This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 16, 2017.
- 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- The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. --
Tavix (
talk)
16:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Implausible misspelling, but not recently created. Resulted from a page move to correct spelling
Spinning
Spark
23:03, 16 January 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.
- 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)
21:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
For the second time, an RM asserting "Deck the Halls" as the primary topic for this phrase has failed, resulting in
'Tis the Season remaining as a disambiguation page. It stands to reason that a change in one letter's capitalization does not result in a change in that determination, so I recommend retargeting this to the disambiguation page. --
BDD (
talk)
22:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: the two requested moves cited by the nominator are at
Talk:'Tis the Season. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
14:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep 'Tis the season (lower-case s in season) is primary topic, pointing to Deck the Halls, whereas 'Tis the Season (caps for S) should be for the dab page. This is like
Cold case vs.
Cold Case. The recent December 2016 discussion talking about moving 'Tis the Season (capital S) to the dab and that RM resulted in a not moved. I don't see a reason to mess with the lower-case s version.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
22:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Snow Keep per
WP:DIFFCAPS. There's no other lowercase ambiguous titles, so nothing to disambiguate (and also no
WP:DABMENTION in any other entries at the dab). Also, since two uppercase articles were deleted since the last Keep RfD, failing to see the motivation for relisting.
Widefox;
talk
23:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to the dab page or to
Christmas and holiday season. Although there's no doubt that the phrase originated in the carol, it has since come to be much more widely used than that, as a general phrase denoting Christmas. A simple Google search for the phrase shows no deck the halls related results anywhere on the first page. Thanks —
Amakuru (
talk)
00:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- See
WP:DIFFCAPS. Done. (first page of Google is not an
WP:RS, and flawed logic -
absence of evidence isn't
evidence of absence. The lowercase phrase has RS and is in
Wikt:'tis the season, and is correctly a {{
R from quotation}} "This is a redirect from a quotation to its best-known source" as per multiple RS in
Deck the Halls.)
Widefox;
talk
00:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- I'm aware of what
WP:DIFFCAPS says, but it doesn't apply here, because there's no real meaningful difference between "Tis the season" and "Tis the Season". And the purpose of a redirect is to help readers. The majority of readers typing in "tis the season" will absolutely not be looking for the "lyrics" section of Deck the Halls. That link simply isn't there in popular usage in reliable sources any more, as my Google search of results and books more than amply shows. If you have any sort of solid evidence to the contrary, other than your personal thoughts, then please present it. —
Amakuru (
talk)
16:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- We have hatnotes and a dab. Agreed? per DIFFCAPS
When such navigation aids are in place, small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics
. How does it not apply here? (DIFFCAPS is the correct place to take up that argument about it, and if you feel a Google search should be how we decide primary topics, then
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the place for that. As Google reacts to our primary topics (e.g.
'Tis the SeaSon was listed first after it was renamed), it's 1. logically flawed per above, 2. circular, and 3. based on the assumption that {{
R from quotation}} isn't helpful for readers (again to be taken up there) 4. an assumption I don't agree with. No, instead readers using the lowercase get to the carol, plus content on modern usage of the lyrics with RS from 2016. We're not deciding which wikt definition is more popular, it's normal guideline based WP dab work, plus a judgement call on the uppercase which is offtopic here. In short, Google "Apple" and no fruit hits but we still have
Apple.)
Widefox;
talk
03:05, 18 January 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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 28#Affectors
Redirects implying Bush's direct involvement on 9/11
- 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 as follows: after dismissing several arguments to delete for reasons which don't apply, there is general agreement that "Bush did 9/11" is a common phrase referring to 9/11 conspiracy theories, but not that it refers to controlled demolition theories specifically, so retarget to
9/11 conspiracy theories. Regarding the other two, various actions were suggested but none gained traction against the consensus to delete.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
15:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
reply
According to
the discussion from June 2006, "Bush Knew" is unsuitable. However, this redirect was created in 2003 as a double-redirect to the now-deleted "Bush Knew". Therefore, newer discussion on the "Bush knew" (sentence case version) is needed.
