Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 9

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

December 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 9, 2016.

Draft:Carolina Werner

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 restore. This is typical for content that has been unilaterally redirected and then immediately nominated for RfD. -- Tavix (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English draft now directed to existing article; redirect page no longer needed --Another Believer (Talk) 23:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This was blanked and redirected immediately before being brought here for discussion. I'm not sure that deleting this under those circumstances is a good precedent to set. I'm leaning towards restore this version with no prejudice to blanking or sending this to MfD if desired, but I'm curious about what others have to say on this matter first.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore the former content per my comment above.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore per Godsy with no prejudice against an MfD listing. However good the intentions in this case, replacing content with a redirect and then immediately nominating the redirect for deletion is frowned upon as the method has been used as an end-run around a deletion discussion of the content. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Appropriateness

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. It appears nothing has changed from the previous discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This is sort of a procedural nomination since both of these redirects were deleted as the result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 24#Appropriateness. However, with the way they were recreated (as redirects to Norm (social)), it's not 100% clear to me if these redirects would qualify for speedy deletion criterion G4. With that being said, since the were recreated and since consensus at the previous discussion led to deletion, without actually deleting the redirects, I targeted both to their respective Wiktionary entries. Anyways, with that being said, my "official" stance on this is "delete both per previous consensus". Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Georgia!

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) 18:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. Georgia isn't typically referred to with an exclamation point. BDD (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Donnie Trump

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. The rough consensus is that the "list of nicknames" article is not an appropriate retarget. There's been a good discussion about whether these might more plausibly refer to Donald Jr. instead, but "keep" appears to be the most plausible outcome. Deryck C. 14:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure synonym. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump has been referred to in some parodies as "Donnie Trump". He has also been referred to in other parodies as "The Trumpster", which also redirects to his page on Wikipedia. Captain Cornwall (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I oppose a retargeting there. That list isn't for common name variations like this one. It's for unique and creative nicknames such as "Father of the Constitution", "Old Hickory", and "Tippecanoe". -- Tavix (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These are more likely, I think, to refer to Don Trump rather than said individual's father. As stated above, but then... well, I'm not sure. I'd rather we delete these terms given the WP:XY situation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as valid nicknames [1] [2] or Retarget per AngusWOOF given the sources in this !vote. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A simple Google search showed more results for the elder Donald Trump, used as a diminutive. While it's plausible it'd refer to Jr., so would any other form of his name... -- Tavix (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Anyone searching for other people will be served by the hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was just reading The Art of the Deal and noticed that Trump Jr. was refered to as "Donny" in the book. I don't want to quote anything due to copyvio issues, but Tavix, does this change your opinion? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I don't doubt that that the name has been used by Jr., which makes sense. However, my search showed more usage as a diminutive for Sr. so it should point to Sr. I can't imagine someone being surprised by the target, and there's plenty of linkage to Jr. in case that's who someone is looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:FILMOGRAPHY

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) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The target is now marked as an essay. The redirect page must redirect to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Filmographies, an MOS guideline. George Ho (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a recommended format for filmography tables. But I could see a MOS:FILMOGRAPHY pointing to the MOS section, which only gives guidance for small lists. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This redirect has targeted its current target for over 5 years. In non-article namespaces, that's enough for a default keep due to changing the target potentially breaking links in edit notices. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Muslimites

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, default to keep all. There are a number of "delete all but" comments which disagree on which ones we should keep. Overall, most of the redirects have been discussed specifically by one or more comments, but I don't see strong consensus regarding any of them. No prejudice against unbundled renomination if someone has a new argument. Deryck C. 14:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These combinations were all created on the same day, 5 September 2014, by the same user, User:Digaarsemn, whose only contributions to Wikipedia were redirects created on that day, except for one edit to Jewellery made on the day before. Some are reasonable, e.g. Muslimist is a reasonable alternative to Islamist, but these ones I think are rather stretching it. We don't have churchgoer, for example, so if we can manage without that, I think we can manage without mosquegoer. Si Trew (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll split them out if you want, it's always a bit subjective to know when to group these things. I did indeed split out some others, but felt these were safe to take together. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that worried about it. I'd much rather keep redirects with marginal utility than delete useful redirects. I trust Patar's research so I'd err on the side of keeping them in this instance. -- Tavix (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all None of these seem to be common terms, especially the first two seem to be valid foriegn terms but not used in English. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the above. See also Muslim#Lexicology for the reasons and references. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Mosquegoer" and "Masjidgoer" are indeed mentioned at Muslim, but they sound farfetched. Does anyone have access to the print sources cited for them? I would expect those terms, if used, to indicate a practicing Muslim, i.e., one who regularly attends a mosque/masjid, and not necessarily all Muslims. Certainly "churchgoers" implies a smaller set of people than "Christians".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BDD is right, I just quickly double-checked and none of these terms seem to mean Muslims in general. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but one - The lone exception that I see having some credibility is "Sunnitism" (as it appears to have mention in reliable sources), which appears to denote hyper-conservative strains of Sunni Islam and should be likely be retargeted over to that page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename mosquegoer to mosque-goer as the more common term as used in news articles. [3] Delete Masjidgoer/Masjidgoers, not used in news articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Malia Obama Biography

