Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 3

March 3
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 3, 2014.

Scope



 * 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 Scope (disambiguation) moved to Scope as proposal to do so seems uncontroversial. —  Scott  •  talk  13:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think scope should point to Scope (disambiguation) (or, perhaps, that should just be renamed to scope). Right now, scope points to Telescopic sight, which implies that's somehow the primary meaning of the word. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * comment. This is a question of whether there is a primary topic for "scope" or not. If there isn't then the dab page would be moved to Scope as a matter of course. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment to RoySmith and Thryduulf: I'm thinking that this request might actually work better as a requested move for Scope (disambiguation) to be moved to Scope, especially given that the "Old RFD" note would be deleted in the process of the move anyways. Steel1943  (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was wondering that as well, but evidently forgot to mention it. I'm not going to close this in favour of an RM myself but I wont object to someone else doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm an admin, so I can do the move myself. I was mostly seeking consensus on what the right thing to do was before I went ahead and did it.  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * RM isn't only about moves you cannot perform yourself, it's also the process for making sure there is consensus for moves if it is controversial or potentially so. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Move the DAB at Scope (disambiguation) over Scope so that the DAB is the first hit, I can't think that one type of scope is particularly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I agree with the suggestion of the proposer.
 * "Scope" has so many meanings and telescopic sight is only one of them, whether it is an oscilloscope, Scope (charity), microscope, and so on, let alone metaphorical uses as ambit or range and so on. It is best to DAB it; if there are missing entries there or the DAB needs improving, that is easy to do, but I would not think anything really has WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here and so it is best to move the DAB and of course keep its existing title as a redirect thereto, for history etc; the "right" entry for a reader is then only one click away. Si Trew (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Does four people make a consensus? (In England and Wales, three make a riot) If so I think Thryduulf or Roy should move it, I am not an admin and don't want to be but I don't think you even need admin rights to move over a redirect I think I could do that, but as Thry says we need consensus. Si Trew (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You do need admin rights if the page has history, so I can't move it. So much for trying to be WP:BOLD! Si Trew (talk) 13:48, 4 March 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.

Kilmurry Ibrickane (village)



 * 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 - resolved elsewhere. —  Scott  •  talk  13:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


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

Confusing redirect from a non-existing village The Banner talk 22:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment the hatnote at Kilmurry Ibrickane (parish) (one of the two entries on the target dab) states that article is "about the village and historical civil parish". If that is accurate, then the village does exist and the redirect should point there. The actual article isn't clear to me though. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the hatnote as it was incorrect. The Kilmurry causing the confusion is a tiny settlement (a ruined church, two graveyards, a pub and some farms) near Quilty, on Google maps incorrectly mentioned als Kilmurry Ibrickane but acoording to the paper map (Discovery series, nr. 57) the name is just Kilmurry, the same name as in use by locals. The Banner talk 00:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If the name appears on Google Maps, then it is a very plausible search term (regardless of whether it is right or wrong). The question then becomes where is the best place to target it, as we don't want more than one article about this same place. I guess probably it should be metioned (a sentence at most) in the lead of the article about the settlement and also get an entry on the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Kilmurry Ibrickane (parish) is a redlink, did you mean Kilmurry Ibrickane (Roman Catholic parish)? Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It was moved by User:Dr. Blofeld yesterday with this edit], and there is no hatnote any more. It is very difficult then to consider this when the rug is pulled from under your feet. The two articles Kilmurry Ibrickane  (Civil parish) and Kilmurry Ibrickane (Roman Catholic parish) are both at the DAB Kilmurry Ibrickane (NOTE THE MISSING "A" in "Kilmurray" there, that foxed me), but don't need to be cos this is just WP:TWODABS and one can refer to the other, I guess there has been a discussion about WP:PRIMARY? But if it were me I would have the civil parish as primary and the RC parish as a hatnote, this is how it tends to work with England articles where the Church of England parishes are generally not primary. Or is it a question of it being "Kilmurry" or "Kilmurray"? It seems the DAB is unnecessary in either case, and an  could be put on it... but first the things need to be hatnoted properly after the page move. Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I did before Banner moved it. Kilmurry Ibrickane should be about the civil parish and hamlet with the RC parish hat noted at the top.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Blofeld, haven't seen you around for a while hope you are doing well. It's a bit of confusion to me here since there is no discussion on either page, what is it that you're aiming at? One of them has to be PRIMARY presumably with an R from Alternate Spelling for the "A", as a plausible typo. I don't see why both need the bracketed qualification, surely one can stand at Kilmurry Ibrickane (with an R at Kilmurray Ibrickane or vice versa, there is no need for the DAB and but the alternate spelling is a likely search term. Si Trew (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Close looks like this one was speedy deleted. G7 (author requested deletion).-- Lenticel ( talk ) 11:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Copied from User Talk:Dr. Blofeld for the record
It's not right zoom in there's a settlement of that name. Just when I thought you were beginning to accept civil parish and village you go and do this. I've had enough. Kilmurry Ibrickane should cover the village and civil parish and the hatnote at the top to the religious parish of the same name. Dabbing it is totally unnecessary, if there isn't a hamlet or village of that name why is it labelled as such on google maps?♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * First, my paper map (Discovery series, nr. 57) calls it Kilmurry. Secondly, it is not a village, but a mere hamlet. Thirdly, that church that gave the parish its name is slightly more to the north. Fourthly, the main village of the parish is Mullagh, County Clare. Sorry, but don't you think that the details should be correct? The Banner talk 22:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hamlet rather than a village, it doesn't make any difference. The article on the settlement however small should be in with the article on the civil parish. I think it's time we took this to WikiProject Ireland for discussion.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I advice you to use this wording, already present in the original Kilmurry Ibrickane article: The parish derives its name from the tiny settlement of Kilmurry in the Barony Ibrickane, the location of the church before Cromwellian times.  The Banner talk 22:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

