Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 5

1978:, I think. Deletion is off the table because this was apparently part of a very complicated series of pagemoves of the content now at the current target. Given the dates, some of that history would be lost if the page were deleted and we might well break external links. Re: retargetting... Actually, I can't help wondering why we have two pages in two separate spaces. The WP-space content seems like content that could reasonably be included in the article-space version. Maybe merge? But if there's a reason not to merge (and there might be - I haven't dug through all the talk discussions yet), then I think the better linking on the article-space version argues as the more helpful target. 1960:- the project-space page about the history of Knowledge's logos (including the present globe) would make a better target? It has the advantage of being a project space page like the redirect but is focused very differently to the encyclopaedia article that people currently arrive at (and was I think moved from here originally). The project space page is linked by a self-ref hatnote from the article currently but the article is only a see-also on the project page. Neither page is exclusively about the globe logo. 6278: 6259: 5408: 4059: 4040: 1698: 82: 63: 6181:. As you point out, many of these are old redirects. We can check for current inbound links to any given title but we have no way to know how many old links are buried in various pagehistories or scattered in external links. Even if you think the odds are low (and they probably are), the costs of leaving the redirect in place just in case are indistinguishable from zero. 6163:, and the only relevant content is a previous title of the target page. Basically, I don't think that we should be keeping a mildly confusing redirect that really isn't likely to have gotten internal use and has essentially no chance of external use having occurred, but I'm not confident enough to assert that deletion is definitely the right course. 3926:, though I don't know enough about computer servers to determine whether either would be an appropriate place to disambiguate these topics. Alternatively, would you disambiguate all servers made in 2008, 2003, etc.? I'm keeping an open mind about this, and if a good disambiguation page/pages is/are possible, then I would be okay with that. -- 646:, since as noted, project-to-template redirects aren't a significant issue per se, and since this is presumably the most relevant page for explaining the project-specific meaning of "exclusion compliant", it shouldn't be modified. No objection to retargeting if a better target is found, or if an explanation is added to the bot policy. 2840:. I don't support deletion since the Vietnam War was definitely also known as the "American War". I'd support a retarget there, but I'm afraid it may be a surprise for someone looking for another war in which the United States was involved. Therefore, I believe disambiguation to be the most elegant solution. -- 4107:. There is clearly no appetite for deletion here, so it's a choice between keeping as is and retargetting. On balance I feel that those proposing retargetting have the slightly stronger arguments, and not every "keep" vote counters those arguments (as opposed to arguments for deletion, which are countered). 4270:

Lots of rcat template redirects like this exist, to "funnel" various cases into a small set of generalized rcat templates. If they are removed, then people will fork actual new rcat templates to cover the cases they encounter; we've been merging these when possible rather than forking them, to reduce

1534:

I'm not sure what content you could put at this title other than what is already documented at the top of the Category page. Creating a separate page without good reason strikes me as a bad idea. It would be all-too easy for the two versions to drift out of synch, leaving new readers/users confused

721:

I looked at that. My feeling is that someone using this redirect is likely to want to know what exclusion compliant means, and/or find some information about how it works, when it applies/doesn't apply, any policies/guidelines around it - the sort of thing you expect to find on a project space page.

6144:

I'm weakly in favor of deletion, but I'm not at all sure. My future comments will depend on the agriculture one, which appears to have been created in projectspace as some sort of article directory before being moved to mainspace and eventually being redirected to the existing target. In favor of

3787:

I do no think search results are good solution here because there are many irrelevant articles brought up that it's not easy to find the article about what people are likely to be looking for. There is no rule that requires three ambiguous titles before a disambiguation page is required - only that

3896:

fine in theory, but the search results include so many irrelevant results that it's very difficult for readers to sort it out that way. Our goal is to make it easier for people to navigate the encyclopaedia not harder. If other articles are also known by this phrase then the correct thing to do is

2818:

is also confusing - enough for what? There is no limit to the number of pages on any given subject, so it's irrelevant how many already exist - if another redirect or disambiguation page is needed it should exist, regardless of what otherstuff exists. Whether it should exist or not depends only on

