should you like to try first?". I really can't think of a term more common than "the sun" that has left not even a chink of daylight to guide us out. A sun and a Sun are both red (as are A world and a World, to complete my earlier analogue.

  The earth is red. But, then, Earth (newspaper) and The Earth (newspaper)

  are also red, so perhaps that is not so great an analogy.

  Casting desperately to the heavens, The moon and The Moon both →

  WP:COMMONNAME] wins, they should stay where they are. I think they should stay where they are. Keep, or I will get Apollo onto, pronto. I don't see much point in e.g. asking WP:WikiProject Astronomy, with all due respect they know what the sun moon and earth are, any more than if we asked what WP:WikiProject Media

  to tell us what The Sun, The Moon and The Earth were.

  It's really tempting to say

  WP:XY

  out of sheer cussedness but I'm pretty sure they are fine as they stand. After all, the newspapers were named after the heavenly bodies, not the other way around.

  To take some less well-known papers,

  WP:SURPRISEd with where The Morning Star goes. Si Trew (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep. Makes perfect sense, even as a
  WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Steel1943 (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I don't believe that an average person searching for "The Sun" is more likely to be looking for the newspaper than the Sun. Most people outside of the UK have never heard of The Sun newspaper. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• "The Sun" should go to
  Sun (newspaper), as this case-sensitive combination overwhelmingly refers to a newspaper. "The sun" can go to Sun. Alternatively, delete these redirects and allow the internal search engine to do its job, which it appears to me to do well. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Nah, after reading the old discussion keep, per Gavia Immer. Summed it up perfectly, and nothing has changed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The star seems to be the primary topic, and the hatnote takes care of the rest of the cases.Tazerdadog (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per SmokeyJoe. Readers looking for the topic in astronomy would not be searching for "The Sun".
  flyer 03:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, but use a hatnote that includes a link to the newspaper and the DAB page. Given that the Sun is a proper noun, it's not an unreasonable search. Since the Sun is much more prominent than The Sun, it seems like
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies and it should stay at the current target.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:57, 27 October 2016 (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 no consensus to delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• List of cults → List of new religious movements  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This has been redirected to several pages throughout its history, but never discussed at RfD. I would suggest deletion and possibly salting it. This is because effectively, any target is bound to be a POV as a group that someone identifies as a "cult" may not be viewed by everyone as such and a "new religious movement" is not necessarily a "cult" and vice versa. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - The distinction between a 'cult' and a 'religion' is a fuzzy area, indeed, but redirects don't have to be neutral. Nor even strictly accurate, really... my instinct is to retain this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My instinct is to delete it because there are all kinds of other cults describied at
  WP:SURPRISEing for people who are looking for cults other than new religious movements, and in particular because as Cult#Terminological history says (referenced) "Most sociologists and scholars of religion also began to reject the word "cult" altogether because of its negative connotations in mass culture". Yes, redirects don't have to be neutral, but they don't have to be downright misleading either. Si Trew (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep as a plausible search term and an appropriate redirect target. We explain the difference in the associated article, so there's minimal risk of confusion. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 21 October 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) 19:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Corrupt (organization) → Template:COI  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think so is COL is corrupt it's isn't. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 16:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Corrupt and conflict of interest are not one and the same... Steel1943 (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per me. Steel1943 (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This appears to be misleading in an unhelpful kind of way, and there's really no good reason to keep it. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. Above two comments were transcribed from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 21#Template:Corrupt (organization), which was opened after this one was improperly closed. Steel1943 should clarify their comment. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 11:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done. Steel1943 (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. COI is not the same as corruption, not even close, so it is incorrect and as such prone to make a difficult situation even worse. - Nabla (talk) 17:41, 23 October 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) 19:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The graduation song → List of graduation songs  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous since there are no entries on the list that are named this title. I seem to be getting a lot of search results about Graduation (Friends Forever). But I believe that is not a common name even for that specific entry. (I am currently expanding the target article). - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'd rather just let people search given that there doesn't seem to be one clear-cut instance of a track known as "The Graduation Song". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. On Wikipedia, I found "The Graduation Song" as a single in
  Wynter Gordon discography, and a Chinese TV (movie? series?) starring Janice Man. I don't suggest retargeting to either, and a dab page would be useless. If either becomes notable, then an article can be written. — Gorthian (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment They might mean
  Pomp and Circumstance, but this term is pretty vague otherwise. It doesn't need "The" in front as that would imply just one, or a specific title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:09, 22 October 2016 (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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• University of Management and Technology (United States)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

No affinity for Chinese. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what User:Champion is objecting to, but article titles on en-wiki should be in English. I move the page to what appeared to be the English equivalent, and it was subsequently redirected Jimfbleak (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:RFFL. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - I'm not seeing a particular link between this organization and China that would merit such a redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete English school in the US. No need for a Chinese (or any other foreign language) redirect. Meters (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reason why most people would search the Chinese name for it. Joseph2302 09:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:48, 22 October 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 and salt. Consolidating recent discussions there is a clear consensus for deletion on the grounds that 'British independence' is a distinctly different concept from 'Brexit'. Just Chilling (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• British independence → Brexit  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Obligatory RfD listing based on the fact that I'm recreating as redirect a page that has had two Afds that both resulted in delete outcomes. Quite frankly I don't understand why everyone keeps trying to wipe every mention of this term off the face of Wikipedia. Prisencolin (talk)