We can't have three different articles though Kilmurry, Kilmurry Ibrickane, and Kilmurry Ibrickane (Roman Catholic parish). It makes sense to at least have hamlet even if just called Kilmurry and mention the civil parish within it Kilmurray Ibrickane rather than all individually. I understand the difference between a Roman Catholic parish and a civil parish and agree that if its some sort of religious division like a diocese or sub division of that they should probably be distinguished. There must be some decent solution on this. The problem for me mainly is that if the religious parish is identical to the civil parish and there's not really much to say on either, or on the principal village of the same name it makes more sense to have it all consolidated in one article. I've just trying to install some sort of order and consistency into articles. We need to come to a solution on this as it's not fair to keep turning up here and bad mouthing what I'm doing when I'm trying to do just the opposite.♦ Dr. Blofeld  23:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is why I did the text suggestion. In my opinion Kilmurry is just too small to warrant an own article. By now, it consists of a ruined church, two graveyards (on either side of the road), a pub and a few farms. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It does look like a townland sort of rural place on google maps I must say. But by default I think Kilmurray/Killmurrya Ibrickane should be the article on the civil parish/hamlet and the hat note to the religious parish at the top.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Is it OK if the redirect for discussion, the discussion is held at the RfD page? It's a bit confusing if you list something there then continue a discussion on a user talk page and not on either (any) of the article's own talk pages. Si Trew (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Refuse jurisdiction. This is a normal edit war/difference of opionion by two long-established and good faith editors, but should not have been brought to RfD. The redirect "(village)" can't be discussed while the articles are being moved about and so on, so there is no point in it being discussed at RfD. Once they settle, it can be discussed. Si Trew (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Simon, hope you're also well! Discussion is on my talk page. As you can see it came from a heated argument over what is appropriate. I had redirect the village red linked on my talk page to the main but it was then moved by Banner, rendering it redundant and then he nommed it here. The real issue I've brought up at WP:Ireland. The problem I'm encountering is that Banner won't accept village and civil parish in one. Civil parish at least historically in Ireland was a rigid municipal unit. The village/hamlet and civil parish in my opinion is better put in one article and asserted to avoid confusion. I think it confuses things by splitting them and given the average poor quality of articles makes sense to consolidate them in one for our readers. This convention is used in UK articles. I created List of civil parishes of Ireland and it was my intention to go through and clean them up but everytime I started on County Clare Banner reverts or turns up on my talk page saying I'm causing a mess. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know cos deliberately I don't look these things up while under discussion but there is probably also a Church of Ireland (Anglican) parish which may or may not have the same borders, is that going to be added as well? What about if the Episcopalians or the Church of Scientology start drawing parish maps?
 * At least in England, although C of E parishes are on the OS maps and are used in certain formal settings (I was married in the diocese of Bedford, in the parish of somewhere or other I can never remember, even though I was just over the border in Cambridgeshire because they moved the civil border between Beds and Cambs in 1979 I think, so as you know the CE parishes and civil parishes don't align much), they are not generally used and this is an unlikely search term, I can't see why there is the need for this spill really, just put Kilmurry Ibrickane or Kilmurray Ibrickane as primary and point it at the place itself, delete the redirect for (village) as superfluous, and the RC parish can go as a hatnote.
 * It is fair that if Banner lives in Co. Clare he will have more "on the ground" knowledge than you. But I come from it from the standpoint of an intelligent but ignorant outsider, what would I be trying to find? And I would be trying to find the place not the RC parish, and that is why it should be WP:PRIMARY. A redirect from the alternate spelling is fine and you or Banner are better placed to say what in real life how it is spelled. Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Procedural close please. The redirect up for question is now a redlink and so presumably the spat has been taken elsewhere. Both are good faith and very active editors, but it shouldn't have been brought here. Si Trew (talk) 10:51, 4 March 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.

