Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 25

January 25
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 25, 2014.

Joan Bell
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 26%23Janet Hunter

Barbara Stevens
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 26%23Barbara Stevens

Willing



 * 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 disambiguate. WJBscribe (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Willing → Willing, New York (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I would be willing to either retarget this to a more likely search target, perhaps Will (philosophy), or disambiguate. bd2412 T 23:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate sample disambig provided below the redirect -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Disambig per anon. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate, as shown by anon. Nice work. Pam  D  13:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dab per anon.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)'''
 * DAB per nom. Very constructive to create the sample DAB. I presume it is not suggested that Willing (surname) is a separate DAB, there does not seem quite enough entries to need it. Si Trew (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2014 (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.

Debbi



 * 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 move to Debbi (Dungeons & Dragons) and than retarget Debbi to Debbie. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 20:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Debbi → List of Advanced Dungeons & (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Article was discussed with a consensus to delete at AfD in 2008, with a note not to redirect, "as this title has far more real-world potential". However the closing Admin did not delete the article but just redirected it. Currently redirects to a huge list with a single word "Debbi". Previous attempt to redirect to a more plausible target was reverted. Propose redirecting to Debbie with until something better comes along. C679 19:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Move page history to Debbi (Dungeons & Dragons) while leaving a redirect, which can either be turned into another redirect or a disambiguation page. BOZ (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Move the page history per BOZ, and redirect to Debbie with a hatnote. This is not a misspelling at all, but an alternative spelling. For example, we have Debbi Fields, Debbi Lawrence, Debbi Morgan, Debbi Peterson, Debbi Taylor, and Debbi Wilkes, and Czech Wikipedia has an article at this title for a singer named "Debbi".  bd2412  T 23:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Move article history to Debbi (Dungeons & Dragons) and retarget to Debbie as a R from alternate spelling No hatnote is necessary, since the target is a name page so can have entries for "Debbi" added. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Move and retarget per 70.50, and add the alternate spelling into the lede. Si Trew (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2014 (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.

File:Union Boat Club.jpg



 * 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 close. The file redirect is on Commons and is being discussed there (see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Union Boat Club.jpg). The talk page is on en.wp, but as it is not a redirect it is not within the scope of RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * [[File:Union Boat Club.jpg]] → File:Community Boating, Inc clubhouse.jpg (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Community Boating and the Union Boat Club boathouse are two different buildings on the Charles River in Boston, about 750 feet apart. The picture at File:Community Boating, Inc clubhouse.jpg is very clearly of the Community Boating club and boathouse at 42.35981°N, -71.0731°W, so it is wrong for File:Union Boat Club.jpg (which would be at 42.35779°N, -71.07331°W or 42.35622°N, -71.07285°W to redirect to it.

I believe that the redirect at File:Union Boat Club.jpg should simply be deleted for now. It's used only on the Union Boat Club article, which will have to go imageless for now, but that's better than having a wrong and misleading image.

I'll try to take a proper picture of the Union Boat Club boathouse (and recreate File:Union Boat Club.jpg) sometime soon. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm. This is confusing.  It looks like the redirect is actually, or also, on Commons.  (Although the redirect has a talk page here that's definitely not on Commons.) I've started a discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests also. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2014 (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.

MOS:FOLLOW



 * 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) 00:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * MOS:FOLLOW → Manual of Style/Trademarks (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This obsolete redirect was recently retargeted to an irrelevant place. It should be retired. See confusion it causes at Trademarks. In the list of pages using this redirect, almost all are for the old meaning; I only found 2 that intended to link MOS:TM, which could as easily just link MOS:TM; and I made MOS:TMRULES, a more sensibly named shortcut instead of hijacking this old unused one. Dicklyon (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - First some history... the short-cut MOS:FOLLOW was originally created in Feb of 2011, and pointed to [this] section of the main MOS. That section was removed from the MOS with this edit (discussed on the MOS talk page here).
 * I am not at all sure that the removal of the section was a good idea (there has been a conflict between the MOS and other policies and guidelines ever since)... but, good idea or not, the removal of the section was discussed, did occur... a long time ago... and once it was removed it made the short-cut obsolete.
 * That said... there are lots of other policies and guidelines that do say to "Follow the sources" (even though that is no longer part of the MOS)... so, I think the word "FOLLOW" is a valid shortcut... I would keep it, (perhaps rename it to "WP:FOLLOW", since it no longer relates to the MOS) and find a more appropriate location for it to point to. Blueboar (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum... I see that WP:FOLLOW is already taken (it points to the essay WP:Follow all rules, which I think is a response to WP:Ignore all rules). So I guess my preferred solution will not work.  Given that, I would now opt for a simple DELETE. Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the conflict you refer was most severe in the first half of 2011 with the en dash fights, and mostly settled down with the removal of that section and the banning of its author Pmanderson. It was certainly a good idea to remove it, as it confused the whole point of the MOS as saying that we have a style that we prefer over copying the various styles of sources.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah... yes... the never ending en-dash war. The removal of "Follow the sources" from the MOS does make more sense in that context.  Unfortunately (as so frequently happens when people edit guidelines in order to win a heated battle) the removal had unexpected consequences by creating conflicts in other contexts (such as stylized names).  But that is all ancient history by now... and this isn't the place to resolve the conflicts.  I have amended my comment above. Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Question/Suggestion' Would it be wise to take the section about following sources from the history and copy it to a separate page, mark it as rejected, and add a summary of why it was rejected (with links to the relevant discussion archives)? That would seem to me to be a useful thing to be able to point people to if it is brought up again - I would boldly do it but I didn't follow the dash wars at all so I wouldn't know where to start. If such a page is created then this and the following shortcuts would be best retargetted there. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Thanks Dicklyon and Blueboar for recording the history; this is as good a place as any for it. —  Scott  •  talk  13:34, 29 January 2014 (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.

Wikipedia:MOSFOLLOW



 * 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) 00:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * MOSFOLLOW → Manual of Style/Trademarks (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

same as MOS:FOLLOW above. Confusingly repurposed obsolete shortcut. Dicklyon (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - obsolete (unfortunately). Blueboar (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —  Scott  •  talk  13:34, 29 January 2014 (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.