Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 24

June 24
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 24, 2017.

Fancy Pants (Lady Gaga song)
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  .  -- Tavix  ( talk ) 19:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Fancy Pants (Lady Gaga song) → Lady Gaga (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fancy_Pants_(Lady_Gaga_song)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not mentioned in the article or in List of songs recorded by Lady Gaga. Peter James (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - A bit of search appears to state that this is an officially unreleased song done as a kind of collaboration, and no widespread publication is planned at this time. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – Per nomination and CoffeeWithMarkets. — I B  [ Poke ] 04:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete not included on any of her official releases, and it doesn't look like this will be anytime soon (if ever) Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Revolution (Beyoncé album)
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  .  -- Tavix  ( talk ) 19:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Revolution (Beyoncé album) → Beyoncé (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolution_(Beyonc%C3%A9_album)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Revolution (Beyonce album) → Beyoncé (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolution_(Beyonce_album)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This was a redirected article about an unofficial album that is not mentioned here or in the Beyoncé discography. Peter James (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete if there's no article to which this page should redirect. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

That One
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . Usually after I close a discussion, I'll check for other similar redirects and take care of those at that time. I obviously forgot to do so after That one was deleted. I'll do so now, noting that it's highly unlikely that a different outcome will transpire here, taking both discussions into account.  -- Tavix  ( talk ) 20:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That One → United States presidential debates, 2008 (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=That_One&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Delete. Same rationale as for that one which was deleted per Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_19.  It is an overly generic redirect attached to an obscure incident and therefore it is more likely to cause confusion than to be helpful. Slideshow Bob (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - We came to a decision before. Everything still stands. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

CSS filter
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  .    Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  14:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * CSS filter → CSS hack (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CSS_filter&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Delete. Inaccurate redirect. Although "CSS filter" is a term for the techniques described at CSS hack, CSS filter now is more likely to refer to this: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/filter. User:GKFXtalk 20:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. The page was at this title for more than a decade, and the term is used to describe these techniques. Until there's information about the other usage of the term, I don't see a problem with the redirect at this time. If the other usage becomes more significant, consider hatnotes and/or a disambiguation page. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 11:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tavix. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 17:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tavix. I wasn't able to find any content on wikipedia about the CSS filter property, so until such content is added the current target is appropriate. – Uanfala 12:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Convert to disambig The "new" meaning of CSS filter has been around for a few years now . It is established and stable. The "old" meaning is covered at CSS hack. Our best solution is to disambiguate (yes, with a redlink) and to write an article on the new meaning, as soon as possible. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Principality and Diocese of Monaco
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 convert  Principality and Diocese of Monaco to a set index article and retarget Monaco, Principality and Diocese of to the former.
 * The consensus for the SIA is pretty clear. As for the retargeting, Nyttend's argument, echoed by Aervanath and Salvidrim!, that multiple such redirects already exist, is more convincing, since it also refutes the "can of worms" argument (Wilson, Woodrow exists since 2004 after all).  So  Why  14:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Principality and Diocese of Monaco → Monaco (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_and_Diocese_of_Monaco&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * <span id="Monaco, Principality and Diocese of">Monaco, Principality and Diocese of → Monaco (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monaco,_Principality_and_Diocese_of&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

where should these point? Monaco - the article on the principality (country) or Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Monaco - the article on the (arch)diocese (where Diocese of Monaco redirects)? "Principality and Diocese of Monaco" is the title of the article in the Catholic Encyclopaedia, and both got an above noise level of hits last year (13 and 49 respectively) so I don't favour deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a title in the Catholic Encyclopedia, so that's why it's there. I think it should stay and keep pointing to Monaco. JASpencer (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Catholic encyclopaedia article covers both the political and ecumenical areas in one article, Wikipedia covers them separately (see also WP:XY). Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:XY since Wikipedia treats these separately. They could equally refer to the Principality of Monaco (the country) or the Diocese of Monaco. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, if I'm correct in assuming that the diocese is coterminous with the country. If that's the case, I could just imagine a reader thinking this was the country's name and thinking it might need some sort of disambiguation. XY deletion would be my second choice; I don't see benefit in retargeting to the diocese. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 14:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to discuss the full range of options that have so far been put on the table.
 * SIA (1st choice) or keep (2nd choice). So far the discussion has shown that this is a reasonable and unambiguous search term, used primarily by Catholic sources, to give a title to the place Monaco. This is more like a case of Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer than illness and death. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't cover these topics with a different article structure means that we should point readers to the right place by having either a set index or a redirect. I've drafted an SIA under the RfD template for consideration. Deryck C. 09:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 09:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete both only used in that Catholic Encyclopedia, which would favor Diocese of Monaco. Not a common term used in other books on the subject. It doesn't seem to be a formal title, but if it is then redirect to Diocese of Monaco. The second term would open up a can of worms with search terms like "America, United States of". Alternatively, you could do something like Diocese of California, although that SIA two different possible dioceses and also links to California. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete both - Although, I'd be alright with the first staying and going over to 'Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Monaco' instead. The latter sets up a bad precedent as stated above. Pretty sure that it should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete  to avoid setting precedent; and Convert to a WP:SIA in the way that is currently drafted.   Ben – Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily care too strongly about the deletion of ; it could be kept and retargetted to the ensuing SIA.  Ben – Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Do this to Principality and Diocese of Monaco. It's a title in a significant encyclopedia, so we ought to have something at that title.  And retarget Monaco, Principality and Diocese of to Principality and Diocese of Monaco; we have plenty of redirects from alphabetisations that work best in print (see Wilson, Woodrow or Tolstoy, Lev Nikolayevich for examples), and I don't see how this one's different from many others.  By the way, America, United States of has existed as a redirect to United States for almost three years.  Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * your diff points to a redirect version, but your edit summary says SIA... wrong diff?  Ben – Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, yes, you're right. I've now changed the link from  to its new target.  Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Convert to a WP:SIA as per  and retarget  as per .--Aervanath (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Inchoate
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 8%23Inchoate