George Ho (
talk)
11:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Added two,
BDD.
George Ho (
talk)
19:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Additional information I've gathered: On Wikipedia, "Bush knocked down the towers" is only mentioned at
Bin Laden (song); "Bush did 9/11" at
Humor based on the September 11 attacks and
Tay (bot); in the context of 9/11, "Bush knew" only appears in the names of references, at
Cynthia McKinney and
Opinion polls about 9/11 conspiracy theories. "Bush did 9/11" is the only one I was really familiar with—it's a bit of a meme—and is alluded to at
Killing of Harambe#Fall-out and Internet memes with "Bush did Harambe". --
BDD (
talk)
20:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all - These are rather awkward, and I feel like it's best to just let people use the search engine.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
01:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Search for these terms on Google, and you'll see that these phrases, when used as discrete phrase, almost exclusively refer to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Except for the controversial song lyric, which has prominent links to 9/11 conspiracy theories, these redirects are taking people to where they want to go. ----
Patar knight -
chat/
contributions
15:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete first two, but keep "Bush did 9/11" – The first is virtually unknown and the second is applicable to numerous topics; but "Bush did 9/11" is a pretty common expression regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories: Google shows about 17 million hits.
SteveStrummer (
talk)
03:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all. Wikipedia is supposed to collate human knowledge, not provide a reflection of google activity. "Bush did 9/11" has no place as a title in an encylcopedia, and when deleted, jumping to that title will invoke the internal search engine (
https://en.wikipedia.org/?itle=Special:Search&search=Bush+did+9%2F11&fulltext=Search). The search results contain the related topics in the first few hits, including the current redirect target. No reasonable reader should expect a Wikipedia article on this titles. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
04:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all
WP:CRYSTAL. -
CHAMPION (
talk) (
contributions) (
logs)
05:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep "Bush did 9/11" per
BDD and the 2000 page views it received last year. Delete the others as essentially unused and per BDD.
Thryduulf (
talk)
15:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Weak Keep "Bush did 9/11" as it's probable that people would be searching for that, although it might not be compliant with
WP:NPOVVIEW, also, see the deletion log for
Jews did WTC. Also, change the redirect of "Bush knocked down the towers" to "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories", and "Bush knew" to redirect to"September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories"
∼∼∼∼
Eric0928
Talk
16:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Hmm.
September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories would seem to be a better fit for "Bush knew"—i.e., he knew the attacks were happening but didn't stop them for some reason–but the other two would probably be better pointed at one of the more general pages, since the implication is that he actually had them carried out. --
BDD (
talk)
21:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete All Wikipedia is not the place for crackpot theories started by raving lunatics. Kosh
Vorlon}
16:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- There is no Wikipedia policy (I could find) regarding what you're implying, if that was true, every article on
this list would have to be deleted (which IMO, having articles about conspiracy theories contradicts
WP:NPOV and
WP:CRYSTAL), if you consider having Wikipedia articles about speculated,
verifiable (that the conspiracy theory exists) content to be against
WP:NPOV and
WP:CRYSTAL, you need to get outside, according to
WP:N "Notability requires only the
existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or
citation in an article..". Obviously there are
notable conspiracy theories such as
9/11 and
birther, but. Also, lunatics wouldn't be able to search for such articles, as there is no
Internet nor
humans on the
Moon.