290:

for the English Knowledge.". So the redirect is explained and quite possibly required - someone searching for the en.wp exemption doctrine policy will likely try one of these redirects first if they don't know we call it something different. I have a slight preference for the latter (WP:NFCC) as

6154:

are unhelpful if there's no reason for a specific one to exist); we keep old titles because people are likely to be linking to them from off-wiki, but nobody links to projectspace pages (except big ones like WP:ANI) from offsite, and an average list wouldn't get this kind of link; and the page

2401:

which was closed on 2016 Aug 1 as redirect for lack of independent notability. Following the AfD closure, there were repeated attempts to restore the original article, resulting in page-protection. The revert wars appear to have restarted almost immediately after the protection ran out.

5609:

currently – I can try to work something up in Draftspace, if there's any interest, but I've seen cases like Duarte's enough that I'm quite sure she won't clear the notability threshold at this time. (That may change in a year or two, especially if she lands a main role on a TV series.)

5304:

If that comparison had any actual details about the system software I might agree with you, but it doesn't contain anything significant and the trivial information it does have, which includes absolutely no mention of "Windows" at all, is below the fold so it will confuse and not help.

1442:, otherwise known as "keep or retarget". I say this because I'm unclear whether you're considering deletion as an option. If nothing better exists, this should remain as a redirect to its current target, but if anyone can suggest a better target, I'm fine redirecting this there. 828:- what Thryduulf said. No opinion yet on the suggestion to refine the redirect to the documentation subpage. On the one hand, it would prevent accidental transclusions. On the other, it makes it a little harder for a novice user to navigate back up to the actual category list. 5239:

here, but what would happen if the next console also has a Windows(-like) system software? Wouldn't we then just be pushing the problem down the road? If we must keep it in some form, the current target would be best, although I'm ambivalent about keeping it in the first place.

1411:

that may need to be targeting elsewhere. I would think that there would be a page in the "Knowledge:" or "Help:" namespace that could explain the content at the redirect's target category page, but I'm not finding one right now. Also, the title could be confused with the term

4326:, it's perfectly fine for someone who encounters a redirect from something that might be classified as an honorific, but which doesn't seem present a neutrality issue (I can't think of an example), to use some different rcat template than this one. There is no WP rule that 6186:

Finally, I echo your finding that some of the redirects document the history of pagemoves. Some of those predate the change to our logs that recorded the pagemove in the pagehistory. The redirects themselves may be the only record of the move that still exists.

2898: 558:

is principally about main → project (or more broadly reader-facing to non-reader-facing) namespaces. Redirects out of project space do not generally have the same problems, and I see nothing inherently bad or problematic about Project: to Template: redirects.

5268:

with hatnotes and/or create a disambiguation page. We should be retargetting this to the best target for the search term currently, rather than trying to predict what someone will want to read in the future if our crystal balls are working correctly.

4628:

is a section of a manual-of-style page on this subject. Unless you want to try to get consensus to replace "honorific" on that page with some other term, it seems rather pointless to get rid of this redirect for the reasons given by the nominator.

5107:. The final sentence of the lead of that article says, in bold, "the new system is sometimes referred to as "Windows 10 on Xbox One"." and these redirects seem to me to be very plausible search terms for that. A "redirects here" hatnote pointing to 6183:

I'll also point out that the CNR argument is only a concern for redirects from the article space (where pages are well-monitored and controlled) to private spaces. No such problems exist for redirects from project spaces to the articlespace.

4303:

WP does consider it a neutrality problem to tack these appellations onto names. They are signs of particular groups' respect for or recognition of the individual in question, and it is not universal. The previous commenter is correct that

4789:"Wonky naming" is not a good reason to delete a redirect. Redirects do far more than merely support the search engine. In this case, the redirect overwrote some highly speculative content that would have otherwise had to be deleted per 5600:

is now inappropriate, and is confusing to our readership. It terms of what I recommend, this is redirects for "discussion" so I was interested in seeing what others might propose. My personal opinion is that the redirect should now be

792:

Either way, retargeting to the "/doc" page prevents the template from unintentionally being transcluded if somehow an editor places {{Knowledge:Exclusion compliant}} somewhere on a page. Compare this resolution to the one at

364:, I've learnt that the pages have been moved around in the years since the licensing policy was created. At that time, the EDP was located at WP:NFC, but it's since been moved to WP:NFCC, and NFC is now an information about 343:. WP:NFCC previously claimed to be the EDP (which is probably why one of these redirects went to it), but since the Foundation policy overrules anything to the contrary on our local projects, I've removed that claim. 291:

this is the actual policy (and is transcluded on WP:NFC), with the remainder of WP:NFC serving as explanation, examples, processes, etc., however I will not stand in the way of the other target if others prefer that.

