Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 17

April 17

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 17, 2016.

Facebook.commerce

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) 20:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook.commerce → Facebook (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete, this is nonsense. I think the creator is trying to spell out .com, but even then, "com" is short for commercial, not commerce. A search revealed information on Facebook's commerce, but nothing titled or stylized as "Facebook.commerce." Wikipedia's article reveals nothing along the lines of Facebook's commerce either. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like fiddle-faddle. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:56, 21 April 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.

...Re

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 complicated. First, I will note that it is a unanimous decision to not delete. The debate was whether to retarget or to keep as is. The nature of this redirect necessarily called in a related requested move debate (which included some of the same participants). Considering the two together, it appears to me that the weight of argument is slightly in favor of keeping the redirect as is. I hesitate to call that a clear consensus, however. Further debate on the redirect's optimal target may be appropriate on the Talk page. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Per a request for clarification on my Talk page, it is my position that the official closure of this RfD is merely to "not delete" the pagehistory. My opinion about keep-as-is vs retarget should be interpreted as an ordinary-editor decision and not part of the admin-closure of this debate. I have corrected the mistake that was hiding the links to this and the prior decision on the redirect's Talk page. Rossami (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...Re → ...Re (film) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Per consensus at Talk:...Re (film)#Requested move 01 April 2016, this should probably redirect to Re. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides the periods being distinct from the other titles listed at the disambiguation page, per the move discussion, the nominator's interpretation of consensus there is incorrect. The consensus is that the disambiguator should remain in the article title, not that the redirect should target the disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The disambiguator "(film)" should remain in the article title, and the redirect should go to the film. Also Re (film). In ictu oculi (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the punctuation in the title makes it desirable to have the parenthetical disambiguator in the article title, and have the shorter name redirect to it. Der yck C. 19:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom, as the logical conclusion of the RM. The status quo makes the target article have unnecessary disambiguation, which is undesirable and not helpful for readers. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. There's something incorrect about the current set-up. Either ...Re is unambiguous/the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which would mean there is unnecessary disambiguation and ...Re (film) should be moved to ...Re, OR ...Re is ambiguous, and should be retargeted to the disambiguation. The RM confirmed that ...Re is ambiguous by not moving ...Re (film) to ...Re, so in this case the latter is true. Therefore, this needs to be retargeted to the dab. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Tavix. SSTflyer 10:13, 24 April 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.

Low-Flying Aircraft

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 26#Low-Flying Aircraft

農夫

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 FAMA. Consider this withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

農夫 → Farmer (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Farmer is a worldwide topic that has no special connection with the Chinese language. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FAMA. Gorobay (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to FAMA, whose Chinese name is 農夫. Special:Search/"農夫"~ shows that FAMA is the primary topic on Wikipedia whose native name is 農夫. Der yck C. 19:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. I should have found that in my WP:BEFORE... -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:10, 17 April 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.