From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 1
January 3 >

January 2

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 2, 2016.

Special:PrefixIndex/List of rivers in

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Thanks to the nominator for understanding. -- BDD ( talk) 16:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply

All of the List of rivers in... redirects should be deleted to stop those from severely clogging search suggestions. Also, these redirects make "List of rivers in..." links turn blue, thus confusing people that the naming style is correct. For readers who type "in", our search page will automatically suggest "of". Reh man 12:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep all. They are plausible aliases of the target articles. There is no good reason to turn those links red (breaking links, disrupting readers and contributing to linkrot). Remember that redirects do far more than merely support the search engine and that many - I would venture to say most - of our readers navigate the wiki by other means than just search. Rossami (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree with you that these are plausible, but right now it is doing more bad than good. And as I mentioned, deleting the redirects doesn't negatively impact the reader, but keeping them does up to some extent (search suggestions). Of course, my suggestion above is after the links are updated by bot. Reh man 04:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all as clearly useful. Also, a different venue should be pursued if search results aren't "helpful". The purpose of redirects is to help the reader if they look up the title of the redirect; this nomination does not address this need. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep These will be plausible search terms forever. Arguably, they'd be better titles too, since "rivers of [country]" implies ownership, which could be wrong or disputed. "Rivers in [country]" just states the geography. -- BDD ( talk) 18:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. Getting a blue link when linking to "List of Rivers in Foo" is a feature not a bug. Arriving at the article when typing "List of Rivers in Foo" into your search bar, url bar, etc is the reason we have redirects of this nature. Thryduulf ( talk) 02:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close. Thank you for your comments. I guess I was looking at these from the wrong perspective. Kind regards, Reh man 13:59, 4 January 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.

Islamic Republic of Persia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 9#Islamic Republic of Persia

Dgw

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 DGW. ( non-admin closure) -- Tavix ( talk) 00:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Proposed as speedy deletion candidate and was rejected because "The target exists". While the TWiT.tv page technically exists, the target section does not. The show is known as simply "The Giz Wiz" in all current TWiT materials I can find. Also note that DGW (the all-caps version of this redirect) points to Converse County Airport. Tuvok T @ lk/ Improve 09:36, 2 January 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.

Indrani (disambiguation)

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 detele. The discussion below established that, while these redirects aren't harmful, they are unnecessary. The general consensus is that set index articles are similar to disambiguation pages but shouldn't be titled "(disambiguation)". As the creator of the redirect argued for deletion and nobody argued strongly for the creation of this redirect, I'm closing this as delete. Der yck C. 20:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC) reply

The target page is a set index page listing people with surname "Indrani", not a disambiguation page. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 00:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: I created this when moving Indrani (disambiguation) to Indrani (name). There isn't anything seriously pointing to the original, and no talk page history to be saved. So yeah, dump it. No real value in saving it. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 00:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because redirects after pagemoves are generally helpful. This is not confusing or harmful and the content of the 'name' page is very much like disambiguation content. Rossami (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Meh. I would normally agree, but it really doesn't look like there were ever any links to the redir, and "x (disambiguation)" titles are purely a Wikipedia creation, so they're tremendously unlikely to be typed in or searched for. The only counter-argument I can come up with is that, should someone create a page about another person named Indrani and mistakenly uses an {{ otheruses}} family template rather than an {{ otherpeople}} family template, they'll just get a redlink and think they should create a dab page... or they'll just not dab at all. But I don't find that to be all that convincing. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 11:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as misleading and unnecessary. "(disambiguation)" redirects generally are not useful for searchers, they exist solely for Wikipedia administration purposes to distinguish intentional and unintentional links to disambiguation pages. In contrast, set indices are not disambiguations and can be linked directly where that link is appropriate to the context. 210.6.254.106 ( talk) 03:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy. 210.6.254.106 ( talk) 03:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, redirects such as this are intended to be used only for intentional redirects to a disambiguation page where there is a primary topic, and that is not the case here. older ≠ wiser 12:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Name articles are set indices, which look and function as disambiguation pages to readers. I wouldn't create such redirects, but I wouldn't delete them either. -- BDD ( talk) 15:52, 3 January 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.

Hurricane dan

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 procedural delete as author requested deletion ( WP:G6) and there hasn't been any opposition. Normally I would've relisted an entry that has been transplanted to RfD less than 7 days ago, but I see little value in this case. Der yck C. 20:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC) reply
 – Mz7 ( talk) 00:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC) reply
G6 and G7 speedy rationales apply (although time isn't of any essence here). Simple redirect to article with the "D" in Dan capitalized (I don't think it's necessary anymore for such redirects to exist...if it still is, then apologies and nevermind about the whole thing). Froglich ( talk) 04:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: upon creating this AfD via Twinkle, the system generated the alert tag in the " Hurricane Dan" article, not the "Hurricane dan" one. Don't know what's going on with that, but I moved the tag to the redirect article.-- Froglich ( talk) 04:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Froglich: Probably TW was redirected to Hurricane Dan. Anyway, redirects are discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion so this should really be taken there. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural delete as unnecessary redirect. However, I really don't see the point of bringing useless but harmless redirects to AfD. Happy Squirrel ( talk) 16:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Part of the reason was that I suspect there's a bug in the code somewhere, as both pages were created simultaneously when I created "Hurricane Dan" (capitalized 'D') -- at least the history of the lower-case 'd' page seems to indicate so. Maybe a new bot would help cleaning up these sorts of duplicate-but-for-case types of articles. (My worry, of course, is that deleting one might delete both...at least in this particular instance, as they seem weirdly linked.)-- Froglich ( talk) 06:12, 3 January 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_2&oldid=1037882985"