Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 19

November 19
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 19, 2012

Wikipedia:Library



 * 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 special permission is necessary to convert a redirect to a dab page. Ruslik_ Zero 18:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * → WikiProject Resource Exchange (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This page can be converted to a disambiguation page now, since currently The Wikipedia Library is there which claims the same title. Tito Dutta (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I'm okay with this setup or the current hatnote one. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.

2004 Presidential election



 * 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 the first redirect. Retarget the second one to the dab page. Ruslik_ Zero 18:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This is another case of inconsistent targets - 2004 presidential election (pe) is a dab page listing approximately 16 presidential elections that took place that year, 2004 Presidential election (Pe) redirects there currently, but 2004 Presidential Election (PE) redirects to the US election. If the American presidential election is the primary topic then all three capitalisations should point there and the dab page should be moved to have a (disambiguation) suffix. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * → 2004 presidential election (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → United States presidential election, 2004 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Note: I've left notes about this discussion at Talk:United States presidential election, 2004, 2004 presidential election and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the point of this RFD is. Clearly 2004 Presidential Election should redirect to 2004 presidential election as an R from other capitalisation (I've allredy done that). If the nominator thinks that the primary topic might be the American election he should propose that 2004 presidential election me movied to 2004 presidential election (disambiguation). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The point of this RfD is to discuss whether or not the US election is the primary topic and thus where various pages should be/point. It is a combination RfD and possible RM with discussion happening at RfD because I'm not saying "the US election is primary", I'm asking the question "Is the US election primary?". What is unclear about this? Thryduulf (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly as long as we have 2004 presidential election in it's present form all capitalization variations of it's title should target it. As for weather the US election is the primary topic of "2004 presidential election" I think the correct venue for that would be an RM. You don't need to support a move to make an RM. I started this RM, but I neither supported nor opposed the move, I merely raised the issue. If that page is moved so that "2004 presidential election" so that can become a redirect to United States presidential election, 2004 then clearly all capitalization variations of ""2004 presidential election"" should follow suit. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Target all to disambiguation, there are plenty of presidential elections out there. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Ego White Tray. I'm confident that the US election is "the primary" in the sense that it was the biggest news in English-speaking sources (our sources pay attention to Russian elections, but not as much as they do American elections, and most English speakers probably had no clue that El Salvador was having an election), but it's definitely not more important than all of the other elections put together, so neither of these terms should be redirected there.  Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to dab page per EWT -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.

American occupation of Iraq



 * 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 the first redirect and dabify the second one. Ruslik_ Zero 18:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

What should the target for these be?, History of Iraq (2003–2011) or Iraq War. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * → History of Iraq (2003–2011) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Iraq War (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * From reading the starts of both articles I'd say that History of Iraq (2003–2011) is the one that is more likely to be useful to people searching these phrases. History of Iraq also uses the term "British occupation" in relation to the Kingdom of Iraq (Mandate administration) (1920-1932) so a hatnote from wherever Occupation of Iraq points may be worthwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * History of Iraq (2003-2011) - per Thryduulf and because Iraq War was in my opinion much more a sectarian conflict than just an American invasion.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dabify Occupation of Iraq; no opinion on the other one. It should be a disambiguation page for (1) wherever we decide to put the American occupation link, and (2) British occupation of Iraq.  Nyttend (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Occupation_of_Iraq should be a dab page, to mention the British occupation of Iraq (1918–1941 intermittent), since both occupations are now pieces of history. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.

Chinese curancy



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * → Chinese currency (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Implausible mispelling LK (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - plausible misspelling. "Plausible" is not a synonym for "likely". Wily D  10:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep this is used between 10 and 20 times a month, which is greater than the background noise level of hits, demonstrating its plausibility. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep how is this implausible? Have you seen how people spell on the internet? -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep plausible misspelling.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

Eminem's fifth studio 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 retarget to Encore (Eminem album). JohnCD (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * → Relapse (Eminem album) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Deletion. This redirect is unnecessary and incorrect. Banan14kab (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - but redirect to Encore (Eminem album), which is apparently the proper target. Wily D 10:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Encore (Eminem album). This redirect is used nearly 50 times a month, which shows that there is benefit in keeping it ("unnecessary" is not a reason to delete a redirect anyway). See also Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 29 and Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 29. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Encore (Eminem album) to make it accurate.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.