Ranai
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">


 * 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 Ranai Airport, with the hatnote as suggested by KAVEBEAR. Disambiguation may be a good idea once we have more than two articles to disambiguate between. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


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

Delete. What's the point of this redirect? This is the English Wikipedia, not the Chinglish Wikipedia, and the Lanai article doesn't mention a place called "Ranai." I found it when looking up the place called Ranai on Google Maps, 3.92422°N, 108.38794°W, and I'll guess that similar accidents are the reason that lots of other people view it. 149.160.174.45 (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or write an article. Why it was created I can't say, but I've invited the creator user:KAVEBEAR to this discussion. As for the present day, I agree we should have an article about the place in Indonesia not a redirect. Note that the Ranai Airport article links to Ranai, Indonesia (also red) so whichever title the article is started at the other needs to redirect to it (I don't know the local convention). I'll leave a note at the Indonesia and Hawaii WikiProject pages about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is suppose to reflect historic Hawaiian pronounciation of the island!!! The L was sometimes pronounced like an R. It is how Cook, Vancouver and how many early explorers wrote the name also. if it is retargeted than wherever it is retargeted should mention it in the hatnote that it is another pronounciation for Lanai.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Retarget to Ranai Airport. Yes, it is both a stereotype and true that East Asians can confusing English L (back dental voiced) with English R (labial voiced), but would it help a Chinese or Japanese speaker coming to English Wikipedia or not? Since as Ranai Airport I would imagine is just called "Ranai" in the way that "London Heathrow Airport" is just called "Heathrow" or "Budapest Ferencs Lizst repuloter" is just called "Ferihegy", or all these airports have their long oficcial names (George W. Bush International Airport Houston), etc. I think that probably people say "Ranai" to mean the airport as a shorthand or common name so that would seem to be best to retarget it there. If people from that part of the world say no, they don't, then I will happily change my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Retarget per above. (I remember being tempted once to buy a set of "Eyeret Priers" from a market stall simply for the label. Unfortunately, I resisted.) Peridon (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Retarget to Ranai Airport, but create new Disambiguation page is better. Ranai is the name of island, mountain, and airport in the Natuna regency, Indonesia. Ranai town is also capital of the regency. At the moment only Ranai Airport article exist in english wikipedia. After we create Ranai Island and Ranai Mountain article, we can create new Disambiguation link. Also article Ranai, Indonesia is for Ranai town as the regency capital. &#42;Annas* (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Ranai Airport for now. A dab can be set up once the other Ranai articles are in place.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep It is suppose to reflect historic Hawaiian pronounciation of the island!!! The L was sometimes pronounced like an R. It is how Cook, Vancouver and how many early explorers wrote the name also.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambig per Lenticel. We can add a link to Lanai as well if we can find reliable sourcing on Ranai being a legitimate spelling or pronunciation of Lanai. — bbatsell  ¿?   ✍  19:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Disamig per Bbatsell. Lanai is in Hawaii, Raina is in the South China Sea. They are separeted by a fair amount of water. But I think this should just be hatnoted then and doesn't need a DAB page, per WP:TWODABS. Si Trew (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC).
 * 'Comment. Also at Laini redirects to Overly Attached Girlfriend so perhaps that could do with a typo and hatnote, I dunno, but I threw that in by typoing and maybe could do with the same treatment. I don't know what an underly attached girlfriend would be, I have to suffer with having a wife instead. Si Trew (talk) 22:03, 10 March 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.

