Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 24

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

September 24

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 24, 2017.

Template:Image information

edit

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) – Uanfala 23:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, technically a misnomer since {{Information}} is used on other media files (e.g. audio, video) besides images FASTILY 21:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Comment Template:Imginfo was moved to Template:Image information by its original and at that point only author, user:Hurricane Devon, about 27 hours after creation in April 2006 (Hurricane Devon was indeffed for repeated copyright violations in July 2006). The template was nominated for deletion later in July 2006 (no consensus) and then redirected to the present target following a second TfD in January 2008. Other than a trivial tweak by a bot in 2009, the redirect has remained untouched since. It was linked to by Masem in a December 2012 discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as harmless and because deletion risks breaking old revisions of image pages that use (and any that are broken risk getting incorrectly speedy deleted as having no license). The target being used on non-image media doesn't mean this redirect misrepresents anything (a redirect in the opposite direction would though) and it may be easier for some people to remember the name of (it's certainly not illogical if you're media is an image). It looks like AWB might be bypassing this redirect, if so the lack of what links here entries does not necessarily mean a lack of uses, and a page view is only registered if someone actually looks at the redirect page (transcluding a redirect does register in the stats). Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The redirects guide the editor/reader to the template they may be trying to locate. (In fact, if anything, Template:Information should probably be moved to a more precise title, but since the template has been at this title for several years and has several transclusions, I have no desire to propose such a move.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2017 (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.

Marina and the Diamonds (Self-Titled)

edit

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) 01:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Implausible search term as the album doesn't exist, never did exist and nobody except the creator of the initial "article" thought it did. Created as an unreferenced article in 2014, was given a speedy delete tag for being a hoax. This tag was removed because there "wasn't any evidence that it was a hoax", a rationale that sounds like a bad parody of Russell's teapot. F, root (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2017 (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.

Aqua Marina (album)

edit

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) 01:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The purpose of this redirect is a common one, to redirect to an artist's page before a new album is released. The problem is this isn't confirmed by ANY reasonable source to be the title of the new album. Only a few random Twitter accounts have suggested or guessed that it's the title. If there was tons and tons of hype about this name I could agree with a premature redirect, but that's not the case F, root (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2017 (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.

Ray Parker, Jr. - Ghostbusters

edit

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) 01:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, unused, and unneeded redirect with poor content, structure, and styling, contrary to MOS:JR and MOS:DASH. Dicklyon (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect got 835 views last year (including a spike of almost 50 one day) so it is neither unused nor unneeded - given these figures I suspect that it has links from outside Wikipedia and/or this is how the song is listed on an album or discography somewhere. We include redirects from stylings that our guidelines discourage because we cannot expect readers to know what they are, let alone be familiar with them and remember them whenever they are searching for an article, nor can we expect other websites to adhere to our stylistic choices when they link to us. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this is one of those redirects that is needed for search purposes. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf --Lenticel (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2017 (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.

Sound Remedy

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 6#Sound Remedy

Girth Of The Chest

edit

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) 21:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "girth" is not present at the target article. For that reason, the helpfulness of these redirects, due to the possibility that their subject is not discussed in the target article, is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Horribly implausible search term, equally implausible association. Ravenswing 06:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The redirect was created because I was trying to match articles from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia to content here, to see what was missing. The JE had this article with this title, on chest measurements of Jewish men in the 19th century -- which may be something other sources also exist about, for other groups at other times. So I created a redirect to chest, which now redirects to thorax, as the most likely place such material might be located. I see there's also a red-link "chest girth" at EN 13402, so this is a more-or-less standard term, and presumably there is material about it out there somewhere.
No preference as to whether the redirect is kept or not. Jheald (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: the late suggestion by Patar knight of retargetting to EN_13402#chest seems worthy of discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2017 (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.