6149:

days), and normally we don't delete old redirects if they're not significantly harmful. In favor of deleting, these are potentially confusing (projectspace titles generally shouldn't redirect to mainspace titles;

5643:

and overwrite the redirect with content. No RfD discussion is necessary. There is an argument to REDLINK the title but given the lack of inbound links, I think that is a particularly weak argument in this case.

1955:

This is current a redirect from project space to article space, there is nothing inherently wrong with such redirects (they don't have the same issues as redirects in the opposite direction), but I'm wondering if

2890: 683:

It would really help if the bot policy were expanded with a short discussion of this topic, but as I don't know bots, I won't start any proposals; I'd be happy to support a proposal that looked useful, however.

6223:. The nominator lays out a good case for why these aren't being used and are potentially confusing. They might have been useful when they were created, but I fail to see the utility for them 15 years later. -- 4401:. An honorific is a specific type of "title" used to address a person, usually with respect and "honor" (rather than mere occupational, as noted by SMcCandlish above). So these should fit much better in 2641:

already redirect there. The lowercase variant started as an article asserting that the Vietnamese call (what we call) the Vietnam War the "American War", which makes sense, though retargeting there would

5592:

isn't her most "prominent" role anymore – it's merely her first. As time has elapsed since this redirect's creation in 2011, Duarte has had several more prominent parts which are about as notable as

1831:- this page was created accidentally, by me, almost 15 years ago, back in the days when namespaces were a new invention. There's nothing of value in the page history to justify keeping it. 5129:

I created this redirect at the time when the Xbox One was announced, and during the keynote it was described that a version of Windows was running on the console. I agree that it should be

1014: 2635:

would be a better target, but the term implies a specific war, and I don't think any one conflict is best known as "American War" in English—and note that more plausible search terms like

208: 166: 1106:. Relatively recently created unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. If we had an encyclopaedia article about the gadget then I'd have little problem redirecting this there, but we don't. 5976: 4724: 2142: 1201: 563:

is the template that deals with the exclusion (and inclusion) of bots and the documentation of it (displayed on the template page) seems to be the principle place it is explained, e.g.

6285: 6266: 5415: 4066: 4047: 1705: 89: 70: 5985: 4339:

be used for any redir that anyone might classify as an honorific. The template redir exists because the vast majority of honorific titles will in fact qualify as non-neutral names.

39: 34: 3771:

I would not support disambiguation for there are exactly only two titles that these can refer to, search results are still the best option, while I would not oppose a hatnote. -

1780: 916: 704: 1932: 5326:. Nope, check again. All three consoles have something called "Windows", and the target mentions that. If a reader uses a vague search term, they should get vague results. -- 465: 4472:

Should the title be kept at non-neutral name, the description should be updated to include honorifics since right now it's focused on just the negative and pejorative ones.

1535:

as to which page is correct. The redirect keeps everything in one place. If there were a lot more to say, a separate page would make sense but I just don't see that yet.

5949: 794: 5810:. The arguments that these redirects are useful for attribution and links in old revisions, etc outweigh the speculation that they might be of limited use in the future. 2182: 5552: 5510: 5474: 4823:

already exists, so people searching for the term will find what they're looking for. I agree with the nominator that this redirect is poorly named, and superfluous. --

1385: 4803:

it to preempt the re-creation of content that we don't yet want but, given that the full title cannot yet be confirmed, I could also see deleting it per WP:CRYSTAL.

