Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 21

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) 19:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Kill → Project Kill  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Why on earth is a WP: redirect linking to main article namespace? Delete or retarget to a more appropriate page for WP:Kill, like, say, WP:TNT. GSMR (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @GSMR: It's because "Project:" is an WP:ALIAS for "Wikipedia:". If someone were to type in the official name of the film ("Project: Kill"), the software would translate that to "Wikipedia:Kill." See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 24#Wikipedia:Superior for another case. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tavix. We should really have a rcat template on these pages that explains why they exist. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see {{R restricted}} – since that rcat has tagged this redirect for more than a year, I don't see why the nom didn't see it. Does it need more improvement? On top of that, there is a hatnote that explains about "Project:" as an alias for the "Wikipedia:" namespace.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  20:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above as necessary for technical reasons. Sideways713 (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. There was an RfD discussion for the exact same thing about five years ago. PC78 (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to the technical limitations of the wiki itself --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please see the Old rfd template on the talk page, which shows this redirect as nominated for deletion on 23 May 2011. The result was "nomination withdrawn on realising technical issue". There is no fault for withdrawing this nomination for the same reason.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  07:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 dabify. I've retargeted the other redirects and tweaked relevant hatnotes. I haven't moved any pages, but I don't find consensus against any such moves. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Guest of honour → Guest appearance  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The guest of honour is the most important person at a social occasion. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with Guest appearance. Paul_012 (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Man this is a mess. Guest of honor redirects to Guest of Honour, a film. Guest of Honor redirects to the absurdly-overspecific Science fiction convention#Guests of Honor. Guests of honor redirects to Guest appearance too. And finally there is also an opera called A Guest of Honor and a book called A Guest of Honour (which have nothing to do with each other or the film). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like how Orangemike made that specific sci-fi one, criticising the target in the nomination as "peculiar".[1] – Fayenatic London 21:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Create a disambiguation page and Retarget all the titles 210.6.254.106 mentioned to it (moving Guest of Honour to Guest of Honour (film), A Guest of Honor to A Guest of Honor (opera) and A Guest of Honour to A Guest of Honour (book))Pppery (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Move, Disambig and retarget per Pppery's recommendations. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (As creator:) There are nine incoming links to the nominated version alone, so let's not delete it. Disambiguate per Pppery. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with disambiguation (as nominator). A Wiktionary link also seems warranted. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Dab as above. Include Guest of Honor. Hatnotes can be cleaned up as a result. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Neither desired actions nor the redirects affected are clear. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• January 1, 2003 → 2003#January  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Many of these dates are not specifically mentioned in the month section header, making the redirect point to something that doesn't exist. I am also nominating all other such MDY redirects (January 2, 2003, February 1, 2003, January 3, 2004) that do not have the date mentioned in the section for the same reason. Additionally, the presence of these redirects is quite random (why does January 1, 2004 not exist)?Pppery (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I did not tag any of the redirects I mentioned. Pppery (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• January 1, 2004 is a redlink because Anthony Appleyard has done a history merge of it into Portal:Current events/2004 January 1. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 11#Using archives of Portal:Current events for month articles says that "Month Year" articles for Year≥1997 now redirect to the year article instead of showing an archived portal and the archived portal is now at "Portal:Current events/Month Year". That made タチコマ robot fix the double redirects. In fact, the non-redirect revisions of January 1, 2003 up to December 31, 2004 should all be moved to Portal:Current events/2003 January 1 up to Portal:Current events/2004 December 31; pinging Waldir for this. 24.205.8.104 (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Either history merge or retarget to the relevant "Portal:Current events" page. Straight up deletion is not an option here per WP:MAD as they are redirects from merges. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant Portal:Current events subpages do not generally exist (Portal:Current events/2003 January 1 is a redlink). What is there to history merge into? Or are you intending to support the proposal the IP made, which is more of a history split than a history merge? Pppery (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Current event pages for those dates don't exist because at the time the convention was to create day pages directly in the main namespace. Some of them have been moved to match the new pattern, but lots of the old pages still need to be moved. I just finished cleaning up the exceptions (moves that had been made leaving a redirect behind) from 2003 and 2004 pages. Now the remaining ones need to be moved to the corresponding page in the portal namespace, without leaving a redirect behind (see User:Waldir/DateMatrix#2004 for an overview). Unfortunately for bot edits I have normally used AWB, which doesn't support automatic page moves. Moving ~600 pages by hand is a bit daunting. I wonder if @Anomie: could do the remaining moves, considering his bot has done this before (e.g. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 35) --Waldir ^talk 22:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Indian states rankings → Template:Lists of states and territories of India  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See WP:R#D6. Note that this used to be an article. Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Template seems to include what anyone searching for this would want inside of one jumbled mess like the old article at this name. No real target for this except to create a list of all the entries on the template, but that's busywork. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Patar Knight and my comments on other R#D6 nominations. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, so this will be kept as is. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• County of Orange → Principality of Orange  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to Orange County (which is a dab page Prisencolin (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I don't see anyone searching for any of the other topics with the phrasing "County of Orange". The American Orange Counties, not to mention Orange County (film), simply aren't referred to in that way.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While some, and perhaps all, of the counties might be formally named as County of Orange, that is a highly stilted manner of referring to them. Practically speaking, anyone searching for "County of Orange" is looking for the feudal state. A hatnote there should suffice for disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 03:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Do any of you have any proof of what you're claiming, I think I do. Also, it seems that the fiefdom was no longer referred to as County of Orange after it was upgraded to a Principality in the 12th century.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no standalone article on the county at present, it is combined in other articles (and as far as I'm concerned, Prince of Orange#County of Orange might be a more apt target for the redirect than the principality, but that's a different discussion). Regardless, that doesn't mean the County of Orange is not a notable topic in its own right. older ≠ wiser 10:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A google web search indicates that Orange County, California is the clear primary topic for the search "County of Orange" -Wikipedia. Doing the same search on Google books shows no clear primary, but the first three pages of results are all for US counties with Orange County, Virginia possibly the most numerous. The current target doesn't feature at all on either search. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Prince of Orange#County of Orange per Bkonrad since the two polities are considered distinct there. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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