This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 7, 2018.
Tim Spears (rugby)/Cydebot
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 as unopposed. As an aside, this wasn't created by Cydebot, rather by Anthony Appleyard to move aside some old Cydebot history when conducting a page move. --Tavix(talk) 05:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to have been mistakenly created by Cydebot. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:Cyde, the operator of Cydebot, was not previously notified of this nomination, so relisting to give them chance to see it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2018 (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.
Ornskoeldsvik
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. Unopposed. --Tavix(talk) 05:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another Eubot redirect that ignores capital letters, creating an inconsistency; the first Ö is an O, but the second one is an oe. HotdogPi 23:23, 7 June 2018 (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.
Artist to artist redirects
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. --BDD (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who or what are these subjects? All that's in each of the targets are mere mentions with no information about the subjects whatsoever. They don't appear to be alternate names of the subjects either. Record labels do not appear to be plausible targets for these subjects as well, as described in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Brehm. Note: Hush previously redirected to Nobody's Diary, a seemingly plausible redirect as the artist contributed a remix of the song. (I do not have time to tag each redirect. If anyone can do that for me, thanks!) 2601:589:8000:2ED0:D1ED:3328:E4E8:D92A (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2018 (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.
Glacier Engine
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. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned on target page. While Glacer Engine is developed by IO Interactive, there is no subsistantial content on the page to justify the redirect. Lordtobi (✉) 17:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. It's worth noting that it does not have an entry at List of game engines, which means that retargetting there would not be a suitable option. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both as properly categorized((R to article without mention)), that's what we have that RCAT for. "Not mentioned on target page" is not a reason for deletion. Both titles are valid search terms. SamSailor 12:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're valid search terms for people who want to know about the glacier engine, but nothing at the target page will help them - especially those searching for "Glacier2" will likely be left confused about why they have ended up where they have. Category:Redirects to an article without mention should ideally be empty, "Editors who monitor this category will ensure that redirects that are sorted here will either be added to their target articles, retargeted and retagged, or deleted." For example Fairbanks Police Department, which targets Fairbanks, Alaska, was in that category until I refined it to the section of the article where it is now mentioned. Even if it wasn't mentioned, that would be a helpful redirect as it lead to information about the relevant city (there is more than one place with that name). Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for teaching me that; it is not without embarrassment that I have struck my ignorant vote. Best, SamSailor 17:19, 8 June 2018 (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.
Princess Camilla
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 disambiguate. It's lunch time, but I'll draft a quick dab there ~ Amory(u • t • c) 16:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the google hits for 'Princess Camilla' refer to Princess Camilla of Bourbon-Two Sicilies. I think this is a case where we can do without the redirect. If people search for 'Princess Camilla' in the 'Search Wikipedia' box, the top two hits are the two appropriate articles. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro, where Princess Camilla, Duchess of Castro currently redirects. There is no entry, redirect or otherwise, for Princess Camilla of Bourbon-Two Sicilies who is the same person. Although not particularly necessary for internal searches, that is not the only reason for a redirect; there need to be strong reasons to completely delete a redirect. The current redirect to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall is misleading and probably not helpful in most cases, I would advocate for that to be deleted if there were no alternative. Lithopsian (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro, as Princess Camilla, Duchess of Castro, seems to be the only notable person with that name right now. While the Duchess of Cornwall is set to become a princess consort (or maybe a queen consort) in the future, she has not been elevated to that rank yet, and the redirect to her article may cause confusion for the readers. Keivan.fTalk 03:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Unlike the nom, my Google search results in pages and pages and pages about Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall with only the odd entry for Princess Camilla, Duchess of Castro so I can't support the proposed retarget. I can't support deletion either because there really is a Princess Camilla, Duchess of Castro. So, a somewhat relectant disambiguate (much like the result for Lady Camilla cited by Ivanvector earlier). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate – Camilla is legally a British princess and holds the title Princess of Wales, so I think Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, is actually a possible person for this term. CookieMonster755✉ 01:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To consider disambiguation vs retarget
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate I suspect going to Prince Carlo would be a huge WP:SURPRISE for readers. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2018 (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.
Autoshapes
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. --BDD (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with Movie Maker, Autoshapes are in fact, a component of Microsoft Office, which is mentioned at Microsoft PowerPoint but not in the more general article for Office. I can't seem to find a viable target. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak retarget to powerpoint for now. It's also mentioned at PowerPoint animation, but it really needs to be described in a section in Microsoft Office or Powerpoint. Note also the unrelated but similar psychology term called Autoshaping. Powerpoint would be best as it is the originating program that carries the feature. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:58, 7 June 2018 (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.