4143: 857: 3181: 3112: 2596: 2554: 2398: 5841: 1656: 4499:

per Paine. "Non-neutral" usually means pejorative, so the correct target could be somewhat of a surprise. Paine's suggestion mitigates that quite nicely. --

6156: 3840:). I think the best solution is to let readers sort this out through the search function. FYI, I also added four related redirects to this discussion. -- 3914:, I'm not opposed to the idea of disambiguation in principle, but I'm not sure how you would feasibly accomplish disambiguation here. Would you create a 4198:

It's more accurate to say that an honorific is not always a non-neutral name, but they can be - particularly some of the east Asian honorifics. Perhaps

5723: 5566: 4398: 3052: 3008: 6075: 6066: 4799:

At this point, Sharknado 5 has been officially announced but I can't find any reliable sources confirming the subtitle "Earth Zero". I lean toward

4402: 2720: 2693: 2632: 2425:

As a process matter, RfD is not the appropriate forum to re-litigate an AfD decision. If you think the AfD decision was in error, take it to DRV.

2216:, which means a film isn't even in development. There's no mention anywhere on Knowledge, so someone searching this isn't going to find anything. -- 3757:. Yes they are all partial title matches, but that is irrelevant as they all referred to by the partial title and so the search term is ambiguous. 2419:

until and unless sufficient evidence is presented to justify overturning the AfD discussion. I note specifically that the most recent attempts do

4271:

the number of maintenance categories and rcat templates. Even if there were something questionable about this redir, it would be retargeted to

3235:

per Angus. Deleting it would be unhelpful, and since other President-Vice President pairs have redirects, we should treat this one like them.

5922: 5669:. It's not fair to redirect her to just one of her roles, when that's not necessarily what someone is looking for. Duarte is also mentioned at 3822: 2716: 1467:

advocating deletion as this seems to be the best target I could find. The best alternative I can come up with is moving some of the content at

21: 6084: 5108: 4432: 4599:

could benefit from some wordmithing but the problem is not so bad as to justify forking the template entirely. I would also be okay with a

2819:

whether it is a useful search term. On the other hand you could equally mean that we have enough articles to support a disambiguation page.

5904: 5719: 5513:

but this actress is not primarily/exclusively known for this role – her resume is varied enough that she could be known for other roles. --

3678: 3634: 3590: 2384: 846: 1520:

exactly per Nyttend. Redirects from the project namespace to project-related categories are completely unproblematic in the general case.

778:

Given that the visible element of the template page consists entirely of the transcluded /doc page that's a rather academic retargetting.

6145:

keeping, these are very old redirects (this one was created by the conversion script in early 2002, demonstrating that it existed in the

5044:

in its interface. However, these terms do not look like an "official" name or variation of an official or former name for any product in

5868: 5859: 5486: 2345: 1926: 527:, but it may be clear. However, is there a clearer, more useful target for this redirect, such as a page in the "Knowledge:" namespace? 275: 196: 129: 6043: 6012: 5994: 5940: 5850: 5340:

Except it isn't vague! The other windows things are not plausibly referred to as "Xbox Windows", the system software for Xbox One is.

5009: 4967: 2608: 2566: 1632: 572: 17: 6111: 6093: 6048: 6003: 5980: 4536: 4351: 3418: 3376: 3334: 3064: 3020: 274:) says at the start of the third paragraph "This document serves as the exemption doctrine policy of the English Knowledge.", and 6129: 5967: 5931: 5886: 4596: 4409: 4391: 4275: 4131: 3705:, either of those two can be abbreviated "Server 2008" after the full name is introduced, and we don't need a DAB because of the 3546: 3502: 3460: 2423:

meet that threshold. They are essentially identical to the version that was evaluated in the AfD discussion and found wanting.

6102: 6039: 5895: 5089: 4870: 4604: 4485: 4374: 4316: 4300: 4256: 4238: 4104: 3836:

as ambiguous. Other companies also produced servers in these years, so I think those are potential targets as well (see, e.g.,

3140: 2736: 2251: 1008: 915:- While I'm feeling uncertain about this, I'm also persuaded that the way that things are right now is helpful. Going over to 202: 160: 6120: 6057: 5913: 5877: 4718: 4416: 4299:) but about honorific titles being prefixed or suffixed to names, and undesirable article titles constructed with them, e.g. 4137: 2136: 1273:

Agree with both of the above editors. This was created by a now-blocked editor who claimed to be a child and had CIR issues.