Fatally wounded

edit

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. (non-admin closure) feminist 10:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is ambiguous. It could also refer to Murder or Casualty (person). Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment wouldn't this fall in WP:EUPHEMISM as with "mortally wounded"? Do we really need a provide a link for that? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The redirect got 49 hits last year, so I think it is useful for people search for this term to be taken somewhere appropriate. Even if we don't use it in articles and would not link it even if we did does not mean that people will not look it up, although search results indicate that it is frequently in use. The uses seem relate to the following situations: Battles (and other military actions), paramilitary actions, criminal activity and duelling in that approximate order of frequency. Other situations are possible of course, but are not as frequent. The criminal activities involved are it seems not normally (attempted) murders but people being shot (by criminals or by police) during a crime and/or during an (attempted) getaway. It seems to exclusively refer to people who did not die immediately but who sustained wounds/injuries to which they succumbed some time later (hours to days are common, weeks to months are not rare). For all these reasons a straight redirect to Murder is not something I would support. There is at present no Wiktionary entry at wikt:fatally wounded, and I am undecided at this moment whether one would be accepted (phrases generally need some degree of idiomaticy, things that are only the literal sum of their parts get deleted) but if one did exist I would not object to a soft redirect. More thinking is needed before I can make a firm recommendation about this one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 49 hits per year is firmly implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 49 hits per year is almost one person every week on average using this redirect - unquestionably a useful redirect if there is an appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I believe that less than one hit per week is unquestionably implausible and will !vote to delete a redirect with such unbelievely useless statistics almost every single time. Thank you for repeating your opinion. -- Tavix (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that deliberately making it harder for readers to find the content they are looking for is incredibly arrogant and contrary to the project's fundamental goal of increasing access to the world's knowledge - and this would be true for even a tenth of this number of readers. Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's a great idea in theory, but we have strong evidence provided that this redirect is not being actively used. That is a classic WP:R#D8 situation on our hands. Additionally, redirects like those are WP:COSTLY since there is no benefits derived because it's not being used. And that's not even touching the "content they are looking for" argument, because it has not even been determined what someone using this search term may be looking for to begin with. -- Tavix (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • The problem with that argument is that we have evidence that almost 50 people a year are using this redirect. Unless you have somehow redefined mathematics such that 50=0 without my being aware of it of course. "Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language.—Jimmy Wales" note "every single person on the planet" not "every single person, except those who want to use search terms used by fewer than a few hundred other people each year". A high-quality encyclopaedia requires that those reading it are able to find what they are looking for, and where we can determine that we provide redirects regardless of how many people use it. There is no threshold below which people do not matter. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • We're talking about a rate. I usually discuss implausibility of redirects in hits/day. Certainly the hits/day on this redirect is pretty damn close to zero. If, in order to get to a sizable number, we need to start discussing the hits/year, yeah, that is deep into the realm of implausibility. Remember we are talking about a useless redirect here, that has nothing to do with Jimmy Wales' grand philosophy of Wikipedia—frankly that is irrelevant here. I see you continue to bring up the "find what they are looking for" argument again. A simple page view tool does not determine whether people are finding what they are looking for, or even actively using the redirect for that matter. -- Tavix (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • Why does a redirect only become plausible if it is used multiple times per day? We want people to be able to find all knowledge, not just knowledge that is looked for multiple times a day. The page view tool does not show whether people are finding what they are looking for, but it does show that they are using this redirect to look for something. It is our job to do our best to determine what that something is, and point them in the right direction, not to delete it because they don't use it often enough your own arbitrary threshold. And as for Jimmy's vision, everything we do on Wikipedia should be done towards making that vision a reality in some way, and we don't do that by deleting things because not many people want to use it on a daily basis. Should we delete Castle Hill Railway (Bridgnorth) because it is was only used 12 times last year and people can find the content in other ways? Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Let's start with a hypothetical redirect that is literally never used, 0 hits going back years. Hopefully you can agree that is deletable. On the other end of the spectrum is the most used redirect (is there a place that lists the most viewed redirects?). That is obviously useful and should be kept. Somewhere along that spectrum is the "threshold" (more like a grey area) where the cost of the redirect becomes greater than its benefit (c.f. benefit-cost analysis). I've never provided a definition of where this threshold lies, I'm simply asserting that this redirect meets it. You do not, and that is fine, I respect your opinion on the matter. I do not believe people are using this redirect to find what they may be looking for, so I am claiming that Jimmy's vision is irrelevant with respect to a useless redirect. Finally, yes, I believe that redirect is useless, but let's not bring WP:OTHERSTUFF into this discussion (I thought you have learned that by now?) -- Tavix (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
re your hypothetical redirect used 0 times over years - no I don't agree, the redirect should not be deleted just because it is not being used. It should be deleted if it is implausible or so ambiguous that it's not possible to work out what it relates to, but not for being unused. It's unlikely that anything plausible will be unused though, as even some of the ridiculous eubot redirects got 3 or 4 hits a year (and you might remember I recommended deleting those ones). However, never have I seen a truly implausible redirect get more than 4-5 hits classified as human on the current stats tool. This gets double that amount, and so we should do our best to find a suitable target, and only delete it if we fail - and then it would be deleted because it lacks a suitable target, not because of it's view count. The maintenance burden of a redirect is so infinitesimal (on average you're looking at one vandalism edit that needs reverting every few decades, unless it gets nominated here) that even one actual human using it to find what they are looking for outweighs the cost (this is why WP:COSTLY so poorly represents reality in most cases where it is brought up). It's almost vaguely understandable when you try and claim a redirect used by 12 people a year is unused, but when you extend that to one used by more than 200 people a year (as you are doing on the redirect to Edward II) it removes my ability to treat the argument as being made in good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mind explaining my position to you over and over again, but I refuse to converse with someone who thinks I am acting in bad faith. Good day, Thryduulf. -- Tavix (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. There are a number of plausible targets for this, including wound, injury, death, etc. Rather than send readers to an arbitrary destination, let them use the search function. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is pointed at the best target, since "fatally wounded" results in death. Dying already redirects there. Overall, it seems that being fatally wounded has more of an affinity to the topics covered in death than those in other pages like wound, and injury, which almost entirely deal with far less severe cases. This also gets just over a hit a week, and is part of a group of commonly used English words/terms which can easily be searched for if the reader is not satisfied. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 11:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that link was made over 10 years ago? Damn, I'm getting old.... - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2017 (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.

Deplorable

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 4#Deplorable

Macedonian Navy

edit

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 set index. (non-admin closure) feminist 02:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, "Navy" isn't mentioned at the target, and I haven't seen evidence of the Macedonian Lake Patrol Police being called a Navy (from my experience, Navies are typically separate from Police). Furthermore, my search for "Macedonian Navy" is overwhelmingly about the navies of the ancient Macedonian kingdom ("navy/ies" has 17 mentions on that page). With how ambiguous and controversial the word "Macedonia" is, I propose this redirect be deleted, although I'm okay with it being retargeted somewhere that describes the ancient Macedonian Navy (perhaps a section at Ancient navies and vessels?) -- Tavix (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. With the possible exception of the Vatican City, every country's navy is plausible search term - even landlocked ones (See Brownwater navy) and this redirect got 131 hits between 1 and 30 August and 1,399 last year. Fortunately for the project we don't decide what things are based only on your experience, we base them on evidence and the article makes it clear that despite the name this organisation is a branch of the Macedonian armed forces not the civilian police force so it is exactly what people will be looking for when searching this term or clicking on a link to it. If we information about the ancient Macedonian navy then that article can be added as a hatnote. The name of Macedonia is controversial, but only because it also refers to a region of Greece and it is not plausible for almost all sub-national regions to have navies so "Macedonian" in this context is not ambiguous with it - and even if it were then that would be a rationale for a hatnote or dab page, not deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With the possible exception of the Vatican City, every country's navy is plausible search term Sure—if they have one. this redirect got 131 hits between 1 and 30 August and 1,399 last year. Search results only tell you that a redirect was used. They don't say how they were used or if someone arrived at the target they were wanting. Fortunately for the project we don't decide what things are based only on your experience, we base them on evidence I'll cast your snide remark aside, no worries. the article makes it clear that despite the name this organisation is a branch of the Macedonian armed forces not the civilian police force [citation needed] so it is exactly what people will be looking for when searching this term or clicking on a link to it. Not according to my search results. "Macedonian Navy" overwhelmingly refers to the ancient Macedonia. it is not plausible for almost all sub-national regions to have navies so "Macedonian" in this context is not ambiguous Ancient Macedonia wasn't a sub-National region, it was a kingdom with a navy as I linked above. even if it were then that would be a rationale for a hatnote or dab page, not deletion. But we'd need a second entry. There's still no evidence presented that the current target is known as "Macedonian Navy". -- Tavix (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should not require people to know the answer to their query before they have searched for the answer to it, it is likely that every country has a navy of some description so we should have redirects in place for the likely search terms such as this one. If you think that the target is wrong then why are you proposing deletion instead of retargetting? We don't delete demonstrably useful redirects (as this is) if they go to the wrong target, we retarget them. In this case disambiguation is needed (which is never a reason for deletion), and hatnotes can do that just fine (either way, assuming we do have something about the ancient navy). In your haste to persue your deletionism, you've completely overlooked the fact that I didn't say it wasn't ambiguous, I said it was not plausible that it is ambiguous with a navy of the modern Greek region - I know the ancient territory was not a sub-national region, but I was not talking about the ancient territory as you would have known if you read what I actually wrote. I know the lake police are not called the Macedonian Navy, that's why this is tagged as a {{R from incorrect name}}. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it is likely that every country has a navy of some description Do you have evidence for that claim? Fortunately for the project we don't decide what things are based only on what you think is likely, we base them on evidence. For what it's worth, List of navies says otherwise (and Macedonia isn't mentioned there at all, navy or no navy). why are you proposing deletion instead of retargetting? It's a vague search term (noting that Macedonia is ambiguous) and we don't have a good target for it. I mentioned in my nomination that I'm fine with retargeting somewhere that describes the ancient navy. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) mentions it several times, so that would work, but I would prefer a section or article that actually describes that Navy. In that regard, I think WP:REDLINK deletion to be beneficial here. I know the lake police are not called the Macedonian Navy Then there shouldn't be a redirect of that sort to that target! Going back to your first sentence, if someone is looking for "Macedoinian Navy", it would be confusing and misleading to redirect them somewhere that isn't called Macedonian Navy, whether that be correct or incorrect. that's why this is tagged as a {{R from incorrect name}}. It's not though. -- Tavix (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't assert "it is likely that every country has a navy of some description" the signficant majority of countries in the world today have a navy or equivalent water-bourne military force, therefore "<country ajective> navy" is a reasonable search term that should lead somewhere. Re not being called the navy - this is the entire point of having {{R from incorrect name}} and arriving at a target that is about a branch of the Macedonian armed forces that carries out duties on water is neither misleading nor confusing (as for the lack of tag, I thought the category was how I found this one, but obviously not. I'll tag it now). If something is ambiguous we disambiguate it (via a hatnote or dab page), we don't delete it, even if you don't like it - unless we only have information for one of the topics in which case we point to that as we do here. Thryduulf (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For a redirect to be a cromulent {{R from incorrect name}}, it first has to be a search term that is actually incorrectly used to refer to the subject. There has still been no evidence provided to suggest that might be the case. -- Tavix (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean other than the usage figures I quoted? I know that this is where I would expect this redirect to lead so it stands to reason that at least some of those thousands also use this search term to find information about the topic of the article. Some will probably be looking for the ancient navy, but not all as for example [1] and [2] demonstrate. And that's with less than 5 minutes searching. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also found a third, z15 [dot] invisionfree [dot] com/illyria/index.php?showtopic=62 but that trips the spam blacklist so I can't directly link it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I guess that's something. I'm looking for a reliable source so a sentence can be added to Macedonian Lake Patrol Police that it is sometimes incorrectly/alternatively referred to as the Macedonian Navy. That way, it would be able to meet WP:DABMENTION in case it is decided to disambiguate the title. -- Tavix (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the insistence on a reliable source, as I've clearly demonstrated this is a name that is used for the target which is what matters for redirects. A rigid reading of the WP:DABMENTION style guideline would for the same reasons be a detriment to our readers and therefore a perfect application of WP:IAR. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, it's confusing and/or misleading to have an entry in a disambiguation with no mention of the term in the article. Since that is a detriment to our readers, WP:IAR would not apply. -- Tavix (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the disambiguation page would say that this is a term that is sometimes used to describe the target (see evidence presented above) nobody would be confused or mislead. In other cases, we can safely assume that someone using this search term knows what a navy is/does (if they don't then they can easily look up the navy article where the lead makes it clear that the activities the Lake Police undertake are covered) and that Macedonian can refer to the modern nation of Macedonia - nothing misleading or confusing about this at all. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's an awfully long string of assumptions you'd have to make to get there. If that is a common set of assumptions, it should be easy to add a reliable source to the article. There'd be no need to violate WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Thryduulf in that we can expect users to search for the navy of just about any country. In a case like this, whether they're being clever or whether they don't realize Macedonia is landlocked, I want to do something for them besides just giving them search results, which may suggest we'd one day have an article. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 20#Andorran Navy for a similar discussion with, IMO, a good solution.
So how to proceed here? Unfortunately, Military of Macedonia redirects to Army of the Republic of Macedonia, with no mention of a navy. Does this police force function at all like a navy? If so, the redirect could be acceptable. Ideally, I'd like a sentence at Republic of Macedonia#Military or Macedonian Lake Patrol Police stating that Macedonia doesn't have a navy, and/or that the lake patrol is something like a navy, if that's at all accurate. We could then point to one of those places, and maybe add Macedonia to the list at Navies of landlocked countries. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The how about Convert to SIA as drafted here? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A couple issues with that. First, with the Ancient Macedonian navy being the primary topic, a disambiguation wouldn't be necessary per WP:TWODABS. Second, if the lake patrol article is to be used, "Macedonian Navy" is going to have to be mentioned there to overcome WP:DABMENTION. Sure, it'd be easy to add a sentence somewhere, but sourcing it would be problematic from what I've seen. -- Tavix (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with that set index suggestion. Dabmention is not a hurdle as (a) this is not a disambiguation page, and (b) the associated explanation removes any possible ambiguity and will not leave anyone confused. Style guidelines (which is all the status dabmention has) must never be treated as more important than helping readers find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 11:29, 24 September 2017 (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.

Rocket City FurMeet

edit

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. Alex ShihTalk 02:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled event, see below jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2017 (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.

Rocket City Furmeet

edit

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. Alex ShihTalk 01:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled event, as described here. R with possibilities does not apply if no notability is established. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2017 (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.

ZonieCon

edit

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. Alex ShihTalk 01:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled event, as described here. R with possibilities does not apply if no notability is established. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2017 (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.

FranFurence

edit

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. Alex ShihTalk 01:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled event, as described here. R with possibilities does not apply if no notability is established. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2017 (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.

ConFurence East

edit

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. Alex ShihTalk 01:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled event, as described here. R with possibilities does not apply if no notability is established. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2017 (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.

Canadian Art and Cartooning Expo

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 3#Canadian Art and Cartooning Expo

Anthrofest

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 3#Anthrofest

All Fur Fun

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 3#All Fur Fun

Oklacon

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 3#Oklacon

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_24&oldid=1088105831"