La giro
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 Giro (disambiguation). I'm not opposed to a broader look at this, La Giro, and La Girò, but until then, this seems reasonable. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 16:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only someone who pretends to understand the principles of Italian, but doesn't, could put this in. It could be Il Giro, although that is not how it is generally known. Kevin McE (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly retarget as an ((R from miscapitalisation)) to Anna Girò, which is where La Girò is pointed (and which is consistent with what I'm seeing in a google books search). Granted, la giro does appear to be occasionally used instead of il giro in the context of cycling tours, see the first sentence of it:Giro di Lombardia 2003 (and compare with it:Giro di Lombardia 2012). I also support retargeting La Giro there, as none of the other entries on its current target Giro (disambiguation) appears to be known as La Giro. – Uanfala (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Giro (disambiguation). The nominator's statement is unkind—we make provision for all sorts of plausible errors, and confusing another language's definite articles is certainly among those. Still, Giro d'Italia isn't the primary topic for "Giro", nor does it seem likely that a reader would type "la" when looking for giro. Uanfala's evidence shows that readers could search at least two of the topics at Giro (disambiguation) this way, however. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2018 (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.
Religious affiliation
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 Religious identity. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 11:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This just doesn't seem like the correct/most useful target. I'd expect a reader looking up this term would be expecting to find a more general article about religion, but I'm not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use the deletion process to brainstorm about possible improvements of redirect targets. Use article talkpages for this, or possibly Wikiproject discussion. The redirect probably exists because someone wished to link to the term from a specific context in a specific article. Check out how the term is used, and then think about what might be the best target. Based on uses such as Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom#Religious_affiliations, the term is about religious demographics rather than spirituality or faith. So I might suggest List of religious populations as a possible target. If there are genuinely several good options, consider disambiguation. But please don't treat this as a case for deletion. --dab(𒁳) 06:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"...Please don't use the deletion process to brainstorm about possible improvements of redirect targets." The irony is that "brainstorm[ing] about possible improvements of redirect targets" is one of the purposes of WP:RFD. Per the instructions on WP:RFD: "If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target." Suggestions/discussions to rewrite the RfD procedure should probably take place at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I do not believe that List of religious populations is an appropriate retargeting option since the subject of the redirect is not defined by/at that target. It may be better to just delete this redirect so that readers can determine for themselves what they are attempting to find via Wikipedia's search function. Steel1943 (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate the meaning of this phrase is unambiguous in actual usage - the religious tradition/group/organisation a person or group of people belong to/subscribe to/practice/associate with; i.e. their religion. The only question is what is the most appropriate target on Wikipedia, but I'm not seeing a single target that deals with that concept. The current target is good, but we also have Religious identity, Religious disaffiliation (a good see-also), and several lists of people by religious affiliation in Category:Lists of people associated with religion and Category:Religion and politics (a category specifically for those lists would be a useful see also, it doens't currently exist but I'm not seeing any obvious reason not to create it). Thryduulf (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retargetto religious conversion, which is the act of affiliating with a religion. I oppose disambiguating because the term is not ambiguous. --Tavix(talk) 03:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that religious identity is closer than my suggestion; good find, Uanfala! --Tavix(talk) 16:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Religious affiliation is the fact of belonging to one or another religious group, and this concept of group belonging is the subject of the article Religious identity, so I propose retargeting there. Any nuances in the use of the term affiliation versus idenity should be treated in that article. I don't see any of the other proposed targets as suitable: Religious conversion is about a different concept (the act of changing one's affiliation), while the several lists are suboptimal: if there exists an article about the concept of X, then X should be targeted there and not pointed to articles that only list types of X. – Uanfala (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2018 (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.
Mute R. Kelly
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete the first two, keep the last. --BDD (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These redirects aren't sourced nor cited. They also fail to meet the matched references of what it does. BJPlaya10 (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)sock strike Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:35, 7 June 2018 (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.
MOS:NOTES
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.
Help page not part of the MoS ....should not use misleading shortcuts that imply community consensus Moxy (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn’t seem to be an actual MoS section or page about footnotes, and “MOS” shortcuts redirecting to regular policies and “WP” shortcuts leading to MoS articles are not uncommon. Help:Footnotes has a lot of useful information about notes. some of which could be in the Manual of Style. Interqwarktalkcontribs 13:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that a MOS: shortcut leading to a Wikipedia or Help page is not misleading if there is no manual of style page covering the subject - which there ins't in this case and the target page is the most relevant page for someone wanting to know about footnotes on Wikipedia. I've added a hatnote at the target page linking to Wikipedia:Hatnote and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Images and notation (where the guidance on musical notes is) that should remove any ambiguity on that score. If this is kept, adding a hatnote to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Instructional and presumptuous language (where MOS:NOTE redirects) should be considered but I'm not certain it is necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose that retargetting (which you really should not have done during the discussion) - someone searching for style-related aspects of footnotes is going to find Help:Footnotes far more useful than the how-to guide. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The help page is clearly linked at the top of the guideline for all to see. Can't have MoS shortcuts implying that it's a guideline when it's not....this is basic stuff... we don't misuse our acronyms in this manner. Having it linked to a guideline is OK. Want to promote the help page to MoS status pls review WP:PROPOSAL as that's a very different conversation.--Moxy (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious retarget to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Notes and references. As covered in more detail here, the entire reason the community grudgingly agreed to creation of the "MOS:" pseudo-namespace was for shortcutting to MoS material (which is guidelines). If we start pointing them in random directions, it destroys the rationale of the entire idea. Hatnotes exist for a reason, and MOS:LAYOUT#Notes and references already has one pointing to the other relevant pages. All of the above discussion is predicated on the idea that MoS doesn't have a valid link target for this shortcut, but of course it does, so the "keep" (i.e. "do not retarget") rationales provided are invalid. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree better target.--Moxy (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per SMcCandlish. This shortcut prefix should only be used for MOS, but this retarget solves the problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2018 (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.