∼∼∼∼
Eric0928
Talk
17:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- If you truly don't think the target articles should exist, AfD them, and these redirects would go as well. ----
Patar knight -
chat/
contributions
15:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- To make my leanings official: keep "Bush did 9/11" in some form. It seems to have enough cultural cachet that it shouldn't be deleted, but I don't care very strongly as to which of this constellation of silly articles it points to. Delete the other two as unlikely search terms. --
BDD (
talk)
21:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- "don't care very strongly as to which of this constellation of silly articles it points to" should mean you support either invoking the search function, or a disambiguation page, either to list the most likely articles desired by the reader. A redirect assumes only one likely desired article, or excessive hatnoting. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
00:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Not a bad idea in general, but search results also sort of sends the message "we don't quite understand what you're looking for, but..." I think that's an appropriate response to "Bush knew" and "Bush knocked...", but not "Bush did 9/11". --
BDD (
talk)
15:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- delete as unencyclopaedic; they are too general and ambiguous to be useful (too many Bushes, too many situations), or if they are specifically related to 9/11 then they are not neutral and we are having to choose pages over another. Just cull them as not useful. —
billinghurst
sDrewth
02:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- My preference is to:
- Hopefully just one more thing to add about "Bush did 9/11" from me: I only said it was "a bit of a meme", but it actually has
its own page on Know Your Meme. It does a good job of tracking the phrase's origins and longevity. --
BDD (
talk)
15:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- I endorse Patar knight's comment.
September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories adequately addresses whether or not "Bush knew" about the attacks (he didn't), "Bush knocked down the tower" is referred to in
Bin Laden (song), and while I'm not too picky where "Bush did 9/11" goes, the main conspiracy theory article makes sense. --
Tavix (
talk)
15:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse PatarKnight's Recommendation - it is correct for the correct reasons.
Tazerdadog (
talk)
04:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: Perhaps I'm missing something obvious here, but I'm more than a little confused by a number of "delete" votes that predicate their position on the fact that it's a crackpot notion to believe there was government conspiracy in the attacks. The fact that these clearly are crackpot theories seems more like an argument for having redirects or piping (or just naked internal links) to articles which present the consensus view that these are unabashed lunatic fringe conspiracy theory. If editors wish to object to even having mention of these theories in a given article, they should raise the issue over the prose at the talk pages for those articles. But their !votes to delete here seem to run in a completely counter-intuitive angle to the aim they are explicitly supporting here, in a way that I'm not sure they have thought through; to the extent that the editors of a given article decide to include reference to conspiracy theories, surely it only helps to point out that these are in fact conspiracy theories, not mainstream views. Again, am I missing something obvious here? And note that I recognize that only a minority of delete votes hinge on this issue; others are more pragmatic in my view.
Snow
let's rap
02:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- It can be difficult to disentangle one's personal feelings from matters of policy and procedure. I ran into that a lot at the AfD for
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories. And I've certainly been guilty of this too. And I suppose I don't want to just completely dismiss this. There's a fine line between "This is a crackpot theory" and "Doing X will result in Wikipedia promoting a crackpot theory". But when we just report on what's said elsewhere, we rarely have to worry about the latter. --
BDD (
talk)
15:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all, per
WP:BLP. I cannot think of a hard redirect target that doesn't imply that Wikipedia concurs with the opinion. Soft redirects may avoid that problem. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
15:50, 28 January 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.
Paint chips
Ra`s
- 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. The second relisting has not generated any additional comments in the best part of three weeks, so relisting again is unlikely to assist further. There are equally strong opinions in favour of retargetting and deleting, and while keeping it as did get some support it is clearly the minority opinion so defaulting to "keep" seems unfortunate. To that end I will retarget this to
Ra's, but only as a normal editorial action not in my capacity as the administrator closing this discussion.
Thryduulf (
talk)
15:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
reply
(eubot) Back-formed from
Raʾs.
WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, now we're transliterating punctuation?! Mind you, Eubot did that with en and em dashes too. I shouldn't really be surprised.
Si Trew (
talk)
23:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
- By the way, unlike a US keyboard layout, the ` symbol is not easy to type on a UK keyboard layout. On a laptop layout, usually it is very hard to find. I imagine that is one of the reasons that Wikipedia favours straight quotes in Wikitext.