770 Account
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">


 * 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) 17:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 770 Account → Mark M. Ford (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

No clear reason given for this redirect to an obscure book; edit summary indicates it is an SEO test. ~TPW 17:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The URL in my edit summary no longer works, but http://upsetreviews.com/2013/07/what-is-the-palm-beach-letters-secret-770-account/ gives some explanation of what I was thinking about. If you Google "770 Account", everyone is responding to something in the Palm Beach Letter (which is a newsletter, not a book; see http://www.palmbeachletter.com/ ). OK, so maybe that redirect isn't very helpful, but I do deny "SEO" (search engine optimization); I have never met Mr. Ford or communicated or worked with him. I encountered the term "770 account", didn't know what it was, looked it up, and left a redirect to help the next person with that question. Oh, and the redirect goes to Mark M. Ford, not just Mark M. Ford. Art LaPella (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And I just noticed "SEOTest" occurs in the URL I linked to. I can't explain that, except to repeat that it was not any kind of SEO test on my part. Art LaPella (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Purposeless redirect. The target article does not mention "770 Account" anywhere that I could find. Literally nothing here links to 770 Account . A Google search for "770 account" suggests that a 770 account is actually a type of life insurance, but it is not mentioned at Life insurance so no point in redirecting it there either. --MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A 770 account uses life insurance, but it's promoted as an investment that might be called a get-rich-quick scheme. It's true that we don't have an article mentioning it. There's something to be said for linking to an article showing a related legal issue. Art LaPella (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete for now. It seems to be a rather confusing type of life insurance. Perhaps we could reinstate it once Life insurance has a clearer info about it?-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)+
 * I know a consensus when I see one, but obviously we wouldn't mention 770 accounts in the life insurance article for the same reason my home town isn't mentioned in the United States article. Remember the reader is likely to be a prospective investor who's read the glowing promotion, and thus might want to know if he can trust the promoters. Art LaPella (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Delete. Preferably we would simply have an article on this type of structured life insurance (which is what it really is), but every source I can find is either a dubious pitch like the Palm Beach Letter, or an unreliable internet discussion like the one linked by MelanieN above. Without good sources we can't have an article. But we definitely shouldn't have the present redirect, because we don't have any information about 770 accounts in that article - and also, of course, because Mark M. Ford is a promoter of 770 accounts who would stand to profit from having his name linked to them. 172.9.22.150 (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Ford really wants people reading all of that article, but you're reasonable otherwise. Art LaPella (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't know what a 770 account is but take your word for it is a kinda specialised life insurance account in the US presumably with tax advantages etc, much like a private pension or ISA in the UK. (Deliberately not linking those.) THese things deserve articles, sure, but no point linking to irrelevant places and it could look like Wikipedia was kinda endorsing a particular scheme, I don't know if there is a better place to point it as I don't know much about US tax law (I just had to pay it and suffer) but in the absence of a better target it should go delete. Si Trew (talk) 07:20, 4 March 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.