1195: 1082:

Agree with both of the above editors. This was created by a now-blocked editor who claimed to be a child and had CIR issues.

2778:

your bolded !vote is "delete" but you appear to be arguing for a "disambiguate" outcome. Please could you clarify, thanks.

6021: 5547: 4377:– Thank you for the ping, Thryduulf! Assuming that the creator of this rcat meant for this to be used as a short form of 2803: 2761: 1774: 1768: 997: 900: 4595:

because there is no point at all to proliferating endless variations of templates about redirects. The documentation at

4381: 6079: 6070: 6030: 5616: 5519: 4829: 4775: 4707: 2692:

are probably just partial title matches, but (the latter particularly) may also be the non-American side's name for it.

2677: 2125: 1184: 459: 283: 263: 3948: 795:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 3#Help:Cite... redirects towards eponymous pages in Template namespace

6232: 6215: 6196: 6172: 5935: 5819: 5758: 5743: 5713: 5696: 5653: 5625: 5577: 5528: 5461: 5381: 5349: 5335: 5318: 5299: 5278: 5249: 5219: 5215: 5197: 5166: 5142: 5120: 5095: 5063: 4940: 4876: 4838: 4812: 4784: 4760: 4699: 4638: 4616: 4585: 4559: 4545: 4508: 4491: 4464: 4438: 4360: 4262: 4219: 4189: 4116: 4013: 3991: 3966: 3935: 3923: 3906: 3882: 3849: 3828: 3797: 3782: 3766: 3749: 3720: 3307: 3244: 3225: 3193: 3164: 3160: 3146: 3102: 2993: 2936: 2914: 2871: 2849: 2828: 2808: 2787: 2766: 2742: 2705: 2655: 2541: 2480: 2459: 2434: 2411: 2388: 2318: 2257: 2225: 2176: 2117: 2056: 2048: 2027: 2008: 1987: 1969: 1905: 1840: 1822: 1755: 1672: 1668: 1605: 1544: 1529: 1508: 1490: 1451: 1433: 1360: 1299: 1282: 1265: 1237: 1176: 1115: 1091: 1074: 1046: 989: 928: 924: 904: 837: 812: 787: 773: 735: 716: 693: 678: 655: 633: 617: 584: 542: 511: 438: 377: 352: 327: 300: 253: 139: 6204:

They do have links from mainspace, and I'd imagine links from external sites as well, I'm not otherwise convinced. -

1763: 1379: 4291:

redirects), not deleted. I would argue against that, since the redir in question isn't about alternate names (like

2467:- I was involved in the original AfD. I see no reason to change this now. The OP hasn't indicated how he is notable 5989: 5926: 5704:; redirecting a real person's name to a character's, just because the person played the character, is a bad idea. 5368: 5153: 4572: 4285: 4243:

instead, unless it's apparent from that job title that it is honorific as stated there: Her Majesty, His Holiness.

4199: 4000: 3943:

itself is a dab, and there are many different sorts of computer servers which are very different from one another,

3858: 3816: 3204: 2895: 2858: 1999:. It's a project space redirect, so it would make the most sense to redirect somewhere within the project space. -- 267: 154: 1659:, this article now redirects to where it does. However I feel that it would be more appropriate to redirect it to 5958: 5797: 5439: 4917: 4677: 4422: 4330: 4090: 3931: 3845: 3285: 2975: 2521: 2296: 2165: 2095: 2036: 2017: 1996: 1957: 1893: 1879: 1729: 1660: 1585: 1338: 1154: 967: 418: 115: 1472: 1368: 5962: 5908: 5306: 5265: 5228: 5207: 5177: 5104: 4930: 4624:

Before I noticed that I'd already voted, I added another keep here. My rationale was as follows: Keep because

4452: 2379: 2372:. There is also an article that has been written before the AFD page. Redirect should be pulled from the page. 1468: 1373: 1803:

The redirect has a minor bit of history as a page: a misplaced talk page comment from 2002. Otherwise, it's a

5560: 726:

which is where they will currently arrive directly and will find at least most of what they are looking for.