De De
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 Dede. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 01:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that he is known by this name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the disambiguation page at Dede, which also covers people called "DeDe" for whom this is a very plausible misspelling. I can find one reference to something similar, "More drives, more dunks, more dope sing-alongs please. And more De-de-de-de-de-DeRozan doing what he does best. We know you’re as motivated as ever and can’t wait to see what ya’ll are gonna do next up there in T-Dot." [2] which makes it plausible that this is a fan nickname, and there is more than one French-language report that includes the phrase "de De DeRozan" (i.e. "the" followed by an abbreviated first name). I'm not sure if this adds up to enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, but if it does it should be an entry or see also on the dab page as it's clearly not the primary topic. The most common results seems to be related to De De Pierce, who I've added as a see-also on the dab page, but they're not primary topic either. Thryduulf (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious retarget, per Thryduulf. But just add it as a spelling variant there, then there's no reason to even put Pierce under "see also" but in the main DAB list. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Dede as above. Add De De people to the list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Dede and expand the target to cover terms literally ambiguous to this. bd2412T 18:03, 10 June 2018 (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.
Sandstein
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. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 01:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only uses I'm seeing outside of German language contexts are for the names of specific sandstone formations in German-speaking countries, e.g. Obernkirchen Sandstein. Thryduulf (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have ((R from other language)) for a reason. It's entirely plausible someone would see a name like Obernkirchen Sandstein and wonder what a Sandstein is (a special kind of beer mug?), and the redir will clue them in quickly. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, specifically because Wikipedia has content on Sandstone formations in German-speaking countries, such as Obernkirchen Sandstein, so there should be a target so readers can understand what the general form "Sandstein" means. --Tavix(talk) 19:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to affinity with existing entries. bd2412T 18:03, 10 June 2018 (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.
Blood clotting
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. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 01:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget something. I don't really see any benefit to the current setup; "blood clotting", "bloodclot", and "blood clot" are all different versions of the same title, and none has some sort of independent meaning, so they all ought to go to the same place. Which place is best? I don't care whether Blood clotting goes to Thrombus, or the other two go to Coagulation, or all of them go to some other place; I just want them to be consistent. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or retarget to Thrombus. Based on the lead of both articles, Coagulation is the process by which blood clots and Thrombus is the result of that process. I can see why we have the current situation, as "blood clot" and "bloodclot" are clearly nouns referring to the product, and someone searching for "blood clotting" could be looking for the process or the result. Both articles link to the other in their first sentence so arriving at the one you weren't looking for is not going to be very confusing, and not everybody is going to be looking specifically for one or the other - I'd probably have guessed that we had a single article about both for example. At present I'd be equally happy with the status quo or retargetting blood clotting to thrombus, but I'm open to other arguments. Thryduulf (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is: We have separate articles on the process and the result, so redirects that refer to the process should go to the process article and those referring to the output of the process should go to the article for that. What's important is that the redirects make sense to readers, not that superficial similarities be forced into a hyper-consistency that's not actually helpful. I would be irritated if I entered "blood clotting" and ended up at Thrombus, since I'm obviously looking for the -ing aspect of the clot "story", or wouldn't've bothered adding it to the blood clot part. And create a Bloodclotting redirect to Coagulation, too. That would be a consistency that would be useful. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per SMcC. If I look for blood clotting, it makes sense to send me to coagulation. If I look for blood clot, it makes sense to send me to thrombus (it would make more sense still to have the article at blood clot as it's by far the more common name, and have Thrombus redirect there, but never mind that for now). Fish+Karate 13:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having a blood clot is a different topic than the process of blood clotting. These are appropriate redirects. Natureium (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — These redirects are appropriate. Redirects are cheap. Since all these redirects are valid, there’s no reason to delete them. Interqwarktalkcontribs 14:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's asking about retargeting, not deleting. Natureium (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add clearer opening sentence or hatnote about Thrombus meaning blood clot. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:12, 7 June 2018 (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.