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) 18:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely disambiguation/ search term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (but refine to Family of Barack Obama#Malia Obama and Sasha Obama). Someone searching for a biography of Malia Obama will find a small biography of her (the best we have) by using this link, so it is not misleading at all and should bring people to what they are looking for. The redirect gets quite a bit of traffic - possibly due to an internal link at Plantation Estate (but this is unknowable) (I will change the link to go direct as the linked text is for her and her sister, which will be confusing if Malia ever gets her own article). Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable book title. Reconsider if it's Malia and Sasha Obama. See [4] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AngusWOOF: what have book titles got to do with anything? Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it the actual title of a book, then it's more likely to be searchable. Although very few biography books are titled "(person) biography" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but being the title of a book is far from the only reason why a redirect is useful and so it is not a requirement for a redirect to be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • note user:SlimVirgin speedy deleted this as G6 (housekeeping). I have asked on their talk page why they did so while this discussion is still open. Thryduulf (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, deleted in error; now restored. SarahSV (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary and adds nothing useful to the encyclopedia. We already have a redirect from Malia Obama. Anyone who starts to type in "Malia Obama" will find that link before they add "biography". BTW this was created as an article in 2009 (probably adding "biography" because Malia Obama was already protected from creation) and was promptly redirected. The article had no references and there is no history worth preserving. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only people who use the internal search engine and have javascript enabled get title suggestions, there are many other ways to search and browse Wikipedia and this is not an implausible search term to use. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Whiskey Jack

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 grey jay (which has already been carried out by the nominator). -- Tavix (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved the page formerly at this title to whiskeyjack (disambiguation) to standardize links. There is no need to have a separate-caps redirect from Whiskey Jack pointing to a different target from whiskey jack, so this page-move redirect should be deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be, other editors have made that assessment, and this solution would be fine (I've preemptively retargeted for consistency with whiskey jack pending the outcome of this discussion). I proposed deletion instead because we already have whiskey jack as a redirect to grey jay, and since the name is not typically capitalized and the search engine handles capitalization variants, the alternate capitalization redirect is functionally redundant, so it's just a maintenance issue to keep it. There aren't any targets as far as I know for capitalized "Whiskey Jack" which would be different from the current treatment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment - the title is getting upwards of 50 hits/day pretty consistently, I suppose that means we ought to give readers who land here something, but the question remains whether it should target grey jay or the dab page. Since there was a spike (713 hits) on November 17 right about the time that the bird was in the news, I think it's safe to say that it's a WP:PTOPIC for this title. Therefore, retarget to grey jay. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 03:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dipangkorn Rasmijoti, Crown Prince of Thailand

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 18#Dipangkorn Rasmijoti, Crown Prince of Thailand

Wakey

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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was previously a redirect to sleep inertia, a term for which I can't find any serious support, and now it's an equally implausible redirect to Wakefield. I can't imagine which group of readers this redirect is supposed to serve. Slashme (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unlikely synonym. Closest plausible targets that I got are articles entitled "Wakey Wakey" which this redirect is a partial title match of --Lenticel (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment consider my vote as a Keep if "Wakey" is introduced in the article itself. Bonus points if it's cited --Lenticel (talk) 08:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Wakey" is a very common nickname for Wakefield in the region - it's how my sister (who lives in Leeds) always refers to it for example. For an example in a reliable source see [5], although being an informal nickname it's far more often spoken than written. I would add a hatnote to Wakefulness though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yorkshire. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Wakey" has always been well known to people like me (Bradfordians); in the same way that we refer to 'Uddersfield' - it is a colloquial Yorkshire dialectal name. The joy of all things (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't actually realise that it was a nickname for the town of Wakefield: I thought it had something to do with Andrew Wakefield's surname. That makes more sense now, so I'd be happy to keep the redirect. --Slashme (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

China Television System

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 18#China Television System

Premiership of William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland

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 by nominator (non-admin closure). --Nevé–selbert 01:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:G7. No incoming links and low stats. --Nevé–selbert 03:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. Neither lack of incoming links nor low stats are reasons to delete, they are getting used and they are not misleading or ambiguous at all and seem useful to me. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: Per WP:CSD#G7 they should be speedily deleted. I am fazed by your refusal to do this.--Nevé–selbert 22:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tone: Hello. Per WP:G7, could you kindly delete these redirects, please? I created them a while ago to link on a template, but these redirects above are extremely vague and I have since added anchors to the targets, creating new redirects to those anchors. Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 01:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Meeting a speedy deletion criteria mean that a page may be deleted, not that it must. I see these as useful redirects that benefit the project, so I see no reason why they should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Neve-selbert:. If you want these speedy deleted, why did you bring them to RFD instead of tagging them as G7? -- Tavix (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry Tavix. Should have known. I'll go about that route instead (as such I withdraw this nomination). Thank-you.--Nevé–selbert 23:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Buildings

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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My issue here is perhaps a technical fix that I don't understand: this doesn't seem to have the desired effect of placing a deletion discussion on the Architecture page. And if it can't be fixed, it's completely useless and even counterproductive -- because it gives the user the false impression that it has. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even though it's a redirect, have I taken this to the wrong forum? Wikipedia pages typically go to WP:MFD, I know. But it's the redirect aspect that it is problematic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Shawn in Montreal: This is the correct venue. Project namespace redirects are actually discussed here fairly often.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great. And I see that you're a template editor, too. I work a great deal in the deletion sorting area these days -- god knows why -- I think this is the only redirect I've ever come across. I think it was created by a relatively inexperienced editor who didn't understand that redirecting from one Wikipedia page to another still wouldn't make the transclusion (if that is the term) happen. I just placed a link to this discussion on the talk page of the deletion sorting project and I'll take the liberty of a @JJMC89:, as that editor is knowledgeable when it comes to technical issues around delsort. Thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (The ping didn't work.) The delsort scripts don't follow redirects, so the scripts fail to add the transclusion on the redirect target. Enterprisey might be willing to add redirect following if he has the time, but I don't know that Fox Wilson is around to make updates. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Farage (name)

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 by nominator. Lenticel (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G7. There are only surnames at the target. --Nevé–selbert 01:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (for now, per K4). This a redirect from a page move made three days ago. It's too soon to consider deleting this. - Eureka Lott 02:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. Shall withdraw as nominator.--Nevé–selbert 03:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Comey (name)

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 by nominator (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G7. There are only surnames at the target. --Nevé–selbert 01:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (for now, per K4). This a redirect from a page move made three days ago. It's too soon to consider deleting this. - Eureka Lott 02:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Per above, withdraw as nominator.--Nevé–selbert 03:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hsuean-tsung

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) 02:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) Incorrect diacritics. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see no diacritics (except in the rcat). You mean digraphs, Champ? I imagine delete as WP:RFD#D8. Si Trew (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SimonTrew: The "correct" redirect titles would be Hsüan Tsung and Hsüan T'ung. Delete the first 2 as the ue expansion is not used for Chinese. Strong delete Hsuean T'ung because it is an incorrect transcription that points to the wrong target - "Hsüan T'ung" is Xuantong, not Xuanzong. Deryck C. 14:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see: missing diacritics. The reason I was being pedantic is that Eubot marked everything as {{R from title without diacritics}}, including these, even when neither the redirect nor the target in fact have diacritics (because they were created from a redirect that did). At the very least we'd need to fix that to {{R from incorrect spelling}}, but deletion is better. Si Trew (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hsuean-tsung and Hsuean T'ung Not likely spellings. Hsuean tsung was used in this book [6] but could not find other articles with that spelling. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Trump Towers

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 Trump Tower (disambiguation). This seems obvious to me and I'm already starting to see some snow. -- Tavix (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not more than one tower, perhaps retarget to Trump Tower (disambiguation). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • +1, as there are several plural occurrences on that disambiguation page. --Pgallert (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was made to point to Trump Tower when it was still a disambiguation page, so changing it just seems like routine cleanup. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 13:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget per everybody. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to DAB page which lists multiple Trump Towers. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Life peerages created by John Major (1990–97)

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) 22:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, given that Major's peerages have been split between 1990 and 1992 and 1992 and 1997 at target article.--Nevé–selbert 00:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_9&oldid=1088109729"