6160: 6034: 5872: 5863: 5264:

the next console also has a windows-like system software, and has an article or section, we can link it and

4712: 3919: 2689: 6286:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 16#Knowledge:European Union Frequently asked questions

6016: 5998: 5944: 5854: 5845: 5211: 3979: 3622: 3578: 3171: 3156: 1664: 920: 6115: 6052: 6007: 5793: 5755: 5480: 5435: 5309:

on the other hand explains in bold to people using this redirect why they have arrived where they have.

5236: 4937: 4913: 4673: 4533: 4448: 4348: 4323: 4086: 3810: 3281: 2971: 2538: 2517: 2292: 2091: 2024: 1875: 1725: 1602: 1581: 1334: 1231: 1150: 1040: 963: 435: 414: 136: 111: 4797:, it's good to have that content available to all users without the bureaucracy of undeleting history. 3087:

Ambiguous, could also refer to the 1988 campaign, not suitable for a disambiguation page, but we have

53:

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 5, 2017.

6133: 5971: 5890: 5683: 4794: 4793:. To the extent that the overwritten content might someday be useful if/when the film does meet our 4429: 4205: 3978:. My search overwhelmingly came up with results for Windows, so I think it's safe to say this is the 3952: 3927: 3915: 3891: 3841: 2685: 2681: 888: 602:

didn't exist, so I created it. Honestly, I'm shocked that it didn't exist (and never did) until now.

564: 6106: 5815: 5469: 5457: 5345: 5314: 5274: 5116: 5083: 5059: 5037: 4864: 4625: 4479: 4250: 4215: 4112: 3902: 3878: 3793: 3762: 3672: 3666: 3628: 3584: 3534: 3490: 3448: 3406: 3364: 3322: 3189: 3134: 2932: 2824: 2783: 2730: 2701: 2455: 2373: 2245: 2113: 1965: 1836: 1818: 1525: 1486: 1429: 1295: 1261: 1111: 1070: 808: 783: 769: 731: 674: 629: 613: 580: 538: 507: 323: 296: 249: 6124: 6061: 5881: 5573: 5189: 4851: 4754: 3944: 2669: 2643: 2339: 2170: 2130: 2020:, which both keeps the redirect within project namespace and gives readers relevant information. 1098: 493: 4848:

for bad naming. Recent sources of the major RS kind list only Sharknado 5 as the working title.

722:

The category page does almost none of this, and implicitly points people wanting information to

4447:, although I'm neutral on Paine Ellsworth's retargeting proposal. This is for situations like 6192: 6168: 5709: 5677: 5671: 5662: 5649: 5378: 5163: 5003: 4961: 4808: 4790: 4634: 4612: 4582: 4460: 4292: 4010: 3240: 3222: 2989: 2868: 2798: 2756: 2602: 2560: 2430: 2407: 2209: 1983: 1626: 1540: 1504: 1447: 1002: 896: 833: 752: 689: 651: 373: 348: 5792:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

5434:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4912:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4857:

redirect instead. No indication that it will be named Earth Zero with the Zero spelled out.

4672:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4405:

than in the present target's category. Another rcat that would be used on such redirects is

4085:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

3280:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2970:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2516:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2291:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2090:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1874:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1724:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1580:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1333:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1149:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

962:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

413:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

262:. Every Wikimedia project that allows fair use must have an "exemption doctrine policy" (see 110:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

5752: 5739: 5620: 5523: 4934: 4833: 4779: 4527: 4342: 3412: 3370: 3328: 3058: 3014: 2535: 2021: 1599: 1278: 1229: 1087: 1038: 432: 133: 4308:

includes even "Mr." and "Ms."; it's not RfD's job to second-guess that. Also correct that

1225: 6025: 5556: 5138: 4849: 4309: 4305: 4228: 4175: 3702: 3540: 3496: 3454: 2476: 1189: 919:

may work even better, but otherwise I think that we should just leave this redirect be.

6088: 5953: 5811: 5640: 5453: 5341: 5310: 5270: 5112: 5077: 5049: 4858: 4473: 4296: 4244: 4211: 4108: 3911: 3898: 3868: 3789: 3788:

there be two or more uses without a primary topic, which is exactly what we have here.