Hipposideros commersoni
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">


 * 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 delete per WP:CSD (see also comment below). Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hipposideros commersoni → Commerson& (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Weak Delete Not sure what to do based on deletion of the target Nadesai (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've speedy deleted this per WP:CSD (pages dependent on a deleted page). I considered a retarget to the article about the genus (Hipposideros) as species → genus redirects are not uncommon, however given that most other species listed there have articles and that the target was not deleted on notability grounds (it was a G5 speedy - creations by a blocked or banned user) it seems that a redlink is better to encourage an article here. Anyone is free to recreate the redirect, or discuss its creation (probably best at talk:Hipposideros) if they wish. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 3 March 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.

Myeongran
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">


 * 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 delete per WP:CSD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


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

Delete - The target doesn't exist because of copyright infringement. Same logic for the redirect too. Nadesai (talk) 12:48, 3 March 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.

Reflist
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 14%23Reflist

List of euphemisms
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 3%23List of euphemisms

<span id="Erotica (album)">Erotica (album)
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">


 * 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, though the low participation of this RfD is noted. This may be reversed by a subsequent RfD. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


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

This is not a deletion request, but to retarget. Per some users we can't use partial titles like Thriller (album), Revolver (album) or Madonna (album) ( but as Thriller (Michael Jackson album), Revolver (Beatles album) or Madonna (Madonna album)), but such redirects can go to a page if the album is commonly known or associated to such title. The only competence for this album is Erotica (The Darling Buds album), which is not as popular or well-known as Madonna's (WP:PTOPIC). Per precedent examples, this redirect should go to Erotica (Madonna album). ©  Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 04:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Erotica (Madonna album). I have been a bit bold here and added hatnotes to Erotica (The Darling Buds album) and Erotica (Madonna album) pointing at each other, per WP:TWODABS. There is not really a need for this to go via the country route to end up at a DAB, and what is more the point it is an to a section of a dab, which is rather unusual, either it should redirect to the DAB in full rather than to a section, or the DAB should be split and the albums and songs at a a DAB called Erotica (music), but the fault in that plan is there is a third but only the performer's name as blue link and not an article for the album itself. It can simply be done with a hatnote as I have done. It's a tricky one cos there is kinda not enough things listed at that DAB to make it worth making a DAB to a DAB, but just enough to warrant the DAB itself, but I think on balance this is better dealt with as a retarget and hatnote. Si Trew (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I want to make it clear to other editors without reading that waffle, it does not redirect to the DAB, it redirects to a section of the DAB. Si Trew (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Redirects to sections of dab pages are not at all uncommon - 1 (album) being one example I randomly found in Category:Redirects from incomplete disambiguations. I'm sure several more redirects there should be refined as well. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am just pasting in my courtesy note and the proposer's after a TB with IndianBio, where I kinda wanted to keep the discussion in one place, it's at User talk:IndianBio. IndianBio reverted my hatnote with [this edit], and that is fine it is just WP:BRD but the discussion continued on IndianBio's talk page rather than here as I requested, so for the record:


 * Hi IndianBio,


 * It's at WP:RFD with a disambiguation at Erotica (album). It's a tricky one because to me the thing is it is WP:TWODABS and can be dealt with by hatnoting the two, but there is a third at the DAB at Erotica (disambiguation) but Erotica (album) is a redirect to the Albums sectionof that DAB, and a redirect to a section of a DAB is a bit unusual. I am sure you have a better knowledge than I do on this, and perhaps you could contribute to the discussion at WP:RFD as I think it is a tricky one to deal with appropriately. I certainly noticed the GA status and did not want to do anything to disrupt that. Si Trew (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Erotica (album) would be a perfect hatnote. — Indian: BIO  · [ <b style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC;color:#1C1CF0;">ChitChat</b> ] 10:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is Erotica (album) if you look at it is an and it is unusual to redirect to a section of a DAB, either redirect to the whole DAB or create another DAB, since that would only have two entries to the two blue link entires for the two albums and perhaps the third for the Peruvian jazzman then that really doesn't deserve a DAB so it is quite a bind. People searching for things should be able to find them and my ultimate judgement is does this make it easier or harder for someone to find? I am not saying I am always right, just that is where I make my judgement and absolutely correct to bring it for discussion. Si Trew (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't like to change things while they are under discussion and it is my fault to have been bold and changed it before there was consensus. Si Trew (talk) 12:50, 3 March 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.