Delete Two Afds have demonstrated the overwhelming view that this is not seen to be a term that is in significant use for this topic or any of the other topics that you have claimed it is. Yet you stubbornly recreate it in the face of this? Mutt Lunker (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was hardly any proof presented that this term is not in significant use other than a few vague claims.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely back to front: for the article, then dab, now redirect to exist or be retained the onus for proof is that it is in significant use. You twice, overwhelmingly, failed to convince the debate. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems, per above, back to front logic. I'd have thought the biggest broad meaning was colonial independence from Britain. Seems

WP:RECENTISM, so in balance both meh and trout. Widefox; talk 15:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

It's been used countless times in various news outlets, some of which would be considered reliable sources. Regardless, redirects aren't required meet

WP:GNG, and for that matter neither are disambiguation pages. The use of this term falls well within the threshold needed for a redirect at least, so there shouldn't be much else to prove. --Prisencolin talk) 16:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

You continue to obstinately disregard the views and reasoning expressed in the two Afds and the consequent decisions to delete. Your supposed examples of countless uses of the term in reliable sources to mean one particular and specific thing was just cherry-picking of disparate texts that happen to have the two words next to each other and overhelmingly and demonstrably did not convince the debate. Please have the grace to accept that. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit the timing for this kind of page was pretty bad and

WP:TOOSOON applies for neologisms also I guess. Sooner or later this redirect has got to point somewhere. No use arguing any more for now.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you clarify that you are conceding now that the redirect be deleted? In which case, thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The concept of political independence for the British isles is a broad historical one beyond just the current sturm und drang. Something that immediately comes to mind is the bloody British conflicts with Roman invaders, a struggle for independence which had notable effects upon later history. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and lock: This topic has gone through 2 successful AfDs, 1 successful speedy deletion and is now up for another speedy deletion... over a short period of time. Can we stop having this page recreated?
  talk•cont 20:19, 20 October 2016 (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 Keep (

non-admin closure) Pppery 22:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• The Legend of Zelda (2017 video game) → The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is not used in any articles anymore, so it is essentially an orphan. The game's title is well-known now, so I believe this redirect is no longer needed. Basically, I believe the page-move redirect has been around for a long enough period of time that it is now not needed. — Gestrid (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This discussion and this discussion, both of which resulted in a "delete", may be relevant to this discussion. — Gestrid (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't believe them to be relevant. Both the 2015 and untitled game redirctes were deleted when they were no longer accurate, however in this case no one is disputing the 2017 release date. The 2016 redirect below is a another story though.--76.65.40.153 (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This redirect is currently correct in its disambiguation, and is thus helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Steel. --Izno (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per still. Still correct and useful as possible search term. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:34, 24 October 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) 18:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Legend of Zelda (2016 video game) → The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is not used in any articles anymore, so it is essentially an orphan. The game's title is well-known now, so I believe this redirect is no longer needed. Basically, I believe the page-move redirect has been around for a long enough period of time that it is now not needed. — Gestrid (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This discussion and this discussion, both of which resulted in a "delete", may be relevant to this discussion. — Gestrid (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The game is coming out in 2017, not 2016, and I'm wary of keeping redirects that appear to be as factually misleading as this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A (2017 video game) redirect will probably be created anyway.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @AngusWOOF: Look above. Steel1943 (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, saw that right afterwards. ;) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – No longer accurate. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:34, 24 October 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) 14:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No personal attacks → Ad hominem  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible search term and not appropriate for a CNR. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This does not appear to be a CNR. --Izno (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    talk) 21:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    That makes more sense. I agree with that position. --Izno (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - "Don't make personal attacks" is a general idea, not that clearly defined, that applies in a bunch of different contexts. This includes not just Wikipedia but other Wiki websites as well as online video games, online educational platforms, et cetera. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:52, 21 October 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. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Year 1 → Year One  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Possibly retarget to

• Retarget to 1, which is what this was originally supposed to redirect to. — Gorthian (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Hatnote and lead sentence covers the cases. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AngusWOOF. This seems to be the most likely target, and the other possibilities are already covered in the hatnote. Meters (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and either retarget to the article currently still at
  1 CE/... see RfC) or Disambiguate (->Year One (disambiguation)) as there are quite some different targets. --SI 18:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. A partial phrase, could be many things. First grade, the first year of Adam and Eve, Year 1 of King X. The search function handles partial phrases best. The redirect prevents the search engine from engaging. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as-is since "Year 1" should match "Year One". I'm not sure the current article at the title is the primary topic for "Year One", but that's a different discussion for a different time. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:55, 29 October 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) 18:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 → 0s  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't see how this is a plausible search term, but people searching this would be more likely be looking for something to do with Educational stages, but I would prefer deletion to retargeting there. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - Patrick (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per

WP:R3. — Gestrid (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Not eligible since this is not recently created, hence this RfD. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This just isn't helpful and isn't useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for transparency & history reasons + "Redirects are cheap". It is no harm to keep it, but we would lose an interesting detail abour how Wikipedia search was optimised in 2002/2003 by senior editors like Patrick, Menchi and Camembert. --SI 09:46, 27 October 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ABC Kids (Australia - 2000s-2009) → ABC Kids (Australia)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nominated for deletion as this redirect is unnecessary as its function is covered by the current name of the article which has details on the subject's past in its history section. Additionally, all former names of the article subject already individually redirect to the current article name and the formatting for this redirect is clumsy and unusual (placing dates in a country disambig, separated by a hyphen). – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 01:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree that this is clumsy and unusual. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:14, 22 October 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.