Si Trew (
talk)
23:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I'm not seeing how "Raʾs" relates to
Resh. Can someone help me out? Additionally, it seems like all of entries at
Ra's are
WP:PTMs, so if
Ra`s is plausible for
Resh, it'd think it best to just redirect
Ra's to
Resh as well. --
Tavix (
talk)
21:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
- It seems like an ASCII way of writing raʾš, which, according to the article, is the reconstructed Proto-Semitic root of the word that ultimately lent its name to the character.
- Good question. Is this a plural of a spelled-out version of the letter, like "zees"? --
BDD (
talk)
20:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Ra's, failing an answer to my query. I still doubt the usefulness of the disambiguation, but since it exists retargeting this redirect there seems harmless. --
Tavix (
talk)
23:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- I'm also fine with deletion, especially if it helps form consensus. --
Tavix (
talk)
20:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Retargeting to Ra's would be redirecting from a typo form that uses a less common punctuation to a correct form with more common punctuation. So we're running into a situation where a title is a typo of two different things but the correct name of neither, hence delete.
Deryck
C.
17:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- I'm seeing it as entirely as an accent-vs-apostrophe issue. I don't know what's normally done with these, if they get deleted, then delete, and if they get kept then retarget to
Ra's, which already links to the current target. Noting that the first two entries in the dab page probably aren't PTM's – these are two adjacent villages, whose names translate as "Southern Ra's" and "Eastern Ra's" respectively, so it's quite conceivable that each of them, or the two as a whole, might be referred to as "Ra's". –
Uanfala (talk)
23:27, 10 January 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.
Elena (video game character)
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 27#Elena (video game character)
Draft:MNYNMS
- 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 speedy keep. No rationale has been given. --
Tavix (
talk)
18:32, 16 January 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.
The Meaning and Culture of Grand Theft Auto
Criticism of Grand Theft Auto
Grand Theft Auto wanted star system
- 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)
16:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Unlikely search term. Correctly titled redirect
wanted level already available.
Lordtobi (
✉)
17:09, 16 January 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.
Grand Theft Auto(series)
- 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.
Thryduulf (
talk)
13:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Unlikely typo, as redirect is not disambiguated (primary article).
Lordtobi (
✉)
17:08, 16 January 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.
Capitalistic democracy
Los Santos, San Andreas
- 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)
20:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
San Andreas is located in Los Santos, not the other way around. Fictional cities should not be treated and disambiguated like real cities (see example below). Proper redirect
Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto) exists.
Lordtobi (
✉)
13:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. This rationale is incorrect; In the Grand Theft Auto series, "Los Santos" is a city in the state of "San Andreas".
Steel1943 (
talk)
13:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Oh, seems like I got that wrong. Regardless, we should not handle it like an actual city disambiguation, e.g.
West Hollywood, California.
Lordtobi (
✉)
14:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- It's a perfectly reasonable way to search for the fictional city, since there's plenty of real
Los Santos, it's reasonable to differentiate by the fictional state just like many other articles on cities. ----
Patar knight -
chat/
contributions
03:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep per my comment above, and since
Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto) is a redirect that also targets
Grand Theft Auto#Setting.
Steel1943 (
talk)
14:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Updated my comment to "weak" since
San Andreas is a disambiguation page and the subject of the redirect is a fictional city, making the "city, state" naming convention potentially vague or misleading. However, that alone is not enough for me to advocate deletion since the redirect is not ambiguous.
Steel1943 (
talk)
14:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- See above comment-reply.
Lordtobi (
✉)
14:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. It might be wise to sync it with the other San Andreas redirects.
San Andreas (Grand Theft Auto) and similar point to
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas#Setting. --
Tavix (
talk)
14:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. The target location has the most information about this setting. ----
Patar knight -
chat/
contributions
16:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep While the San Andreas one could be mainly confused with the game title, the Los Santos one seems to be mentioned in multiple games so the franchise article would be appropriate. City, state redirect is a plausible format. I also want to note that the city names are bolded so that implies other cities would be redirected there.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
17:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per other Keep votes.
