Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 August 15

August 15
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 15, 2013.

WP:CONCISE



 * 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 redirect to Article titles. Obviously correct, non-controversial re-targeting that has the nominator's support. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * → Portal:Contents/Outlines (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I am surprised that this does not point to Article titles, which sets forth, as a key guideline for article titling, conciseness. DeistCosmos (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget → Article titles. There are also:
 * Wikipedia:Concise → Portal:Contents/Outlines (and their talk pages)
 * along with several more as well
 * WP:Concise was once a list of Wikipedia articles that contributors felt would serve as a "concise" list, and WP:CONCISE was its shortcut. When the list became inactive it was first redirected (2008) to Portal:Contents/Lists of basic topics, which after a series of page moves now also redirects to Portal:Contents/Outlines.  So WP:CONCISE and WP:Concise kept being fixed as double redirects and finally landed on their present target.  WP:Article titles would probably be a much better target for both of these, because it discusses conciseness of article titles. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 17:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is spot on and very useful historical background. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2013 (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.

Steakout



 * 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 Stakeout. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


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

I'm not sure how this is related to surveillance... "steakout" is not even mentioned in the target of this redirect, and I fail to see the connection. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I made this redirect almost three years ago. I think I did it originally to link the common US police term to what it is called. Did not realize the misspelling until now... So embarrassed.  sohmc (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't feel embarrassed, sohmc, you have contributed an excellent, plausibly misspelled redirect (and I shudder to think of some of the mistakes I made while learning how to edit Wikipedia. It's tough to break !-) –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 18:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Stakeout as a plausible misspelling. Siuenti (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Siuenti – getting hungry again? Me, too! –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 18:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy retarget per Siuenti. (Speedy since there's essentially no ambiguity as to where the redirect should go; see, for instance, Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 4.) —  PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  03:37, 16 August 2013 (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.

Dayna



 * 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 dabify, or rather set-indexify. It could be merged into Dana (given name) as a variant, but that page is rather long for a name set index. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


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

Lots of people on Wikipedia are named "Dayna" - it seems unjustified to have this redirect point to one person (a fictional character at that).  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 01:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And is this not simply a variation of Dana (given name)? DeistCosmos (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, this redirect should be converted into a DAB.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 15:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest simply pointing Dayna to Dana (given name) and including on that page those whose name is, in fact, Dayna. DeistCosmos (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Retarget Dayna → Dana (given name). Per nom and DeistCosmos there are several notables named "Dayna" who can be entered as variations of "Dana". –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 19:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate and we can also point to Dana on that. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget and disambiguate to Dayna (given name). There is no mention of 'Dayna' at Dana (given name) and there is a sufficient number of 'Dayna's to justify its own page. If it can be sourced as an alternative spelling then that can be added. In any case, I suggest both given name pages have a hatnote pointing to the other. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But I would suggest that this lack of mention is for lack of anybody having looked. I just googled 'Dayna variation of Dana,' and there were literally dozens of books (mostly baby-naming books) which listed Dayna as variations of Dana. DeistCosmos (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, but many names are variations of another. IMHO there is enough material on Dayna to merit its own page. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, not for anything, but "given name" pages are not true dab pages in that they possess a (usually) brief history of the name. If a separate  page is created, then it would have to have the same history given on the  page.  This is why the Dayna variations should be included at the  page – why duplicate the history? –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 11:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree there will be an overlap though a Dayna (given name) can also deal with the development of that variant. I don't see the content overlap as being a problem and the key issue is to make life easier for the reader. People coming to the page are most likely to be using it as a dab page and Dana (given name) is already pretty long. I can see no policy objection to a Dayna (given name) page and rather than having people wanting 'Dayna' having to work through a 'Dana' page, it is seems easier and more efficient for it to have its own page. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2013 (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.