This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 24, 2017.
Fancy Pants (Lady Gaga song)
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) 19:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - A bit of search appears to state that this is an officially unreleased song done as a kind of collaboration, and no widespread publication is planned at this time.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 01:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete – Per nomination and CoffeeWithMarkets. —
IB[
Poke ] 04:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete not included on any of her official releases, and it doesn't look like this will be anytime soon (if ever)
Snuggums (
talk /
edits) 04:22, 29 June 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.
Revolution (Beyoncé album)
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) 19:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)reply
This was a redirected article about an unofficial album that is not mentioned here or in the
Beyoncé discography.
Peter James (
talk) 19:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete if there's no article to which this page should redirect. ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 19:29, 1 July 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.
That One
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. Usually after I close a discussion, I'll check for other similar redirects and take care of those at that time. I obviously forgot to do so after
That one was deleted. I'll do so now, noting that it's
highly unlikely that a different outcome will transpire here, taking both discussions into account. --
Tavix(
talk) 20:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - We came to a decision before. Everything still stands.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 07:49, 25 June 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.
CSS filter
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. Anarchyte (
work |
talk) 14:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. The page was at this title for more than a decade, and the term is used to describe these techniques. Until there's information about the other usage of the term, I don't see a problem with the redirect at this time. If the other usage becomes more significant, consider hatnotes and/or a disambiguation page. --
Tavix(
talk) 14:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
Uanfala 11:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per Tavix. I wasn't able to find any content on wikipedia about the CSS filter property, so until such content is added the current target is appropriate. –
Uanfala 12:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Convert to disambig The "new" meaning of CSS filter has been around for a few years now
[1]. It is established and stable. The "old" meaning is covered at
CSS hack. Our best solution is to disambiguate (yes, with a redlink) and to write an article on the new meaning, as soon as possible.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 21:26, 1 July 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.
Principality and Diocese of Monaco
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 consensus for the SIA is pretty clear. As for the retargeting, Nyttend's argument, echoed by Aervanath and Salvidrim!, that multiple such redirects already exist, is more convincing, since it also refutes the "can of worms" argument (Wilson, Woodrow exists since 2004 after all). SoWhy 14:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)reply
where should these point?
Monaco - the article on the principality (country) or
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Monaco - the article on the (arch)diocese (where
Diocese of Monaco redirects)? "Principality and Diocese of Monaco" is the title of the article in the
Catholic Encyclopaedia, and both got an above noise level of hits last year (13 and 49 respectively) so I don't favour deletion.
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
This is a title in the Catholic Encyclopedia, so that's why it's there. I think it should stay and keep pointing to
Monaco.
JASpencer (
talk) 13:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The Catholic encyclopaedia article covers both the political and ecumenical areas in one article, Wikipedia covers them separately (see also
WP:XY).
Thryduulf (
talk) 19:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak keep, if I'm correct in assuming that the diocese is coterminous with the country. If that's the case, I could just imagine a reader thinking this was the country's name and thinking it might need some sort of disambiguation. XY deletion would be my second choice; I don't see benefit in retargeting to the diocese. --
BDD (
talk) 20:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
Uanfala 14:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)reply
SIA (1st choice) or keep (2nd choice). So far the discussion has shown that this is a reasonable and unambiguous search term, used primarily by Catholic sources, to give a title to the place Monaco. This is more like a case of
Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer than
illness and death. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't cover these topics with a different article structure means that we should point readers to the right place by having either a set index or a redirect. I've drafted an SIA under the RfD template for consideration.
Deryck C. 09:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to discuss the full range of options that have so far been put on the table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
Uanfala 09:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete both only used in that Catholic Encyclopedia, which would favor
Diocese of Monaco. Not a common term used in other books on the subject. It doesn't seem to be a formal title, but if it is then redirect to Diocese of Monaco. The second term would open up a can of worms with search terms like "America, United States of". Alternatively, you could do something like
Diocese of California, although that SIA two different possible dioceses and also links to California.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 18:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete both - Although, I'd be alright with the first staying and going over to '
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Monaco' instead. The latter sets up a bad precedent as stated above. Pretty sure that it should be deleted.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk) 01:10, 26 June 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.