122.104.1.161 (
talk)
14:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I was the one who moved it originally from Los Santos, San Andreas to the (Grand Theft Auto) disambig precisely on this rationale using examples such as
Port Charles (fictional city) as reasons (fictional cities that don't have a real-world counterpart are still disambiguated via the universe where they originate). That being said, I am very skeptical few people would actually fully search that title (city, state). "San Andreas" is usually used to refer to the 2004 game, while the cities usually stand alone.
hbdragon88 (
talk)
09:35, 21 January 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.
Liberty City (future)
- 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)
03:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
There is no "future" Liberty City in the contexted entity. Else
WP:CRYSTAL.
Lordtobi (
✉)
13:20, 16 January 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.
Maibatsu Sentinel
- 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)
03:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article.
Lordtobi (
✉)
13:17, 16 January 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.
GTA VI
- 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 all to
Grand Theft Auto#Titles. (
non-admin closure)
Steel1943 (
talk)
14:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
WP:CRYSTAL
Lordtobi (
✉)
13:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Nominations with identical targets and rationales merged by
Thryduulf (
talk)
13:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Weak refine to
Grand Theft Auto#Titles, as there are more than 6 titles in the series, and someone may look for this to find out if there is a 6th in the series - they will learn that there isn't a game with this name (yet), but will find the game they were thinking of if they were mistaken about the number.
Thryduulf (
talk)
13:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I have merged
Grand Theft Auto 6 and
Grand Theft Auto VI into this discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
13:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Refine per Thryduulf. ----
Patar knight -
chat/
contributions
16:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Refine per
Thryduulf. Good point about there being multiple side titles. If the franchise is not continuing anymore then it can go to that section.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
17:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Refine per Thryduulf. Definitely don't delete - its a plausible search term about something that will likely exist someday. Shouldn't be an article, but a search term? Sure.
Sergecross73
msg me
19:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Refine per Thryduulf. I do agree. --
SimmeD (
talk)
08:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Refine per
Thryduulf.
122.104.1.161 (
talk)
14:22, 18 January 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.
All gta games
Ammu-Nation
- 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)
03:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article.
Lordtobi (
✉)
13:14, 16 January 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.
Collars & Cuffs
Complete the Look
- 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)
03:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article.
Lordtobi (
✉)
13:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as very vague. While this exact phrase is used in adverts, it's not particularly tied to any one brand or company -
Marks & Spencer,
Laura Ashley plc,
Magnet Kitchens and a non-notable UK company that specialises in driveways featured most prominently in my google search, and Wikipedia does not appear to mention it as a notable phrase in the articles about any of these.
Thryduulf (
talk)
13:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom as undefined and per
WP:NOTWIKIA.
Steel1943 (
talk)
14:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete multiple brands and local stores per
Thryduulf, none of which stand out. Not a notable phrase from the game as with Hot Coffee.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
18:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
Thryduulf,
Steel1943 and
AngusWOOF.
122.104.1.161 (
talk)
14:46, 18 January 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.
Eris (Grand Theft Auto)
- 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)
03:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article.
Lordtobi (
✉)
13:14, 16 January 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.
Events concerning the Grand Theft Auto series in 2004
- 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)
03:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article.
Lordtobi (
✉)
13:13, 16 January 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.
GTAGaming
- 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)
03:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article.
Lordtobi (
✉)
13:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. This is the name of a fan site for the game, which was declared not notable enough for an article in
2005 as "Gtagaming" and
2006 as "Gtagaming.com". The only content I can find out it is that at
Casey Mongillo where he is noted as "one of the co-founders of the
Grand Theft Auto
fan site GTAGaming.". If he were the sole founder and/or there was content about it in his article, I would consider a retarget there but there is a least one other person who also co-founded it (no idea if they have an article, but
WP:XY regardless I think) and what I quote is all the information about it there anyway, which is very unlikely to be helpful. FWIW, a talk page discussion implies that it's not regarded as a reliable source, so it's not likely someone will be searching for information about this having seen it used as a reference on Wikipedia.
Thryduulf (
talk)
14:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- (
edit conflict) Delete per nom as unmentioned and per
WP:NOTWIKIA.
Steel1943 (
talk)
14:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete
WP:FANSITE Also not official website link.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
18:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Has nothing to do with the official game. --
SimmeD (
talk)
08:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per preceding comments.
122.104.1.161 (
talk)
14:58, 18 January 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.
Grand Theft Auto Serials
- 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)
03:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article. Also, there never were any Grand Theft Auto serials.
Lordtobi (
✉)
13:13, 16 January 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.
Heat 'Q'
- 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)
03:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article.
Lordtobi (
✉)
13:12, 16 January 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.
List of GTA games
List of Grand Theft Auto characters
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 31#List of Grand Theft Auto characters
Pay 'n spray
- 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)
03:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article.
Lordtobi (
✉)
13:11, 16 January 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.
Unique Stunt Jump
- 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)
03:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article.
Lordtobi (
✉)
13:11, 16 January 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.
Well Stacked Pizza Co.
- 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)
03:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article.
Lordtobi (
✉)
13:11, 16 January 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.
- 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)
03:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Out of context, and content related to the phrase is not present on the target article.
Lordtobi (
✉)
13:09, 16 January 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.
Maggie (prime minister)
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 24#Maggie (prime minister)
Mr. Margaret Thatcher
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 23#Mr. Margaret Thatcher
Plo Koon (Jedi Master
Israeli intervention in the Syrian Civil War
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 23#Israeli intervention in the Syrian Civil War
Make America White Again
- 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 deprecate. Thanks to Steel1943 for implementing this and all those who worked on incoming links and transclusions. A few remain, but few enough in my opinion that we can close the discussion. --
BDD (
talk)
17:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
reply
The template is misused. I
corrected
the
errors
done
by
other editors. Not sure what to do with transclusions in non-mainspace pages. Also, we don't know which "source" refers to. Does it refer to
template:refimprove,
template:citation needed,
template:citation, or what else? Otherwise, if the template is unneeded, then... change it to
template:code or something in other pages, and delete.
George Ho (
talk)
20:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC); edited. 10:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Edit: Per Steel1943, I'll concede to converting the page to an error template and then deprecating it.
George Ho (
talk)
10:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Mind if I fix the bolding,
Stanton?
George Ho (
talk)
03:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Done. One downside of Chrome in Mac OS is that bold is barely distinct from regular text. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
03:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Even with a re-target it is too ambiguous. And this redirect
has a history of being misused.
Avic
ennasis @ 07:04, 6 Tevet 5777 /
07:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Deprecate then delete. Enough people have been using this, thinking the template did something else, that we should avoid having a template redirect at this title.
Deryck
C.
17:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Whatever the outcome, do not delete. It's a title that will be used by others trying to locate a template, but what template that is ... not sure. Maybe a landing page like {{
IMDb}}, {{
OTRS}} and {{
R from real name}} is necessary here.
Steel1943 (
talk)
18:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Deprecate and keep per Steel1943's proposal. If it's kept or retargeted, it will continue to be misused. If it's deleted, someone will recreate it and we're back where we started. We need a landing page that says "You're using the wrong template. Which of the following did you have in mind?" –
Uanfala (talk)
23:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- "Deprecate" draft created. I have created a draft of how the page could appear if the "deprecate and keep/convert to error message" is established as consensus for this discussion. The "draft" has been created below the redirect. (Also, I have added appropriate "noinclude" tags to ensure that the draft doesn't affect current transclusions of this redirect. For non-technical folks, to enact this draft without breaking anything after this RFD is closed, restore
this revision.)
Steel1943 (
talk)
17:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Deprecate per above arguments. More useful to have an error message with an explanation for a plausible template than to just have a redlink. ----
Patar knight -
chat/
contributions
20:56, 6 February 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.