3758: 3185: 3128: 2928: 2820: 2779: 2724: 2697: 2451: 2239: 2109: 1961: 1920: 1832: 1808: 1521: 1476: 1419: 1291: 1251: 1107: 1060: 798: 779: 759: 758:

since it's the documentation page that explains the redirect, not the template itself.

742: 727: 664: 625: 603: 592: 576: 568: 528: 497: 313: 307: 292: 279: 239: 4550:

I know what the definition is, but I'm referring to general usage in my experience. --

6206: 6151: 5718:

If there are enough sources for a BLP, create an article. (I found local coverage in

5636: 5606: 5584: 5569: 5235:, and there are other "Windows" products with the other two consoles. I'm admittedly 5182: 4748: 4232: 4180: 3957: 3773: 3740: 3711: 3706: 3303: 3177: 3093: 3088: 2905: 2651: 2235: 1901: 1804: 1408: 1247: 1056: 863: 723: 560: 555: 524: 489: 453: 271: 6188: 6164: 5705: 5666: 5645: 5073: 4804: 4630: 4608: 4456: 3837: 3236: 3120: 2985: 2924: 2793: 2773: 2751: 2549: 2443: 2426: 2403: 1979: 1743: 1536: 1500: 1458: 1443: 892: 829: 685: 647: 369: 344: 5605:

d. While she's had a number of roles to this point, I doubt Duarte would get past

5498: 5021: 4979: 4853:

whereas Earth 0 subtitle was only posted by Dread Central back in October. Create

4736: 4155: 3690: 3646: 3602: 3558: 3514: 3472: 3430: 3388: 3346: 3076: 3032: 2620: 2578: 2357: 2194: 2154: 1944: 1792: 1644: 1397: 1213: 1026: 477: 220: 178: 71:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 16#Knowledge:Expand citations

4178:

etc, these are all common names, nobody would argue that they are not neutral. -

2815: 1706:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 16#Knowledge:Explaining NFCC

90:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 16#Knowledge:ExpandTemplates

5735: 5611: 5540: 5514: 4854: 4824: 4770: 4513: 3731: 3727: 3215: 3124: 3116: 2887: 2673: 2665: 1620: 1274: 1083: 340: 5284:

We should be retargetting this to the best target for the search term currently

2984:

The result of the discussion was retarget consistent with similar redirects.

6224: 6146: 6097: 5688: 5327: 5291: 5256: 5241: 5134: 4691: 4551: 4500: 3983: 3735: 2841: 2472: 2310: 2217: 2042: 2000: 1747: 1352: 1168: 981: 708: 361: 5551:

is Duarte's most prominent role, which is probably why her name redirects to

4067:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 19#Template:R from title

4171: 4167: 312:

Fair enough. In response, I'm striking out part of my nomination rationale.

5786:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

5563: 5428:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

4906:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

4666:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

4079:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

3274:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

3123:

which targets the first presidential campaign that got them into office.

2964:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

2510:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

2285:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

2084:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1868:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1718:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1574:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1327:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1143:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

956:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

407:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

104:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

5899: 5033: 4397:

misrepresents the original meaning and usage of that target rcat and its

3299: 2647: 2369: 2333: 1897: 368:

NFCC. Masem and I have done a little work at clarifying the situation.

3701:

Ambiguous for most significant word is left out, this can also refer to

6267:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 13#Nigerian prince

5917: 5727: 5111:

would probably be useful too as that's also plausible but less likely.

5041: 5040:

since the console either uses or has been reported to use a version of

2750:

we have enough different pages of wars, conflicts, interventions, etc.

6246:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

6155:

apparently existed at this title for only a very short while, because

5772:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

5395:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

4890:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

4652:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

4455:, where the title isn't exactly a neutral descriptor for the person. 4027:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

3258:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2950:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2816:

we have enough different pages of wars, conflicts, interventions, etc.

2792:

Hm, I think I must have wrote it wrong, changed the contradiction. --

2494:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2271:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2070:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1852:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1685:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1558:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1313:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1129:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

942:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

391:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

3940: 3218:

was brought up in the discussion, so I'm adding it to the nomination.

849:, each operator requesting approval is asked to answer this question: 6240: