Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
Please change this notice to {{No admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Administrator instructions

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page · Archives

Shortcut: WP:RFD

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you need not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. Put a request to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.
Redirects should not be deleted just because they do not have any incoming links. That is not a sufficient condition. Please do not list this as the only reason to delete a redirect.
- Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted too, so it's not a necessary condition either. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

Before listing a redirect for discussion, please be aware of:

Wikipedia:Redirect – our general policy on what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – our policy on which pages can be deleted without discussion. The "General" and "Redirects" section apply here.
Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus.
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthands that also apply here.

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at a "Search results 1–10 out of 378" result instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
If a good-faith RfD nomination has no discussion, the default result is delete.
Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted to a different article, discuss it on the talk page of the current target article or the proposed target article, or both. But with more difficult cases, this page can serve as a central discussion forum for tough debates about which page a redirect should target.
Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
In discussions, always think whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

Shortcut: WP:RFD#HARMFUL

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.

Note that there could exist (for example), links to the URL "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneygate" anywhere on the internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere" for "Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.

Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.

Shortcut: WP:RFD#DELETE

Reasons for deleting[edit]

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.) See also: § Neutrality of redirects.
The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia.)
If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to itself or to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion. If not, take the article to Requested Moves.
If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Shortcut: WP:RFD#KEEP

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
They aid searches on certain terms. For example, if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
Someone finds them useful. You might not find it useful, but this may be because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. stats.grok.se can also provide evidence of outside utility.
The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form.
The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent anonymous users from so expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (Anonymous users cannot create new pages in the mainspace; they can only edit existing pages, including redirects, which they can expand). This criteria does not apply to redirects that are indefinitely semi-protected or more highly protected.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut: WP:RNEUTRAL

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately.

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut: WP:RFD#HOWTO

I.

Tag the redirect.

Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion, and enter }} at the very end. Example:

{{subst:rfd|content=#REDIRECT [[Foo]]{{R from move}}}}

Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
Save the page.
If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.

II.

List the entry on RfD.

Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

Enter this text below the date heading:

{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}}

~~~~

For this template:
- Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
- Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
Please use an edit summary such as:
Nominating [[RedirectName]]
(replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:

{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}

{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}

{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}}

~~~~

If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.

III.

Notify users.

It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

{{subst:RFDNote|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current list[edit]

September 23[edit]

Windex.php[edit]

Windex.php → Main Page (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Could refer to Windex, but implausible search term for either. - The ChampionMan 1234 21:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Webserver directory index because that is what it actually refers to. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Defeat device[edit]

Defeat device → Volkswagen emissions violations (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Highly misleading to equate a "defeat device" with the Volkswagen emissions violations. Defeat devices have been an issue for at least 35 years, even if Wikipedia has failed to cover it until now. See this review for example. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Tripping Up Trump[edit]

Tripping Up Trump → Donald Trump##Balmedie Golf Course (Aberdeen, Scotland) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

This was some sort of anti-Trump campaign after he bought a golf course in Scotland. The course is mentioned, but the campaign isn't, nor "Tripping Up Trump" in any other capacity. (The section it redirects to doesn't exist anymore.) It's mentioned at Michael Forbes (farmer) and The Trump Organization, but neither of those seem like good places to retarget. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

South African Antarctica[edit]

South African Antarctica → Territorial claims in Antarctica (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

This is a rather silly redirect, as South Africa doesn't have any territorial claims in Antarctica. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Fifth Avenue (LIRR station)[edit]

Fifth Avenue (LIRR station) → Fifth Street (LIRR station) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Fifth Avenue (LIRR Evergreen Branch station) → Fifth Street (LIRR station) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Redirects should be deleted because they are misleading. This particular station was never called Fifth Avenue. It was always called Fifth Street. "Street" and "Avenue" are two very different terms. We don't have a Nostrand Street redirecting to Nostrand Avenue (LIRR station) or Merillon Street redirecting to Merillon Avenue (LIRR station)

Anatidaephobia[edit]

Anatidaephobia → Specific phobia (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

AFD'd twice, years ago, as a joke phobia from an old Far Side strip. It was redirected to List_of_phobias#Jocular_and_fictional_phobias until that section was removed; it now directs to Specific phobia which has nothing to say about anatidaephobia. McGeddon (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(I got an "Adding deletion tag to redirect: Failed to save edit: Page is fully protected" warning when nominating this, but I assume this doesn't invalidate the discussion?) --McGeddon (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I put an edit request on the page to add the tag. No, it should not prejudice this discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - the section was removed in this edit and the redirect was retargeted as a result, although as far as I can tell there isn't nor has ever been any content about this at the new target. Still looking into it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The talk page discussion referred to is here. It seems that the longstanding section was removed by a consensus of one editor. Since the section was for the most part properly referenced and contains information that readers are obviously looking for, I propose per WP:PRESERVE that we restore the section and retarget this redirect there. Alternatively, a new list article could be created from the content in that section, and this redirect pointed there. In any case full protection on the redirect should be maintained, according to the history it's actually been deleted ten times and was a frequent target of vandalism. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Saarland Protectorate[edit]

Saarland Protectorate → Saar Protectorate (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Deletion of the redirect page Saarland Protectorate. The name "Saarland Protectorate" is a pointless name as it not only combines the names of two incarnations of the region (the contemporary German Saarland state, and the historical French Saar Protectorate) which could potentially cause confusion, but it also contributes nothing to Wikipedia and is a waste of a page. The term "Saarland Protectorate" is a completely inaccurate term that has never been used anywhere in the world or at any point in history. The redirect was only created in June and is hardly useful to Wikipedia as there were never any pages that linked to it. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom and lack of page views. Rubbish computer 12:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep - plausible search term, that's sending readers to what they're looking for. Expecting readers to know exactly how names changed whilst doing our best to hide that information is inconsistent (and dickish to the readers). Wily D 12:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@WilyD: I would argue that it's not "dickish", it's a perfectly valid question: How do we know that's what readers are looking for? Could they be looking for Saarland instead? -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you can argue it isn't dickish to deliberately take a step to make the encyclopaedia harder to use with no upside. It's perhaps possible a small minority of readers will be looking for Saar (League of Nations) or Saarland, but I think it's quite unlikely, and both are linked right at the top for the lost reader anyways - much more convenient to get where they're going than an extended middle finger. It's much more natural to me, anyhow, to blend Saar Protectorate and Saarland when searching for the protectorate that used to be in what's now Saarland than quasi-randomly assign protectorate to the current state. Protectorate is very deliberate, while trying to remember whether the land called Saarland was called Saar or Saarland many decades ago is a lot more hit of miss-y. Wily D 09:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep per WilyD, as I appreciate and agree with his explanation (minus the "dickish" part, which I wholeheartedly disagree with). It should be tagged with {{R from incorrect name}} though. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF[edit]

Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

This shortcut has been used for arguments everywhere outside deletion discussions. Now that "WP:other stuff exists" essay still exists, we should redirect this shortcut to that target. I've not proposed other shortcuts yet, but I will after this discussion. George Ho (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget per nom. Rubbish computer 12:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep - the problem with retargeting this is it's been around for 8 years and is very commonly used; retargeting will break numerous discussions. There is a see also note at the current target which addresses the situation just fine. If consensus is to retarget, then a bot should be made to pipe all of the existing links to the current target first. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector, many links in "Wikipedia:" namespace are in deletion discussions, while many links in "Talk:" namespace refer to non-deletion discussions. I checked "links" log. George Ho (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As did I. The Talk: space discussions are also about deleting stuff, and the shortcut is in context in those threads. Unless there are some I didn't see where someone used the shortcut in a situation which wasn't about deletion, but we can't control people not checking that their shortcuts make sense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Three samples: Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#"Heavy metal album", Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom#Infobox, and Talk:BBC America. --George Ho (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The first is a non sequitur by a wikilawyering editor - it wouldn't matter what shortcut they used, their point was invalid. The other two are about removing material, and in context with the current target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

How many more samples would help you be convinced? What about Talk:German language#Ammon (2014), Talk:Konstantin Tsiolkovsky#Tributes Section, Talk:Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones#Reception, and Talk:Tagalog language#Requested move 25 July 2015? --George Ho (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, all references to the "arguments to avoid" thoroughly stated at the current target: that what exists elsewhere in Wikipedia is not in and of itself a valid argument supporting or opposing any position. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The current target discusses what not to do in AFDs. I don't know whether you are confused or not, but I don't think these samples are in context with the essay. George Ho (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘As Wikipedia trends more towards being yet another safe, boring website which rehashes a cherry-picked list of other websites, and away from being an encyclopedia which reflects notable topics verified by reliable sources, it would be nice if someone would write WP:OTHERSOURCESEXIST. Unfortunately, that would involve having to teach people how to do research without Google and the like, not to mention having to teach heavily active editors that AGF also applies in this case and that automatically dismissing something because it can't be Googled isn't healthy in the long term. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep per Ivanvector. Whether or not those discussions actually reflect the current target is not really relevant - the editors that used the shortcut at least intended it to, and so changing the redirect can change the meaning of most if not all of those discussions. There is no need to change an 8 year old redirect to avoid typing the 8 extra characters in WP:other stuff exists. If you must have a shortcut in all caps that you can use to yell about an essay, take WP:OTHER STUFF. ^Avic_ennasis @ 05:59, 6 Tishrei 5776 / 05:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Untied Airline[edit]

Untied Airline → United Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Too many typos, too implausible, Untied Airlines is R to Untied.com, that seems to be more plausible for United Airlines than anything else, I will retarget it there, if you disagree, please add it to this nomination. - The ChampionMan 1234 07:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - I just don't see this redirect as being that helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per above comment.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

September 22[edit]

2014–15 Pakistan Super League[edit]

2014–15 Pakistan Super League → Pakistan Super League (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
2015 Pakistan Super League → Pakistan Super League (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
2014 Pakistan Super League → Pakistan Super League (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
2013 Pakistan Super League → Pakistan Super League (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete. This is either a faulty WP:CRYSTALBALL or confusing, since the Pakistan Super League won't launch until 2016. Therefore, these seasons/tournaments don't actually exist. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - is there a predecessor league that these could possibly refer to? If so, it wouldn't hurt to retarget there. Otherwise, agree with nom; delete all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete all unless there is a predecessor per IV. --Rubbish computer 23:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete. There is a predecessor tournament but it would be irrelevant to the Super League. Delete all per nomination. Faizan (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

2017 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season[edit]

2017 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season → Grand Prix motorcycle racing (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
2017 Moto3 Series season → Grand Prix motorcycle racing (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
2017 Moto2 Series season → Grand Prix motorcycle racing (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no mention of this at the target article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 23:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

2006-2007 NHL Team Playoff Run[edit]

2006-2007 NHL Team Playoff Run → National Hockey League (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete as an implausible search term, and it's confusing. What is an "NHL Team Playoff Run" anyway? -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 23:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - "NHL Team Playoff Run" is (basically) a team's appearance in the playoffs. It could target 2006–07 Anaheim Ducks season#Playoffs since they won the Stanley Cup that year, but I think it's implausible: "playoff run" does not mean championship, and there were 15 other teams with playoff runs that year. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as per above Mww113 (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to 2007 Stanley Cup playoffs which is what this is -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree with that unless there's evidence of this terminology being used to describe the 2007 Stanley Cup playoffs. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Non-Resident Students' Centre[edit]

Non-Resident Students' Centre → Aligarh Muslim University (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Quite generic term to redirect to a particular university alone. While the article was made for AMU, had it stayed it would have needed disambiguation. But the target is ambiguous and should be deleted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom as there appears to be no suitable target. --Rubbish computer 15:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Strong keep as it meets WP:GNG. Few sources can be relied upon (http://www.batori.in/education/2013/12/20/non-resident-student-center-and-amu/). Arifjwadder (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- That is a blog posting, (of a student newspaper? the "about us" is blocked.) If that is the best you can manage as "reliable source" , your position is very weak. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

that is not a blog posting as it is clearly visible and it is not a student newspaper (it has not claimed so far). Also see (http://wikimapia.org/16921869/NRSC-Club-AMU), (http://www.batori.in/education/2013/12/17/writers-speak-against-communalism-and-casteism/). Arifjwadder (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, the blog tag shows as a top row tag when viewed in Firefox > but in Chrome and IE the blog tag looks like it is part of the breadcrumbs leading to the page. What is Batori then if it is not a student newspaper (or an alternative spelling of a Hungarian noble family?) Because whatever it is, my spam filter blocks access to the About Us page which is never a good sign that the publication source has a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The Blog tag must come after the health section, but it is coming below Home which is giving an impression that the article is a blog but it is not (Blog is coming below the bar). See the URL, it is in the EDUCATION section of the site. Batori, in India means NEWS. This word is used in Bengal and north east. You can find dainik batori, ajir batori etc which are all reputed newspaper in Assam, India. I am not sure why About Us page is not opening. Arifjwadder (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Arifjwadder: The fact that it is called "News" does not mean it is reputable. ~~It is a blog, as it says on the homepage.~~ Thanks, --Rubbish computer 19:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Where in the home page it says as Blog. It has many sections, and one among them is Blog. The news item was there in the Education section. Thanks,- Arifjwadder (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Arifjwadder: Oops, you're right. I support my other point, though. --Rubbish computer 19:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete – I concur with the nomination and with Rubbish. This term seems quite generic and doesn't seem a likely search term for someone who wishes to find that university's article. Mww113 (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PIMP[edit]

Wikipedia:PIMP → Wikipedia:Process is important (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

I don't at all think that this redirect was created in the spirit of trolling. However, it is neither an acronym for nor an obvious shortening of the essay it redirects to (Wikipedia:Process is important). While the redirect invokes the term 'pimp', the essay is not related to that term and does not mention it. WP:PII, WP:PI, Wikipedia:REDUCE and Wikipedia:RCFP already redirect to the essay, so it isn't apparent why this redirect is needed. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 07:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep per WP:RFD#K5 (someone finds it useful) absent a better target. It's been around quite a long time, and there are a significant number of incoming links using the shortcut, and low activity other than very recently. Process is IMPortant. Yeah, it's a stretch, but one that gets used often enough. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Ivanvector, although I find this cringeworthy. --Rubbish computer 15:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Ivanvector. FWIW, I think it's both humorous and harmless. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 19:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: True. --Rubbish computer 20:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep as per everyone above me - Harmless and humorous. –Davey2010^Talk 21:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep got a chuckle on this one. Anyways it's useful and also funny so I guess it's a keeper. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Öga[edit]

Öga → Eye (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete per WP:R#D8; obscure synonyms are unlikely to be useful. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for, not an obscure term. Wily D 09:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:FORRED as a redirect from an unrelated foreign language (Swedish). --Rubbish computer 15:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete due to lack of proof yet presented that the redirect has usage in English. Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete anEnglish speaker would not not use the Swedish term to find the article about the eye and I doubt that any Swedish person that is using thre English Wikipedia being unfamiliar with the English term eye. In short the only people that this redirect would benefit would be people that aren't using the English Wikipeida to being with making the redirect unnecessary. --174.91.187.135 (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

2018 NHL Entry Draft[edit]

2018 NHL Entry Draft → NHL Entry Draft (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no information about this draft exists at the target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete per the other 100+ WP:CRYSTAL speculative redirects created by Dolovis which were all deleted without exception. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per consensus that it is far too in advance. -DJSasso (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Ivanvector. --Rubbish computer 15:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

2001 U(c)S(c) Attack on Afghanistan[edit]

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 deleted by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

2001 U(c)S(c) Attack on Afghanistan → War in Afghanistan (2001–present) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

This looks like a bot error by Eubot. Delete as a implausible search term. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete Eubot just creates messes that takes decades to clean up -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - ~~Why's this bot even running if it's creating moronic redirects ?, Anyway quite~~ obviously an implausible search term. –Davey2010^Talk 13:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Speedy delete as patent nonsense (WP:CSD#G1). Will tag it. --Rubbish computer 15:49, 22 September 2015 (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.

Iraq mistake[edit]

Iraq mistake → Iraq War (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL, which implies that a non-neutral redirect must be an established term in order for it to be allowed. Some people have the opinion that the Iraq War was a mistake, but I don't see anyone calling it the "Iraq mistake". -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I was with Tavix. Typing in "Iraq was a mistake" into Gsearch gives me as first hit

Matthew, Cella; paul, Shinkman (26 May 2015). "GOP Agrees Bush Was Wrong to Invade Iraq". US News. Retrieved 23 September 2015.

Where the first of the lede starts "Invading Iraq was a mistake". That would be fine to mention in :Iraq War#Controversy or some such. However as Wikipedians we do have to be WP:NEUTRAL. I don't go as far as Tavix saying that we must have this right exact term for a WP:RNEUTRAL, but whether it is useful as a search. To my mind, it would be better if Gsearch etc. listed Wikipedia first with the term in it from the virtue of it being mentioned there, then people might learn something, but perhaps that is gaming the system (WP:GAME?) Si Trew (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This could also refer to anything involving Iraq that was a mistake. For example, Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait in the Gulf War could be considered an "Iraq mistake" or even when they invaded Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Iraq War#Controversy as a plausible synonym. --Rubbish computer 15:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Um, we don't actually have that section at that article, I was just guessing to make an example. Si Trew (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Strong Delete The points made above are valid but I don't think this is a plausible search term. People searching for a page about the Iraq war will probably type in "Iraq War", "War in Iraq", or similar but I don't think this term is established enough to warrant it remaining in spite of WP:RNEUTRAL Mww113 (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Strong delete there are many many Iraq mistakes. And this shows WP:BIAS in terms of WP:RECENTISM and failure of WP:WORLDWIDE. The world is larger than just U.S. politics of the 21st century. Indeed, Sikes-Picot is an Iraq mistake, and many people consider the 100-hour war to have been a mistake, as it should have continued and ousted Saddam Hussein at that time. Then there's the lack of support of the Marsh Arabs after the 100-hour war. The support of Saddam Hussein in the first place, when he went against Iran; Paul Bremer's de-Baatthification drive, Obama's pullout, etc ad inifitum -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - As stated above, people that seek information about the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath are unlikely to use this search term. People that have written in opposition against the whole matter haven't used "Iraq mistake" in any kind of significant way that it's a part of the popular lexicon. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Southern kurdish native homeland/southern Kurdistan/KRG[edit]

Southern kurdish native homeland/southern Kurdistan/KRG → Iraqi Kurdistan (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete as a WP:SUBPAGE violation and an implausible search term. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 15:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as above. For if not, let us have Northern Kurdish native homeland. Si Trew (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Iraqnam[edit]

Iraqnam → Iraq War (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL, which implies that a non-neutral redirect must be an established term in order for it to be allowed. It's also a bit of an WP:XY problem as it could just as easily refer to Iraq or Vietnam (and their respective wars, I guess). -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we are between Iraq and a hard place. Si Trew (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - very likely invented POV term. Not quite a WP:G3 hoax, but only just. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment it would not refer to Vietnam, so there's no problem with that. Unless you think all the -gate topics could equally refer to the original Watergate scandal. This is the same. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a poor analogy, -gate is a well-known suffix and I've never heard of -nam being used as one. If anything, it's simply a portmanteau of Iraq and Vietnam. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean Watergate-gate? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nicely done. -gate as a suffix does come from Watergate, and has been used ever since as Irangate, Iraqgate, Namgate, and so on, even which is turnining on its head Washingtongate at some point I think by some lazy journalist. Delete', then, WP:NOTDIC.

One cannot hope to bribe or twist

Thank God! The British journalist
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to.

— Humbert Wolff

Si Trew (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You left out Crackgate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

...Gamergate, Deflategate... Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 20:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete seems to be an obscure neologism at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

WAR (file format) (disambiguation)[edit]

WAR (file format) (disambiguation) → War (disambiguation) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete as completely useless and misleading. This would suggest that there are multiple file formats named WAR, but the disambiguation just shows one: WAR (file format). -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - is double disambiguation a thing we do? I recall there being a WAR compression format in the 90s but we don't have an article about it. Even if we did, this is just too weird. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment there used to be a disambiguation page at this location. It was moved to the destination location in 2008. The destination location was overwritten by an article at 03:56, 5 January 2014‎ by Lankiveil. There used to be a WAR file format (KDE) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as a suitable target no longer exists. --Rubbish computer 15:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

War V (comics)[edit]

War V (comics) → War (disambiguation) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
War II (comics) → War (disambiguation) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

I'm really confused about these redirects. Is there really multiple things (let alone anything) at War (disambiguation) that could mean "War V (comics)" or "War II (comics)"? -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete both. Confusing indeed. Google turns up nothing. We have The War (comics) which was a limited-run series of four issues (but not a fifth) but I doubt these were meant to refer to that. Hopefully someone with much more obscure comics knowledge knows something about this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete both per Ivanvector. --Rubbish computer 15:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The alias “War” has been used by various Marvel characters. One may disambiguate by appending Roman numerals. Retarget War II (comics) to War (Marvel Comics)#War (Abraham Kieros) and War V (comics) to Gazer. Gorobay (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per Gorobay. The article doesn't include all the characters named War, just a few of them. Should there be a section for each of them? Also, the Roman numeral designation should be included in the article somewhere, it would've helped alleviate my confusion! (I'd be bold, but have no knowledge on comics.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC) -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Susan Campbell[edit]

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. A disambiguation page has been created to solve the problem. Since it is no longer a redirect, RFD no longer applies here. Contact me with concerns. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Susan Campbell → Susan M. Campbell (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Requesting deletion of redirect Currently a redirect is in place so that searches for ‘Susan Campbell’ bring visitors to the article Susan Foreman. This confusing because there is another article on Susan M. Campbell. I believe it will be less confusing if visitors conduct a search on ’Susan Campbell’ that they will be brought to the Susan M. Campbell article. Susan Foreman is the name of a fictional character in a television programme. I think the character’s married name was Campbell, which may be why the redirect was put in place originally. However, this seems a little confusing for visitors searching for Susan M. Campbell. In reality, the latter is more usually known as Susan Campbell but the article title appears to have had an ‘M’ added to it at the time it was created so as to differentiate between her and the TV character. Would it be possible to have the redirect deleted so that searches for ’Susan Campbell’ bring visitors directly to Susan M. Campbell? Fbell74 (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2015 (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.

September 21[edit]

Town Square[edit]

Town Square → Town Square (Las Vegas) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

See the discussion on #Public Square below. I am hesitant to telescope these but don't mind if someone else does. The WP:DIFFCAPS does not make this useful, makes it only a WP:SURPRISE, because Town square discusses, er, what a town square is, and I don't think "dibs" or "I got their first" or whatever you want to call it really matters much here, it is what would be useful to our readers. Si Trew (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Town square (disambiguation), which lists several town squares that are proper nouns. Case closed? -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Would be to me, Tavix. You gotta admit, Vatican City does have a nice town square out the front of the church though. Si Trew (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

There's still the WP:DIFFCAPS question, so someone might still argue it to be at Town square. I'm not a meteorologist, so I'm just going to let this one play out for now. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. So says Saint Bob of Dylan, anyway. Si Trew (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - almost all of the refs in the article are dead links. I don't have time at the moment to check archive.org for them but I will later if nobody beats me to it. It seems from Googling that the proper name of this shopping center is "Town Square Las Vegas", rather than just "Town Square". The target should be moved. Putting that aside, this shopping centre doesn't seem to have any special WP:PRIMARYTOPIC claim to "Town Square"; Googling again brings up several nearer to me, in Markham and Waterloo, but they don't have articles. We don't have a Town Square (disambiguation) but our Town square (disambiguation) lists other Town Squares. I think, because of the caps, that it's likely someone typing this is looking for a named place rather than an article on town squares generally, so I agree with Tavix: retarget to Town square (disambiguation). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to the disambiguation page, where multiple topics are listed -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Town square: Just like I pointed out in the Public Square discussion, the primary topic for town square is definitely not a town square in cleveland. Town square is a generic name for a town square! I don't mind if it is redirected to the disambiguation page, but I'm opposed to the page being linked to a specific town square.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Town square (disambiguation) as this seems to be the most plausible target, and not to town square per WP:DIFFCAPS. Rubbish computer 15:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Town square per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Town square (disambiguation), since that would be the most helpful thing to do CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ijime[edit]

Ijime → Bullying (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

WP:FORRED; bullying is not a concept solely exclusive to Japanese-speaking cultures. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete as Steely says. _{but only because he made me say that} Si Trew (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. General topic with no particular affinity for Japanese. (Indeed, Elon Musk might say it has more affinity for South Africa) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:FORRED as a redirect from an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 15:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Cussing people[edit]

Cussing people → Bullying (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

"Cussing people" is not exclusive to "bullying". People may cuss for several various other reasons. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete this, as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Would "cussing people" be the people doing the cussing, or as a conjugation of a phrasal verb "to cuss (people)"? WP:NOTDIC. Cussing -> Profanity, where it is in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE but not mentioned otherwise. (Which is effing stupid.) Si Trew (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment Cussing leads to Profanity ; is this is to mean people who cuss, or cussing out at people? In either case we could just redirect it to profanity -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm but we have been kinda tidying up the many Rs to profanity as rather vague so I am not sure we should add one. WP:NOTCENSORED, but this seems a bit of a long stretch. Si Trew (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per Si Trew. --Rubbish computer 15:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - There's no proper target for this search term in the first place. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Debation[edit]

Debation → Debate (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete as a novel and obscure synonym of the article name. Karl Dickman ^talk 07:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep per page view stats. Rubbish computer 07:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I am not sure it is that obscure, because the schoolboy slang is that a "mass debation" means masturbation, but it's not mentioned at that target. WP:NOTENGLISH really though, and WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- My first hit for "mass debation" on Gsearch gave me this link. Quite funny. Si Trew (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep this seems like a very plausible mistake for non-native speakers to make, and the stats show it is used. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sure not just "non-native speakers" either, but I couldn't really get past the "masturbation" hits to find any genuine use of it. Wiktionary has an entry for this word, but just goes to "Debating", which is sending us around in circles (Debating redirects to Debate also). Perhaps sex sites are more prevalent in my morning (UTC+2) than in my evening, I dunno. Si Trew (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete. I just asked my missus, who is about five hundred miles away from me at the moment in another EU country, but as one always does with trying to tease things out of non-native speakers, she had not heard of the word. Her English is extremely good having lived in England for about seven years (neither of us lives in England now), and a bit too good, without being at all patronising (or rather to be deliberately patronising) you have to ask someone whose English is not so good. But all the evidence seems to point that "Debation" is not something used to mean "Debating" or "Debate". That is a vox pop of one person (A voce populus, then), of course, so others may have said otherwise, best I could do. I can't see any evidence of this being used (and I don't mean just Wikipedia but on any search I have managed) and I think we are sending our readership around in circles if we have it. Si Trew (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep as a valid and useful {{R from wrong name}}. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

...But then again, maybe it's a real word: Wikt:debation exists... Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - This isn't helpful as the primary meaning of the term relates to masturbating, and-- even then-- it's incomplete. I suppose I'm okay with a redirect to masturbation, I guess, but even then I'd rather this text just remain red. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment. It just occurred to me overnight to think of checking turbation (perhaps the act of a turbo), urbation (as some kind of back formation of urbanisation), destation (that might mean to disembark or alight but apparently doesn't), deration (to remove something from a ration), devation as a misspelling (or typo) for deviation, and other near-homonyms, but I can't find any in blue that would act as a pattern for this. But then whoever thought English was logical? Si Trew (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - it shows up in Wiktionary but the entry has no references; doesn't show up in credible dictionaries. Google search shows confusion between debate and deliberation, with a few other not-quite-matches thrown in for flavour. I don't find the stats compelling: except for a one-day spike in August this is getting bot noise levels of activity. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Technical tap[edit]

Technical tap → Percussive maintenance (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Technical Tap → Percussive maintenance (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete. This seems excessively going around the houses to get to Wiktionary at the target, I started, and withdrew, the discussion here about Birmingham screwdriver but at least that is only one jump away, these are three jumps away. Will check history etc after listing. Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Stats for both are well above noise level (about three a day on average but a steady flow), actually slowing now but high enough not to be bot noise). My trouble with these is that the target itself is a soft redirect to Wiktionary, so this seems excessively going round the houses, and these would be better of deleted. WP:SURPRISE, WP:RFD#D2 confusion. Si Trew (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - Not really a helpful redirect, it seems CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per Si Trew. Rubbish computer 00:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Soft redirect to wikt:technical tap. It's not useful to redirect to a wiktionary redirect rather than soft redirecting to the definition directly, and it's a double redirect anyway. I also considered tap dance technique but it's a stretch. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Soft redirect per Ivanvector. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Soft retarget per Ivanvector. --Rubbish computer 15:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ovaloid[edit]

Ovaloid → Ellipsoid (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Ovoid also redirects to oval. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: Could you explain further? What action are you proposing? -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I presume nom wants to propose retarget to Oval, following Ovoid (a 3D oval, as defined at target)? 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Retargtet to Easter Egg. It's you're easter diet, ovoid chocolate. (Ducks the slap.) Si Trew (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment perhaps more seriously it could go to overload. Si Trew (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Support: a dictionary mentions ovaloid as meaning "resembling an oval", rather than something three-dimensional. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget - It seems that the most reasonable thing for me is for "ovaloid" to go to "oval" directly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to oval as a plausible synonym. Rubbish computer 22:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
'Keep. As far as I am aware, at least in British mathematical usage, an ovoid is a specific shape, essentially an ellipse, and an ovaloid is an ellipsoid. An oval (egg-shaped thing) is distinguished, I think, in that it has symmetry only in two of three axes, which is why the world is split into little-endians and big-endians (both of which redirect to endianness). Deliberately I have not looked any fof these links up yet, just what I would have thought off the top of my somewhat ovoid bonce. Si Trew (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I looked em I am right and you are wrong, but I would like actually the two R's little-endian and big-endian to be refined as R to section. I shall do this WP:BOLDly, and check for other variants of punctuation, but feel free to revert or to kinda spot my mistakes if I don't do so perfecttly (I think it should go more closely to Gulliver's Travels somehow but have not quite worked out how yet, as most people only read it as a children's story, not in its full version). Si Trew (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Actually I need other's advice before I even start, since both terms are also mentioned at Gulliver's Travels but in a somewhat roundabout way. Swift would turn in his grave, eh! I think it is best just to refine them to their targets but mark as R to section, but perhaps it might be better to completely retarget them to Gulliver's Travels. I don't want to make a drama out of a crisis by listing these, but I should prefer y'alls opinions. I think also this gives WP:UNDUE weight to their use in computer architecture instead of their use in the book, but probably I would be in a minority there. Si Trew (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Murder of workers in labor disputes in the United States[edit]

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 Speedily closed. POV dispute beyond RfD's juridiction, no good comes of it spilling here. When it settles down whatever remnants of redirects can be discussed here on their own merits. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)}}

Murder of workers in labor disputes in the United States → Violent labor disputes in the United States (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete blatantly POV/OR article name (Murder of workers in labor disputes in the United States) which is now a redirect to Violent labor disputes in the United States, which admittedly may not be the ideal name but it'll do for the nonce. Wikipedia can't be used as agitprop. Quis separabit? 13:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy close pending resolution of the POV battle occurring at Talk:Violent labor disputes in the United States#Requested move 21 September 2015. This page is directly affected; we can do nothing here that overrides that discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2015 (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.

Public Square[edit]

Public Square → Public Square, Cleveland (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

A few hours ago, Public Square was changed from a redirect to Town square to a disambiguation page. I've fixed the links, and redirected it to what appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Public Square, Cleveland. However, because of the changes of today, I feel that a discussion is appropriate. I see a few options:

Leave the redirect to Public Square, Cleveland as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. 81 of the 83 incoming links to Public Square were meant for Public Square, Cleveland (the other two were meant for Town square).
Change the redirect to Town square. Public square already redirects to Town square, so this would match that redirect (there is also a hatnote on Town square pointing to Public Square, Cleveland).
Delete the redirect and move Public Square (disambiguation) to Public Square.
???

My vote is to leave the redirect alone, but again, I feel that a discussion to gauge consensus is appropriate. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 09:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You are quite right to bring it here. It is, after all, redirects for discussion, not deletion, whatever Twinkle and other tools try to persuade you otherwise.

Comment. A public square, a plaza or Hungarian piac (Market), is not specifically this place in Cleveland. It is as likely to be the forum (DAB on which first entry is Forum (Roman)), according to history. I don't think anyone is arguing that it geometrically must be a square but a public place -> public space. I don't think it should be deleted, but retargeted somehow, I offer up suggestions. Si Trew (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I was never under any belief that this was redirects for deletion, and no tool is going to persuade me of anything. I cleaned up a mess created by someone else, and instead of unilaterally making a decision, which I could have done by not starting this discussion, I did start the discussion. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 08:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest you were, I can see in hindsight the comment I made at the top was rather patronising. Sorry about that, but I wanted to set out my stall that I myself wanted to rule out deletion from the discussion. Sorry to patronise you, completely unintentional. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose option 1 If the place in Cleveland is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Public Square", that should be its title. ", Cleveland" is disambiguation (NATURAL disambiguation is disambiguation too!) and should only be present if necessary. Thus, I'd suggest option 4 be moving Public Square, Cleveland to Public Square. I'm not saying that's what I want to happen, but it should be on the table. --BDD (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Quite right to put it on the table, but I think that is ridiculous. That would be to suggest that Cleveland's public square is the only public square in the world, or at least the most prominent one (PRIMARY, as you say). Patently it is not. I can think of many more public squares more prominent than Cleveland's.

I think best to R to the DAB, and move the DAB at Public Square (disambiguation) over this, although I want to add to that as it does not list many public squares. I am not sure quite how far we go with what is a public square, for example Trafalgar Square or Times Square should be at that DAB. In the absence of List of public squares or anything similar (i.e. places in the middle of a city for people to assemble to party or protest) then we have to make a start somehow. Clevelend does not stand out as being an exceptionally partying city or protesting city. Victory Square is in Nineteen Eighty-Four as a deliberately thinly disguised version of Trafalgar Square, and that's a DAB in its own right, mostly from the Soviet Union, so that gives us kinda a precedent for how we name these things.

I can see a list or DAB coming along here, but not sure how far I should go with it. In Budapest where I live, there are lots of tiny little "square"s that are not very notable. Si Trew (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

*Procedural close, please, I have converted this into an article (a stub) listing squares, and so is no longer a redirect. Si Trew (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget back to Public Square, Cleveland with an other uses hatnote. Public Square is a named landmark in Cleveland, exactly like Central Park which I note is not a dab listing every park at the centre of a town or district. Roughly option 1, although what BDD said is also correct and I would not be opposed to moving Public Square, Cleveland over the ~~redirect~~ dab that Si made. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Side note: why does Hyde Park, London not live over the dab at Hyde Park? Looking into it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, Ivanvector, I think I had an (edit conflict) with you maybe, I thought it was with BDD but I checked and wasn't, and I checked the history to make sure I hadn't trampled any other's comments. It said there was an ec but I couldn't find one in the history, so if I have trampled yours or BDDs please take that as a mistake, I did check as best I could.

Tricky one this isn't it. I still don't think that someone searching for "Public square" will be looking for the particular place in Cleveland, I think they are more likely to be looking for "what is a public square". That being said, we are not WP:DICDEF and I hadn't bothered to looup Wiktionary, and having now done so, it doesn't have it, so that's about as much use as a snake in an arse-kicking competition.

Obviously my stuff is essentially WP:OR to define what a public square is by giving examples of (to my mind) public squares. But perhaps it should just go red, then, cos I can't see that Public Square (Cleveland) is what people are likely to want to find, that is WP:SURPRISE). I haven't looked at Hyde Park yet (deliberately not linking) and my opinion on that I shall give shortly or list it at RM if worthwhile, but we might as well discuss it here first rather than make work for each other. Si Trew (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The gotcha is in the caps. You wouldn't expect public square to be anything other than a redirect to town square, but Public Square you can reasonably expect to be a named place, or a list of them if there are several. There don't seem to be several. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I had noticed that. The thing is many (most?) ways of searching are case-insensitive, and there is the gotcha, so I think WP:DIFFCAPS has kinda got weaker over the years as WP's search engine has got stronger, I feel the argument to differentiate by capital letters is far far harder to make than it was, say, six years ago. I mean I know I am a quarter of a world away from Cleveland, so perhaps I have kinda undue prejudice because it is "a long way away" (though actually I have flown from there on a little Beechcraft across Lake Ontario to Canadaland), but I just not sure this is WP:WORLDWIDE really. Si Trew (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Option 2: Basically, a Public square is another word for town square in most places. I don't understand why it should redirect to the Cleveland's public square. That's not the primary topic.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget with Jamie, to Town square. Much better idea. Town Square redirects to Town Square (Las Vegas), though... and Town Square (disambiguation) and Town square (disambiguation) are red so that is a needless disambiguation. Have can will worms. Si Trew (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Public Square, Cleveland should be moved back to Public Square, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:DIFFCAPS. This is how we had things from 2006 until this past July, when Jamie Tubers moved the article without discussion. - Eureka Lott 16:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I cannot see for the life of me why the name of a place in one town, however big that town, should be a WP:SURPRISE to anyone who is not from Cleveland. I do not see how it is at all the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when we have town square or Forum (Roman), what is the difference in meaning. Public square has gone to Town square since 2004, which trumps EurekaLott's, and although WP:DIFFCAPS I really do not see that it is that much. Si Trew (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This is precisely what WP:DIFFCAPS is intended to address. Public square points to town square, as it should, and a correctly-hanoted Public Square article should be about the square in Cleveland. That was what we had for the better part of a decade before it was disrupted a few months ago. - Eureka Lott 22:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, I think, but saying "We always did it this way" is not a very convincing argument, the question is "what do we do now?". I can see an argument for keeping it to preserve history, external links and so on, but if we followed that to the exclusion of all others then we'd never change anything (we wouldn't even add text to articles, for example), so of itself I don't see that being very convincing. I agree with you the disruption was unhelpful, but the question is what do we do with it now, after that disruption has taken place? Si Trew (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You're putting words in my mouth. All I said is that we had things right, and that we had them right for a long time. I cited relevant guidelines, and all you've offered is a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument. - 15:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, have I? I thought I had offered a selection of choices of where we might retarget it. Certainly I don't like it, but now you are putting words in my mouth. I tend to quote policy more than others because some editors like to be quoted policy, but I don't give a shit about policy but what is better for the encyclopaedia (essentially, WP:IAR if you must). I just feel that with search engines these days the DIFFCAPS is becoming a bit irrelevant. This is very hard to justify, I admit, because the search results are case-insensitive. We must, here at RfD, kinda second-guess what people might be looking for, hits sometimes are playing a blinder in that way that they can misinform. I really don't know, but we have to fix it somewhere, and at least sending it to the DAB confuses nobody. Si Trew (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll go with that as an {{redirect to disambiguation page}}, makes sense to me. Si Trew (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

DISAMBIGUATE replace with Public Square (disambiguation) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Disambguate. --Rubbish computer 15:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Genocide in Syria[edit]

Genocide in Syria → Syrian Civil War (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Not quite sure if this redirect is appropriate, especially since the article doesn't refer to this conflict as a "genocide". Therefore, it should be deleted per WP:RNEUTRAL. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep - a non-neutral but perfectly valid search term for what's going on in Syria right now. This sort of POV redirect is appropriate and helps readers find the information they're looking for. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Which ethnic group(s) is genocide being committed against, though? By whom? Has genocide never before been committed in Syria? Smells weaselly to me. --BDD (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep with Ivanvector.

I think the Bible says that some babies of the Israelites died in Syria, and anyway that would only be infanticide, but that was a long time ago, so the genocide then was against the "chosen race" or "chosen people" i.e. Jews, which is certainly not the case these days with the exodus from Syria, and I don't see that the people are especially muslim or Christian either, they are just people that we should help as best we can. I wanted to help for the Red Cross or Red Crescent because of the influx into Hungary, but really there is not much I can do except translate. I feel a bit bloody useless that I can't do more. I haven't got money and they don't want money anyway, but I have a place to sleep in, but I can't take in ten thousand people. Si Trew (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Moses kinda walked the other way to avoid it, after his mum had put him in a basket (she would be done for neglect today). But Blame the Assyrians, especially when an Assyrian comes down like a wolf on the fold (Tennyson isn't it). Si Trew (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - expanding my own rationale because BDD made me think. "Genocide" is a label that is being applied to this by semi-reliable sources (Syrian genocide needs justice, Syria: On the Way to Genocide?, Syria's civl war has become a genocide) so I think that readers are likely to type this. However, at least since this was created on Sept. 8, they haven't been; there have only been 10 hits in that time. It's also true that there isn't a particular ethnic group being targeted, at least not over particular others. And certainly there have been more notable genocides in Syria's history. Maybe retargeting to List of massacres in Syria would better serve readers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I was looking purely internally on Wikipedia on purpose. We have for example Bosnian genocide to which Genocide in Bosnia as does Bosnia genocide. I think the point here is to be WP:NEUTRAL. Syrian genocide is red and Syria genocide is red. Taking my assumption that "genocide" means the murder of a particular race of people (which assumes a back-formation from gene or genetics, which is false, that's a proof by contradiction) then what's going on in Syria etc. is not a genocide at all, more just a territorial war. They should have asked the British, we're good at sorting that stuff out. Si Trew (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep per above points in favour of this. --Rubbish computer 15:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep. I can't think of another topic that people would be looking for except this. Biblical (or Talmudic or Koranik) infanticides are rather far-fetched I think, we can retarget it later. WP:NOTNEWS, but for now, this would seem the best target. Si Trew (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment We have not Syria genocide nor Syrian genocide. I am not suggesting we create them. To declare a special interest: I see the refugees every day at Budapest Eastern Railway Station and it is not a pretty sight, although the Hungarian authorities have moved them mostly to camps now. I cannot help every one of them. I gave some money to a mother feeding her baby, she was not asking for it but it is not the baby's fault, but I cannot help every one. If you have a couple of quid spare, stick it towards the Red Cross or Red Crescent, please. I am skint but I have a roof over my head and heat and light. I would love to help more but I am not good at these languages although I get by in Hungarian and of course speak English a bit, and French, and a bit of German, but that is not very useful, and my First Aid is a bit out of date, although I could manage it in a crisis. Si Trew (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep - We have reliable sources that refer to the Syrian crisis as such, and it's something that passes the common sense test given the horrific atrocities committed by extremist militants against people that happen to be 'different' or 'the other' (whether that's being a Christian, being a lesbian, being of Kurdish descent, or whatever else). This is a justified redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

September 20[edit]

Yemeni Civil War[edit]

Yemeni Civil War → Yemeni Civil War (2015) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

I don't know why it was redirect to the ongoing Yemeni War without discussion. Also, I don't know how it is more significant in the long-term than the Yemeni Civil War (1994). There have been armed conflicts, shown in Yemeni Civil War (disambiguation). The dabpage should take over the base title again as it did before. George Ho (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Move dab back to base title per nom: current redirect's target suggests WP:RECENTISM. Rubbish computer 19:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Yemeni Civil War (disambiguation) per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Replace with the disambiguation page. The 90's civil war should be the primary topic if there is one -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Move DAB back - 2015 is far from the most likely thing readers are looking for. Wily D 12:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Clamshell Laptop[edit]

Clamshell Laptop → Laptop (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

No plausible target, the best is IBook#iBook_G3_.28.22Clamshell.22.29, but I suspect readers would be looking for a more general topic. - The ChampionMan 1234 10:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete Term is not in common use. I can find no references to anything outher than the iBook Clamshell mentioned above. I see no indication the term is used as a generic at all. Jbh^Talk 11:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- That seems very surprising, have you looked at 80's and 90's sources? -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Weak retarget to IBook#iBook G3 ("Clamshell") per ChampionMan, iff that is the only notable product known by the name. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per TCM1234. Rubbish computer 19:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget, but to Clamshell, a DAB. Redundant but harmless. Si Trew (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)^{is eating oysters}
Keep. Per the lede: "A laptop or a notebook is a portable personal computer with a clamshell form factor, suitable for mobile use." In other words, a "clamshell laptop" is a laptop, and my research backs that up. It seems to be used in comparison to tablets ("tablet laptops") or other primitive forms. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Strong Keep clearly a lack of historical context for the history of laptops. There are a large number of non-clamshell laptops out there from the beginnings of laptops. Clamshell was used frequently to distinguish between the two. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thaïlande[edit]

Thaïlande → Thailand (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Not particularly French. - The ChampionMan 1234 10:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Weak Delete since it seems that the two countries have some shared history (see France–Thailand relations). I was thinking we could redirect this to Names of Thailand but we don't have that article yet. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:FORRED as a redirect from an unrelated foreign language. Rubbish computer 19:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete. It's not (modern) French, that's just wrong. Even if it were, it should be rcatted as {{R from other language}}. Si Trew (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been suggested for deletion. (Nevermind the suggest it's unrelated to French is a remarkably short view of history. I wasn't aware the world was only a hundred years old. Wily D 12:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep - There's a tangled history between France and Thailand that makes this a plausible search term, even here on an English Wikipedia, as stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hapan[edit]

Hapan → Japan (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Is a plausible typo (yes, I know), but people searching for this might be looking for some form of fan fiction, which isn't notable, but quite significant it the relevant community/ies. [1] - The ChampionMan 1234 09:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 19:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I'm only getting some fictional names for this search. I think the pronunciation angle is a bit weak as well. For example "Ja" in Japan would be translated into "ジャ" while "Ha" in Hapan would be translated to ハ --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- The H-key is next to the J-key, making it a simple finger error typo. And we have two articles about the Star Wars topics, for the language and the species. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete with Lenticel, who is our kinda expert on East Asian language redirects (but I learned katakana and hiragana many years ago in an attmept to learn nihongo). It would seem unlikely to me that an English-language speaker would search for it in this way. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:SURPRISE. Si Trew (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment in languages that do not have the frontal labial "djz" for Japan depending on your transliteration, I don't know what it is in the IPA, you could possibly confuse this as the soft or almost silent "y" sound. Here we are not speaking but writing, so this is WP:RFD#D2 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep {{R from typo}} if you have a QWERTY keyboard, such as most of the English-speaking world, the "H" key is right next to the "J" key; or disambiguate to the Star Wars topics (species, language) with confusion see also to Japan -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep - This is an extremely plausible typo, and I think that deletion doesn't make sense given how helpful the redirect would be at least in some circumstances. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

September 19[edit]

Peter O'Carroll[edit]

Peter O'Carroll → Brendan O'Carroll (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete: redirect of non-notable individual to actor grandson's article. Should not create a precedent for adding non-notable relatives to be redirected to existing articles. Quis separabit? 20:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The grandfather is mentioned in the article is it may not be that cut and dry.--174.91.187.135 (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I know but almost every biographical article mentions the parent(s)' names, if they are known. Should they all become redirects?? Quis separabit? 00:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that name of every parent of grandparent should redirect to a famous son or grandson but in this case the article mentioned that the grandfather was shot to death and that it was investigated on the TV show Who do you think you are? That may not be enough in the end but I see that as more than a mere mention and worth consideration.--174.91.187.135 (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I see your point but it is too obscure a reference. Being mentioned on a television programme (Who do you think you are?, or any other) usually doesn't meet the notability threshold for the creation of an individual redirect, especially solely as victim, from which derivative notability is usually not applicable. If anyone enters the name in the Wikipedia search engine, Brendan's name will pop up with the details, but no one is going to search for that name who doesn't already know the backstory. There is nothing anchoring this. Quis separabit? 09:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom, I also can't find a mention of him in the article. Rubbish computer 00:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

He is mentioned in the second paragraph of the family and personal life section.--174.91.187.135 (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right, he is. I still support deletion per Rms' point, though. Rubbish computer 19:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per above - No need for a redirect at all, All BLPs have parents on there article but doesn't mean we should redirect parents to the article!. –Davey2010^Talk 19:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Raymundo Del Rosario[edit]

Raymundo Del Rosario → Tanza, Cavite (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete redirect of individual to city; especially since there is not even any mention of said individual in the city's article page or indication of who he is or why he may have a claim to any sort of notability. May even be a hoax. Quis separabit? 19:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

REQUEST SPEEDY DELETE AS IMMEDIATE RECREATION OF A DELETED ~~ARTICLE~~ REDIRECT WITH ALMOST IDENTICAL NAME -- RAYMUNDO del ROSARIO (see [2], [3]). Quis separabit? 00:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - consensus at the the AfD was that redirecting this individual to the city was inappropriate, so this redirect is directly against that consensus. WP:G4 doesn't apply to deleted articles that are recreated as redirects - G4 is for substantially identical recreations. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per Ivanvector. Rubbish computer 01:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as confusing at best since the target article doesn't mention this person --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Bir avtomobil oğurlamaq və Las Vegas[edit]

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. This also extends to similar redirects made in English. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Bir avtomobil oğurlamaq və Las Vegas → Eyes Without a Face (song) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Lyrics from an English language song, translated into Azerbaijani, does not seem to be a useful redirect. Crow^Caw 19:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Back in August, User Icarus the Great created several redirect from song lyrics to their song. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 5#Steal a car and go to Las Vegas. Now, a new (?) user has recently recreated the same redirect, which was deleted G4. This same user has created numerous alternates of these lyrics in other languages, which seems like implausible redirects. I know RDs are cheap, but useless ones are, well, useless. See also:

Ăn cắp một chiếc xe và đi đến Las Vegas → :Eyes Without a Face (song) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ], Vietnamese

Bir araba çalmak ve Las Vegas gitmek → :Eyes Without a Face (song) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ], Turkish

And along the same lines,

ពិភពលោក ឆ្កួត → Mad World (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ], Khmer

மேட் உலக → Mad World (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ], Tamil

Galit na galit mundo → Mad World (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ], Filipino

I suggest all be deleted. Crow^Caw 19:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete all - translations of copyvios are also copyvios. WP:NOTLYRICS. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Speedy delete all per Ivanvector. Rubbish computer 01:01, 20 September 2015 (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.

2017 Pakistan Super League[edit]

2017 Pakistan Super League → Pakistan Super League (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
2018 Pakistan Super League → Pakistan Super League (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Too early to create a redirect. Not sure whether the event Pakistan Super League will held or not in 2017. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Strong delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not for speculation. Rubbish computer 01:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Readers looking for an article on this season will be disappointed with an article on the league. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I am not sure about this, but Pakistani Super League goes to the same target, I agree NOTCRYSTAL, but even if we were attempting to make them, surely it should be in the adjective? Teams are generally in the adjective I think, but I am not sure on this, WP:TEAM is not helpful, WP:CLUB is a redirect to WP:Notability (organization), that itself was a WP:SURPRISE to me. Si Trew (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Note: 2018 Pakistan Super League was added to this discussion for the same reasons. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Tolicha Peak[edit]

Tolicha Peak → List of landforms of the Nellis & Wildlife 5 Ranges region#Nellis Air Force Range (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

The target article does not mention the subject, and even if it did, it would simply be a bullet item and not at all informative. Delete to encourage article creation. Brycehughes (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete to encourage article creation. This looks like a notable landform --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. Rubbish computer 01:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Flag of the Southeastern United States[edit]

Flag of the Southeastern United States → Flags of the Confederate States of America#Confederate flag (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Flag of the Southern United States → Flags of the Confederate States of America#Confederate flag (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Flag of the southern United States → Flags of the Confederate States of America#Confederate flag (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete, flags are not the flags of a portion of the USA. None of these redirects have anything linking to them other than a previous discussion by the creator on WP:NPOV. Banak (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete " Southeastern United States" is not an administrative division. - The ChampionMan 1234 07:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Strong delete per ChampionMan. The Confederate flag was a flag for a nation that desired sovereignty from the United States. Title of the redirect is nonsense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Strong delete per ChampionMan. Rubbish computer 01:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Strong delete not a valid name -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per the Champ. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

September 18[edit]

Wakopedia[edit]

Wakopedia → Wikipedia (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Wackypedia → Wikipedia (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Entirely implausible typo. - The ChampionMan 1234 02:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep well known synonyms. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC).
Delete there seems to be other sites that uses this name. I won't link them here since I don't know how safe they are. Also delete as implausible misspellings. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Weak keep as joke and derogatory synonyms for Wikipedia (they are both at the same time both) If we have any other topics by these names, they can be disambiguated. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment: If their use is supported by reliable sources they should be kept, otherwise they should be deleted. --Rubbish computer 09:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
keep both. While in some months neither redirect gets more than bot hits, there are months (e.g. December 2014, February and May 2015) where one or both get clearly human levels of views. Reliable sources don't matter for redirects, what matters is whether the terms are used. They're unambiguous and harmless at present, so no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Thryduulf. Rubbish computer 11:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL. Disparaging terms need significant use in order to have a redirect. I think it would need to be sourced and mentioned in the article in order to keep it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per Lenticel and Tavix - both have good points. If Wackypedia is sufficiently notable for an article, someone can write one; as-is, this is spam, and possibly harmfully confusing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per above. -©2015 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 16:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete - It looks like at least one of these are actually in use in the first place by a website that's obviously not Wikipedia. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
A trifle annoyed at people demanding references for redirects (again). Try
- [4]
- [5]
- [6]
- [7]

for starters. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC).

Why should you be annoyed at having to be WP:RS like every other editor on Wikipedia? I thought WP:Raw references were discouraged nowadays (and by nowadays I mean since a long time ago.) I spend ages editing references to make them better to readers who do not necessarily click through them. What do you do? Make other editors do your homework. I can find stuff on the Internet too. It is for you to make the case, not for me to dispute it. Si Trew (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

- (Having said that I would welcome an article on WaCkypedia.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC).
Delete both as WP:RFD#D2 with extremely little corresponding WP:RFD#K3 benefit:
1. It is not particularly useful to redirect every obscure nickname or synonym or typo to a target which is already extremely well-known by its normal name. That's not a reason to delete by itself, but ...
2. These redirects cross the line into harmfulness when there are actual other topics (whether notable or not) known by those nicknames (as there are in this case). A reader who follows the redirect looking for information about the other topic will be disappointed. Worse, the redirects may mislead readers into thinking the topics are officially related.

See also previous RFDs on Sanic the Hedgehog and Sanic & Taels. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Moderately strong delete (between delete and strong delete) Meaningless pejoratives whose removal will make it no more difficult for readers to find the target article. Compare to the red Obummer. And in fact, these could certainly cause confusion. As noted, Wackypedia is the actual name of another site, and Wakopedia is its own thing too, though I'm really not sure what. Note also that the sources provided don't use "Wakopedia". I would think "Wackopedia" would be the more logical spelling, and it's red. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep. One of the terms has been around for a lucky seven years, and the other was published both in The Signpost and on a British news website. If other site(s) with these harmless, funny names become notable and have their own WP articles, then the redirects can be converted. Never let it be said that this enpsychopedia cannot laugh at itself. – Painius 00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Should this be re-listed, I guess? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@CoffeeWithMarkets: If you think it should be, go for it. The instructions about how to do so can be found at WP:RFDAI. (Also, if you do so, please remove this page's transclusion from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion since this is the last nomination still active on this page.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Painius 20:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought "no consensus to delete" at this stage. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC).

And I would tend to agree – where are all those "amens" when you need them? !>) Painius 00:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete WP:G10 --Mr. Guye (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no cigar for that one, Mr. Guye, because G10 is reserved for "attack pages" perpetrated against a person. Thank you for participating and please try again later.

Painius 11:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth:, I think your response was a little WP:BITEY, and I'm not sure how accurate it is to begin with. G10 is for pages that "attack...their subject or some other entity", and the subject or some other entity doesn't necessarily have to be a human. There are other examples given about slander, libel, BLP violations, etc., which specifically refer to people, but those are examples and not the actual criteria. To elaborate, one of the template examples given is {{db-attackorg}}. That being said, G10 also mentions "serve no other purpose" and I think we can acquiesce that the redirect also serves a non-attack purpose: humor. Therefore, while I agree with you in that this particular redirect isn't G10, G10 can be used if there's an attack page against a non-human entity (eg: a government, corporation, organization, sports team). -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected, friend Tavix, however the reason that the examples apply to humans is that the vast majority of attack pages are (sadly) against people. And not to put too fine a point on it, even orgs are groups of people. And a sincere apology to Mr. Guye for any perceived biteyness. Painius 21:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, according to some, they aren't just groups of people—they are people. But let's not go there... :) -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep per above - Wakopedia literally sums this place up nicely! , Harmless joke so see no reason to delete. –Davey2010^Talk 19:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Lists of Juice[edit]

Lists of Juice → Juice (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

No such detailed list exists at the target. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

~~Delete~~. WP:NOTENGLISH, well not English as she is spoke. Even to attempt to retarget to List of juices (which is not a list) would be like pissing on a bonfire. I think it is a reasonable expectation of readers that "List of" goes to a list of something. That is why we have WP:List articles (but not WP:List articles). Si Trew (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to list of juices as appears to be a plausible typo. --Rubbish computer 00:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
REtarget per Rubbish computer as a typo redirect -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget as per Rubbish and 70.51. I couldn't find that through a search, though I tried several ways: That's first person evidence (i.e. just my own without a trace) that this, as it stands, is making it more difficult for at least one person to find what they are looking for. Si Trew (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I'm about to create WP:List articles to redirect to WP:List article as {{R from plural}}. I mention this here so that it does not queer my comment above that we do not have it, does not confuse others why I said we hadn't it. Si Trew (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to list of juices for the reasons stated above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Heathen[edit]

Heathen → Heathen (disambiguation) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

In the past few weeks, this redirect has been subject to an edit war, between redirecting to Heathen_(disambiguation) and Paganism#Heathen. I personally believe that Paganism#Heathen is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but I will put this up to community consensus here. Also, if consensus says that the dab page is correct, the dab page should be moved over the redirect, per MOS:DABPAGENAME. Natg 19 (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Natg 19 (talk), thanks for drawing my attention to this dispute.

In my opinion, Heathen_(disambiguation) is the proper redirect since Heathen has several meanings, not all of them religious.

To be fair, I am actually opposed to using "Heathen" to refer to the religion. Germanic neopaganism is the more neutral term. In the United States, where I leave, "heathen" mainly means lazy, ignorant, and immoral. --ThorLives (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any clear primary meaning to Heathen. I believe it should be the either a redirect to the DAB page or preferable the DAB page with Heathen_(disambiguation) redirecting there. -- GB fan 21:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Refuse jurisdiction. If it is in an edit war, it will probably still be in an edit war. The edit war need not continue here, keep it there in its own warzone. When there is something reaching WP:CONSENSUS there, it can be discussed here, not before. Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. RFD does the opposite of what you say. You go to RFD to gain consensus, not confirm it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment there is edit history from 2005 that was merged away, before it became a redirect. I suggest that that be separated from the edit history of the redirect, and moved to Heathen (religion) and redirected to the disambiguation page. That was we don't have to deal with a messy redirect with merged contribution history. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BADGER[edit]

Wikipedia:BADGER → User:Addshore (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

I'm confused why this longstanding shortcut to the harassment policy has been retargeted to a user's page (WP:XNR) but I'm bringing it here because that user's page was actually the original target, so I don't know what's going on. Unless there's some reason for this, should retarget to Wikipedia:Harassment, where it's been since late 2013. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Retarget to Wikipedia:Harassment since Wikipedia:Badgering redirects there. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, per my comments to Legoktm below, I strongly oppose "keep"-ing the target, and support weak delete. (I still prefer my initial retargeting option over deleting.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Support retargeting to Wikipedia:Harassment. I came across this one last month when I thought we had an essay on badgering and was surprised to see the cross-namespace redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Wikipedia:Harassment per Steel --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Strongly support retargeting per Steel. --Rubbish computer 00:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Harassment doesn't make any mention of "badger." --MZMcBride (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
What MZMcBride said. Wikipedia:Harassment isn't a suitable target at all, because it doesn't talk about badgering at all. I can't even find any discussion on the talk page about badgering being harassment. On the other hand, if you ctrl+f "badger" on Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Addshore, you'll see 76 results, indicating that Addshore in fact is a badger. Legoktm (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What I see on the RFB is discussion on whether or not Addshore's actions were considered "badgering". I don't know if you meant this comment to be humorous or not, but either way, the current target is inappropriate since the current target does not relate to Wikipedia policies or guidelines. If anything, retaining the target is the equivalent to an inside joke that will WP:SURPRISE most readers. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a in-joke. I don't see how WP:SURPRISE is relevant, given that redirects to Wikipedia:Writing better articles, and we're definitely not talking about an article.

I also haven't actually argued for the current target, I'm just pointing out that the target most people are proposing isn't appropriate either. I'd like the current target to stay because I find it funny, but I also understand that Wikipedia is 100% serious business. Legoktm (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Legoktm: WP:SURPRISE is the best guideline I could find that explains the confusion I see with this redirect: A reader new to Wikipedia (or even myself who was unaware of Addshore's past until this discussion) will look up "WP:BADGER" in an effort to find information regarding "badgering", and for some reason arrive at a user page. That, and does Addshore approve having appropriate {{Redirect}} hatnote on their page to help readers locate a more appropriate subject in the event they are looking for something else? (By the way, I'm all about humor as well, but only when appropriate; the current situation is so unlikely that it is actually harmful.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Wikipedia:Harassment, because badger and harass are rough WP:SYNONYMs and would most likely be what someone is wanting. By the way, the "mentioned" argument goes both ways because "badger" isn't mentioned at User:Addshore either. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget It was the target for more than a year. Preferably explain what it refers to in the policy, too. wctaiwan (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda[edit]

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. This is a move request. --BDD (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda → Reichs Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

I want to move the redirect target page here - the actual name is "Reich", not "Reichs".-Ich (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC) Ich (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete WP:G6. @Ich: the way to request such an uncontroversial move is to use {{db-move}}, and an administrator will take care of it for you. I've tagged the page with your request. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2015 (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.

Truth (film)[edit]

Truth (film) → Truth (2013 film) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Redirect is not helpful. There are presently two films called Truth on WP: the target article of this redirect, Truth (2013 film), and Truth (2015 film), an upcoming, potentially controversial film with two very high profile actors and an awards campaign to boot. The 2013 film is a small indie with very muted critical response, and virtually non-existent box office. 2013 film article traffic stats vs 2015 film article stats for the last 90 days. Most recent spikes in 2013 article traffic are very likely to do with news, media reports, festival critical reaction and awards buzz for the 2015 film. People searching for Truth (film) are being redirected to the 2013 film. Most readers searching for a film Truth will most likely be searching for the 2015 film. No internal links would be broken; unlikely external links to the redirect exist. Propose delete. Lapadite (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Truth (disambiguation)#Film and television. This is called a {{r from incomplete disambiguation}} and they're useful if pointing to a disambiguation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per Tavix. Si Trew (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per Tavix. --Rubbish computer 00:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
REtarget per Tavix -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Shitface[edit]

Shitface → Alcohol intoxication (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Shitfaced → Alcohol intoxication (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

This redirect was recently nominated for RFD, but got next to no individual discussion in a WP:TRAINWRECK (it had been speedy deleted and was red for most of the discussion). I don't think there is a good target for this redirect and should be deleted per either WP:R#D2 or WP:XY. For one, it isn't mentioned anywhere at alcohol intoxication. When I think of shitface, I think of it literally, as in a fetish where someone takes a shit on someone else's face (and that's as graphic as I'd like to go). -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep WP:POFRED this is a very common word for being drunk. WP:NOTDIC We do not add a list of synonyms to articles. We should not expect targets to have every synonym listed, even if they exist as redirects. ; Perhaps we should add DRAFT:Template:Redirect documentation as a recommended process for supporting the existence of redirects. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I very much like the idea of being able to add documentation to R's. I don't think 70.51 nor myself is suggesting that they should be at every R, but sometimes, when they are "non-obvious", as the documentation says(but does not link), they would be very helpful I think to avoid a WP:SURPRISE. "Non-obvious"is used by the UK and I think the US patent office to suggest when a patent might be granted, it used to have to be ä new invention or some such, but now just has to be non-obvious. To the unspeakable advancement of human knowledge. Si Trew (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Not sure. Shitfaced certainly is slang for drunk as verb which also goes to alcohol intoxication. Shitface is not, it is just a general swear word for someone one dislikes. I have a good personal etymology, having been called both. Si Trew (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete all There is nothing at WP:POFRED to support keeping this—"shitface" is not an alternative name for intoxicated in the sense envisaged by WP:POFRED. Documenting all words is not the purpose of Wikipedia (WP:NOTDIC), and that goes double for documenting all ill-defined slang terms. If it's notable, make a list of slang words meaning intoxicated. Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete all For the same reasons noted by Johnuniq.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget "shitface" to Moingona#Moingona as "Excrement-Faced", the verb form literally translates to "shit-face" (might be a bit WP:SURPRISE but it is the encyclopedic way to go). Neutral on "shitfaced", I can see both sides on that one. I also found Defecate on My Face, but I don't think that is a good target for either one.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: I just read that article: LOL some of the stuff on this website. Rubbish computer 13:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed

.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 13:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the first point, about alternative names, of WP:POFRED. Rubbish computer 13:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep - Yes, I know, these are 'bad words'. However, "He's shitfaced", "She's shitfaced", "Don't get shitfaced", and so on is an extremely common usage in English, especially in the United States. This is proper given that it's exactly what's being meant: being totally drunk. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't think anyone is doubting that "shitfaced" is slang for "intoxicated" (although I am not sure whether we would be better just saying to intoxication rather than specifically alcohol). What I am arguing is that "shitface" does not mean that, and since we haven't excrement face, excrementface or excrement-face that choice of retarget would seem equally confusing, and also a bit mealy-mouthed. I'll try to find an etymology in the woodware later, it should be in Eric Partridge's Dictionary of English Slang, being a strine lexicographer, but I would guess it would be in there , he was the master at cataloguing these things, but I agree, WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep Shitfaced, Redirect Shitface - Shitfaced is most certainty used in the UK, and Shitface is the perfect term to describe this man!. –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The Eighth Wonder (film)[edit]

The Eighth Wonder (film) → Nicole Kidman (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete per WP:REDLINK because this should be red until there is enough information on the film to create an article. ~~not mentioned at the target.~~ -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete. She's not a wonder or a film. Steel1943 (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC) (Struck out. Steel1943 (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC))
Keep and retarget to Simon Kinberg#Future projects, because the information is now at the target. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Updated rationale. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget per Captain Assassin!. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per Captain Assassin! Rubbish computer 13:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Beneath the Deep (film)[edit]

Beneath the Deep (film) → Andrzej Bartkowiak (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Beneath the Deep → Andrzej Bartkowiak (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete per WP:REDLINK as this should be red until there's enough information to create an article. ~~no significant usage of this phrase and I couldn't find any information on Wikipedia of a film with this name.~~ -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep and retarget to Andrzej Bartkowiak#Upcoming projects. Information about the film is now existed at the target, thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Updated rationale. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget per Captain Assassin!. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per Captain Assassin! Rubbish computer 13:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Antivillain[edit]

Antivillain → Antihero (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

No articles link to this redirect, The term itself is a non-notable neologism and was previously deleted. And at best the term is peripherally related to the redirect target, which does not discus it. Edward321 (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to false hero, which is currently the only article categorized beside "antivillains" in Template:Stock characters. False protagonist is another option, by meaning, although "antivillain" doesn't appear there. Neither of these exactly describe the concept as I thought of it, the opposite of antihero which would be an antagonist with heroic qualities, or a character who does good despite an evil motive (or a motive opposite that of the protagonist). Mustapha Mond of Brave New World (when viewed through John the Savage's moral frame) is the best example I can think of at the moment.

Coincidentally, a search brought up Redshirt (character) but I think this is way off. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget per Ivanvector. --Rubbish computer 00:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Isn't there a problem going to false hero given that a great deal of anti-villains clearly are not heroes (and are never seen as such) in the story sense? The example that comes to mind immediately is Inspector Javert from Les Miserables and Deputy Samuel Gerard from The Fugitive. Neither of them are heroes, and they're certainly portrayed as antagonist characters doing ill activities, but their motaviations are complex, with them being relatable human beings. Recall:

"I didn't kill my wife!"

"I don't care!"

That's an 'anti-villain'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment false hero appears to be a completely unrelated concept to an Antivillain. Edward321 (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, a False Hero is a person pretending to be a hero whereas an antivillain is a villain who has noble goals and or virtues but their means to achieve these goals is evil. The current redirect is actually better than the proposed one since there is more of a connection.--174.91.187.135 (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I would say that, given that there's enough information about the topic of being an anti-villain, the subject could merit its own separate page. I suppose thus the best thing to do would be to delete the current redirect (though, as stated above, there is somewhat of a connection between 'anti-villain' and 'anti-hero'). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Intel Core i5 430m[edit]

Intel Core i5 430m → Intel Core (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Implausible redirect. sst^flyer 05:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ - This is a product that genuinely exists, and the link to the general article about Intel production is helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to List of Intel Core i5 microprocessors since that would be even more precise, as stated below CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to List of Intel Core i5 microprocessors as an {{R from product}}. The redirect is mentioned there. Steel1943 (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
This is the only CPU-specific redirect for the entire Intel Core i5 CPU series. sst^flyer 05:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per CWM. Rubbish computer 13:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to List of Intel Core i5 microprocessors, where it is detailed -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Intel Core i7-4558U[edit]

Intel Core i7-4558U → List of Intel Core i7 microprocessors (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Implausible redirect. Do we have to create a redirect for each and every single CPU model? sst^flyer 05:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep as an {{R from product}}. It's mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
This is the only CPU-specific redirect for the entire Intel Core i7 CPU series. sst^flyer 05:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
As the instigator of this controversy, I really don't mind either way :-) I think the reason I added a redirect was that a search gave the right page as the third hit or something, don't know if that matters. --Unhammer (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Steel1943. Rubbish computer 13:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep since the redirect is mentioned in the article --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep valid redirect, information exists at target -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln middle school (alameda,california)[edit]

Lincoln middle school (alameda,california) → Alameda Unified School District (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

This redirect is unneeded and incorrectly capitalized (and lacks a space between the "," and "california"). There is also a better redirect at Lincoln Middle School (Alameda, California) -Sonicwave ^(talk|c) 04:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RTYPO. There are too many typos for this to be plausible as a search term. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment. How many do you think is two,many, Tavix? Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:RTYPO (emphasis mine): "if a single redirect contains multiple typos, it may be considered an unlikely search term and deleted" -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per Tavix. Rubbish computer 13:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Typos are all right, we all make 'em, and it's OK if they encourage people to find the article they want. I can't see that this would go to any other target. WP:RFD#K2. As per User:WilyD often says, nobody has suggested a reason (or rationale or argument) has been presented for deletion.

Deleting this would make it harder to search. So I cannot understand the "too many typos" argument, which does not seem to fall under any existing criteria, and no reason, argument or rationale was given for deletion. Si Trew (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@SimonTrew:, I would respectfully disagree with you. An argument for deletion has been mentioned if you could please read my delete !vote. It's WP:RTYPO. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not me who usually says "no reason has been..." when a reason has been. That's WilyD and it annoys me too, but on this occasion, WilyD's reasoning is sound. I dislike it too as it seems very much off the cuff to just dismiss an argument in that way without reasoning. WilyD has given good reasons now, and I agree with them, that to expect readers to be familiar with the MoS is foolish (and the MoS is far too large, and I have lots of manuals of style if you wish me to quote, but the MoS is basically "whatever anyone can get away with"). That is what editors do, and the vast majority of people using Wikipedia are readers not editors. It is our business to get them to where they want to go. That takes a bit of second-guessing I know, because until we retarget it or whatever how would we know if they get a WP:SURPRISE, hits etc don't help us there. Wily has hit the nail on the thumb this time, which is why I pinged Wily into the discussion. Si Trew (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, if you'd read it, you'd see RTYPO contains only usual outcomes, not their reasoning. Wily D 12:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep - as far as I can tell, this redirect has no typo. Capitalisation choices aren't even typos, but merely choices (and ditto where to space buttfuck,nowhere or Buttfuck, Nowhere). Expecting readers to be familiar with the MOS is foolish. Wily D 12:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This does not belong on my talk page, it belongs on the page for the R. Si Trew (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"and ditto where to space buttfuck,nowhere or Buttfuck, Nowhere" — very unprofessional, especially coming from an admin. Quis separabit? 13:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete: as per @Tavix
"Typos are all right, we all make 'em, and it's OK if they encourage people to find the article they want" -- seriously??!! It looks crappy, illiterate and unprofessional. Kill it ASAP. Quis separabit? 00:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Kurushima-Kaikyo Bridge[edit]

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 snow keep. Since it's obvious this is going to be kept, I'm going to go ahead and close this. Ivanvector offers some good advice to the nominator though. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Kurushima-Kaikyo Bridge → Kurushima-Kaikyō Bridge (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

i modified all article pages with redirects to this page, so it can be deleted now Compfreak7 (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Strong keep as a perfectly valid and helpful {{R to diacritics}}. Deletion is very harmful since most English keyboards do not contain diacritics by default. Steel1943 (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
keep {{R without diacritics}} -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep - It's useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Strong keep per Steel1943. Rubbish computer 13:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep - valid {{R without diacritics}} redirect. @Compfreak7: typically we keep these sorts of redirects to help users find the article who aren't used to typing with diacritics, as the vast majority of North Americans aren't. Even if nothing links to it, it is still useful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2015 (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.

Level pack[edit]

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 withdrawn. Steel1943 (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Level pack → Expansion pack (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Level packs → Expansion pack (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Mission pack → Expansion pack (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete per WP:XY. The redirects could refer to their current target, but in the most recent years/months, the redirects have a stronger connection with the term "Downloadable content". Steel1943 (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep "level pack(s)" -- DLC is a type of expansion pack, since it expands the game with new content (such as a new character for a fighting game, new music, new skins, etc). DLC should be mentioned at expansion pack. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is that Expansion pack and Downloadable content are currently separate articles. This is where the WP:XY problem comes into play. (On a related note, I have no opposition about those two articles being merged.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment "mission pack" is ambiguous, there are other uses, such as in military contexts. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep. A level pack is a form of an expansion pack. That most expansion packs happen to be downloadable does not make it less true that level packs are expansion packs. There is also the historical context to keep in mind: Just because all level packs are downloadable today, that was not always true, and Wikipedia also covers the historical context. Thue (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Thue. Rubbish computer 13:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Thue. The key thing to keep in mind with WP:XY is equally. If there's one target that's better than another one, that definitely isn't a reason to delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:13, 18 September 2015 (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.

Data disk[edit]

Data disk → Expansion pack (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete per WP:XY. The current target is wrong, but almost every article in Category:Compact disc and Category:DVD could potentially be called by the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguate between the most plausible top-level categories. Rubbish computer 13:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Index - dabs are for title matches which wouldn't apply here, but an index of articles about data storage devices (tape drive, floppy disk, compact disc, DVD, etc.) could be a useful target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

We kind of already have that at computer data storage. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Index per Ivanvector. --Rubbish computer 00:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Weak retarget to computer data storage. It's weak because nothing there is called "data disk" but it would probably be what someone is looking for. I'm fine with a delete here too. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Fleeing[edit]

Fleeing → Fight-or-flight response (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Not sure what should be dine with this redirect, but the current target seems incorrect. For one, this term could refer to several subjects on the Retreat disambiguation page. However, Flee is a redirect to an album, and Flee (disambiguation) doesn't exist. I think the best option may be soft redirect to Wikt:fleeing. Steel1943 (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

'Retarget to Flee (disambiguation) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per anon. Rubbish computer 13:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Flee (disambiguation) - good job, CoffeeWithMarkets. Should Flée be merged in? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and I personally believe that the communities under Flée should be merged as well. However, I also want to see what the consensus here says. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment Flee (disambiguation) should be moved to Flee because it is currently WP:MALPLACED. I also agree that Flée should be merged there, the dabs aren't big enough to require separate listings. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Flee (disambiguation). There's also a link to wiktionary there for further clarification for our readers --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Flee (disambiguation). Fight or flight is an R that is there as Flight-or-fight response, and not hidden under an R at that DAB. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. We could merge the DABs though, as Tavix suggests, but I think we should take one thing at a time. I might propose a merge. Si Trew (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Kutru[edit]

Kutru → Dog (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

This is the name of a town in India, thus this term would be confusing for people looking for that. - The ChampionMan 1234 00:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - There seems to be no notable primary target. This applies to people's names, to the aforementioned town, etc. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per CWM. Rubbish computer 13:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:REDLINK as towns in India often eventually get articles here, and I don't understand what this word has to do with our canine friends. There is an outside possibility of this being WP:BLP vandalism but I won't elaborate; not G10 worthy. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
This is the Gujarati word for ‘dog’. Gorobay (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The word indeed can be 'dog', but-- as stated above-- it also can be used as a person's name or nickname as well as other uses. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Just explaining what this word has to do with our canine friends. Gorobay (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

September 17[edit]

Steel worker[edit]

Steel worker → Steel (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Steel workers → Steel (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Steelworker → Steel (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Steelworkers → Steel (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

In regards to these redirects, in a nutshell: I am torn between keep-ing them as is, retarget all to Steel mill, or delete per WP:REDLINK since the specific subject as referred in the redirects is not identified in either Steel or Steel mill. Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep I think this is the best article for these redirects for now. I was also thinking of retargetting to hot working which also describes what can be termed as steel working. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to ironworker as a synonym. The other senses of "steel work" are not primary. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment a steelworker works in a steel mill, an ironworker assembles steel frames -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment we have several steelworker union articles... United Steelworkers etc ; which would seem to indicate these should point to steel mill -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Clearly there is a gap in coverage here. We should have an article about the profession, analogous to our ironworker article. I don't think these redirects to steel are encouraging that to happen, and there is insufficient coverage of the workers themselves to justify these redirects. This page suggests the solution. It's not a valid disambiguation, as the topic is unambiguous. Move it over the redirects at either steel worker or steelworker – I have no opinion on whether two words or the compound word is primary – and convert it to a stub. We can start with a broad overview of the steelworker unions. Copy the only line in steel directly referencing this topic to the stub: "In 1980, there were more than 500,000 U.S. steelworkers. By 2000, the number of steelworkers fell to 224,000." Really what we need is a content creator to build something here. Steelworkers make steel in steel mills. We have much better coverage of the 1943 penny ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Katrina Richardson[edit]

Katrina Richardson → Katherine Richardson (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Catrina Richardson → Katherine Richardson (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Catrin Richardson → Katherine Richardson (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Katrin Richardson → Katherine Richardson (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Catryn Richardson → Katherine Richardson (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Katryn Richardson → Katherine Richardson (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete per WP:R#D2 as this is confusing. There is no one at this dab named or nicknamed "Katrina". -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete and comment can we add Catrina Richardson to this? There are a huge amount of unnecessary and potentially misleading and confusing redirects to this page. Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

late edit:

Boleyn in what way/s do you think the redirects may be "potentially misleading and confusing"? Greg Kaye 07:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

They have no connection to the subjects on the page. Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that Boleyn has made numerous similar redirects, including 1) Phillip Anderson → Philip Anderson; 2) Elisabeth Brown → Elizabeth Browne, Countess of Worcester; 3) Elisabeth Browne → Elizabeth Browne, Countess of Worcester; 4) Katherine Cook → Catherine Cook; 5) Katherine Fisher → Catherine Fisher (disambiguation); 6) Catherine Foster → Katherine Foster; 7) Phillip Lewis → Philip Lewis; 8) Katherine McCarthy → Katie McCarthy; 9) Katy McCarthy → Katie McCarthy; 10) Catherine Morrison → Kathryn Morrison; 11) Katherine Morrison → Kathryn Morrison; 12) Katherine Parker → Catherine Parker; 13) Catherine Ross → Katherine Ross; 14) Phillip Young → Philip Young (disambiguation), etc. It would be overkill to continue, but this list is much longer. If these redirects have "connection to the subjects on the page", how is it that those nominated for deletion are represented as not having such a connection? The already-mentioned [below] entry, Catherina (and similar spellings), indicates that this given name has myriad permutations, thus suggesting that a random selection of some variations for inclusion and others for deletion may well be singled out as the true source of confusion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, all of these make sense to me. The redirects are all homophones of either the target or another redirect that targets the same page of the created redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

These also make sense to me. I am simply pointing out that the author of the words, "They have no connection to the subjects on the page", has made numerous redirects of the same or similar nature. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Not the same or similar. Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The evidence speaks for itself. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment I would also add Katryn Richardson, Catryn Richardson, Katrin Richardson and Catrin Richardson. Boleyn (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Boleyn:

Done -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know how to but Kate Richardson (version 2) is another unnecessary redirect to this page. Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A bit of a tangent addressing Boleyn's concern above. Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Boleyn: Working that one... Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Boleyn: Not done. Congratulations ... You've managed to stumble across the issue that I've been meaning to bring up at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation for a while now: the necessity to create another acceptable disambiguator for disambiguation page titles (The contents of Kate Richardson (version 2)'s edit history represent the "subject" in Kate Richardson (disambiguation).) The issue with Kate Richardson (version 2) is that is has edit history that needs to be retained per WP:CWW, so it cannot be deleted without the attributions being moved somewhere else. When I see these, I usually move the page and edit history to a title that is an acceptable title for its edit history and the article that the "version 2" redirect targets, and then I tag the "version 2" redirect for G6 speedy deletion... but with disambiguation pages, the only two acceptable titles are only the ambiguous title and the ambiguous title + (disambiguation). So, I'm not sure where to move the edit history since the contents at the "version 2" title were a disambiguation page. The best I can think of doing for now is retargeting that redirect to Kate Richardson (disambiguation), which I did. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Done ... sort of. I ended up moving the edit history to Kate Richardson (disambiguation) (version 2) and then nominated Kate Richardson (version 2) for speedy deletion. Seriously, I have no idea for a good title to put that edit history, but at least now it is titled and targets the correct article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Done, seriously now. I think I figured out this one. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, instead of creating endless dab pages for every possible variation (Cat, Kat, Cathy, Kathy, Kate, Cate, etc.) it would be much more convenient for users to have all these gathered under one name in this fashion, with redirects and hatnotes resolving any potential confusion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep valid redirect — see Catherina (and similar spellings), which includes "Katrina" and other names. Such redirects are commonplace within Wikipedia — even if the John Smith disambiguation page had no one named Jon Smith, we would still create a Jon Smith redirect to John Smith. Same for redirecting Liza Smith (if there was no one by that name) to Lisa Smith, Steven Smith to Stephen Smith, Elisabeth Smith to Elizabeth Smith, Katharine Smith to Katherine Smith, Bette Smith to Betty Smith and on and on. Rather than creating confusion, such redirects are, in fact, helpful to those searching for name variations. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thats not how it works and your examples prove it. In every example you give either a) it's not a redirect to a dab page (eg: it's red or it's own article) b) the redirect is to a dab page that includes the variant. In this case, NO ONE is known by these "variants" so it's either confusing or nonsense. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

1. Although you claim to have refuted my arguments, such "refutation" cannot overcome existing evidence. In my previous submission, I deliberately limited myself to the surname "Smith" and presented intentionally boilerplate examples, including redlinks, all prefaced by "if". All of them were intended to be generic, rather than represent existing headers. Are you contending that in the event the three redlinks above, Liza Smith, Elisabeth Smith and Bette Smith, were actually created, such redirects would be "confusing" and you would argue for their deletion on the basis that they are "nonsensical and that "NO ONE" is known by such names? Is it your position that only names which already exist on the disambiguation page are eligible to serve as redirects? Thus, are you arguing that if there is no one whose main title header indicates the name Phil Smith or Philip Smith at the Phillip Smith disambiguation page, then "Phil" and "Philip" cannot serve as redirects to "Phillip"?

2. Since you insist on already-existing examples, I will oblige, but limit myself, initially, to the following 25 redirects to dab pages of names which do not appear on those dab pages: Phillip Anderson, Phillip Baker, Elisabeth Brown, Elisabeth Browne, Phillip Clarke, Katherine Cook, Phillip Davies, Phillip Davis, Katherine Fisher, Catherine Foster, Phillip Hall, Phillip Lewis, Katherine McCarthy, Katy McCarthy, Catherine Morrison, Katherine Morrison, Phillip Murphy, Katherine Parker, Phillip Robinson, Catherine Ross, Catherine Smith, Phillip Smith, Elisabeth Taylor, Elisabeth Wilson, Phillip Young. There are additional ones, which I can type as a list if/when the need arises: Are these redirects all incorrect and awaiting someone who would submit them for deletion, although such WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS? If that is your position, please state so, thus allowing the discussion to proceed from there. Are some redirects more eligible than others? If so, what are the applicable standards? The field is ripe for further argumentation. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep per Roman Spinner. Rubbish computer 23:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Could you explain why? I just refuted why his argument doesn't hold up. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tavix: I voted before you refuted this, and I stated I supported what RS had put forward so I do not know what you are trying to say. Rubbish computer 01:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per Tavix. Rubbish computer 01:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete.Weak keep. Katarina Richardson, Catarina Richardson, Kath Richardson andCath Richardson, Cathy Richardson and Kathy Richardson also redirect to that DAB. See how we deal with Beth for example, as this falls under WP:COMMONNAME. We have Betty Walker as a stage name for Helen Roberts but Elizabeth Walker is a DAB, to which Liz Walker and Lizzy Walker et cetera ad infinitum redirect. We don't have Betty II, Queen of the United Kingdom. Ultimately this ends up as a combinatorial explosion which does not help but hinders readers searching. Si Trew (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: WP:WAX isn't a good argument. Those are different situations than the one at hand. There is no one at this dab named "Katrina Richardson" so it's confusing to have "Katrina Richardson" redirect there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry @Tavix:, but it is you who quoted WAX in an earlier discussion, not me, and that went to close. I'm confused about why you think I quoted or suggested WAX. I didn't: I argued the case on its merits. Still, Í am rather happy that I have got Bijou (jewellery) translated, that was an effort, but I should be glad if you or others could cast your expert eyes over it, there are lots of little errors, some of which I can spot, some of which I shall miss. I added it to the DAB at Bijou. cocks up the WikiData links, though. Si Trew (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm a liar, it is Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_26#Gourmette_chain, which went procedural close as converted into a stub article by yours trewly. Still busking for plaudits for translating Bijou (jewellery) this morning, well and this afternoon, and flowers, barnstars and money are greatly appreciated. (In partricular, money.) I'm amazed we haven't identity bracelet and the best I could do was dog tag, I should really appreciate some better suggestions cos despitge my wandering I could find no better. Si Trew (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Weak keep per Roman Spinner; it brings them to a disambiguation page for various variations of the given name which exist on Wikipedia, for which the reader may be under the misapprehension of them being spelled in that manner -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- @70.51.202.113: I just had an (edit conflict) with you there, I think I resolved it but please make sure I didn't delete anything you wanted to say. Si Trew (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  - I don't think there are any problems, I did a revision comparison, and all looks good -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete any that do not have multiple entries in the dab page. If there is only one with a particular name that is not Katherine, there is no ambiguity to be resolved. The search engine will actually work better without these redirects. If someone is looking for a Wikipedia article about Katrina Richardson, then with the redirect, it will take them to Katherine Richardson which tells them nothing about the person they are looking for. Without the redirect, it will offer them pages that mention Katrina Richardson, even if she is not wikilinked or does not have a page yet. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Only one redirect was initially submitted for deletion, Katrina Richardson. Shortly after the submission, another editor suggested Catrina Richardson should also be deleted, and a few minutes later, the same editor indicated that Katryn Richardson, Catryn Richardson, Katrin Richardson and Catrin Richardson are further candidates for deletion. If "any that do not have multiple entries in the dab page" are to be deleted, then that would include not simply these arbitrarily chosen six names, but also Catie Richardson, Cat Richardson, Kitty Richardson, Cate Richardson, Cath Richardson, Kath Richardson, Kathie Richardson, Cathie Richardson, Cathi Richardson, Kathi Richardson, Katha Richardson, Catha Richardson, Catharyna Richardson, Katharyna Richardson, Katharyne Richardson, Catharyne Richardson, Cathryna Richardson, Kathryna Richardson, Kathryne Richardson, Cathryne Richardson, etc. Redirects are frequently described as "cheap" and "harmless", but would not be so upon being accused of impeding searches. Is the eligibility test for redirects based, in fact, upon "multiple entries on the dab page"? Which redirects will pass consensus as "logical", and which will be considered "illogical"? Are some redirects more equal than others? Are there any other applicable standards? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think most of the redirects you listed are a waste of time at best and confusing at worst. However, I analysed them and just suggested adding to the nomination the most obviously useless ones. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but it would help if we just discussed the nominated ones, and in a concise manner. Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No single topic exists in a vacuum --- there is always a wider field of view. Arbitrarily plucking six redirects out of many others and singling them out as "waste of time", "confusing" and "obviously useless", while other redirects (such as the ones you created, as listed above) are presumably "time well spent", "methodic" and "obviously useful", presents the appearance of setting oneself up in the position of a biased arbiter. It is quite reasonable to ask on what general basis we are being asked to vote out some redirects, while allowing other redirects to remain. Is it simply WP:I DON'T LIKE IT for some, and I LIKE IT for others, or should we have a written guideline such as the above suggestion, "Delete any that do not have multiple entries in the dab page"? If we simply discuss the six nominated redirects without asking the wider questions, we would be confining ourselves to a shadow box, instead of offering guidance and future argumentation for editors who may be considering this topic in the years ahead. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, for me, any of those redirects from names that are not the topic of the dab page should be deleted, or built into articles for the people with those names. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep The reason we have alternate spelling redirects to disambiguation pages is because (1) people do not always remember the exact spelling (or pronunciation) of the name of the person they are looking for and (2) we want to have fewer disambiguation pages so the variety of redirects is usually shown in the lead sentence. The fact that no existing article is about someone positively known as "Katrina Richardson" does not gainsay that no one will go looking for an existing article using that spelling. If a person of notability has an article written about them under that name, the redirect simply becomes a hatnote to the disambiguation page, for the same reasons. There is nothing here that should confuse the ordinary user of Wikipedia, or lead them astray. --Bejnar (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete since these are not homophones of their target, and are thus misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

All forms of respective disambiguation page names function as redirects, not merely homophones: Eliza or Beth may redirect to Elizabeth, while Richie or Dick may redirect to Richard and so on. Also, while Katrina or Catrina do not sound the same as Katherine, the other nominees for deletion, Catrin, Katrin, Catryn and Katryn are, indeed, homophones. Returning to the previously-mentioned link, Catherina (and similar spellings), all of these are legitimate variations, homophones or not. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not the same as my point above for one key reason: those are redirects from examples of given names, not examples of full names. With given names, there is more acceptable leniency for these minds of redirects, considering that they will most likely redirect to an article that includes the origin of the given name, and its variants. For full names, the only acceptable option is a redirect from a homophone (since this is what the reader is intending to find since they are looking for a biographical subject whose name matches that sound.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Even with the "full-name" caveat in mind, four of the six nominees for deletion, Catrin Richardson, Katrin Richardson, Catryn Richardson and Katryn Richardson, are still homophones of/for Katherine Richardson. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

In which variety of English? --BDD (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No they aren't: "t" vs. "th". The two make completely different sounds. Steel1943 (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

At present, this could almost become a comedy routine, with Emil Jannings in the English-language version of The Blue Angel demonstrating to his German-speaking students that "the" is not pronounced "zee", or that "Hawaii" is not pronounced "Havaii" and responding to "thank you" with "You velcome". No one is (yet) arguing that Janos Smith, Jens Smith, Joao Smith or Giovanni Smith should be redirects to John Smith, nor is anyone (yet) arguing that Kaltarina Smith, Katarzyna Smith, Kotryna Smith or Yekaterina Smith should redirect to Katherine Smith. However, we would be in a comical situation if we were to haggle over regional English pronunciation by accepting Kathryn Richardson as a legitimate redirect to Katherine Richardson, but rejecting Katryn Richardson as an illegitimate redirect on the basis of how we enunciate our "th". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per Boleyn and—I'm surprised no one has mentioned this—WP:FORRED, actually. The only way to justify these, IMO, is classifying them as foreign-language variants of "Katherine". These are very unlike the homophones mentioned above. The most likely scenario here, by far, is that a reader is looking for people actually named Katrina Richardson (et al.). The redirects will disappoint readers, and probably confuse them. --BDD (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as "foreign" goes (presumedly as to "Katrina" and "Catrina"), in the late XX Century and XXI Century those names were given to children in English speaking counties, particularly the US and Australia. According to the US Social Security Administration, "Katrina" was in the top 1000 names for girls in 2010 & 2012, although "Catrina" has never made the top 1000. --Bejnar (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, or (perhaps more likely) I didn't phrase my argument well. If we assume that names like Katrina are foreign variants of Katherine, some editors might see these as useful synonyms, although FORRED discourages such redirects. Since these are indeed English-language names too at this point, this isn't a valid defense of them regardless. Perhaps I was using a straw man. The more salient point—that these redirects mislead readers by suggesting coverage of subjects we don't have—remains. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

When there is no one named "Bill Xxxx" at the disambiguation page for "William Xxxx", it has been standard practice to redirect "Bill Xxxx" to "William Xxxx" (or the reverse, if the main title header is "Bill Xxxx" and no one there is named "William Xxxx"). The same is indicative for "John"—"Johnny", "Charles"—"Charlie", "Robert"—"Bob"—"Bobby", "Richard"—"Richie"—"Dick", "Patrick"—"Pat" or "Elizabeth"—"Beth". Rather than "disappoint readers" or "confuse" them, such redirects serve as a useful guide to synonymous names (in case readers meant to type a similarly-spelled variation) and stand ready for conversion into articles should one of those redirected names gain notability in the future. Such an approach (for "reasonable" redirects, such as the ones nominated for deletion [as opposed to "foreign" variations, such as the ones redlinked above]) would seem to be more user-friendly than having searchers confronted with a redlink accompanied by the boilerplate "You may create the page "Katrina Richardson", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Usually that's helpful if and only if someone is also known by that name. Do you have any evidence of anyone at Katherine Richardson who has been called or known as "Katrina Richardson?" -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

If the discussion is framed around around "legitimate" and "illegitimate" redirects, with familiar nicknames and variants, such as "Bill", "Bob", "Dick", "Johnny", "Charlie", etc, being unquestioningly accepted as automatic redirects, whether or not anyone listed on the disambiguation actually uses those names, on the assumption that anyone on any "William Xxxx" disambiguation page must have been called "Bill" or "Will" or "Willy" or "Billy" at some point in their lives, while other name variants are excluded, then we should formulate and declare such a policy at WikiProject Disambiguation. Some given names have more variants than others, with Katherine and Elizabeth being two of the prime examples. Some of those named "Katherine", "Katharine", "Catharine", "Catherine" or "Katrina", may also be called "Kate", "Cate", "Cathy", "Kathy", "Kath", "Kat", etc.

The world's most popular appellation, Muhammad (name), also has the greatest number of variants in comparison to any other name. Do we need to comb through all such pages to determine which, if any among those listed, have been known by any or all of such nicknames or variants and which were given such variants as their official birth name? Should the addition of variants as redirects be micromanaged to such a degree that every "Katherine" or "Elizabeth" (to say nothing of "Muhammad") disambiguation page is faced with an extended discussion of this nature? If the variant is so far-fetched that it stands out as obviously inappropriate, then it should be questioned, but that does not appear to be the case with any of the six submitted for deletion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely! We should never "mindlessly" or "automatically" make redirects. They should only be made when they meet one of the criteria of WP:RPURPOSE, making our redirects informational and functional. The redirects that have been nominated are not, because there is no one known as "Katrina Richardson." -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This was my proposal for an all-inclusive Katherine Richardson disambiguation page. Some of its entries have now been redistributed to both Kate Richardson (disambiguation) and Kathleen Richardson, with "Cathy", "Kathy" and "Katie" remaining here, but "Katie" also listed at the "Kate" dab page, and Kat Richardson being dropped [as of this writing] from all dab pages. There is no longer any attempt to categorize the entries, as they originally were, by "Sportswomen", "Writers" and "Others", leaving them randomly listed. No one on these pages is named "Kathlyn Richardson", "Cathleen Richardson", "Caterine Richardson" or "Katerine Richardson" and yet those redirects have not [as yet] been targeted for deletion.

There are some who feel that homophones or alternative spellings ("Katherine" — "Katharine" — "Catharine" — "Catherine" — "Cathy" — "Kathi", etc) should be automatically included as redirects, but "Bill", "Pete", "Charlie" or "Dick" are not homophones or alternative spellings and yet are redirected to "William", "Peter", "Charles" or "Richard" dab pages whether or not individuals with those nicknames are actually listed on those dab pages. Should such common redirects also be submitted for deletion? On what basis can a standard be established for "common" and "uncommon" redirects? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

But "Bill" is a standard nickname for "William". That doesn't mean every William necessarily goes by Bill, but they may be referred to as such, even if jocularly. (For example, you'll see William Shakespeare referred to as "Billy" or "Bill" in some informal contexts.) By contrast, no one would call the people on the target page Katrina—if they did, they would be wrong. If my name were Timothy, you might address me as Tim whether I went by it or not; if you called me Tom, you'd be wrong. --BDD (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You've put your finger on the very heart of the contradiction I have been highlighting — the tiered redirects. The top tier consists of just such standard nicknames, typically used by sports personalities ("Don", "Mike", "Pat", "Steve"), which receive a free pass as redirects even by those who insist that redirects must only consist of names which appear two or more times upon the disambiguation page in question.

The second tier (or, possibly, still the first tier) includes the homophones or most-commonly used alternative spellings ("Katherine", "Katharine", "Catharine", "Catherine", "Cathy", "Kathi"). Not only "Phil", but also "Phillip" redirects to "Philip" or, in an example such as Phil Wilson, "Phillip" and "Philip" redirect to "Phil". All those redirects also appear to be usually left unmolested, even by the strict constructionists.

It is the subsequent tier, the variants, which attracts dispute. A common, and relatively uncontroversial one, such as "Ed", might redirect to "Edward", "Edmund", "Edgar" or even "Edsel" but, as can be seen from the entry, Catherina (and similar spellings), some redirects to Katherine Richardson are more equal than others. "Kat" or "Cat", in the same manner as "Ed", could redirect to any of the multiple names on the list but, as I already pointed out, Kat Richardson has been stripped from any and all lists.

I am not suggesting that we use "true" foreign variants, such as the Czech "Kateřina", the Polish "Katarzyna", the Dutch "Katelijne", or similar others found at Katherine (given name), but the redirects currently under threat of deletion have entered English-language usage and should be considered as "legitimate". Redirects are sometimes called "cheap", or to quote Errol Morris, Fast, Cheap & Out of Control but, in this case, it does not seem that some redirects should be held to a higher standard than others. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete all - there are no people listed at the target with these names. If there were, we would likely remove them per WP:PTM because their names are Katrina, Catryn, etc., not Katherine. See also that we have Kate Richardson (disambiguation) and Kathleen Richardson (disambiguation), both of which are names which by the logic of these redirects could be merged in. If there was one Katrina Richardson she would have her own page at the target (like Kat Richardson does). If there were multiple Katrina Richardsons, we would have a dab page (assuming one was not the primary topic). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep these are all plausible search terms. If we try desperately to hide information from our readers, we can't then expect them to know it ahead of time. Wily D 12:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Byword (example)[edit]

Byword (example) → Example (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete per WP:RFD#D5 because this is a nonsensical way to disambiguate, especially since it leads to a dab that doesn't include any entries involving the word "example." -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The reason that this exists is because Byword exists. It's clunky because Byword itself is up for deletion. This can't be resolved until that other, earlier case is resolved. I don't like that 'Byword (example)' exists, but the reason it's there is because of ab ambiguity of the term to begin with and the existence of the first disambiguation page to begin with. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous RfD has been resolved, though I'm not sure it sheds any particular light on this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - confusing, nonsense disambiguation. Respectfully, I don't understand CoffeeWithMarkets' explanation of this at all. I don't think this needed to wait on the other RfD but I didn't see it before. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Untitled Matt Damon/Bourne sequel[edit]

Untitled Matt Damon/Bourne sequel → Untitled fifth Bourne film (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Relatively new redirect that presents both WP:SLASH and WP:SUBPAGE issues. Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep as this title is being used at IMDb, so some readers may search the film by this title. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 19:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --Rubbish computer 20:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Nominator comment: I just realized that this redirect could also be considered an WP:XY ambiguity issue since it could possibly have referred to two other articles in the past: The Bourne Supremacy (film) or The Bourne Ultimatum (film). Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- comment. Whether it was ambiguous in the past is irrelevant, what matters is whether it is a plausible search term for a single Wikipedia page now. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  - Comment: ... Meaning that if this redirect is kept, it could be a redirect that requires constant maintenance (such as the "Next ... election" redirects). I'm not a fan of these because these constantly require attention to ensure they are updated. Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
    - You mean like hundreds of thousands (at least) of articles uncontroversially do? Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
      - I never said I advocate for their deletion, because I don't nor have the desire to do so. I am quite aware of what you just stated, but I still have my opinion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nominator, because of the subpage issue. Otherwise it's probably harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Dickinson School of Law[edit]

Dickinson School of Law → Pennsylvania State University - Dickinson Law (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Penn State Dickinson → Pennsylvania State University - Dickinson Law (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Penn State Dickinson School of Law → Pennsylvania State University - Dickinson Law (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Nominating these three redirects for deletion because Penn State has two law schools, Penn State Law and Dickinson Law, both of which share the name of the Penn State Dickinson Schools of Law, so a user could be trying to find Penn State Law, but is redirected to the other school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wed112 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 17 September 2015‎

Keep - according to the lede at Penn State Law, the two schools became fully separate in 2014; subsequently "Dickinson" unambiguously refers to Pennsylvania State University - Dickinson Law. I don't think there's any ambiguity in these redirects; hatnotes already solve any confusion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Ivanvector. --Rubbish computer 19:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep. I've never heard of it, but then I don't know which school of law Judge Judy graduated from. Makes sense to me to keep this. Si Trew (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

We do have to be a bit careful with WP:ENGVAR cos in the Unied Kingom, to graduate means to get a three or four year course from a university, and in America I believe it just means you left high school without totally cocking it up. But I don't think that comes into play here. On BBC on Sunday they have a play for The Go-Between, and I cannot remember the name of the author, I think John someone. Of course I could look it up but am desperately trying not to, trying to remember. The past is another country, they do things differently there. Si Trew (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

L. P. Hartley. Totally wrong as usual, then, I was thinking of J. R. Hartley. That one could do with a little scrubbing up. Complete mental block on my part, I even have the book, but was desparately trying not to look it up. Si Trew (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Jumbo jet[edit]

Jumbo jet → Wide-body aircraft (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Jumbo Jet → Boeing 747 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Just as likely to refer to one or the other, eg. [8] note the "Jet" not "jet", and reference to the 787 as well as 747 and also see this article for comparison [9]. - The ChampionMan 1234 05:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

REtarget to Widebody. A jumbo is a twin-aisle jetliner, like an L1011, DC10, B747, A380 -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep the compromise status quo; this has already been debated to death. See Talk:Jumbo jet. There are hard-liners who insist that "Jumbo Jet" is the proper (nick-)name of the 747. The example given is merely using title case when it capitalizes "Jet"; in the article body the generic term is in lower case. There are hatnotes on each article; see also Jumbo jet (disambiguation). – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget both to wide-body aircraft. Unless "Jumbo Jet" is a brand name of the 747, it has no special claim to the name. Plenty of other large aircraft are commonly known as jumbo jets. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to wide-body aircraft per above points. --Rubbish computer 19:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to wide-body aircraft per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
No, Retarget the first as {{R from other capitalization}}. Specifically the Jumbo Jet is the Boeing 747. Not any wide-bodied aircraft. It's not an Airbus A300, for example, even though that is wide-bodied and has jet engines. I'm with Wbm1058, it would be stupid to place it elsewehere. Si Trew (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I am not in favor of retargeting the generic lower case title to the 747. This is generally considered a genericized brand name, though I don't believe that Boeing actually ever trademarked this "nickname". Though personally I lean towards saying that "jumbo jet" == "wide-body", I'm aware that a significant minority of editors share the position of Si Trew. Thus, my favoring the current compromise which is a concession to them. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

September 16[edit]

Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints → Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints → Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Animals and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints → Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

I don't know enough about LDS theology to know whether there's enough material about this subject for a standalone article or not, but I can see that there's a single sentence about animals at the target article. If a reader only wants to know if the LDS Church believes animals have souls, these redirects could actually work, but I think it's more likely that they'll mislead readers into thinking we really cover this topic. Compare to, for example, Animals in Islam. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting... I do agree that the redirects as they are now are somewhat misleading to readers. There's two prominent aspects of Mormon tradition that would be relevant here: one being the possible ensoulment of animals (which is a very different take compared to most protestant churches, I think) and another being the controversy over the Book of Mormon describing animals that most likely did not actually exist in the areas the book details (as per Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon#Old_World_species). The redirects that we have here... I don't quite know what to deal with it, myself. I'm leaning towards just saying that we should delete them. Not sure. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Weak Refine to Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Plan of salvation (the only mention of "animal"). Weak because "Beliefs about Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" would be more appropriate than "Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" if you take it literally, because the latter almost sounds like they "use" animals within church practices (e.g. in sacrifices or as part of services, etc.) which doesn't appear to be the case. No opposition to Delete, count mine that way if the refine option isn't picked up by others, or I'll strike this if a better option is presented.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget per Godsy. Rubbish computer 13:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep or retarget. There is some history to this, Animals and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was originally an article (at a few titles) (last version) that was nominated for deletion in 2006 with a result of "not delete"/"no consensus" and proposed to merged to the main The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article in June 2008 with the consensus against merging. In October 2008 it was nominated for deletion again, where in a sparsely attended AfD (including none of the participants of the then-recent merge proposal) was closed as "retarget to Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" without prejudice to a merge. I have not looked to see if anything was actually merged. I'll leave notes about this discussion on the main article talk page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per Godsy. As stated, the church doesn't use animals in its ceremonies, but is unique in its believe that Animals have souls - that could be expanded some in Beliefs and practices but it is not enough to justify a separate article. --Trödel 12:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Bearded oyster[edit]

Bearded oyster → Vulva (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

I highly doubt anyone searching for an encyclopaedia article on Vulva would enter in this. 189.106.232.100 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep redirect Assuming that it is a slang term for vulva, and not an actual species of oyster, I can see someone hearing the term, not realizing it was slang or not realizing what it was slang for and searching for it, in which case the re-direct would serve its purpose of informing them what was meant by the phrase. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Weak Retarget to Bivalvia or more specifically, Bivalvia#Anatomy. According to this source, it seems that even Carolus Linnaeus sees the similarities between the female anatomical part and the anatomy of bivalves in his 1771 mollusc treatise. "Weak" since I have no idea how to include this cite in the rather well-written article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per Lenticel: thanks for the research. Rubbish computer 13:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete We're not a dictionary, let alone Urban Dictionary. Lenticel's point is interesting, but vulvae aren't discussed there, let alone a "bearded oyster". Unless there's a place we can discuss this phrase in an encyclopedic manner, this is juvenile and unnecessary, not to mention misleading. What's next, Roast beef curtains? --BDD (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per BDD. Steel1943 (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per BDD, unless there's some "slang terms for vagina" article. A problem with it redirecting to Vulva is that this slang term is not covered there. The link will be inexplicable to anyone not familiar with the term. And no, we don't need to redir it to the actual article on oysters. Even if the Linnaeus cite were added to that article, the redir is a slang term for human female genitals which is not the subject of the oyster article. If we don't have an article for genital-related slang, with this term appearing in it, we don't need this redir at all. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per BDD and SMcCandlish; they both sum up my thoughts well. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Sc[edit]

Template:Sc → Template:Smallcaps all (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Re-target from Template:Smallcaps all to Template:Smallcaps. The current target of this template is one that takes mixed-case input and forcibly converts it, permanently, to lower case, then displays it all in upper-case in small caps style. This is frankly, weird, an edge case, and generally highly undesirable. I'm having a hard time thinking of any reason to do that at all. If some text in mixed case is something we want to present in small caps for some reason, e.g. for a particular citation format that uses small caps for titles of major works, or for surnames, or whatever, we want the underlying case to be preserved. The problem with TOKUNAGA is that it copy-pastes as "tokunaga" not "Tokunaga" (by contrast, Tokunaga copy-pastes as "Tokunaga" as expected). The shortcut {{sc}} should go to the template that preserves information, not the one that (for most users, unexpectedly) strips it before applying the stylization. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - the transclusion count tool shows 1862 transclusions for this template. Won't redirecting the shortcut be likely to break things? ... On the other hand, do we have any style guides that recommend this formatting? It seems odd. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Yes, it will since we have no idea if the transclusions of this redirect are then pointing to the correct target. When a template redirect that has transclusions gets retargeted, all currently-existing instances of the transclusions need to be replaced with a direct link to the intended target; for articles, the ambiguous title would either get retargeted to a disambiguation page or become a disambiguation page. Since disambiguation pages are seldom, if ever, in the template namespace, all transclusions have to be skimmed through and replaced. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought so. It should be possible for a bot to do it, assuming that all of the current transclusions are pointing to the intended target. Otherwise they would need to be corrected anyway, and would need to be corrected whether or not we replaced the transclusion to {{smallcaps all}}. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I guess, in theory, a bot could do it. However, if the confusion exists as the nominator has, in one way or another, convinced me, doing so would probably cause more harm than good since there may be some existing transclusions of {{Sc}} that actually refer to {{Smallcaps}} instead of {{Smallcaps all}}. It would unfortunately be more efficient for editors to replace the transclusions by treating them in a way similar to correcting links to a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Well, yeah, but my point is that if the transclusions of {{sc}} are meant to refer to {{smallcaps}} now, they don't, and they're wrong. They'll still be wrong if we replace the transclusion. How can we tell right now which template an editor who used {{sc}} means to refer to? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I understood what you meant completely. I'm honestly not sure if we can know which template an editor meant to link without looking at each transclusion individually. What I stated was that every transclusion of {{Sc}} would need to be verified by a human who clearly knows the difference between {{Smallcaps}} and {{Smallcaps all}} and replace the {{Sc}} transclusions accordingly. Steel1943 (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: It actually seems to me, based on SMcCandlish's explanation and the link they provided to the documentation, that there is no valid use case for {{smallcaps all}} at all. So if we retarget and do nothing else, it will overall be an improvement even if some errors result. The documentation even seems to suggest that {{smallcaps all}} should never be used, so I'm wondering why it exists at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: That could very well be the case, but that really cannot be determined as a result of this discussion since this is a discussion about the usefulness and purpose of the nominated redirect. Just because there is rather credible rationale proving the target template useless doesn't mean that there are not any cases where an editor truly meant to transclude {{Sc}} as a shortcut to {{Smallcaps all}}. That determination really should be the decision of a discussion about {{Smallcaps all}} itself, which would probably happen at WP:TFD. Steel1943 (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: I don't disagree. Maybe this discussion should be suspended pending the necessary discussion at TfD. In the meantime, I'll stick with what you said below. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep unless all 1862 transclusions can be replaced first per my comment to Ivanvector. If they are replaced, then I'm neutral since I have no preference on where the redirect targets. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep/neutral (edit conflict × 2) per what Steel1943 says. I don't have any preference which formatting template the redirect points to, because I don't understand the use cases for either one. So "don't do shit unless". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Working on it. A common usage (which we really shouldn't actually be using, per MOS:SMALLCAPS, but ...) is for doing this: "17 AD". This is terrible for two reasons: a) It's too small, and b) it copy pastes as "17 ad", which is wrong. The template {{Smallcaps2}} (a.k.a. {{Sc2}}) fixes that: "17 AD" (compare nomarkup: "17 AD", and {{Smallcaps}} version which looks like no markup: "17 AD").
Between {{Smallcaps}} and {{Smallcaps2}} I'm still not thinking of a single legitimate use for {{Smallcaps all}}, because of the mangling it does to the underlying text. About the only thing I can think of that might not be accounted for and that would need to be manually corrected would be a nonsensical case where someone is supplying incorrect input to get desired output, e.g. coding something as T{{sc|OKUNAGA}} to get "TOKUNAGA". But that would just be boneheaded, since {{Smallcaps|Tokunaga}} does the same thing. There surely can't be much of that floating around. Anyway, see Template:Smallcaps/doc#Comparison of the small caps templates for how these things differ in their input and use. After {{Sc}} goes to {{Smallcaps}}, and broken uses of it are fixed (mostly either switching to {{Smallcaps2}} or removal of inappropriate attempt to style it as small caps in the first place), then {{Smallcaps all}} can simply be WP:TFDed as the content-corrupting abomination it is. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, not all browsers mangle the underlying text. That’s a Chrome feature. Gorobay (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment what about {{SC}} ? -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- NOTE SC means Sardinian language and Seychelles so "SC" and "sc" should be cleared from use, as most two letter templates on Wikipedia refer to languages or countries, and this is both a country and a language. These two templates should be salted -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Anatidaephobia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 23#Anatidaephobia

First On Race Day[edit]

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) 14:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

First On Race Day → Ford Motor Company (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

I tagged some acronyms for G10, including Fix Or Repair Daily, Found On Road Dead, and Driver Returns On Foot (backwards acronym?). This one isn't an attack acronym, but it is an unfounded opinion. Retarget to American Pharoah Delete since there's nowhere that discusses this acronym. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete as there appears to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 17:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Dead end, Lou, execute the elimination. Per nomination. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - The redirect isn't really helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete WP:ADVERT-like -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2015 (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.

Whee[edit]

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 soft redirect. --BDD (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Whee → Interjection (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Wheee → Interjection (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

These redirects are examples of interjections, but they are not defined as a subject at the "interjection" article, nor are all interjections only these redirects. So ... either delete or soft redirect to Wiktionary. Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Soft retarget whee, delete wheee [no Wiktionary entry] per nom. Rubbish computer 21:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to WHEE (wheee would be a misspelling, whee would be a caps error) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to WHEE with a link to wiktionary's whee --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2015 (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.

Crimenetly[edit]

Crimenetly → Interjection (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Crimenetley → Interjection (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Criminitly → Interjection (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

These redirects are examples of interjections, but they are not defined as a subject at the "interjection" article, nor are all interjections only these redirects. So ... either delete or soft redirect to Wiktionary. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Soft redirect all to Wiktionary - Deletion doesn't help anyone. Neelix (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Soft retarget per Neelix. Rubbish computer 21:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Weak Retarget to crime, where criminality leads to -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Weak retarget to crime per 70.51. That was what first spraing to my feeble mind. (As {{R from misspelling}} of course). Si Trew (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to crime as that's where criminality goes to, as stated above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Nominator comment: I see retargeting to Crime misleading (thus, I oppose) since the nominated words have no connection to the word "crime" in the least, nor are they truly plausible misspellings of "criminality". These words are longer versions of, and are synonymous with criminy. Steel1943 (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTDICT (and these only marginally qualify as words; they seem to be schoolyard blather). If kept at all, soft redir to wikt:criminy; no evidence these are related to "criminality". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per SMcCandlish. These look like nonsense words to me, and they're not included at Wiktionary. --BDD (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hockey on the ice[edit]

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 no consensus. I don't think there's really another possible outcome here, though I think all three options have a good deal to recommend them. For now, these redirects will remain as they are, and the hatnote can address potential confusion. (Though there's stills some merit to the idea of retargeting to Hockey, I think we can all agree that these terms are going to refer to either bandy or ice hockey.) --BDD (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hockey on the ice → Bandy (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Hockey on ice → Bandy (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

A couple months ago, as I was looking through sport redirects, I happened upon "hockey on the ice". Logically, I figured that would more likely refer to to ice hockey than bandy, so I retargeted it there. Yesterday, I got a message on my talk page saying that it was reverted due to "hockey on the ice" being a historical term for bandy. It's explained in the bandy article, something I didn't catch earlier. So I added a hatnote there and thought the problem was solved. Since then, a discussion broke out on my talk page by various people, offering differing suggestions on what to do with this. Due to this, I figured it'd be best to get a wider input on the matter here. I'm still balancing on a three-way fence between leaving it at bandy for historical purposes, retargeting it to ice hockey, due to the literal meaning of the phrase, or retargeting to hockey, which would be a compromise between the two as it briefly explains both codes. Thoughts? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: I'm sending an WP:APPNOTE to all interested parties: @Skogsvandraren:, @SimonTrew:, @Snowsuit Wearer:, @Resolute:, @Djsasso:, and WP:HOCKEY. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:14, 4 SeptemberBand 2015 (UTC)

Comment thanks for the ping, but surely it would be simplest to R this to Ice hockey? Bandy as an Oz term for a hockey stick I think is strine, though, somewhere mentioned by Clive James in his[[[Unreliable Memoirs]]] so I can RS this but will take me a bit of searching through the woodware to do so. Si Trew (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Bandy is a sport, not just the stick used for it. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 06:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment you're right of course, but dfor example, to muddy the waters, Shinty hatnotes, so I think Bandy should too. But that is beyond this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - perhaps go a little out of the box and make Hockey on ice a disamig page? Otherwise, I think the hatnote on Bandy is sufficient. There is going to have to be a hat note on one or or the other if we leave these as redirects, and if this specific term is more commonly used for Bandy, as opposed to being a french translation as for ice hockey, then the status quo is sufficient. Resolute 19:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment there is a disambiguation page at hockey (disambiguation) if this is treated as partial disambiguation... -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguate between bandy and ice hockey, as this does not appear to be a common term for ice hockey, but is a plausible one nonetheless. Rubbish computer 22:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose disambiguation. Resolute, Rubbish computer: that's the point of redirecting to hockey. You fulfill the same role that a disambiguation would for the term "hockey on ice" since both terms are there, and you get the added bonus of being able to explain the codes/types more. Effectively, a disambiguation would be redundant. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to hockey per Tavix. Rubbish computer 23:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to hockey as I suggested in the talk page discussion. I don't think its used for bandy any more than its used for ice hockey. So in that sense send it to the page that talks about both. -DJSasso (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I would also support ice hockey for the reasons mentioned by Ivan below. I believe most people in the English language would associate hockey on ice with ice hockey rather than an obscure old name for bandy. A hatnote to bandy covers those who might. -DJSasso (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to ice hockey, since in many languages it is "hockey on ice", so some garbage mechanical translation will give out "hockey on ice" in English. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: If you Google translate Russian webpages about bandy, you often get this to say "hockey", "hockey on ice" or similar when bandy is meant, because of what bandy is called in Russian. So your suggestion is not based on what all other languages would be at translation. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 06:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep it as it is, i.e. as a redirect to bandy but with a hatnote pointing to ice hockey. "Hockey on the ice" as a term is bandy (even if the word bandy is preferred nowadays so not to confuse it with ice hockey). Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 06:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

That seems to have been done, at least when I just checked. I'm happy with the keep, then. Your bandy legged co-editor, Si Trew (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Except hockey on ice is ice hockey as well, it too has been called hockey on ice at times. -DJSasso (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Has that been an official term for ice hockey? I think I'll stick to my opinion anyway. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep - If someone is looking for traditional ice hockey, then they will immediately see the hatnote directing them over to the "Ice hockey" page. If they want to learn about the history of bandy, then there they are. How things are now seems helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep target to bandy as CoffeeWithMarkets says. Skogsvandraren (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC) – Ivanvector got me thinking. I change my view to neutral. Skogsvandraren (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to ice hockey. I'm not convinced by "this is how it's always been"; to the vast majority of English speakers (and especially second-language English speakers) "hockey on ice" is synonymous with ice hockey. Many more people typing "hockey on [the ]ice" will be looking for ice hockey, rather than a historical name for bandy. A hatnote from ice hockey to bandy is the appropriate way to deal with this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

By that reasoning, Dancing on Ice should go to Ice Dancing (the two do not hatnote each other, probably should) or Walking on Sunshine should go to Sunshine Walking. One of the things about English (and I am not being WP:ENGVAR here) is that we conjugate adjective/s nouns and drop the prepositions. As someone who is not from Canadaland, where I believe they play a bit of it from time to time, I would think to a WP:WORLDWIDE audience it most likely is synonymous with ice hockey, but specifically not in the UK or Ireland. Hmmm. Si Trew (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, not really. Dancing on Ice is the title of a work, whereas "hockey on ice" is an historic name for a sport, for which common usage has long since been superseded by ice hockey. Sunshine walking just isn't a thing, redirecting Walking on Sunshine there would be nonsense. It's worth noting that there were various stick-and-ball games other than bandy (but similar to it and to one another) played on ice throughout the world which were called "hockey on the ice" at one time or another, to distinguish from other stick-and-ball games not played on ice, and nobody really knows what the origin of the word "hockey" is. We should therefore follow modern usage. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep as sourced historical term, which it is not for ice hockey. If an English learner who has not gotten their word order correct yet and, used to a foo d bar order in their own language goes to Hockey on ice looking for Ice hockey, there's a DAB hatnote that sends them to the right place already. As a native English speaker, I'd expect a reference to "hockey on ice" to be somehow distinguishable from "ice hockey" or it wouldn't have been phrased that way to begin with. The odd word order is in and of itself a signal "this doesn't mean 'ice hockey'". In sport and game names in particular, I think it's important to preserve the names as they're found; we do not want someone reading Dickens or some other Victorian writer to Google "hockey on ice", see that it points to our ice hockey article, then go back to reading their old novel, wrongly imagining the characters body-checking each other in NHL shoulder pads and helmets. They should see that it points to bandy, and click through to find out what bandy is if they don't already know. Remember that en.wp is written for English speakers, not beginning English learners. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to hockey (as nom). The more I read this discussion, the more I'm convinced that this phrase refers to both codes fairly equally. I don't think we should favor any particular code since there are strong arguments on both sides, so this should be redirected to hockey as a compromise, where our readers can learn about all types of "hockey on ice" (maybe refine it to Hockey#Subtypes?). -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:22, 18 September 2015 (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.

Federal Building (Anchorage, Alaska)[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Federal Building (Anchorage, Alaska) → Old Federal Building (Anchorage, Alaska) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

U.S. Federal Building and Courthouse (Anchorage, Alaska) → Old Federal Building (Anchorage, Alaska) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

United States Federal Building and Courthouse (Anchorage, Alaska) → Old Federal Building (Anchorage, Alaska) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Originally nominated here, then withdrawn when the first response caused me to realize that the nomination was ill-formatted and premature. Renominating now that the associated RM has gone through. All of these redirects are ambiguous, as Anchorage has both this building and the James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse and Federal Building located about six blocks away, which has stood since 1977. Unfortunately, there's no article on that building. Lessee, it was named in honor of a major figure in Alaskan jurisprudence, it has stood for decades, its architectural significance has been written about, it covers three city blocks, IT HAS ITS OWN ZIP CODE...uh, what else? Perhaps that C Street Foodland was a neighborhood landmark until it was torn down to make way for Module G? Anyway, the fact that we lack an article here is further evidence of the bias we show towards the National Register of Historic Places, but I realize that this isn't the proper venue for that argument. Suggest retargeting all to List of United States federal courthouses in Alaska until such time as the aforementioned issue is rectified, as that article mentions both buildings, whereas other likely targets do not. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to retargeting all as proposed. Please be sure to fix any incoming links first. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:30, 16 September 2015 (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.

Ford's latest model[edit]

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) 13:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ford's latest model → Ford Motor Company (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Not sure if it's possible to determine what Ford's latest model (singular) is, but someone searching this wouldn't be be satisfied with a general article on Ford. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete. I suppose it could also refer to Ford Models, but this has no facility for either target. bd2412 T 02:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow, I got a WP:SURPRISE. That link is for a modeling agency. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete highly biased, the Ford Modeling Agency is very famous -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:XY. As far as I can tell, Ford Motor Company releases their models for a production year simultaneously, so there is never a "latest model" per se. As for Ford Models, it's highly likely that the model that they've signed most recently would not pass our notability test, and it would be very difficult to determine who it is at any point in time, assuming that they sign models all the time. It's their business, after all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - I agree with Ivanvector's reasoning. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2015 (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.

شركة فورد[edit]

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) 13:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

شركة فورد → Ford Motor Company (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete per WP:R#D8. Ford doesn't have any special connection with Arabic. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete Per the target article, it seems that the company has a weak presence in Arabic speaking countries so any connection with the language will be poor. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for any action. Wily D 12:50, 21 September 2015 (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.

September 14[edit]

Pastrami, n[edit]

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) 18:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Pastrami, n → Pastrami (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Not sure what this redirect is meant to designate. Otherwise, it just looks like an unlikely misspelling due to the odd ", n" at the end. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - Looks pretty unhelpful to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is stating that pastrami is a noun. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 12:50, 15 September 2015 (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.

Why animals don't have wheels[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Why animals don't have wheels → Rotating locomotion in living systems (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This entry on August 6th was blanked in the edit immediately following the nomination edit, so it never had discussion. (The error was probably caused by WP:TWINKLE since both this entry and the next nomimation (which blanked this entry) were done by the same editor.) So, I put the nomination back where it belonged on the 2015 August 6 page, and now here it is "relisted".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep - the target does in fact discuss the phenomenon of why animals don't have wheels in pretty thorough detail. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep as I feel WP:NOTFAQ is not applicable unless a question is being asked, and this search term appears to be a rephrasing rather than a question. --Rubbish computer 19:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep as above. And actually I think somewhere in Dawkins it mentions that some very very small animals do have wheels, well at least rotating tails that are not connected to their body except by kinda well how you make a wheel, but I forget exactly where. Not a vestigial tail but a genuine wheel, in the sense that it is not connected to the body except through a rotating hub, it's kinda an amazing bit of evolution, I think some kind of bacterium, but I am hard placed to put it (if I'm allowed to call a bacterium an animal for the purpose of this discussion). If anyone said it, was probably Richard Dawkins. It could possibly be in Desmond Morris's or Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man, but I don't think so. I only have the woodware, so it is hard for me to check it quickly. Si Trew (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete. A most unlikely search term. Would be OK on Wikihow or Answers.com, but not here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep, as the article is precisely over "why animals don't have wheels." I've never thought of that before, but I'm glad to have gotten such a detailed response. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep - not a question, but a phrasing of the problem in ordinary English, rather than heavily jargoned English. Wily D 12:52, 21 September 2015 (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.

ʔal-maʃriq[edit]

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-deleted WP:CSD#R3. JohnCD (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

ʔal-maʃriq → Levant (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete this IPA transcription per Ʒuˈɐ̃w̃ dɨ ˈbaʁuʃ, 'nunu 'aɫvɐɾɨʃ pɨ'ɾɐjɾɐ, ɑ̃sjɛ̃ ʁeʒim, Mau̯ː˧˥ tsɤ˧˥.tʊŋ˥, and Dʒenive. Gorobay (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete per the rest; WP:R3 because it's a very recently recreated implausible typo. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above, although this is probably about to happen anyway. --Rubbish computer 19:10, 14 September 2015 (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.

'Sblood[edit]

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) 18:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

'Sblood → Minced oath (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

This redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Per this redirect's edit history, it looks like it was previously a WP:DICDEF-ish article that was redirected to Minced oath in 2005. Steel1943 (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Soft retarget to Wiktionary as there is an entry there. Rubbish computer 10:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
~~Delete~~, WP:MOSPUNC. Wiktiionary can have it if it wants, but it is not encylclopaeidic, WP:NOTDIC.Since when (abozuut six months ago) was Wikipedia used as an index to WIktionary? delete it, that is what Wiktionary is for. Thiuis is an enxccyclopaediae not alexicon, and the entries at Wiktionaryy are usually not very good anyway, but that is just my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Weak retarget. to Bloody, which is itself a minced oath, and links to minced oath in that article.

I think we have established that we are not here to enumerate a list of every euphemism, but those that are noteworthy we can retarget. a Bloody Mary is a pun, essentially, on the blood of Mary, Queen of Scots (I am not scottish) when Elizabeth I sent her to the Tower, but is certainly a lot later in etymology. Bloodie is red. Si Trew (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete, as there isn't an encyclopedic place that discusses this word. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:31, 14 September 2015 (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.

Egad[edit]

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 Egad to EGAD, delete the others. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Egad → Minced oath (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Egads → Minced oath (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Ee gads → Interjection (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] (Added late; same rationale applies.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

These redirects are examples of minced oaths, but the redirects are not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of these redirects is questionable since the subject of the redirects isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless good retargeting options can be found for these redirects, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Weak Retarget to God (word) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Soft retarget to Wiktionary as there is an entry there. Rubbish computer 10:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Strong Delete. I have no idea what a soft retarget is (actually I do, it just means retargetting so the "soft" is redundant) but I am strongly against turning WIkipedia into "Wiktionary with pictures and other stuff". That is why we have, er, Wikipidia and Wiktionary as two seperate entities. A lexicon and an encyclopaedia are not the same thing. WP:NOTDIC. 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
- Comment a soft redirect is a type of page that uses a template to indicate the location the user should click to, instead of being directly bounced to the page. Usually they use {{soft redirect}}, though categories use {{category redirect}} (and categories should never be hard redirected); We have a category for these soft redirect templates that indicate the type of soft redirect, Category:Templates for soft redirects ; There's a specific one for Wiktionary, {{Wiktionary redirect}} ; soft redirects themselves are also categorized into Category:Wikipedia soft redirects -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment. @70.51.202.113: it doesn't for me, I don't mean specifically but in general, I bounce straight through them to their targets and wonder how I got there and have to backtrace how that happened. I can't believe that is just me that happens to. Si Trew (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget all to EGAD, with maybe some more information added to that page about how the term is sometimes used as a minced oath CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've added a Wiktionary link to EGAD, if that helps matters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget egad to EGAD per CoffeeWithMarkets, delete the other two as they aren't mentioned at that dab or anywhere else. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment retargetting "egad" (singular) and "egads" (plural) to "EGAD" works for me. The other can point to "god (word)" -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2015 (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.

Gosh darn[edit]

Gosh darn → Minced oath (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

This redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

retarget to ~~damnation since that is where goddammit leads to~~ -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Update retarget to goddamn; as a valid alternate spelling for the primary meaning of "goddamn" -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as this seems too tangential to retarget to damnation. Rubbish computer 10:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Goddamn. My first thought was retarget this to darn; but this is just a slang term developed not to curse or use the Lord's name in vain (wikt:gosh and wikt:darn). I'd suggest retargeting goddammit to goddamn as well.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 14:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
~~Delete~~.Retarget ti Goddamn. WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Winter is icumen in,

Lhudle sing goddam

Groweth snot and may it rot

Lhudle sing goddamn

Old english verse, translated by Ogden Nash. Si Trew (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Goddamn is a disambiguation page, with no instances of "gosh darn". Wouldn't a Wiktionary redirect make more sense than that option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment wikt:Gosh darn does not exist. --Rubbish computer 19:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- There's a low participation rate at Wiktionary. Not to mention it isn't friendly to strangers. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment it appears at wikt:goshdarn -- Wiktionary is case sensitive in the first letter as well -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete I don't think any of the topics listed at the dab Goddamn would really be referred to as "Gosh darn". And because that is a dab, there is no "primary meaning of 'goddamn'" on Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Harry S Truman[edit]

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. Use WP:RM to request this move. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Harry S Truman → Harry S. Truman (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Reverse this. The S in Harry S Truman does not stand for anything except itself, it is not an abbreviation and should not be stopped. The article does not say that it stands for anything (and it damned well don't) Si Trew (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2015 (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.

Paul Sartre[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Paul Sartre → Jean-Paul Sartre (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete. Show me where with a WP:RS Jean-Paul Sartre was ever just called Paul Sartre. This is WP:RFD#D2 confusing. FR:WP does not have it. Neither does any search result I can get have it, all roads lead back via this silly redirect. Si Trew (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep - could be a plausible error, and not confusing with any other notable target that I can think of. It's fairly busy and it's been around since 2009. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but I have been very busy and I have been around since 2009. Hits are around 1 a day but are quite consistently around that, more than bot noise. It's a bit of a coin-toss then. I can see the point of keeping it, in the meantime as usual without prejudice I have marked it as {{R from incorrect name}}. Si Trew (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I change my mind. Keep with Ivanvector. This does no harm, gets hits. I'd prefer if right now this was not taken as withdrawn by nominator, because I still think others may differ and say nope delete, but for myself, I am happy to withdraw it. Si Trew (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2015 (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.

In Other Words[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

In Other Words → Fly Me to the Moon (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

I thought I already nominated this for delete but it seems to have got lost. "In Other Words" does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, "Fly me to the moon", in a rather imperative mood, would require some kind of rocket science, if demanded, perhaps Richard Branson could get you there one day. It's a lyric from a song and we are WP:NOT#LYRICS. It makes no bloody sense to put it there. Mutatis Mutandis, which means roughly speaking "In other words" (not exactly, more "With things changed as necessary"), is perhaps a possible target. Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately we don not have In other words, In Other words, In other Words, Another word, Another words, Another Word, Another Words, and so on. Si Trew (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The original title of the song was "In Other Words." It has become better known as "Fly Me to the Moon.." There are two reasonable ways of handling this. I would prefer that "In Other Words" be considered the primary article title and the redirect go the other way. But in either case, it seems that the appropriate title (either of the main article or the redirect) be changed to "In Other Words (song)." Would that satisfy everyone? -- BRG (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I would be more than happy with that (and am happy with the explanation, thank you, I learned something). The thing is, how I came to list this, I just got a WP:SURPRISE by chucking in "in other words" (in those caps) and finding myself at Frankie crooning along. I think disambiguating it in that way is probably the best, but then we still have the problem that In other words should presumably go somewhere? But we can sort that out afterwards. More than happy with User:BRG's suggestion as a first bit of disentaglement. Si Trew (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep (edit conflict) - based on the article I think it's fine as-is. "In other words" (no caps) probably does refer to something else but I can't think of what, and there's no need to add a disambiguator if the title (with caps) is not ambiguous. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(Sorry about the ec) If we are going to keep this why don't we add Put differently and In for a penny, in for a pound (or, if you want, in for a loonie, in for a twonie). I appreciate that deletion is not the reverse of creation, but we are WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment In Other Words appears at IOW -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2015 (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.

Debation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 21#Debation

Meri Kahani[edit]

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) 18:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Meri Kahani → Atif Aslam (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

PRODed as non-notable music album of Atif Aslam, the link now redirects to the artist. But "Meri Kahani" is a very generic title. My Story (Kamala Das book), An Autobiography (Nehru) ref are both called "Meri Kahani" in Hindi language translations. There seems to be a Pakistani drama by same name. Also there are some non-notable Bollywood films of 1982 and 1948 of same name ref. The redirect is clearly at the wrong target. But then is a disambiguation page worth as none of the probable search results seem notable much? Or should this be deleted? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep as redirects from individual albums and songs that are not notable in themselves are frequently used. Rubbish computer 08:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Why should it redirect to Atif if other possible targets are also available? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: I didn't realise there were other articles related to this, I thought you just meant other things. --Rubbish computer 19:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete. WP:NOTENGLISH, and this can be transcribed in a number of different ways. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, let the search engine do it. Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguate. --Rubbish computer 19:20, 14 September 2015 (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.

September 12[edit]

Add[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Add → ADD (disambiguation) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Retarget to Addition per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and WP:DIFFCAPS. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget per nom. Rubbish computer 21:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

'Retarget to Addition. Amazed it would go anywhere else. I checked subtract -> Subtraction, [multiply -> Multiplication, and divide is a DAB, the article at Division (mathematics). subtrahend is an R to Subtraction, as is minuend, dividend is an article with a hatnote to division (mathematics). obviously somewhat ambigiguous, divisor is an article in its own right (or wrong). These are a bit unbalanced, then, like improper fractions, but WP:NOTPERFECT and all have a long history. Si Trew (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually idiot that I am I didn't think to check addend, which goes to addition. I am just wondering now where adder would go cos I was just assuming it would be a DAB (phew, it is). augend is an R to addition, and is mentioned there. Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget per nom sst^flyer 13:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per nom. I feel like we discussed this earlier this year. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: ...Ad? Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it was Sum. Close, but more differenty. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Cogito ergo sum, then. We're having a lot of (edit conflict)'s tonight IV. Keep plodding on eh. Si Trew (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2015 (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.

Circle Bakote Gakhar[edit]

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) 18:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Circle Bakote Gakhar → Gakhars (Hindu) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Recently created POV fork based on a Facebook page. It was redirected but in reality there is no support for this community being anything much at all. Circle Bakote is a place, and if we allow redirects for castes in each town etc then we really will be creating a maintenance nightmare for no gain. There are sometimes good reasons for having specific articles for regional etc variants of a caste but this doesn't fall within them. Sitush (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 21:59, 12 September 2015 (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.

Janet.[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Janet. → Janet (album) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Currently, it is redirected to the Janet Jackson album. "Janet." was proposed but rejected twice or thrice as the article title. As it looks almost ambiguous (unless you are very familiar with Jackson herself), shall it be redirected to Janet (disambiguation)? In the light of Talk:Gangsta., I fear that someone would use it to oppose this proposal. George Ho (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to Janet (disambiguation) given the ambiguity CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep - Actually, this seems like the most logical thing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Which other uses would typically be referred to with a period? --BDD (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep since this either the only thing known as "Janet." or is by far the most prominent. Any other use can be solved with a hatnote to Janet (disambiguation). -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Tavix and BDD. Rubbish computer 22:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
REtarget to the disambiguation page. Anything just Janet can be described as Janet PERIOD or Janet. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep per the lack of ambiguity the period adds. Steel1943 (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean that the period (full stop) serves to disambiguate. I disagree, it's too subtle a way to disambiguate. Si Trew (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

~~Retarget~~ to Janet (disambiguation). Si Trew (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep. The hatnote on Janet (album) is sufficient to direct users to the disambiguation page, and people typing in a period at the end are more likely to be looking for the album. sst^flyer 13:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep and maintain the hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page. "Janet." is technically the title of the album, so it should point there first. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@209.211.131.181: is the full stop/period at the end of Janet technically part of the title? If so it it should definitely go there, but I don't think it is, however I have been known to be wrong. Si Trew (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Si Trew, I'd say yes. Steel1943 (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, it's certainly there on the cover art, which is the best source for what the title actually is. Wikipedia is not alone in omitting it from the title, however. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I withdraw my retarget suggestion. Perhaps it was just my screen or my glasses but I couldn't see the full stop/period. Si Trew (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep and maintain the hatnote on the target page, as per what IP 209 suggests. JaykeBird (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2015 (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.

Jones v. Bush[edit]

Jones v. Bush → United States presidential election, 2000 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

The first version of this page indicates this is a court case challenging "Cheney's state of residency" [sic]. These sorts of silly lawsuits are not uncommon in American politics, and there's no such lawsuit discussed at the target article (or elsewhere on Wikipedia). I found this one especially confusing since election articles typically have redirects like Obama vs. Romney, with the names of the candidates. BDD (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom as is not at target. Rubbish computer 22:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't it Jones who had the Bush? She was a sucker for punishment. Shall I stop with the puns now? Si Trew (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete. This was prematurely redirected; it's a notable court case for the reason that it's essentially the only litigation on the Twelfth Amendment requirement for electors to vote on at least one candidate not a resident of the same state as themselves. As the single article revision is of too low quality to stand on its own, it's better to have a redlink in order to encourage creation. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment I think Residency is perfectly proper US English whereas I would say Residence. It hurts my ears, but then take His Excellency not His Excellence. (Perhaps Bill Gates should be called His Microsoft Excelency). That's just one of those things. Si Trew (talk) 08:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Anybody but Bush[edit]

Anybody but Bush → United States presidential election, 2004#Opposition to Bush and Kerry (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Anybody but Bush, Except for Kerry → United States presidential election, 2004 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

There's some use of "Anybody but Bush" in a few articles, but not the target article, and I don't see a good retargeting option. The longer variant may be a Wikipedia invention. Also, the section the first redirect targets no longer exists. --BDD (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - I think we should just get rid of both of these as unhelpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Certainly the second is weird as being "anybody except Bush, except Kerry", which seems rather a bit of Alice in Wonderland mislogic, if you accept (but not except) that "but" and for that matter "save" in this context mean "except" (I think this is treated in Fowler under pairs and snares, but I'm just going from memory there). Oddly one would expect save to be the English word and except to be the Latin one, but I think actually it's the other way around. Anyway it is WP:RFD#D2 nonsense. (Fortunately we don't have Save Bush or Anyone Save Bush or things like that. I am not expressing a political opinion here, just an opinion about Wikipedia.) Si Trew (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete as there appears to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 22:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as above. perhaps WP:SNOW delete, but I am not an admin so can't take it meself. Even if it stayed, surely it would beWP:RFD#D2 confusing as it could refer to George W. Bush or his son. Declaration of interest: when Bush got elected president, I was living in Texas, but for obvious reasons did not have a vote there, as a foreigner. Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
delete seems to be an obscure political slogan --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Presidential election results[edit]

Presidential election results → United States presidential election, 2012 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Of which presidential election? This was created in 2005 as a redirect to the 2004 US presidential election and has been updated since, but it still seems to reflect a massive about of WP:BIAS. BDD (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:XY and WP:WORLDWIDE since the redirect does not specify which government's presidential election. Steel1943 (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per Steel1943. Rubbish computer 22:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Strong delete WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and this requires a news bias to make this equivalency. And that this would have to be the U.S. Wikipedia. There is a world outside of the last election cycle and the world at large exists beyond the U.S. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete. There are more presidents than just the one in the United States. On the other hand that is the most obvious one, like The Queen does not to my surprise go to Elizabeth II though I am pleased to say we do have King Zog -> Zog I of Albania, who was president before he was King, and if you want to be a monarch you can't beat a name like that. Si Trew (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Zog is an R to ZOG. I'll mark it after checking, Shame shame. Si Trew (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Already marked, no work for me then. Si Trew (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Kneel before Zog! --BDD (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2016[edit]

Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2016 → United States presidential election, 2016 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Probably delete per WP:XY, and somewhat WP:CRYSTAL. As of right now, there is no such campaign. Biden's interest in running is discussed at the target article, but also Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016 and Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, both of which would seem to be more logical places to target. BDD (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep. This redirect serves a purpose and can always be expanded if appropriate. The redirect is doing no harm and people may happen to use it. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on why United States presidential election, 2016 is a better target for it than the other options listed above? --BDD (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I am fine with a retarget. I just didn't see the point in deleting the redirect. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016 per nom. Rubbish computer 22:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016, as Rubbish and nominator suggested. More logical redirect. JaykeBird (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
~~Retarget~~ as above. It's not WP:CRYSTAL (nor WP:XY) as there is definite information about this at that target. It is not as if it redirects to Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016 that would be XY. Si Trew (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Well if you delete one you have to delete the other. I don't see the point in doing either. Obama has been, in my opinion, a bloody good president and has done more for the US in international relations than maybe people in the US realise or get told of. However, his two terms are up and US citizens get a vote. I don't. I think the more we inform people of the candidates the better people can make their decision. The worst thing to do is to have a vote and not use it. Si Trew (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It's CRYSTAL to suggest that there is an extant Biden campaign. --BDD (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment, if this is kept, the best target is probably Joe Biden#Possible 2016 bid for presidency. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Good find. I'm still leaning delete, but this is the best target yet. The other pages mostly just say "Biden might be interested in running", whereas this comes closest to describing an actual campaign. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep I'll go with that, whoever this Jobe Iden fellow is. Si Trew (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep This should redirect to the 2016 campaign article. Significant speculation exists, and reports are saying he may very well run. No reason to delete, especially if it might be used in the comings weeks. Spartan7W § 00:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Chrissake[edit]

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) 17:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Chrissake → Minced oath (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Chrissakes → Minced oath (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

These redirects are examples of minced oaths, but the redirects are not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of these redirects is questionable since the subject of the redirects isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless good retargeting options can be found for these redirects, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The redirect Christ sake currently targets Blasphemy#Blasphemy in Christianity. Steel1943 (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Blasphemy since that is where Christ sake leads to -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per above. Rubbish computer 10:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete both. For Christ' Sake and. For the love of Christ are red. We are WP:NOTDIC ]and and certainly not a theological dictoionary. Is it fourth commandment to remember the name of the Lord, to keep it holy? Haven'tbeen to church latey. Si Trew (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC
- They were red when I mentioned them. {-r]For the love of Christ}} -> Thou shall not take the name of Lord thy God in vain, For Christ's sake is a DAB for one of many of several plays/dramas. Si Trew (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget all to Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain - Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain is a more specifically relevant target than Blasphemy#Christianity, and I have retargeted the other redirects there (Christ sake, For Christ's sake, etc.). Neelix (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete. This is a misspelling of "Christ's sake." None of those suggested retarget options plausibly use this misspelling. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Nor really a misspelling but an abbreviation or other spelling. We don't have For fuck's sake, though Si Trew (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete. This is an abbreviation or misspelling that isn't worth putting here. Having something like Christ sake makes sense, as its actually how its meant to be, but not this. Wikipedia isn't meant to correct people's spelling mistakes. JaykeBird (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2015 (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.

Gawt deem[edit]

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) 17:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Gawt deem → Minced oath (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

This redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. ~~Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect,~~ (Nominator opinion change: see below. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)) I say ~~either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or~~ (Nominator opinion change: see below. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)) delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment Doesn't exist on Wiktionary. Probably doesn't meet inclusion criteria there either (wikt:WT:ATTEST). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to goddamn since this is a variant spelling, and that page leads to the article damnation and wiktionary -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Rwtarget' to goddamn, with 70. 51. I did think vaguely of carpe diem but that is well wide of the mark. Si Trew (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to goddamn per above. Rubbish computer 10:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:R#D2. Do we have any evidence that this is a common variant spelling? Goddamn is a dab, and none of the entries there are known as "gawt deem" so the retarget proposal doesn't make any sense to me. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tavix: Agreed. If anything, this phrase looks like the "got eem" meme that has been flying around these days. In fact, given this, I struck out some of my nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment There seem to be about seven people per year using it on Twitter [10]. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - unlike gosh darn this isn't established in use. Deem put simply is to "to hold an opinion" or "judge", I don't view it as a plausible misspelling of damn, and it is a defined word. Gawt is much more similar to got, not a plausible synonym of God. In my opinion this equates to "Got deem" (reminds me of Got Milk?), which isn't good grammar or a proper usage, and has no good target.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment I was going to suggest goddamit but that is red, goddam is blue though, but that's A DAB, so I am not sure that is much help.

Winter is Icumen in

Lhudle sing goddam

Buck starteth, muck farteth

Lhudle sing goddam

Si Trew (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

- Comment Goddammit is a bluelink -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as per the same reasons as Tavix. This spelling seems weird; I've never seen it before. If there's evidence of widespread use, that'd be a different story, but until I see any, I think this should be deleted. JaykeBird (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2015 (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.

Jeez[edit]

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) 17:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Jeez → Minced oath (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

The redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Blasphemy#Blasphemy in Christianity since that is where Christ sake leads to -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per 70. Rubbish computer 10:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Weak delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. or DAB irt to include Jesus creepers. a type of sandal, but we don't seem to have that as slang ot anything else. Something with this Christianity redirects is very fishy... I state exőélicitly, I have edited a few on the way when we have been doing the R's, but I am not a christian, I am just .Church of England, where you only häve to go there for hatch, match and dispatch. Nit KJesus wppuéd ne a good Wikiőőedoam cps he just said basically try to be mnice to other pepőeé. forgive them their sins, cos you have lots yourseéf- In that sense I am a Christian I just don't think there is Santa Claus upstairs, but it makes my life work do as Jesus said. Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sinned against us. And lead us not into tepmtation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, foreverf and ever. Amen. Si Trew (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete. This one is weird in that Wikipedia has no information about the word, but there are a couple of minor usages that appear as part of a phrase. The most prominent of which are: "BLK Jeez", a nickname for Sabian (wrestler) and the catchphrase Jeez, Wayne. I don't think this would make a good dab as those are WP:PTMs, but search results would be able to catch those looking for either use, and other people will note that we don't have anything else and might be compelled to create something. I will note that wikt:jeez says that it's an alternative form of geez, and that's a redirect to Ge'ez language. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Jesus, as an blasphemy (I am not religious). Si Trew (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete the redirect, as per the same reasons brought up by the creator of this discussion, Steel1943. Jeez is an example of a minced oath, not synonymous with it. This redirect shouldn't exist. JaykeBird (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2015 (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.

Ovaloid[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 21#Ovaloid

BALLON ANGIOPLASTY[edit]

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) 17:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

BALLON ANGIOPLASTY → Angioplasty (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete as an implausible search term due to the ALL CAPS and the misspelling of "balloon" -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 08:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
We don't have balloon angioplasty, although that is a well-known technique to inflate the ventricles or auricles of the heart with a little bit of incision, so I am not sure what to do with this one. Delete as confusing, WP:RFD#D2 I should say, as if we haven't it then it doesn't do our readers any good. Angioplasty has it in lede, though, in the second sentence. Si Trew (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
DELETE PER NOM. STEEL1943 (TALK) 15:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. 🎈💥 Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I completely cocked up mine there then. But yah, del as I said. Just the kb was giving me trouble, sorry. Got all three working properly now I think, so any mistakes are my own and not the hardware. I don't think it is a misspelling of balloon, or perhaps it is, but the French spelling of balloon is exactly that, so it's a bit {{R from other language}}, but still seems rather unhelpful, and the French for "angioplasty" is not "angioplasty" (it's "angioplastie", not a million miles away), but all things combined this is just WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2015 (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.

Campaign 2008[edit]

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) 17:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Campaign 2008 → United States elections, 2008 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete as I don't think there's an appropriate target for this. There are other campaigns that aren't political in nature. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to 'Electoral calendar 2008' as that would be helpful to people looking for additional information on any political campaigns held anyplace in 2008, but otherwise I'd delete CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Strong delete WP:BIAS This is not the U.S. Federal Government wikipedia. There is a world out there beyond the U.S. federal election cycle, even if the politicos in Washington never act like there is a real world beyond the beltway. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIAS. Rubbish computer 08:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is my struggle, and why I perennially try to plug my atlas Countries That Are Not The United States, to no good effect. What is even more odd, even if this is a bit US centric, is that elections other than Federal elections happen all the time, at least in Springfield. So even if we said OK, it's a bit US centric but that's all right, then you have to list x knows how many local, municipal, district and whatever elections that happened in 2008, and that's never going to happen. Si Trew (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - Ambiguous as to the country, and even the "campaigns" within a certain country; multiple possible targets WP:XY.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 12:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as above. This is not the only campaign from 2008. Si Trew (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Electoral calendar 2008. This is certainly a plausible redirect, and corrects the concerns about multiple targets and biases listed above. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Electoral calendar 2008. This is probably the closest target and will also address the bias issue --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete. "Campaign" does not necessarily refer to an election, so redirecting to Electoral calendar 2008 would not be appropriate. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:XY and WP:WORLDWIDE. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2015 (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.

US 08 Election[edit]

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) 17:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

US 08 Election → United States elections, 2008 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
08 US Elections → United States elections, 2008 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
08 US Election → United States elections, 2008 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
US pres election 04 → United States presidential election, 2004 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

A few more redirects I missed from this discussion. It's a WP:RECENTISM violation because they could just as equally refer to an Election of 1908 or Election of 1808. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - Given the ambiguity, these are problematic. The 1908 and 1808 elections have both attracted historical attention over the years, the former in particular as that's the year that good ol' Teddy Roosevelt left office with ambiguous circumstances as to what Taft could accomplish without him. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 08:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - Ambiguous as to the century.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 12:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't since there was not a US election of 1908 nor a US election of 1808, and I think in 1708 we owned it but there was a bit of a debacle, something of a how's -your father or little disagreement somwehere along the line in that century, but I forget the details. Somewhere around 1793 I think. Si Trew (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: United States elections, 1908 and United States elections, 1808 could both be referred to by the redirects in question.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes more sense to do that. My KB was playing up, sorry, so I managed to kinda cock up the link to US election of 1908 by leaving the U outside the link, purely my cock.up. So now we are left with a red white and blue because to have and have not we don't have U.S. Elections of 1908, US Elections of 1908, nor United States elections of 1908 (and I shall not enumerate farther, you get the point.) Actually I may have hit the nail on the thumb, it should be WP:SINGULAR to say not "Elections" but "Election". Si Trew (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Well there was United States presidential election, 1808, United States presidential election, 1908, and United States Senate elections, 1908, and United States Senate elections, 1808 and 1809, and United States elections, 1808 (congress) and United States elections, 1908 (also congress), with also United States presidential election, 2008, United States Senate elections, 2008, and United States House of Representatives elections, 2008. Not to mention United States gubernatorial elections, 2008. So I would say it is ambiguous to the century and the scope. So I would go with Delete, unnecessary (as the searcher should know the century they are looking for) ambiguous search term. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete bias and ambiguity about the century -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2015 (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:WPC[edit]

Wikipedia:WPC → Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Doesn't it make the most sense for this to be a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council? The Council page is viewed more than the Countries' page, and the Council is the go to for information about all WikiProjects. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep as a shortcut from the "Wikipedia:" namespace that has several incoming links and has existed for almost a decade. The hatnote at the top of the target will have to suffice. Steel1943 (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Alternately, very weak disambiguate. This shortcut was a redirect towards Wikipedia:WikiProject California when it was first created, but then about a week later was changed to target its current target. Then, three years later, for about a month and a half, it was a redirect towards Wikipedia:WikiProject Council (the nominator's proposed retargetting option.) I say "very weak" though since for only about two months of the nominated redirect's 10 year, 2 month existence did it target anything other than its current target, so the likelihood of bad incoming links is low and the hatnote really should suffice. Steel1943 (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep or disambiguate It's a shortcut, but if there are other high profile contenders for it, disambiguation would also work. (same for the others of the same format, being single letters attached to WP or single letters on their own) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguate due to there being several plausible options. Rubbish computer 08:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Besides California and Countries, it could also refer to the WikiProjects for C/C++, Calendars, Calvinism, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Canberra, Cannabis... this list is going to take me way too long to get through. We'd be looking at a rather large dab here. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep, shortcuts to Wikipedia space can be and is usually ambiguous. That's why we have so few Wikipedia space disambiguations. If there's other meanings for a shortcut, it should be included in the hatnote. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep, as per the precedent set virtually since its inception in 2005. Also weak disambiguate, as I do think a DAB page would really be the best option here, but I know it'd be a bit of a long list (although using sections in the DAB page, like we would any other large DAB page, would make it easiest to navigate). However, the fact that this redirect has stood this way for so long has swayed me to stick with the 'keep' decision first. Might be an interesting side project to take up this winter though, to make such a DAB page. JaykeBird (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
(Nominator's comment) After reading the above reasoning I think disambiguation might be the best way to go... Kharkiv07 (T) 15:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Dabify since there are at least three identified potential targets --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep and add a hatnote to the other plausible search terms, as this is useful as a shortcut. --Rubbish computer 19:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose disambiguation per Tavix. There are simply too many WikiProjects that could plausibly be referred to as "WPC"; a disambiguation page would be wildly unwieldy. I see the upside to keeping as well as deleting, so I won't take a position on that question thus far, but disambiguating here seems like bureaucratic nonsense. In addition to the eight WikiProjects I named above, there's also Capitalism, Cardiff, Caribbean, Catalonia, Categories, Catholicism, Cats, Caucasia, Caves. That gets us through Ca... --BDD (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

September 11[edit]

Francoise Gay[edit]

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) 14:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Francoise Gay → Sophie Gay (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete - nothing in the target article or a web search indicates that the author was known by this name. TB (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment It looks like someone created redirects for every permutation of "Marie Françoise Sophie Gay". See here. I'd be in favor of deleting all erroneous forms that she was never known as. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not that unusual in Europe, Jean-Paul Sartre was not known as [Jean Sartre even though apparently we have the redirect for that (and Paul Sartre goes to the same target). But then I am not sure if you would call that a middle name, it is what used to be called a combined name or Christian name, birth name or Saint's name. It Would be weird in England to go around being called Johnny Paul, but then perhaps he was just a johnny-come-lately. Si Trew (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete. I've not looked at other forms, but there is apparently nobody notable who is or was known by this name. The closed I could find is an author, Francoise Gray, who might be notable (needs more investigation than I gave it to determine). If we had an article about them, I'd consider the possibility of this being a useful {{R from typo}} but as there is no article that question doesn't arise. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - Given how unusual it is for someone to be known by [Middle Name] [Last Name], I think this should be just deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Acccording to WP:FR she was the daughter of an Italian, and there is no mention of a Francoise there (there is a francetta), so I think this is a false friend. That beinfg said I am going to have a go at a bit of TR to improve what we have at EN:WP. Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I think I have made a bit of a start with it at EN:WP with the translation from FR:WP. It was incredibly "high" literary prose in the original so I am not sure the language is suitable for what we usually do at EN:WP i.e. write in the vernacular. But there ain't know Francoise, I think this is a false friend from here mother, an italian, being francetta. I've pretty much rewritten the article from the French but it is just a start. Si Trew (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I shoujld make myself clear. I have esssentially translated teh full text from the French (and marked it as such with {{translated page}}) but no doubt have many mistakes. It is written in a very high, kinda past historic literary style in the French, which does not translate well into English. There were a couple of things I just really did not know how to translate: not cos I don't know the words but they are kinda untranslatable.

I still think Francoise Gay is a false friend (or faux ami] if you prefer) here, from her mother's name. Certainly that article needs a lot of tidying but is better than it was (it has an infobox for example). Si Trew (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You can tell when I have finished translating something or taking a break from it cos my spelling mistakes in English increase about seventeen thousand percent. As if they were not bad enough already. Fag break. 10:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)

Strong comment: We're not being mistaken for François Gérard by any chance? They are related. Si Trew (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2015 (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.

Dagnabbit[edit]

Dagnabbit → Minced oath (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Dag nabit → Minced oath (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Dag Nabbit → Minced oath (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

These redirects are examples of minced oaths, but the redirects are not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of these redirects is questionable since the subject of the redirects isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless good retargeting options can be found for these redirects, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Regardless of the result of this discussion, the edit history of Dagnabbit shows that this page was previously some sort of article for a character in the Forgotten Realms series. I think the edit history of that may be able to be safely deleted since I was unable to find material on Wikipedia regarding this subject besides the content of the edit history, so it may not be necessary to keep considering that doing so may be a WP:NOTWIKIA violation. Steel1943 (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment does the character appear in a character list? If so, the edit history should be displaced to Dagnabbit (Forgotten Realms) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No mention of him at List of Forgotten Realms characters, which seems the most likely place. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Damnation since that is where goddammit leads to -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per 70. Rubbish computer 11:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget per 70.51.202.113. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

What the ****[edit]

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) 14:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

What the **** → Minced oath (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

This isn't even a minced oath; it's just a version of "what the fuck" that is censored. I was thinking of just boldly retargeting, but since I've also heard of the phrase "what the shit", it may just be best to delete it per WP:XY. Steel1943 (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

REtarget to What the Bleep Do We Know!?, which is where What the bleep?! leads, and who's actual title is filled with substitution symbols (What tнē #$*!), making this viable misspelling. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per 70, with a hatnote to the dab page What the fuck? in case this is what was intended. Rubbish computer 11:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to What the fuck dab page. Add "What the Bleep .. " to the dab page. Easy peasy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC).
Retarget to What the fuck, per Rich. Reso lute 23:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete WP:XY per nom: What the fuck, What the Hell (disambiguation), What the bleep, and possibly others. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per 58. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:XY because it could equally target what the hell or what the shit or what the what or a number of other actual interjections. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- I will note that (What the #$*!) the first character listed is "#" making it an impossible to use redirect (it has special meaning in HTTP URL syntax), which is why I state that the "What the bleep" location is most suitable, since the actual title is unusable due to technical restrictions. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete--I'm with Ivanvector here (and I thought it was "what the hell"). Note that the "substitution symbols" are far from self-evident and could be substituted with any of &*()$%&(&*()_$% these. Should we be consistent and make a bunch more redirects with various permutations? No--delete. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per Ivanvector & WP:XY, it can also mean 'what the heck', or stand on its own as an all-purpose, meaninglessly unfinished exclamation like 'What on earth ...'. The only readers I can imagine wanting this redirect, are non-native Eng speakers, who come across it in a text. Sending them to the wrong place might be worse than not supplying an answer.Pincrete (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it cannot mean what the heck, unless we are going for euphemism. What do you think "What the heck" is a euphemism for? what the hell is red, but WP:NOTCENSORED. In real life I rarely swear, and actually I dislike swearing, but this is no place for minced oaths. Actually I would delete that target cos it doesn't say anything useful. Mince pies are far more useful. Si Trew (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2015 (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.

Fugged[edit]

Fugged → Minced oath (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Fuggin → Minced oath (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Fuggin' → Minced oath (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

These redirects are examples of minced oaths, but the redirects are not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of these redirects is questionable since the subject of the redirects isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless good retargetting options can be found for these redirects, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Per Fug (a disambiguation page), retargeting to The Naked and the Dead may be an option, but at the present time, I am not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment Wiktionary has fug, but didn't mention its use as a minced oath until I added it just now. I also created fugged. There's no fuggin or fuggin'. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to fug and add an explicit link to fuck at the dab page, since it should already appear there, as it is used outside of the novel, in the real world. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any value in this retargeting option since these redirects could only be used properly to identify alternate forms of a verb or adverb form of "Fug". Steel1943 (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The usage in the novel and the actual value that should be added to the disambiguation page for fuck would end up with two values. Or we can just redirect them all to fuck instead WP:POFRED alternate names for fuck. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to fuck per 70's last point. Rubbish computer 11:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget all to Fuck - Minced oath alternatives to "fucking" are discussed on that article. Neelix (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed to Fuck#Common alternatives. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC).
Oppose retargeting to fuck due to the fact that the word "fugged" has other meanings besides its use as a minced oath (e.g. related to thick smoke or fog, as in the phrase "fugged-up windows" which has 24 GBooks hits and does not mean "fucked-up windows"). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The minced oath for "fucked" is the most common use of the word "fugged" that is encyclopedic. Any other encyclopedic meanings, if there are any, can be linked via a hatnote. Neelix (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTDIC. Fugged doesn't necessarily mean "fucked". -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, but Private Eye (magazine) uses it regularly as a parody of Mohammad Al Fayed's accent. It could perhaps go via there somehow, but that is not very WP:WORLDWIDE. Si Trew (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Fuck#Common alternatives where someone searching for this will be educated about the primary topic for their search term. Any other encyclopaedic uses can be linked via hatnotes. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

St. Mary's Y.M.A. F.C.[edit]

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 Southampton F.C.. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

St. Mary's Y.M.A. F.C. → St. Mary's Young Men's Association (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Very unlikely search term.. no benefit being kept IMO JMHamo (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarget to Southampton F.C. where the target has been redirected, per a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#St. Mary's Young Men's Association. Appears to be an abbreviation for an historic name of this club. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, regargeting is the best option. – Pee Jay 16:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per Ivanvector. Rubbish computer 08:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget as above. Giant Snowman 16:35, 12 September 2015 (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.

How to Kill a Mockingbird[edit]

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 snow keep. Alakzi (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

How to Kill a Mockingbird → To Kill a Mockingbird (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO Lakun.patra (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete This re-direct is nonsense.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, the deletion rationale is nonsense. The policy linked above is "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box." If this was an article about the best way to kill mockingbirds, then the deletion rationale might make sense at AfD. As a deletion rationale for a redirect, it does not. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep That the book (and even more so, the movie) is called "How to Kill a Mockingbird" is a surprisingly common misconception. ‑ iridescent 08:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Iridescent. I had to study this book for my GCSE English, and it was frequently misquoted as "How to Kill a Mocking Bird" by my mother. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Speedy keep no coherent reason given for deletion, and it's an entirely plausible redirect in any event. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep - Common mistake. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep - I have no idea how WP:NOTHOWTO is related to this redirect.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 10:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep a plausible (perhaps common) mistake. If this were targeting a form of bird hunting, WP:NOTHOWTO would apply. This is not a topic about how to literally "Kill a Mockingbird", it is literary work. Even if the book was about exterminating mockingbirds, as it is a plausible mis-rendering of the book title, the spirit of the aforementioned policy wouldn't apply.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Iridescent. Rubbish computer 13:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick close, Alakzi. And just in case anyone was wondering why it was protected indefinitely: those with admin glasses can tell you there's a long history of vandalism hidden in 131 edits. I think I created the redirect because I ran into an article or blog post written by Thryduulf's mother. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2015 (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.

Pinky Malinky[edit]

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) 14:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinky Malinky → List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

WP:CRYSTAL and WP:REDLINK. Not mentioned at the page, nor released yet or enough available information to identify the subject. Steel1943 (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 13:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2015 (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.

Waar (film series)[edit]

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) 14:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Waar (film series) → Waar (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Per WP:REDLINK and WP:CRYSTAL. The redirect targets a "sequels" section on a film (not a film series) article. The redirect misleads the reader into thinking there is a series article. Steel1943 (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 13:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2015 (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.

Template:R from incorrect capitalisation[edit]

Template:R from incorrect capitalisation → Template:R from misspelling (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Template:R from incorrect capitalization → Template:R from misspelling (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Simply, if I were to tag a redirect with this template redirect, I would think it should actually represent Template:R from other capitalisation instead of Template:R from misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment but the capitalization is incorrect, so that makes it a misspelling... ; "other capitalization" does not capture that, as many things have multiple 'correct' capitalizations. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I must take a completely different tack. What I assume is that, although these redirect to a more-specific template, one of these days they may be themselves a template (e.g. they might have -ize and -ise in their documentation). So I tend to mark Rs that we keep with the most-specific thing I can find, even if they are right now an R themselves, that is just WP:NOTFINISHED. Then another gnome or bot can come along later and mirabile dictu they will all be categorised into whatever caterory we feel like at that time. Si Trew (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment - three non-!votes to start an RfD is probably some kind of record. I would think that an incorrectly-capitalized redirect would qualify for tagging with both {{R from other capitalization}} and {{R from misspelling}}. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Nominator comment: Per the above comments, I'm starting to wonder ... First off, I don't see the value in creating a separate category for redirects tagged with this template. Per the above comments, I'm wondering if a solution may be to turn {{R from incorrect capitalisation}} into a template with the following content:

{{R from other capitalisation}}{{R from misspelling}}

...And then retarget {{R from incorrect capitalization}} there. This would make it so redirects tagged with the nominated template redirects would be tagged with both of the above templates. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinging someone who has a good amount of experience with Rcats. Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep. Incorrect capitalizations are typos, and {{R typo}} is a template shortcut to {{R from misspelling}}. Both of the nominated rcats may be used to indicate redirects that are typos (misspellings). Other capitalizations is a broader category that would include both incorrect capitalizations and those redirected capitalizations that are not "incorrect" per se, but are just another way to indicate the targets' titles or perhaps are unsuitable titles per naming conventions. There is no need to combine two rcats into one – just tag an appropriate redirect with {{Redr|caps|typo|up}}* and any other applicable rcats, then go on to the next. Painius 23:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

*equivalent to {{This is a redirect|R from other capitalisation|R from misspelling|R unprintworthy}}

I forget which contributor said it, but we have a useful distinction between editor-facing space and reader-facing space. These are in editor-facing space and we should be careful about them cos they create hassle for editors, bots &c. tidying up after them. In user-facing space, of course, we should do everything we can to let people get to the articles they want to read about. Si Trew (talk) 06:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, Si – are you talking about the shortcuts? or is it some other location in Sweden (your "hassle" link above)?

Painius 06:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep - the additional information these templates encode about the nature of the misspelling is useful. If they must be removed, retain the information please - perhaps by adding an optional 'misspelling type' parameter to {{R from misspelling}}. - TB (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters much as long as {{R from incorrect capitalisation}} marks something as unprintworthy, which both {{other capitalisation}} and {{misspelling}} do. --BDD (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Shitface[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 18#Shitface

Unique (film)[edit]

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) 14:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Unique (film) → Walt Disney Pictures (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Wasn't able to find any information on Wikipedia about a film of this name. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Unique Productions is an independent producer of television, sometimes films, in the United Kingdom. I am not sure if this is close enough, though, especially cos it is red (disclosure: I have no connection with this company, I think it was set up by Noel Edmonds when the BBC were forced by law to farm out a certain percentage of their output/input to independent firms, who tend then to sell them back to the BBC, who hold copyright over them). BBC tendering is also red. Si Trew (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as there appears to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 13:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as this redirect doesn't seem helpful CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete seems to be a bit vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:53, 15 September 2015 (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.

The Jetsons (2015 film)[edit]

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) 14:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The Jetsons (2015 film) → The Jetsons (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The Jetsons (2014 film) → The Jetsons (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 13:16, 11 September 2015 (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.

WarGames (2014 film)[edit]

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) 14:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

WarGames (2014 film) → Seth Gordon (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete, another example of why these redirects shouldn't be made. A remake of WarGames never happened in 2014, so this is nonsense. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Strong delete per nom. Rubbish computer 13:16, 11 September 2015 (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.

Bastards (2013 TV series)[edit]

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) 14:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Bastards (2013 TV series) → Seth Gordon (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Bastards (TV series) → Seth Gordon (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete, no mention of a TV series of this name. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 13:18, 11 September 2015 (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.

Double Cross (2015 film)[edit]

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) 14:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Double Cross (2015 film) → Double Cross (novel) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete, another failed WP:CRYSTAL. The target says "(a)s of May 2015, no more plans of a (film) have been announced." -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Strong delete per nom. Rubbish computer 13:18, 11 September 2015 (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.

Bill Foster (film)[edit]

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) 14:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Bill Foster (film) → Bill Foster (comics) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete, there aren't any mentions of a film at the target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 13:19, 11 September 2015 (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.

The Eighth Wonder (film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 18#The Eighth Wonder (film)

Beneath the Deep (film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 18#Beneath the Deep (film)

Tranzloco[edit]

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) 14:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Tranzloco → Sasha Grey (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:REDLINK. This should stay red until there's enough information about an article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:REDLINK --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:REDLINK. Rubbish computer 13:23, 11 September 2015 (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.

Rosa (2014 film)[edit]

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) 14:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Rosa (2014 film) → 20th Century Fox (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

No 2014 film of this name mentioned anywhere. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete. According to IMDB there is a 2014 film called Rosa, but it's a Portuguese short film (14 minutes) with no connection to 20th Century Fox I can find. We do not have articles on it, it's director or it's principle star. The closest thing I can find on the Portuguese Wikipedia is that The Rose (film) was released in Poruguese as A Rosa - but this film dates from 1979 not 2014 (although it was a 20th Century Fox production). Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per Thryduulf. Rubbish computer 13:24, 11 September 2015 (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.

Bentian[edit]

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 Languages of Kalimantan. At some point, this should probably be retargeted again, to Lawangan language, since Bentian is listed as a Lawangan dialect. --BDD (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Bentian → Honda (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

This is a Chinese transliteration, unlikely search term. - The ChampionMan 1234 00:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to Honda Automobile (China) Company (which is itself awkwardly named, so maybe that needs work) as there is a specific corporate connection between the Honda company and the Chinese auto market CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ per WP:REDLINK. According to my search, the Bentian seems to be a tribe that hails from Indonesia. An Indonesian editor might be able to make a decent article out of it. This term may also pertain to different things per this dab at the id.wiki --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Weak retarget to Languages of Kalimantan since apparently it is a dialect spoken there. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice find. Retarget with 70.51. Although mentioned in the same table at the target, Bantian does not go there (or anywhere), and of course Bantu is a different language, so we'd have to be a bit careful. Si Trew (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget per 70. Rubbish computer 13:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget according to IP 70, per WP:FORRED. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 17:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per 70. good catch --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 12 September 2015 (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.

Toyloa[edit]

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) 13:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Toyloa → Toyota (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Implausible misspelling - The ChampionMan 1234 00:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RTYPO because redirects with multiple typoes are unlikely search terms. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete with Tavix. WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Ironically, we don't have typoes nor typo's. I never make one myself, of course, I am perfect. Si Trew (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - I suppose I can find it plausible that some people would sometime make this mistake, but it's going to be comparatively pretty rare. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 13:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - implausible typo. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 17:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - too many typos --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:29, 12 September 2015 (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.

Jan spears[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Jan spears → Days of Our Lives characters (1990s)#Jan Spears (links · history · stats)

Delete This redirect is useless as we also have the (properly written) Jan Spears link.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep as a valid {{R from incorrect capitalisation}}. Steel1943 (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep {{R from incorrect capitalization}} -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep' but am I mistaken? This is an R to section and I have marked it as such (as well as R to other caps), as usual without prejudice to this discussion. I happened to use Steely's -isation instead of 70.51's -ization, I am well aware of -ize and that really it should so be, according even to Fowler, but there we are. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep per above points. Rubbish computer 13:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep - As stated above, this is a clear case of {{R from incorrect capitalization}} and is helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2015 (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.

Hattie adams[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hattie adams → Days of Our Lives characters (2000s)#Hattie Adams (links · history · stats)

Delete This redirect is useless as we also have the (properly written) Hattie Adams link.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep as a valid {{R from incorrect capitalisation}}. Steel1943 (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep {{R from incorrect capitalization}} -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It don!t, it's an R to section to Days_of_Our_Lives_characters_(2000s)#Hattie_Adams, which Hattie Adams is not, being just an R to Days_of_Our_Lives_characters_(2000s). Certainly they should go to the same place, as {{R from other capitalisation}}, but specifically I should have thought that they could both {{R to section}}, but am unwilling to do so while this is udner discussion. User:Cebr1979 made a couple of bold fixes, a bot stood in and cocked it up, between 9 and 11 september this year. Si Trew (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Si Trew: Actually, both Hattie adams and Hattie Adams re-direct to Days of Our Lives characters (2000s)#Hattie Adams. Neither one of them is just a re-direct to Days of Our Lives characters (2000s).Cebr1979 (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No it don't, at least as far as I can see, User:Cebr1979. The R you proposed is an R to section, but the target, is just to the article in general. Or perhaps WP is just cacheing the pages for me? I don't think there is any doubt these should be both to the section, shouldn't they? Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Si Trew: Yes, they do. Click them both: Hattie adams goes to Days of Our Lives characters (2000s)#Hattie Adams and Hattie Adams goes to the very same place.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979:} not for me it don't, at least, I don't think so. I clicked through both before I even commented. I'll try again but I checked the history and a bot got in the way of your WP:BOLD (and in my view correct) changes, something is a bit weird here. Si Trew (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm that's very odd. I tested it again and indeed it does go to that section in the article. I can assure you it didn't before. We might as well close this then, nothing to do here, nothing to see. Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep per above points in favour of this. Rubbish computer 13:27, 11 September 2015 (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.

Gabby (Daysof Our Lives)[edit]

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) 13:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Gabby (Daysof Our Lives) → Days of Our Lives characters (2000s)#Gabby (links · history · stats)

Delete This redirect is useless as we also have the (properly written) Gabby (Days of Our Lives) link.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as implausible typo. Rubbish computer 13:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep. This snow delete is inconsistent with #Jan spears and #Hattie adams above as well as #Rosie barber forrester below, all snow keeps. Words run together is just as plausible a typo as other/incorrect caps. The fact that this redirect even exists is ample proof. Painius 06:17, 12 September 2015 (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.

Barbara Anderson (The Young And The Restless[edit]

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) 13:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Barbara Anderson (The Young And The Restless → The Young and the Restless characters (links · history · stats)

Delete This redirect is useless as we also have the (properly written) Barbara Anderson (The Young And The Restless) link.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Not helpful due to lack of a paren. Steel1943 (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete bad parens -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as implausible typo. Rubbish computer 13:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 17:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep. This snow delete is inconsistent with #Jan spears and #Hattie adams above as well as #Rosie barber forrester below, all snow keeps. Leaving out a character, in this case the close paren, is just as plausible a typo as other/incorrect caps. The fact that this redirect even exists is ample proof. Painius 06:19, 12 September 2015 (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.

Rosie barber forrester[edit]

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 List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters#F. This is a supervote if you'll ever see one, but this seems so obvious I doubt the keep voters will object: this character isn't listed at the target article at all! Participants focused on the (absolutely correct) idea that the miscapitalization was no reason to delete, but this very important consideration was overlooked. This and the properly capitalized variant will be retargeted to the list that includes this character. If I've overlooked something myself, please let me know. --BDD (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Rosie barber forrester → The Bold and the Beautiful secondary characters (links · history · stats)

Delete This redirect is useless as we also have the (properly written) Rosie Barber Forrester link.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep as a valid {{R from incorrect capitalisation}}. Steel1943 (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep {{R from incorrect capitalization}} -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep as above. Without prejudice to this discussion, in the meantime I have tagged it thus. Si Trew (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep per above points. Rubbish computer 13:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep - It's a valid {{R from incorrect capitalisation}}, as stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2015 (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.

September 9[edit]

Outlook Club[edit]

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) 13:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Outlook Club → The Rolling Stones (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

This is just the club that the target first performed at. Doesn't justify a redirect. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:XY. ~~and probably WP:REDLINK since the club seems notable as a standalone subject if this claim is true.~~ Steel1943 (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment You may also want to see this discussion, it seems relevant:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outlook club. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I just found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outlook club after I posted my response. Struck some of my vote. Steel1943 (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per Steely. I found that too, but was having KB trouble earlier. Si Trew (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per Steel1943's points, including WP:XY. Rubbish computer 13:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:XY and lack of notability as the AfD indicates. It took some effort to find information about the club on Google, but it seems to be better known for hosting punk acts like Siouxsie and the Banshees and the Sex Pistols; I didn't find anything about the Rolling Stones there. It also doesn't seem to have been notable in music history other than for hosting a few notable bands, unlike say The Cavern Club or CBGB or Montreux Casino or the Horseshoe Tavern. We wouldn't write about it (per the AfD) and there are too many potential targets. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2015 (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.

Deer bologna[edit]

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) 13:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Deer bologna → Bologna sausage (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Not mentioned in target article. Readers trying to locate the subject if the redirect will not find any specific information about the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Weak Retaret to Venison. It seems that deer meat or venison can be prepared as a bologna. However, I can't find a ref stating exactly as such. Most of the hits that I got were for bologna recipes. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete. We don't have Beef bologna nor Lamb bologna norr Mutton bologna, I don't see why this is very special. It's harmless, but I think retargeting it to Venison would be wrong, cos it's unlikely that an adult deer would end up in a sausage, what with the price of the stuff. Maybe as roadkill, I think Homer Simpson managed to hit one ("D'Oh"): Marge "A deer, a female deer!"). Si Trew (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per SimonTrew. Rubbish computer 13:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep - although I also find it unlikely that venison would be made into bologna when there are so many better things you could do with it, and considering its cost, it is listed at the target as one of the meats commonly made into bologna, so in fact this points to the right location. Also, it was Lisa who said "a deer!" before Marge continued with "a female deer." Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete due to the fact that "deer bologna" isn't mentioned at the target. We need redirects to be helpful, and this one isn't. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:12, 10 September 2015 (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.

Beetals[edit]

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 Beetal per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Beetals → The Beatles (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Usually I'd accept this understandable misspelling, but what if the reader was intending to learn about literal beetles? WP:SURPRISE. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Beetle ... and wait for the WP:SNOW. (I'm thinking about just doing the edit WP:BOLD-ly since it seems so obvious, but I will refrain.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ - it could be a plausible misspelling for either one of these targets, and stats show it's not in use. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

...Called it too soon... Steel1943 (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Beetal as an {{R from plural}}. Steel1943 (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Beetal per Steel1943. Now snow is in the forecast. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Beetal per Steel1943. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Neutral – As the creator of the redirect, I'm unsure why I made it in the first place. Redirecting it to "Beetal" makes sense; however, if you Google "Beetals", there are no results for Beetal and multiple results for The Beatles. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Beetal per Steel1943.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to beetal per Steel1943. Rubbish computer 13:19, 10 September 2015 (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.

Die Beatles[edit]

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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Die Beatles → The Beatles (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Creation summary says that the title is their name as marketed in Germany. Does not justify a redirect because The Beatles have no special affinity for Germany. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Struck, see below - the Beatles are not known as "Die Beatles" but as "die Beatles" in Germany. The article is not part of the name but is required under Germa grammar rules when talking about them. I've never seen any records or posters or other printed media refering to them as "Die Beatles", it's "The Beatles" or "Beatles". It's also not a plausible search item, anybody looking for The Beatles would type in just "Beatles. Kraxler (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep - The Beatles do have special affinity for Germany, having started early in their careers playing alternating stints in Liverpool and Hamburg, and having especially courted the German audience with their only foreign-language recording. They were certainly billed as "die Beatles", but we can't have a lowercase letter to start an article title. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep per their billing in Komm, gib mir deine Hand/Sie liebt dich. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep. The distinction Kraxler mentions between "die" and "Die" is impossible here, because all titles start with an initial cap (I think there is a cunning way around that to make them display without the initial cap, but the software doesn't distinguish, and this goes back to the very early days of WP). Si Trew (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep – The Beatles are billed as such on German releases, some of which were imported to English-speaking countries. Anyone who knows about them knows that they do have a special affinity for Germany – their first recording contract was German. As others have pointed out, Kraxler's argument about the distinction between case is invalid. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep per above points. Rubbish computer 13:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not about lower case or capitals, its about being part of the name or not. Writing "Die Beatles" would be a two-word proper name, saying "die Beatles" would be using the determinate article with a one-word proper name. Apparently there is at least one German-version record that shows "DIE BEATLES", so, I'll withdraw my !vote. Kraxler (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep - It makes sense given the unique historical connection between the band and Germany. And, as stated above as well, there's an issue with 'die Beatles' because of software restrictions. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawl I withdraw my nomination upon proof of affinity for Germany. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2015 (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.

Ditzy[edit]

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 soft redirect. --BDD (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ditzy → Stupidity (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Ditzy does mean "stupid" but it might also mean "disorganized" (google definition) and "tending to forget things".^[11] I believe this redirect should be turned into a disambiguation page. Also, I object to dedicating an entire article to it per WP:DICDEF. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Soft redirect to wikt:ditzy since I am unable to find any suitable topics for a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Soft redirect per Steel1943. Kookie was my first idea, but that itself is an R to 77 Sunset Strip, so that is about as much use as a snake in an arse-kicking competition. , I dislike redirects to Wiktionary, because WP:NOTDIC, but we can do no better, I think. Si Trew (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Soft retarget per Steel1943. Rubbish computer 13:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Soft retarget per the comments made by Steel1943, since that seems to be the most helpful option to readers CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2015 (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.

Vancouver: Social Media Riots.[edit]

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) 13:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Vancouver: Social Media Riots. → 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete. The Vancouver riot was due to hockey, not social media. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per that unlikely period and per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep, or weak retarget to section #Social media where it is explained that social media was an unusual component of this particular riot, both in inciting and encouraging the rioters, and in subsequent investigations when angry residents flooded police with an "unprecedented" amount of evidence pulled from social media. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you notice there's a period?? -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I did. So what? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ha, sorry about that. I just assumed you didn't. I didn't think you liked keeping redirects like that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Normally yeah, I don't like periods, not because they're implausible but because they fuddle search results. This is a sort of misspelling of a relevant related topic, though. Readers aren't likely to search for this phrase exactly, but if you type "vancouver social media riots" into the search bar, this redirect is the first result. So although it's odd, it does help navigation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

So ... if Vancouver: Social Media Riots existed as a redirect towards the same topic, would your opinion change? Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the colon is also problematic. I suppose I would prefer to keep the most correct one if there were several. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

What I mean is that if 2011 Vancouver: Stanley Cup riots. existed, then it would fuddle search results by making it more difficult to find the target article. But the redirect we're discussing doesn't have the same problem. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete, but only per the period making this an implausible typo (WP:RFD#D8): otherwise I would vote to retarget per Ivanvector. Rubbish computer 13:22, 10 September 2015 (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.

Coronary[edit]

Coronary → Coronary circulation (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Tricky one here. The current target is about the coronary system in general, but in most cases, the use of "coronary" seems to refer to a disease or surgery of the coronary system, such as Coronary artery disease. Is this the best target due to the words use? Should a disambiguation page be made? Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ - I think it's fine as-is. In all of those additional usages, "coronary" is just a modifier: "coronary surgery" is surgery of the coronary circulation system, "coronary artery disease" is a disease of a part of the coronary circulation system, and so on. If someone searches "coronary" looking for coronary artery disease, we can't reasonably predict that, and if someone were to create wikitext like "coronary artery disease" then the link would need to be fixed anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hard to say. It definitely sounds like a partial-title match to me. I suspect "coronary" alone refers to certain things in medical jargon, which may be good enough for a redirect or disambiguation page. Otherwise, a Wiktionary redirect or search results may be more appropriate. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Convert to Set Index? can we do that here? I can't find a good primary target to this redirect but I'm sure it can pertain to various medical articles --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I would have thought it was mostly colloquial to mean heart attack, a small one of which I had yesterday, but not very serious. Sorry this keyboard is giving me some gyp. 05:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Convert to set index per Lenticel -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am happy with that but I think heart attack, which redirects to cardiomycal infarction or something, should be there at that index. I am not sure what this keyboard is doing whether it is my end or Mozilla, I think it seems to be moyilla or some add in, cos it generally works then abruptly stops working (the mouse too). Could be my end. Si Trew (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Appears to be my end, I dropped some tobacco into it and a key got stuck. This is not the first time, usually they last about four months. Si Trew (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Convert to set index per Lenticel. Rubbish computer 13:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Convert to set index is fine by my rationale as well. Si, you're thinking of myocardial infarction, which I've also heard colloquially referred to as "having a coronary". Also, you can buy washable and/or spill-proof keyboards these days. It might be something to consider if you're only getting four months out of them, I haven't bought a keyboard in about a decade. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You probably dont smoke roll-your-own over your keyboard then. Gets everywhere. I'll start on the draft for the set index, for y'alls consideration. (I wish British English had a word for "you, plural": Tyne accent has "yous", what"s wrong with that, but I am not from around there and sounds stupid coming out of my mouth. As if anything sounds sensible coming out of my mouth.) Si Trew (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Not tobacco, no. And generally not over keyboards. And I think proper usage would be "all y'all's consideration". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm would it not sure. Is Y'all technically a singular, probably is, but "Yous" is plural, I think. Cup of coffee and I get started on this set index, I have not done one of these before. Si Trew (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry I have another keyboard spare in the background for when this one dies. The next one is a Belgian one and I can do Éven mŐre obtuse diactrical marks than I can Ön this stűpid Hüngarian óne. Si Trew (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Nominator comment: "Siafy" sounds good to me. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I've made a Draft:Coronary for your consideration. It's not a set index but a DAB cos I don't know how to do set indexes (or indices) but I think we have most of what we need there. "Siafy" threw me, I was looking up what that meant, but I assume it means "do it how Si does it" (I kinda like that, can I keep that, to siafy something is quite pleasing to me), so I just went semi bold and knocked it in for your consideration. Si Trew (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh poo, I just realised that by "Siafy" you mean (I assume) "turn into a set index article" not necessarily "Do what Si does". And there I was thinking suddenly I had become one of those Household Words, like "slop-bucket". Si Trew (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I propose that, for that usage, we from now on declare that an article is "out of Trew". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oi, I never touched that article! :) Si Trew (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I've observed before "set index article" is something we kind of just made up. It's the thing that looks like a dab and quacks like a dab but Is Not A Disambiguation Page. A dab consisting of only partial-title matches would not be appropriate. Is this another one of the rules we bend for SIAs? Could someone point me to a parallel example? I'm not comfortable with this being the first, but if this already established practice, so be it. --BDD (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
history merge with Si Trew's fine draft. It may not be a 'proper' disambiguation, but it is a useful navigational aid. If it helps the encyclopaedia, we want it. It helps - Nabla (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MYSTERYSOURCE[edit]

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. WP:MYSTERY could perhaps refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Crime task force, but for now, I'll just delete it along with the other. --BDD (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MYSTERYSOURCE → Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Mystery sources (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Looking at its target article's history, it looks like this redirected to a section that only existed for a few minutes before it was removed. I'm not sure of there is a clear retargeting option; also, this shortcut has no incoming links. Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - created as a redirect to this section, which was reverted six minutes later. It's fairly cryptic and I don't think there is a better target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment. THe "Mystery Voice" is a parody on I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue, to introduce the members of the audience (and usually they are extremely punny or just extremely obvious, where the teams pretend not to know what it could possibly be, to the quotation suggested by the title (it is, in fact, just held up by on a piece of cardboard by the producer, Jon Naismith. but it's still a mystery to me who actually provides the "mystery voice"). That is a possible retarget, but not as a WP:CNR from WP namespace, I think. Si Trew (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment When that dodgy archiving website was up for discussion I was flirting with the guidelines, however, there was something covering it, I haven't got it to hand but yes delete I think, ~ R.T.G 12:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 13:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment WP:MYSTERY also redirects to the section in question so that should be deleted as well unless someone had a better target for it.--174.91.187.135 (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2015 (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.

Kharkіv[edit]

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) 13:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Kharkіv → Kharkiv (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

To all appearance this is a redirect to itself. : Noyster (talk), 11:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, that's a Cyrillic dotted i (U+0456). I don't know how someone might manage to write all of "Khark" in Latin, but switch to the Cyrillic keyboard for the "i", and then back to Latin for the final "v". Alakzi (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks as if someone did achieve this recently in Kharkov Governorate, which now links to this redirect: Noyster (talk), 13:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Kharkiv was named after a Ukrainian kozak called Kharko. In Ukrainian the city is known as Kharkiv. In Russian it is known as Kharkov or Khar'kov. When Eastern Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire it was usually spelled Kharkov. Now that Ukraine is an independent state City names are derived (transcribed) from their Ukrainian forms, thus we now usually use Kharkiv. The same is true in other European Languages such as German which now uses the spelling Charkiw.

In Western Ukraine the city of Lviv before WWII under Polish administration was known as Lwow. Under Russian jurisdiction it became Lvov. Under Austro-Hungary (before WWI it was known as Lemberg and in Latin scripts Leopolis. It is in Ukraine and currently the spelling is transcribed from the Ukrainian - thus Lviv.

There are many trolls who expound the Russian imperialist ideal who will be very adamant regarding using the Russian spelling of Kharkov. Kharkiv however is not located in Russia.Banduryst (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Kharkov, Ukraine already redirects to Kharkiv. That is not under discussion here. We are talking about two character strings which appear identically as "Kharkiv": Noyster (talk), 13:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is. A glyph and a character (or code point) are not the same thing, if I felt like it I could design a character set where every single character looked like the Latin letter A, that would not make them the same thing. One must distinguish between appearance and meaning (unless one is a woman of course). Si Trew (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Lookit, I and O are distinct sounds, both in Ukrainian and occasionally in English even in my sloppy pronunciation (and at least I pronounce and spell "pronunciation" properly. though the absence of the O there in the middle is just a bit of a remnant really). I cannot see any reason that someone would search for Kharkiv or Karkiv by searching for Kharkov or Karkov. I will add Karkoff or Karkiff or Kack off if we have them. Si Trew (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Where do you think by the way Kharkov orKarkov redirects? Actually to my ears I was guessing more Khaki but this must then be genuinely ambiguous, and delete as just not helpful. Si Trew (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

And kh- is a transliteration for starters and I probably pronounce it differently in my basic Arabic, as a kinda middle voiced labial fricative, than a Ukrainian would pronounce it, I guess (I don't know anyone Ukrainian). So this is just really misleading in English. Si Trew (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete as a highly unlikely misspelling. There was similar consensus recently for a redirect that looked like "Wikipedia" but was not for the same reason, but I am currently unable to find that discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as implausible misspelling --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of Boris Karloff actually. His wife, Eva Karloff, lived in England for many years and had bricks thrown through her window, according to Alan Bennett, on the grounds that if he scared me I shall scare her. Si Trew (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I can source this. Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFD#D8 as implausible typo. Rubbish computer 13:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep WP:CHEAP. Does no harm. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per Steel1943. I couldn't find that discussion either... -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:46, 12 September 2015 (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.

Narendra Malla[edit]

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. At a glance, only those with individual articles seem to be bluelinked at the list of kings. --BDD (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Narendra Malla → Naresha Malla (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

deletion, these are two different people. Xx236 (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete as WP:XY. Si Trew (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete or very weak retarget to List of Malla Kings of Nepal, where both are mentioned although there is no information other than the dates of their rule. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete to encourage article creation per Ivanvector's findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget and refine to List of Malla Kings of Nepal#Malla rulers of Kantipur, where this is mentioned and some information provided. Rubbish computer 13:31, 10 September 2015 (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.

India proper[edit]

India proper → India (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Implausible, what does this even refer to? "Proper as opposed to what? - The ChampionMan 1234 04:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment clearly means something to the 1,200 authors in Google Books who've used it over the centuries. Perhaps delete per WP:REDLINK, to encourage an article along the lines of China proper. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete. In this sense "proper" as a postnominal adjective -> postpositive adjective means "india as it should be" or "the mainland of India" although that would be a bit weird. It could be intended to exclude Pakistan and Bangladesh from the Indian subcontinent, but that's a bit not WP:NEUTRAL, and useless if it just then goes to India. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there is half a chance it is a mishearing for India rubber -> Natural rubber, where it is in lede. Si Trew (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep Proper as opposed to Greater India or the Indian Subcontinent or the area formerly contained in the achronistic maximal extent British Raj (ie. India not in the country called India). -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Creating a new article per 58.176.246.42 would also work, but if that doesn't happen, the current redirect should remain -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per Si Trew's reasoning and per WP:XY. The redirect's creator used it here to refer to the partition of India in 1947 into "India proper" (India) and Pakistan. In that context it goes where it should, but that is a narrow context. In broader context, it could mean the "real" India or the "official" India as opposed to other things called "India" (like Greater India or the Indian subcontinent, or British India vs. Portuguese India) and the valid target of such a query would vary greatly throughout history. Its only wikilink was long-since removed and the stats are well below "someone finds it useful" levels. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as vague per Si Trew's points --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep – It has a pretty clear meaning, referring to the country India as opposed to the area formerly called India. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Mclay1. Rubbish computer 13:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Weak delete per IP. It seems clear to me that "India proper" would indeed refer to the country, but since the target article doesn't explain the phrase, the redirect isn't helpful. Someone already familiar with the concept wouldn't need the redirect to get to India. Someone not familiar with the phrase might immediately just get it ("Oh, 'India proper' is synonymous with India), but they also might not. China proper does seem to present an example for what an article of this title might look like, but it also appears that that phrase has more historical usage and notability than "India proper" might. --BDD (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Citibank australia[edit]

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 Citibank Australia. I don't think we need a full RFD to figure this one out. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Citibank australia → Citibank (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Australia is not mentioned at target. - The ChampionMan 1234 02:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget Just retarget it to Citibank Australia, like I did 7 years ago, before someone else retargeted it to Citibank. Not sure why this needed a RfD. Did you check the history? The-Pope (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget with The-Pope. Without prejudice to this discussion, I've tagged it in the meantime as {{R from incorrect capitalisation}} (-> {{R from misspelling}}). Si Trew (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2015 (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.

American-airlines.co.kr[edit]

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 all. JohnCD (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

American-airlines.co.kr → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
American-airlines.nl → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Americanairlines.be → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Americanairlines.ch → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Americanairlines.cl → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Americanairlines.cn → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Americanairlines.co.cr → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Americanairlines.com.au → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Americanairlines.com.ru → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Americanairlines.in → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Americanairlines.de → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Americanairlines.es → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Americanairlines.fr → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Americanairlines.ie → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Americanairlines.it → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Americanairlines.jp → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Aa.com.ve → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Aa.com.pe → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Aa.com.do → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Aa.com.br → American Airlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Website not mentioned at target. - The ChampionMan 1234 02:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Strong delete. This is not the official website of American Airlines: the official website is "aa.com" (and official variants such as americanairlines.com) and that's the website that appears in the article. Since this is not the official website, it isn't mentioned at the the target, making it confusing at best. These are extremely implausible search terms. This would make sense if we had American Airlines in South Korea, for example, but that's not the case here. Even if someone types this in, they'll just end up disappointed due to the fact that we are a general encyclopedia and not a travel site. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:RFD#D8 also applies. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete all as not mentioned at target. Rubbish computer 13:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete all. These are just redirects for the sake of creating redirects. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:39, 15 September 2015 (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.

Koreanair.eu.com[edit]

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. JohnCD (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Koreanair.eu.com → Korean Air (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Website not mentioned at target. - The ChampionMan 1234 02:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Strong delete. This is not the official website of Korean Air: the official website is "koreanair.com" and that's the website that appears in the article. Since this is not the official website, it isn't mentioned at the the target, making it confusing at best. This is an extremely implausible search term. This would make sense if we had Korean Air in Europe, for example, but that's not the case here. Even if someone types this in, they'll just end up disappointed due to the fact that we are a general encyclopedia and not a travel site. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:RFD#D8 also applies. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Tavix. Rubbish computer 13:34, 10 September 2015 (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.

Self-Payment[edit]

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, which doesn't preclude someone creating a dab. --BDD (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Self-Payment → Self-checkout (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

I don't think these things are the same thing. My research shows this can also refer to ATMs, vending machines, and payment terminals. I'm open for a retarget, but couldn't find a good match. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The first thing which comes to my mind with "Self-Payment" is that I have to pay myself (with or without) an ATM, can also be cash. So therefore Self-checkout could be part of this process ("Self-payment"). But of course there are other uses of this term, which might be included in the "Self-Payment" article itself (as it's even not related to an offline action, it can also be "Self-Payment" on a website:

Sample banking systems/software for "Self-Payment"

So might be worth doing some real work with this article - my 2cents, have fun! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we should DAB it, with Huggi's suggestions. I'd add self-abuse (disambiguation) there, too. Latin: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, "My fault, my fault, my most greivous fault", in the Catechism (I am not a Roman Catholic, I'm C of E if anything). So I've created a Draft:Self-payment for your consideration, but we should add there and I can't think of the word, self-flaggelation. Well I just thought of it but we haven't it. Si Trew (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If anything, it should be an article, not a disambiguation. These are forms of self-payment, but you wouldn't actually call any of these terms "self-payment". -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete unless a good retargeting option can be found. This antonymic situation is quite confusing, but then again, if they weren't antonyms, I wouldn't mind getting paid while spending ... it evens out. Steel1943 (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment, yeah, I always thought that ATMs should have a "gamble" button, double or nothing. Unfortunately the missus worked for a well-known bank for many years, and would not hear of such a thing. Si Trew (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguate per above points in favour of this. Rubbish computer 13:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If we decide to disambiguate, it'd probably have to be a WP:CONCEPTDAB. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:42, 10 September 2015 (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.

September 8[edit]

Other ships of BC Ferries (not classed)[edit]

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) 17:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Other ships of BC Ferries (not classed) → Unclassed ships of BC Ferries (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Due to the issue of this redirect not being clear what it is meant to exclude since it is a circular reference to itself, this redirect is misleading and not helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - "Other" than what? Neelix (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 13:14, 10 September 2015 (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.

Other secondary schools in Sandwell[edit]

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) 17:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Other secondary schools in Sandwell → List of schools in Sandwell (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Other secondary school in Sandwell → List of schools in Sandwell (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

The redirects are not clear in what "secondary schools in Sandwell" they are meant to exclude, and are misleading circular references to their current target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete. These redirects exist as they used to list other state-secondary schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Sandwell that did not have their own Wikipedia article. However now all state secondary schools in Sanswell have their own article. These are obsolete. Bleaney (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 13:14, 10 September 2015 (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.

Untitled 2D Super Mario game (3DS)[edit]

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) 17:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Untitled 2D Super Mario game (3DS) → Super Mario 3D Land (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete. This is an outdated redirect as it points to a game that has a title. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - obsolete. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - This totally should be removed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as confusing since the entry has a title --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Yet another "Untitled" redirect to clean up.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:RFD#D2 as confusing, WP:RFD#D8 as implausible and per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, as appears to have served in the past to predict a future game. Rubbish computer 13:13, 10 September 2015 (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.

Other ships (The Matrix)[edit]

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) 17:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Other ships (The Matrix) → List of spacecraft in the Matrix series (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

This redirect is unclear since it does not specify what spacecraft in the Matrix series it is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 13:11, 10 September 2015 (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.

Federal Building (Anchorage, Alaska)[edit]

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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Federal Building (Anchorage, Alaska) → List of United States federal courthouses in Alaska (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

U.S. Federal Building and Courthouse (Anchorage, Alaska) → List of United States federal courthouses in Alaska (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

RFD issued in conjunction with requested move of current target. These terms can also be confused with the James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse and Federal Building located several blocks away, which has served as Anchorage's federal building since 1977. As no article exists on that particular building, the listed target will have to be considered suitable until such time as the article is created, as the list mentions both buildings (AFAIK, the only place on Wikipedia which acknowledges the newer building). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep at target or retarget if target is moved as both buildings this could refer to are mentioned there. Rubbish computer 13:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn – At the moment, nomination is incomplete and ill-formatted. I don't do too many RFDs and didn't read the instructions carefully enough. The target listed above is the intended target rather than the current target like it's supposed to be. Also, the current article title is as ambiguous as the redirects are, and should also be given consideration depending on the RM results. I probably jumped the gun as far as that goes. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:23, 10 September 2015 (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.

Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 16#Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Bearded oyster[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 16#Bearded oyster

Order of succession to the British throne, assuming 1701 Act of Settlement is repealed[edit]

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) 17:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Order of succession to the British throne, assuming 1701 Act of Settlement is repealed → Succession to the British throne (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Simply put, the redirect is so WP:PRECISE that it is misleading, and is also a WP:CRYSTAL violation since it seems that the action as referenced in the redirect never happened. That, and the word "assuming" in the redirect causes problems inherently. Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - speculative. Would perhaps make for interesting fiction, but this is not the site to do it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:RFD#D2 as implausible and per above points. Rubbish computer 13:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete. If there is discussion in reliable sources of the effect a repeal of the Act of Settlement would have on the order of succession then I would expect to find encyclopaedic coverage of this at either Succession to the British throne or Act of Settlement, 1701 with a link to the other. I would not expect there to be a duplicate to the entire succession article, and especially not at this title. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2015 (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.

Line of succession to the Canadian throne[edit]

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 Monarchy of Canada#Succession and regency. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Line of succession to the Canadian throne → Succession to the British throne (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

This redirect could be seen as WP:ASTONISH-ing. Though Canada's monarch is the United Kingdom's, the redirect has the potential to make the reader believe that the position is located in Canada, which it is not. Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Monarchy of Canada#Succession and regency which discusses this in great detail, and because the Canadian line of succession is not the same as the United Kingdom's. Rather, it's only the same currently because neither of the countries have changed their own legally distinct rules since the Statute of Westminster, 1931 which set the monarchies apart. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep or retarget since there is a monarchy in Canada. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per Ivanvector. Rubbish computer 13:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Monarchy of Canada#Succession and regency as that would be most helpful CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2015 (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.

LOSTTBT[edit]

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) 17:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

LOSTTBT → Succession to the British throne (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Confusing and unlikely acronym which probably refers to "Line of Succession to the British Throne" that I cannot find any sources of the acronym's use. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete - implausible acronym. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as confusing. I've read that as "Lost tbt". --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per above points and the page view stats, which suggest, apart from the attention following it being at RfD, little or no page views above bot levels. Rubbish computer 13:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Google finds things explicitly called nonsense, and some hashtags which seem to be related having lost TBT (whatever that may be?), and nothing else independent of Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2015 (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.

People excluded from the British Throne[edit]

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 withdrawn. This is going in the same direction as another redirect I nominated with a similar rationale: World's most expensive hot dog (RFD), so I'm just going to give up while the getting's good. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

People excluded from the British Throne → Succession to the British throne (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
People Excluded From the British Throne → Succession to the British throne (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

This topic of the redirect is too broad for its current target, and for that matter, any target. I mean, I'm pretty sure I, myself, fall into the subject covered by these redirects, and I doubt I'm encyclopedic. The same statement probably also applies to almost everyone reading this sentence. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't actually but you are probably about a millionth and one in line to the throne. I wouldn't bet on it, cos I am the nine hundred and ninety ninth thousand. Si Trew (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Weak keep - it is quite vague, but the target does state explicitly what qualifies someone to be in line for the throne, so by definition it also defines people who are excluded, and presents the reader with the information they're seeking. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep The purpose of a redirect is to help readers find content they are looking for. This does that. I find the nomination statement wholly unconvincing and frankly a bit silly. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2015 (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.

Other police of The Wire[edit]

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) 17:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Other police of The Wire → Police of The Wire (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Other Police of The Wire → Police of The Wire (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

These redirects are not clear on what "Police of The Wire" they are meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 12:55, 10 September 2015 (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.

Other secondary schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley[edit]

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) 17:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Other secondary schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley → List of schools in Dudley (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Other secondery schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley → List of schools in Dudley (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

This redirects are unclear on what "secondary schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley" (a different redirect that also targets List of schools in Dudley) they are meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Compare to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 20#Other former secondary schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as too vague to have a suitable target. Rubbish computer 11:41, 10 September 2015 (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.

Other perspectives on Jesus[edit]

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. - Nabla (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Other perspectives on Jesus → Religious perspectives on Jesus (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

This redirect is unclear since it does not specify what "perspectives" it is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Strong delete Other perspectives could include scientific or historical perspectives, which are not discussed at the target article, and seem to be excluded from its scope due to the article's title. I'm also skeptical of Perspectives on Jesus, which redirects to the same place. I hesitate to add it to the nomination, since the two redirects don't have the same issue, but if there's talk of deleting that one too, count me in. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: If you want to do so, go for it. I only created Perspectives on Jesus (via moving it from the nominated redirect) since it omits the word "other" and since it has edit history that may need to be preserved per WP:CWW. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh! I didn't even notice that that was new. Do you mind if I move it to something else without leaving a redirect? --BDD (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: No objections here. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Thanks. --BDD (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete as too vague to have a suitable target. Rubbish computer 11:40, 10 September 2015 (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.

Qantas.jp[edit]

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. The consensus is that, as the article these redirects point to don't actually cover what the redirects imply, they are not beneficial to the encyclopedia, and potentially misleading. No prejudice against recreation should article be created that cover these redirects, or if the Qantas article is expanded to cover them. Also if anyone feels Qantas.jp would be useful as a redirect to Jetstar Japan, feel free to recreate that one. Jenks24 (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Qantas.jp → Qantas (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Qantas.nl → Qantas (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Qantas.it → Qantas (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Qantas.hk → Qantas (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Qantas.fr → Qantas (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Qantas.de → Qantas (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Qantas.com.cn → Qantas (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Qantas.co.za → Qantas (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Qantas.co.nz → Qantas (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Qantas.co.jp → Qantas (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Qantas.cn → Qantas (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Qantas.cl → Qantas (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Qantas.ca → Qantas (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Same rationale per previous discussion - The ChampionMan 1234 23:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Strong delete. This is not the official website of Qantas: the official website is "qantas.com.au" and that's the website that appears in the article. Since this is not the official website, it isn't mentioned at the the target, making it confusing at best. These are extremely implausible search terms. Who would search this website in Wikipedia? Since the website already says "Qantas", they would already know that it's Qantas, so a general article on the airline wouldn't be helpful. It would make sense if we had Qantas in Japan, for example, but that's not the case here. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:RFD#D8 also applies. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep - directs readers to what they're looking for, no rationale presented for deletion. The actual website(s) redirect to quantas.com.au, so it's no more confusing than real life (and really, one would be hard pressed to suggest a reason it's confusing at all). Wily D 08:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep per WilyD - these are all entirely harmless and unambiguously direct people to the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

How do you know that's the content they're looking for? The target doesn't mention any of these websites or any of these countries referred to by the TLDs, so someone looking for specific content on these websites or countries are going to be disappointed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep as these appear to be plausible synonyms. Rubbish computer 12:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Why do you think that? It seems entirely implausible to me. Even if, in the off chance someone were to type "qantas.jp," they would already knows about Qantas but would probably be looking for specific information about Qantas in Japan or that website itself, which we don't have. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tavix: It was viewed 4 times in about 5 weeks before it was first discussed, so I feel it is of use to some people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubbish computer (talk • contribs) 16:02, 20 August 2015

Really? Those stats are bot levels. These don't actually have use. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but I support my decision. Rubbish computer 17:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish computer, I'd like to ask you once more to reconsider. The views you cited may show that someone is searching for that term, but they do not tell us if we satisfied their needs—since we don't discuss Qantas operations in those countries, there's every reason to believe we did not. --BDD (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: Fair enough. Rubbish computer 13:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete wikipedia is not a random collection of web addresses that redirect to the owners, as these sites are not notable they are not mentioned in the target they dont add anything to the encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep harmless. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC).

Rich, is qantas.de really harmless to the reader searching for information about Qantas in Germany? Sure, it's not going to cause them physical harm or anything, but that's not a topic we have information on. If you think about it, a reader could get the impression that Wikipedia teases readers and suggests we have coverage where we don't, thus hurting the project's credibility. That's pretty harmful. --BDD (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Arguably if we had blue-links, say from List of Qantas websites to Qantas.de then that would hold water.

However people seem to forget that redirects have multiple functions:

As place-holders for potential articles
As an adjunct to categorization
Preventing the creation of forks (and, to some extent, other undesired content)
To route an internal link from an alternative name to an article
To route an internal link from a primary name to a section of an article
To route an internal link from an alternative name to a section of an article 0

7-9 The same for links from outside en:Wikipeida, in websites, databases, documents, emails and books

10-12. The same for items typed into the search bar with the "go" functionality

13-15. The same for items typed into the search bar with the "search" functionality

16-18. The same for items generated by agents.

In the above "alternative name" is a loose description which includes subsidiary topics, intimately related topics notable for their relation with the primary topic and so forth.

Now it is certainly true that if one wants to answer the question "What is 'Qantas.de' " today's edition of Wikipedia does not explicitly answer that question, but I it certainly provides enough information to enable most people to realise "Oh! It's a website of this airline Qantas, in whatever country 'de' stands for." So that is useful. It also provides all the other functionality0

The argument that we don't directly mention the website "http://qantas.de", although we cover the overarching topic of Qantas, might seem attractive. But I haven't seen anyone offering to monitor the Qantas or successor pages and re-introduce the redirect when the subject is mentioned there, and remove it when the mention is removed, for eternity. Indeed one of the things that makes little sense about a lot of RfDs is that the claimed problem is often easier to fix than nominating the redirect.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC).

I don't think we need a dedicated "monitor" for those purposes. As I've mentioned before, maintaining redirects does take work, but it's worth it if we're going to have redirects that are functional and helpful to readers. Much better to have content about Qantas in Germany and no "qantas.de" redirect than vice versa, precisely because it's easier to create the latter than the former. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per Tavix, unless we specifically discuss these websites or Qantas operation in any of those countries. --BDD (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion and its precedent seem to be heading in different directions, so I'm cautious...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 13:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete per the precedent listed above, which I agree with. The subject of the redirects are not specifically identified at the target by their corresponding geographic regions, so call this a WP:REDLINK deletion, if you will. (However, I have an idea in the making that may change my mind ... call it something to resolve the "REDLINK" concern. If I don't add more to this discussion, assume it didn't happen and my rationale stands.) (I explored this option, and I changed my mind. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)) Steel1943 (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per above reasons. Rubbish computer 13:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

delete per Tavix and MilborneOne - Nabla (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment a month from initiating the discussion, which still hasn't closed, I just found out that the creator created a whole lot of ones around the same time, I'm not sure if I'll ever get to nominating these though. - The ChampionMan 1234 02:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment the closest I can find for Qantas in Japan would be Jetstar Japan,as @BDD: said, we do specifically discuss Qantas operation in at least some of these countries, but Qantas.jp is still arguably, not a plausible search term, so I still suggest deletion for Qantas.jp, aside from an extremely weak retarget to Jetstar Japan. - The ChampionMan 1234 02:35, 22 September 2015 (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.

NHL's first multiple-player trade[edit]

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 1921–22 NHL season#League business. The consensus is that someone searching for this would more likely be looking for league business than an individual player in the trade, thus alleviating the WP:XY problem. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

NHL's first multiple-player trade → Billy Coutu (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete as an implausible search term. Also per WP:XY, as there were four players and three season articles this could redirect to equally. Though it could also be declared a Wikipedia Historic Site, since this redirect is 11 years old! Reso lute 22:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete: Yeah, but like a broken bottle one finds in the dirt, some historic sites are best plowed over. Obvious failure of XY. Ravenswing 00:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there an article or section about player transfers in the NHL? If there is, this is the sort of thing I would expect to be mentioned there - and it is the sort of thing that I'd expect someone to be interested in - it should be redirected there. My search-fu is weak today though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Mentioned at 1921–22 NHL season#League business, so maybe retarget there. Maybe a bit implausible but it's probably better to avoid breaking decade-old links. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  - Good find, retarget per above. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per 58. Rubbish computer 22:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget but as {{R to section}} Billy Coutu#Playing Career, where it explicitly mentioned in the second para as being "the NHL's first multiple-player trade". As James Thurber said in Fables for Our Time and Famous Poems Illustrated, "don't get it right, just get it written". Si Trew (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised we haven't the more WP:CONCISE Fables for Our Time, but I don't want to create it right now as that would confuse the matter. Si Trew (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Weak delete Definitely XY here. We could keep, but this is really information that belongs on the article of all players involved. This makes sense today, but it shouldn't in the future. --BDD (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I wouldn't be opposed to that retarget, though I do think it is still an XY problem. FWIW, there are no incoming links to this redirect, so the worry about breaking decade old links is not a factor in this instance. Reso lute 13:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to 1921–22 NHL season#League business per 58.176, and so as not to break very old links from external sites, also per 58.176. Even though it's a very brief mention, it provides the information which the reader is seeking while also solving the XY problem. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per Ivanvector. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2015 (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:Wikipedias in other languages[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedias in other languages → Wikipedia:Differences between the English Wikipedia and Wikipedias in other languages (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

I recently moved the Wikipedia page (an essay) that was at the title of this redirect to its new title; I did this since the title of the redirect does not match the scope of the page. The target page is about differences between this Wikipedia and other Wikipedias; it's not a list of Wikipedias in other languages. On this Wikipedia, the page that lists other Wikipedias is in the article space: List of Wikipedias. So, because of this, the redirect directing to its current target could be considered misleading. Right now, in lieu of suggesting that List of Wikipedias be moved to the "Wikipedia:" namespace, in regards to this redirect, I would say delete since its target article doesn't explain the specific request as stated in the title of this redirect, or weak retarget to List of Wikipedias since that would be the most helpful target (but "weak" since that would in turn make this redirect a WP:CNR, which could be seen as misleading or unhelpful in itself.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete due to its vagueness and there appearing to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 12:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Strong keep as a standard {{R from move}}. The target existed at this location from creation in 2007 until yesterday, has incomming links and gets over 50 hits a month most months. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It may be a bit early to gauge this title's usefulness via page views (since yes, it was just moved yesterday), but in this case, to use this title's "incoming links" as rationale to keep is a bit bogus. To explain, here's a breakdown of the 9 incoming links to this redirect: 2 are related to this nomination (a result of this discussion being open), 1 is a result of me stating on the previous RFD day that I think there is an issue with the target page previously being at the redirect's title, 3 are in the "User:" namespace utilized in ways that do not require that the title remain (2 are there due to an editor creating some sort of list of a couple of categories in 2008 with probably a hundred examples which they have not maintained, and 1 is of an editor putting a huge list of what seems to be random links in a sandbox page and hasn't edited since 2013), 2 are on WikiProject archives (where there are red links present), and 1 is of the essay creator announcing on the Village pump in 2007 that they created the essay. The last three can be piped if need be so the archives don't lose their history, but in my mind, the links are still intentional so it is not completely necessary; if any of those three need to be fixed, it would be the creator's mention at the village pump. That, and ... If this term is still being searched, wouldn't it make more sense to direct readers to a page that actually contains the information they are looking for if they are searching the title, referencing my "weak retarget to List of Wikipedias" vote above? Steel1943 (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep per Thryduulf. It wasn't a good title for that essay, but I think it'd be harmful to move that long-standing title somewhere else unless there's a much better target (and I don't think the proposed retarget is a good one). -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Wikipedia:List of other Wikipedias, Wikipedia:Other wikipedias and Wikipedias in other languages are redirects that target List of Wikipedias. Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Weak keep per Tavix. The hatnote there should work; I don't think this is a good place to create a new CNR. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Dabify or soft redirect, with a brief explanation that the essay was located there initially, and linking to the actual list of Wikipedias. Alakzi (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Singaporean general election, 2017[edit]

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) 17:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Singaporean general election, 2017 → Singaporean general election, 2015 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

There is no previous announcement of the election date before the 2015 election is announced. Any other date was just speculation and invalid. Gra phi um 09:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a redirect created by a page move. The Singaporean parliament's maximum term is five years, so this would've - in theory - been their next election, which was recently rescheduled for 11 September 2015. There's no telling when the next election will be; and the format we use for upcoming elections before the date's officially set is "Next <country> <type> election". Alakzi (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as confusing because there could be a 2017 Singaporean general election. Until then, this redirect needs to be red, especially since "2017" isn't mentioned at the target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per Alakzi. Notwithstanding being a redirect from a page move, it is inaccurate so should not be kept. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to ~~Politics of Singapore~~ Elections in Singapore. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Why would you wanna land in Politics of Singapore when looking for a 2017 election? Alakzi (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  - Partly for consistency's sake across similar national articles. For example, United States presidential election, 2020 redirects to United States presidential election, which is a general article describing the process and frequency of such elections. Ideally, I would like to have a similar redirect from this to Singaporean general election, but since that article doesn't exist, the best thing I could come up with was a general article on the Politics of Singapore, which does include a section on elections. However, a closer look turns up Elections in Singapore, which is probably a better target. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
    - Right, but a US presidential election in 2020 would be on schedule; it's anybody's guess whether elections will be held in Singapore in 2017. I can maybe see keeping it as is, plus maybe anchored to #Background, for people who might be looking for information on the circumstances under which elections were held early; but I fail to see how a redirect to the elections in Singapore overview would serve anybody. Alakzi (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
      - The background section of the 2015 article doesn't appear to provide information as to why elections are being held early, which it probably should if that is the case for this election. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 01:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Strong Delete. Alternatively a redirect to Parliamentary elections in Singapore. To ONUnicorn, the General election is actually synonymous to the Parliament Elections, whereas a generic "Elections in Singapore" would include the unrelated Presidential election as well. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:RFD#D2 as confusing. Rubbish computer 11:38, 10 September 2015 (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.

Backtrace[edit]

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 Trace. --BDD (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Backtrace → Stack trace (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Comment. A backtrace is not specifically a stack trace, but any kind of working back to find out what happened after the event, kinda more a detective, or SOCO ( a DAB at which (Scenes of Crime Officer is listed, and also an equivalent in the Phillipines, if User:Lenticel is watching), or something like that. I think we probably have a better target but not sure where. It gets about three hits a day, on average, though, well above noise level, but would it be a WP:SURPRISE that that is where it gets to? Not sure. I would have thought investigative journalism or detective or something like that would be a better target, I don't think it is so specific that it should go to Stack trace. Si Trew (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If there's a broaded meaning to "backtrace", I've never heard of it. Are you sure you're not thinking of "backtrack"? Alakzi (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It does appear to be used in a more general context to mean to trace the path or to locate the origin of something, but I'm not sure if that usage is significant. Alakzi (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Redirect to Trace as "tracing back" / a "backtrace" is a general concept, as stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd also suggest both manhunt (law enforcement) and manhunt (military) as possible targets, but then going to 'Trace' shows both options. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

We'd have to assume "manhunt" is the primary topic for this term, which would be a bit of a stretch. Alakzi (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd rather this just go to Trace, which is a helpful disambiguation page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Trace. Yes, it is a general term, and it is not as if one could foretrace (as antonym), well that would be astrology or fortune telling or the action of a tipster I guess, so I think this is the best target. Admittedly the "back" is a bit redundant, but that's English language for you. I was thinking we also have retrace one's steps... but fortunately for us that is red. Si Trew (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to trace per SimonTrew. Rubbish computer 11:24, 10 September 2015 (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.

ベトナム[edit]

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 Names of Vietnam#Names in other languages. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

ベトナム → Vietnam (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

There is a historical connection between Japanese and Vietnam, but it isn't mentioned at either the target or Names of Vietnam. Cant think of other plausible targets. - The ChampionMan 1234 03:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

~~Delete~~. Not specifically Japanese (could have been if they won, but someone dropped a couple of Atomic Bombs on them – I sincerekly hope the first and last that we ever will use – and as Emperor Hirohito said, "The war has not kindly gone to our advantage"). Si Trew (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment Japanese occupation of Vietnam -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Much better idea. Retarget to Japanese occupation of Vietnam. Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment Japanese occupation of Vietnam is a terrible target. AFAIK this name "Betonamu" wasn't even used back then (books published in the early 1900s up to the end of WWII [12][13] used 安南 "Annan"). I added a bit of sourced content about this name at Names of Vietnam#Names in other languages but I am pretty indifferent whether it gets retargetted there or deleted. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Names of Vietnam#Names in other languages where it is explained. This target gives the reader the information they're looking for. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per Ivanvector. Alakzi (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per Ivanvector. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per Ivanvecotr. Thanks for the research, there. Si Trew (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per Ivanvector. Thank you for finding that out. Rubbish computer 11:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Names of Vietnam#Names in other languages as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2015 (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.

Fbcdn.net[edit]

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) 17:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Fbcdn.net → Facebook (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Website is not mentioned at target. - The ChampionMan 1234 02:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice to recreation as a more specific section redirect if Facebook or some related article gets some content about Facebook's network infrastructure (content delivery network, data centres, etc.). This specific domain name (or its subdomains) gets mentions in a few printed WP:RS (e.g. [14][15]) discussing such details, so it's plausible search term. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Weak keep per findings of 58.176.246.42 -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:REDLINK until an article or section covers this. Rubbish computer 11:20, 10 September 2015 (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.

Facebook.com/pages/Facebook.com/pages/Meridian-Magazine-Expand/836728753016501?sk[edit]

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) 17:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Facebook.com/pages/Facebook.com/pages/Meridian-Magazine-Expand/836728753016501?sk → Scot and Maurine Proctor (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Facebook.com/pages/Meridian-Magazine-Expand/836728753016501?sk → Scot and Maurine Proctor (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Unlikely search term, especially with out the http(s):// at the beginning. - The ChampionMan 1234 02:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Bizarre search term. Si Trew (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete weirdness -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment added Facebook.com/pages/Meridian-Magazine-Expand/836728753016501?sk to the nomination. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - Agreed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as confusing. Probably problematic due to the markups in it --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:RFD#D2 as confusing, and per WP:RFD#D8 as implausible. Rubbish computer 11:19, 10 September 2015 (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.

CNNtürk.com[edit]

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 the items with diacritics due to the potential for harm. Retarget CNNexpansion.com, CNNExpansion.com, and Cnnexpansion.com to CNN Expansión. That leaves CNN.co.jp. Since this differs from the official CNNj website (jctv.co.jp/cnnj/), the redirect won't be retargeted there. Anyone who wants to look into this may feel free to recreate that redirect pointing to CNNj if the link can be established. The bottom line is that there's strong consensus against simply redirecting these to CNN. --BDD (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

CNNtürk.com → CNN (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
CNNexpansión.com → CNN (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
CNNexpansion.com → CNN (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
CNNExpansión.com → CNN (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
CNNExpansion.com → CNN (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
CNN.co.jp → CNN (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Cnnexpansion.com → CNN (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Website isn't mentioned at target, thus particularly unhelpful to the reader - The ChampionMan 1234 02:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete. WP:PROMO, even if not by the cable news network itself. Si Trew (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete due to not being mentioned in the article. This isn't helpful to someone searching for any of these websites unless the CNN article specifically discusses any of these websites or the operations thereof. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment we do have an article about CNN Türk, but its domain name is cnnturk.com (no diacritic). All the internationalized domain names with diacritics (the türk and expansión ones) aren't owned by CNN at all but go to some shady domain parking sites instead. Finally, I'm not sure if CNNj is the same thing referred to by CNN.co.jp. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Also, I added Cnnexpansion.com to this nomination. Not adding CNNTurk.com (which is an actual CNN domain name and points to CNN Türk, where it is mentioned). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete the redirects with diacritics, Retarget ~~CNNtürk.com to CNN Türk,~~ CNN.co.jp to CNNj, and the others to CNN Expansión, which are the articles about the networks which live at these URLs. The URLs that are off by a diacritic are a plausible misspelling for someone with an international keyboard, adding 22:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC): but the websites that live at those actual URLs appear to be at best useless, and at worst malicious. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: But unless they're owned by CNN, they're harmful, completely irrelevant websites. I don't want to take the risk in checking myself, but 58 said that they are owned by "shady internationalized domain names" and it is not a good idea to have us promoting that. See also: BSPN.com and Berlin-ru.net. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I checked that the three entities are either CNN foreign-language affiliates or at least owned by Time Warner, but you're right, the websites with diacritics are parked domains. The website is clearly harmful, but I don't think the redirect is necessarily if it's a plausible misspelling, which I think these are. As I recall, Berlin-ru.net was a redirect to something official but the official thing's official website was not anything close to the same thing, so that one was harmful in a promotional sense. I don't think that applies here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The point I was making with Berlin-ru.net was emphasizing that harmful websites shouldn't be redirects. BSPN.com is a better example because that's a plausible misspelling, but since it referred to something completely different, the harmful/confusion factor trumps the reason to keep. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, now I remember: Berlin-ru.net is a Russian travel blog about Berlin, and the redirect pointed at Berlin making it look like an official Russian-language website for the German city, which of course it isn't. I don't think that these websites are harmful in the same way. Berlin-ru.net is harmful to navigation because the existence of the redirect makes it look like it's an official page for the city, roughly. These are not harmful to navigation, being plausible misspellings of actual official websites, but are harmful because the website itself looks likely to deliver malware. I don't think that's an issue we really need to be worried about, but I also don't feel strongly about their usefulness. I have updated my rationale accordingly. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete as is not mentioned at target, and there appears to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 11:18, 10 September 2015 (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.

September 7[edit]

Miss India Worldwide[edit]

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 converted to article. Thanks to the IP for the work on that. --BDD (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Miss India Worldwide → Miss India Worldwide India (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete per WP:RFD#D10. This was formerly a full article that was speedy deleted as copyvio. An article is needed to support a substantial series of pages and it makes no sense to redirect to just one of the series. Better to red link to encourage recreation. Just Chilling (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Question - are "Miss India Worldwide" and "Miss India Worldwide India" different things? If they are not, then there is no need to encourage article creation: the article is already created, and the redirect is appropriate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Procedural close per Ivanvector. --Rubbish computer 00:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply - Indeed they are entirely different. The winner of "Miss India Worldwide India" enters "Miss India Worldwide". I appreciate that you cannot see the underlying deleted article but it makes it clear and winners of "Miss India Worldwide" have, as well as being "Miss India Worldwide India", been "Miss India Worldwide USA", "Miss India Worldwide Hong Kong, "Miss India Worldwide Canada", "Miss India Worldwide South Africa" etc It's just that these don't have articles. Just Chilling (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a bit of a WP:XY situation... Steel1943 (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Stubbify Special:PrefixIndex/Miss_India_Worldwide -- A list could be built here that lists articles we have on each edition of the pageant. That would be a simple list. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment per 70's suggestion, under the redirect at Miss India Worldwide I drafted a list of links to each of the Miss India Worldwide years and added some references. ~~I make no guarantees it won't end up at AFD, though.~~ Huh, turned out to be more notable than I thought. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Stubbify/dabify/listicate per 70.51 and 58.176. We can't control that organizations don't name their pageants with any sense of clarity, but this is the best solution on our end. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:REDLINK or Stubdabicate per anons. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:XY. Rubbish computer 11:16, 10 September 2015 (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.

User:Freeman1856[edit]

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 blanked per user's request. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Freeman1856 → April 1914 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Inappropriate redirect from userspace to mainspace. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Blank - the user Freeman1856 seems to have a habit of drafting pages at their own user page (instead of, say, in their sandbox or a subpage of their user space, or in Draft: space) and then moving the pages to main space. November 1913 is another of these. The current redirect is left over from moving the page to mainspace; it's harmless but it is also not necessary for attribution. There's no pressing need to delete it but the user page could be blanked. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Blank per Ivanvector. --Rubbish computer 00:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Blank per Freeman1856- I'm aware of it. I seem to forget the proper process to creating a new page for an article. Usually, when I redirect I'm really going back and getting the page properly classified so it can be linked. A refresher on this process would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeman1856 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 8 September 2015‎ (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.

Other Government Agency[edit]

Other Government Agency → Government agency (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

The redirect is unclear what "government agency" it is meant to exclude. It is a misleading circular reference to its target article. Steel1943 (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 17:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep - whatever other government agency they're looking for, the reader will find it at the target. We are writing an encyclopaedia so readers can us it, to those who've forgotten. Wily D 07:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Will they, Wily? The target article isn't a list, has no information about government agencies in the great majority of the world's countries. If you want to play a game where you name agencies mentioned there and I name agencies not mentioned there—well, I wouldn't recommend that you play with any sort of wager. --BDD (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the article is sort of a list - probably, they'll have to navigate to a sub-page or two deep, as is common with all sorts of searches. It's just how Wikipedia is organised. Personally, I find it much more navigable than single, enormous articles. Wily D 15:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep per WilyD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete. We can't assume that the "other government agency" someone is looking for is on that page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
~~Keep~~. And what other other government agency may they like to find? Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Si, I'm happy to play the game I offered to WilyD above with you. I'll start with Direction générale de la statistique et des études économiques. Your turn. --BDD (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of Department of administrative affairs (and others, but not Department of Administrative Affairs) → Yes, Minister. But Quango is possible. Your turn. Si Trew (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

We should take this to the talk page if we're really going to do this. I'll give you a hint, though—I'm looking at Category:Government agencies by country, which has god only knows how many articles in its 72 subcategories. There are approximately 20 specific government agencies named at the target article, so there are dozens, if not hundreds, of "other" government agencies a reader could be searching for. And Quango, by the way, is a type of government agency, not an agency itself. --BDD (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Damn, you have thrown the shuttlecock back into my wicket then. Indeed, "other" is meaningless and I think that is kinda WP:CONSENSUS here by now, but somebody had to hit the nail on the thumb. Types of Government Agency and List of Types of Government Agency are both red, and I don't think we need to start discussing type theory do we? Poor old Bertie Russell got a bit confused with it all, but he only invented it to try to get out of the trouble with infinities in set theory. I can assure you there is no such thing as infinity, it is turtles all the way down. Si Trew (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: I agree with you, more seriously, this should be on a talk page somewhere, but which page would you suggest? Talk:Other Government Agency would seem the bleeding obvious, but that is a bit kinda sub judice when the redirect is here for discussion, and were it to be deleted, so would its talk page. But I'll happily follow there and quite happy if you delete or move this discussion to there, as long as we leave a pointer from here, which I am sure you will do. Si Trew (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Well to have to navigate two levels deep and run through a long list is about as much use as a snake in an arse-kicking competition. Si Trew (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete, meaningless with the current target. The original target Central Intelligence Agency makes more sense, but is a bit US-centric. —Kusma (t·c) 15:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment:I think most English speakers outside the US have heard of the Central Intelligence Agency... or if they haven't they probably will shortly.... Si Trew (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

delete The 'Other Government Agency' is not a thing, and it could be zillions of agencies, so there is no target for it. We do not have to redirect all and any sillyish search. - Nabla (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Other Characters in Back to the Future[edit]

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 no consensus to delete, after an extended discussion period. bd2412 T 20:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Other Characters in Back to the Future → List of Back to the Future characters (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

The redirect is an unclear circular reference to its target article since it is not clear what characters this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ per other editors. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment. It's a relic of an old page move, as the history shows. The focus of the separate list that exists now at List of Back to the Future characters was originally only minor characters, with "Other Characters in Back to the Future" as its original title; it was expanded to list all characters a few years later. I'd question this redirect's value as a search term (really the only criteria by which we should be judging it; redirects are just a phrase and have no substance from which anything can be "excluded"), though someone obviously created it in the first place. postdlf (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep - regardless of what the reader means to exclude, they're find the result where there directed. There's something inconsistent in an argument that assumes readers are mind-bogglingly dumb, and uses that to justify trying to make it harder to find content. Wily D 07:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep per WilyD and Postdlf. "Other characters" can be reasonably interpreted to mean minor characters, and minor characters in Back to the Future can be found at this target. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 18:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Postdlf: redirects from page moves are generally useful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Refine to List of Back to the Future characters#Other characters. If we're going to keep it, it needs to point somewhere where "other" is clearly defined. Otherwise it's (potentially) confusing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Nominator comment: The fact that this is a leftover redirect from a move doesn't by default make it a useful search term as a redirect. The best alternative to deletion presented thus far to resolve the concern I stated on the nomination is "refine to List of Back to the Future characters#Other characters" (though I still believe that deletion is more helpful than that option.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2015 (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.

逻辑[edit]

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) 13:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

逻辑 → Logic (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Logic is not especially Chinese. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Logic in China, the topic with an affinity for Chinese -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Weak Retarget to Logic in China per anon. Unfortunately I'm not sure if the symbols do say "Logic". --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment zh:逻辑 leads to the logic article on Chinese Wikipedia (it backlinks to en:Logic ) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Logic in China unless this does not say logic. Rubbish computer 13:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep - directs the reader to the content they're looking for. Do not retarget to Logic in China, a suggestion which is, frankly, racist bullshit. Wily D 07:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@WilyD: ? --Rubbish computer 00:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete no suggested target contains any information to tell the reader why they are being redirected there. (OTOH it might be possible to expand logic in China to discuss, encyclopedically, the various historical terminology for logic in China.) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete. WP:NOTDIC, and not a translation dictionary, though I wish it said so at those guidenotes so we need not endlessly repeat ourselves here. This is the English Wikipedia. Now I speak four or five languages not very well but I don't speak or read Chinese. Look it up in Chinese Wikipedia, there is one. WP:ENGLISH. WP:TITLE. WP:COMMONNAME. Do I have to spell it out? Si Trew (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete. 逻辑 is "logic" in Chinese, but 逻辑 (luójí) is a modern loanword and phonetic transcription of the English word "logic". Thus this redirect should be deleted per WP:FORRED. Logic in China is not an appropriate target, as that article describes elements of logic in various schools of classical Chinese philosophy, all of which preceded the invention of the modern Chinese term 逻辑. Der yck C. 21:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per Deryck. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:17, 7 September 2015 (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.

Nature park interpretive center[edit]

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) 13:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Nature park interpretive center → Tualatin Hills Nature Park (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Title does not refer specifically to redirect target. a CLoG? | unCLoG 19:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking back at it, I agree with this one. User:Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete as there appears to be no suitable target. --Rubbish computer 00:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - I agree with Rubbish. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete, for reasons given above. SJ Morg (talk) 06:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:XY plus a lot of other letters. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2015 (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.

Sprint (race)[edit]

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 Sprint race. --BDD (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sprint (race) → Sprint (running) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Sprint_.28race.29: The article currently at Sprint (running) was formerly, until 2010, at Sprint (race). The latter remains a redirect to the running article, although the idea of a "sprint race" is no more aligned with the running article than it is with either Sprint (cycling) or Sprint car racing (the original purpose for the move).

All incoming links (over 1000) refer to the running concept. I believe "sprint (race)" should be orphaned as an ambiguous term and all links changed to the disambiguation page at Sprint, which lists the three different sprint racing concepts. SFB 19:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Sprint (disambiguation): other types of sprint races include sprint (cycling), and these seem to be similarly plausible search terms. --Rubbish computer 00:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Sprint. I think that Sprint (race) could reasonably be an article, since the idea of going as fast as you can for a short amount of time is not unique to any of these sports, they are just different means of propelling oneself as fast as possible. But we already have the dab, so it's good enough. Someone can write sprint (race) over the redirect if they want to. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Sprint for now. I am fixing the incoming links now. Some of them do refer to other kinds of sprint races. bd2412 T 03:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - after working through all of the incoming links, about 10% related to horse racing, and a handful of others related to swimming, skiing, and other sports having this theme. bd2412 T 20:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  - @BD2412: Thanks for the info and all the effort. FYI I've just noticed a more specific disambiguation page at Sprint race. The redirect should probably be changed to there. I agree with Ivanvector above that a broad concept article would work, but the main Racing article is in such an undeveloped state that I think that is not warranted at the moment and a section in that article would be better. SFB 21:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    - Sprint race is indeed a better target. bd2412 T 21:23, 13 September 2015 (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.

Not wrong[edit]

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. JohnCD (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Not wrong → Litotes (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

I had never heard of litotes before. "Not wrong" certainly seems to be an example of it, but as a phrase on its own, I would've expected it to refer to Not even wrong. I suggest either retargeting there, in which case we could add Litotes to Not even wrong (disambiguation), or adding a hatnote to the target article to Not even wrong. There doesn't seem to be any need to delete. BDD (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Weak retarget to Morality since Morally right redirects there. Steel1943 (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment The antonym of "wrong" is "right". "Right", with another meaning, has antonym "left". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment and Morally wrong also redirects to Morality. But you have rather a problem, yes, with "Right" having about seventeen different meanings, as most English nouns do. Legal rights, for example. This is WP:WEASEL, just say, "right", not "not wrong" (if you'll excuse the double negative, double negatives are not wrong, perfectly good English until the Victorians got hold of 'em). Si Trew (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete as there appears to be no suitable target. --Rubbish computer 00:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as ffWP:RFD#D2]] confusing, as above. We don't have Not right, Not left, Not correct for example. Si Trew (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the target, but mostly to explain Chinese 不錯. I do not think any of the suggested other targets are better than the current one. —Kusma (t·c) 09:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - It looks like the best option is to just leave the text red. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2015 (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.

Birmingham screwdriver[edit]

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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Birmingham screwdriver → Hammer (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

~~Delete~~, not at target, thus WP:RFD#D2 confusing. This is, in British English, a fairly well known mild insult to the people of Birmingham, England suggesting that they will grab a hammer to use as any tool, but it is not mentioned at the target as such. Percussive maintenance is analagous, I suppose, that went to AfD but haven't quite worked out what happened to it, as it appeared blue to me but the blue link says there is no such page, attempting to create it does not give me a '"previously deleted" warning. Si Trew (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that's a {{wiktionary redirect}}. I dislike those. Si Trew (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I just assumed this was a variant of the screwdriver (cocktail) at first glance, I was off the mark. Ironically, the image used to illustrate said article, was taken in Birmingham, albeit a different city with the same name.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: you don't mark it, you just hit it. No wonder you were off. Si Trew (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep it then, if it sends people (or at least Godsy) to where they might want to go. Si Trew (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2015 (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.

@SimonTrew: "Birmingham Screwdriver" is mentioned at screwdriver. Perhaps the info there could be copied to hammer (it appears reasonably sourced), or this should be retargeted there. That aside; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Percussive maintenance, it appears there was a deletion discussion about percussive maintenance, though it was quite a long time ago.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It's mentioned there cos I created the subsection. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

ببر[edit]

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) 13:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

ببر → Tiger (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

General topic with no specific affinity for the Persian language. - The ChampionMan 1234 02:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Tigers don't live in Persia. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 16:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
There is an extinct tiger subspecies, the Caspian tiger, also known as the Persian tiger, which lived in Persia until very recently, scientifically speaking. Presumably Farsi speakers could have referred to that type of tiger with this term. But given that the Farsi Wikipedia article on the subspecies is named ببر مازندران, and fa:ببر corresponds to our Tiger, it doesn't seem like a good retargeting option. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom and BDD's findings. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep - directs readers to what they're looking for, no argument has been presented for deletion. Wily D 00:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep because WilyD's argument and historical presence of Tigers in Persia (physically) and in Persian culture.--Porsche997SBS (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete WP:XY, plenty of different meanings in the many different languages which use the Perso-Arabic script [16][17][18]. In particular see ur:ببر. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per 58, whose findings show that this could refer to lions and tigers, oh my! -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:15, 8 September 2015 (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.

Ğööğle[edit]

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) 13:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ğööğle → Google (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Implausible typo (looks Turkish to me, but nothing about this on tr.wp) - The ChampionMan 1234 02:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment the redirect's creator indicates Yiddish and Hebrew native tongues, could this be one of those? -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Neither language typically uses a "ğ" in Latin alphabet transliteration. This is also not remotely what a Turkish speaker would come up with if he heard the word "Google" but didn't know how to spell it. It's just nonsense, kinda like metal umlauts. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as above. Not really any languate, but it looks more like a slavic language to me (but isn't). Si Trew (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@SimonTrew:Doesn't look Slavic to me, I know of none Slavic language using the letter ğ. - The ChampionMan 1234 05:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@TheChampionMan1234: True, champ, true. I kinda say so cos use a Hungarian keyboard which has a lot of slavic symobols on it, such as đĐŁ and so on plus the ability to do a compose via an AltGr key such as ˘G which don't work, but I have for example "óűóüöóüö" just as primary keys as they are distinct letters, not diacritic modifiers, in Hungarian. You're no doubt right that it isn't slavic (and Hungarian isn't slavic, not suggesting it was). I don't think it is Turkish, though, cos the modern Turkish (Latin) alphabet, the 1922 Attaturk one when they changed from Arabic, I don't think uses this particularly either. Si Trew (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes it does, look up yourself. - The ChampionMan 1234 05:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe you but I tried and failed. We probably get different results, then. Can you suggest which article or whatnot I should look up? Si Trew (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The lede at Ğ starts ˘G hmmm I can kinda do it but not quite, says that it is used in Turkish, Azerbaijini and Laz. All are Turkik languages. So I think you are right with that if it goes anywhere, it should go sorta there. Google Turkey is a redirect to List of Google domains, so I don't know if that is a help or a hindrance. Si Trew (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete neither a plausible phonetic misspelling by a Turkish/etc. ESL speaker, nor a plausible typo by a person using any of the usual keyboard layouts which include this key (Turkish F, Turkish-Q, or Azeri [19]). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per above. Rubbish computer 16:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - not valid diacritics, not a plausible misspelling. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2015 (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.

Google pakistan[edit]

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) 13:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Google pakistan → Google (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Google Pakistan → Google (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Same reasons per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28#Qantas.jp (Thank God that nobody has created loads of similar redirects, like the above example.) - The ChampionMan 1234 02:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete. But they have created loads of similar redirects in rather a mismatched way. Indeed, Google England, Google Cymru, Google France, Google Deutchland über alles, Google Germany and so on are red, as they should be. I thought I bunged into Qantas.jp but didn't, but yes, just enumerating a whole list of registered domain names or websites does not help anyone. WP:CONCISE, WP:SURPRISE, one would expect this to go to some mention of Google's activities in Pakistan, not just to the general article about Google: which does not have a single mention of Pakistan, so that is WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm a liar, Google France also redirects to List of Google domains, with no rcatting, as do Google Australia Google India but not Google New Zealand or Google Uzbekistan. Google Russia blue to same, Google Finland red, Google Uzbekistan red, Google Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant red, Google Syria red,

red, Google Libya red. Have tin-opener, will worms. Si Trew (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Google Malta, Google Luxembourg, Google Netherlands, Google Italy, Google Nepal, Google Greece, Googlw South Africa, Google Namibia, Google Kenya, Google Central African Republic, Google Nigeria, Google Tibet, Google Thibet. It is really quite a hodge-podge. All or nothing, I'd say, but WP:NOT an atlas. Si Trew (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment:@SimonTrew: Special:PrefixIndex/Google lists a lot of domain names, I'm not sure if the target is appropriate or not, but certainly better than the Qantas.(xx) discussion linked above, I'm not ready to nominate any of those. (On a side note, I wish Special:Prefixindex has an option to only show redirects. - The ChampionMan 1234 06:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I just bash em in and see what comes up, since Wikipedia's search engine was famously rubbish, but it has got a bit better over the years. I tend to go via Special:Search and do it so you get the full title and not just articles that start with those, but for the ones above, I just bashed em in and see what I got. But on the other hand I kinda do it out of woodware so to know that Queensland and Northern Territories Air Service is a redirect to Qantas, for example. Si Trew (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That is somewhat wrong, as according to the article, it stands for Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services, there are again, lots of ones, but I'd say keep without a doubt. (BTW, did you know what it stood for before you checked that?). - The ChampionMan 1234 07:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Surely, "only to show", we can't be doing with split infinitives. :) What should we do with these then? Si Trew (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am wondering, but, like I said, I would like to consider some options, unlike the Qantas.xx redirects, they have a target that seems somewhat appropriate. - The ChampionMan 1234 06:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but surely on any search engine "Google" will come up before "Google Pakistan" or "Google Azerbaijan" or "Google Nasr" or "Google Libya" or "Google The Seychelles". In that way, this redirect hinders rather than helps a search, I think, which is why I said "delete" above. I reiterate without actually cheating, WP:NOTGUIDE. I am wondering whether if you whack in "Google" into the specific search here you get the article for Google. That may seem an odd thing to wonder, but it would not surprise me were it not. Si Trew (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per above. Rubbish computer 16:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as confusing. It seems that there are no relevant Google Inc. activity, such as a company branch or notable project, at Pakistan. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to List of Google domains - one has to go back through a few discussions to find what the nominator's rationale actually is. It seems to be: "Not getting a lot of hits, also target is little related to the countries which these ccTLDs belong to." I think I get what the point is but it would have been better stated explicitly, since "google pakistan" is not a domain name, technically, and I don't think the same rationale applies. A user typing this query is likely looking for information on Google's operations in Pakistan, and would be disappointed with an article on Google generally, but there's some information to be conveyed in what Google's Pakistan domain extension is, or that it exists at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand it is a slightly different rationale, but I have given what I suggest. - The ChampionMan 1234 02:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Google domains. It's a valid search term and Google is indeed quite active in Pakistan. Pakistan has the 26th largest number of internet users, and 'Google Pakistan' is one of the top visited sites. So I would be of the opinion that is more notable than many of the other domains mentioned above. Mar4d (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2015 (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.

September 6[edit]

Challenge (internet)[edit]

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 List of Internet phenomena#Challenges. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Challenge (internet) → Internet meme (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

I suppose these "challenges" are a type of meme, but there's no discussion of them at the target article. There's a decent Challenges category that suggests to me an actual article on this topic could be written. BDD (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment I would like to make a new section in List of Internet phenomena called "challenges" and populate that section with the category mentioned above. However, that list is getting pretty massive (approaching 200kB). This might be better suited for that talk page, but that page should either a) be split into a few different lists or b) purged of the "non-notable" items and only contain items that have articles. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to List of Internet phenomena#Challenges. I went ahead and boldly implemented my above comment (b). -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per Tavix. Rubbish computer 13:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per Tavix. If that wasn't such a clear target, I would have considered captcha as a target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget, but to challenge-response authentication, to which challenge-response and challenge response redirect (but not Challenge-Response nor Challenge-Response). Sorry to stop it snowing... well done to User:Tavix for creating that list, but I don't think this is quite what people would be looking for. Perhaps if it is, we couléd hatnote my suggestion there? Si Trew (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two alternative targets have been proposed, so I'd like to see more discussion to help us decide on which to go for. Alternative that could be a sign we want to to delete this redirect per WP:XY.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 21:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to List of Internet phenomena#Challenges per Tavix, as nom. Thanks for making that possible. A hatnote to Si's suggestion could be prudent, though. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2015 (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.

To anarchize[edit]

To anarchize → Internet troll (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Unclear what this is supposed to be referring to. BDD (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

retarget to Anarchy. This seems to be its infinitive verb form --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Anarchy since we've had people advocating to anarchize things for over a century before the concept of internet trolling was even invented. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Retarget per above. Rubbish computer 21:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Anarchism. I'm alright with anarchy as well, but the former is seems to describe actually "Anarchizing", as opposed the latter which seems to describe more the word itself.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOUN. I did some checking on common verbs:

to be → Copula (linguistics)

to do → Time management (I have an opinion about that.)

to play red.

to live a Chinese book.

to die red.

to join red.

to leave red.

to say red.

to really, really, say very hard otherwise I will start crying red.

to hear red.

to see red.

to smell red.

to touch red.

WP:NOUN , WP:NOTDIC and "to" as the infinitive in English is just one of those things. Most foreign language dictionaries if you have concordances use the infinitive form, but no English dictionary lists the whole lot under "T" for "To" (nor Tea for Two for that matter.) Copula (linguistics) makes a fist of it, but To do is ridiculous. It was Descartes, wasn't it, who said to do is to be. And Rosseau said to be is to do. Frank Sinatra said do be do be do...

Si Trew (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 21:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

delete per Si Trew. Also, users do not need to be spoon fed, if you can look for "To anarchize" you can also look for the simpler and more common anarchy/anarchism (if the search page haven't already anyway). Not that redirecting is all that bad, but why have this...? - Nabla (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Brian Posworth[edit]

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) 13:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Brian Posworth → Paul Posluszny (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Delete per WP:XY. This isn't that significant nickname for him, but it might create confusion for those looking for Brian Bosworth. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 20:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete as above. It's The Battle of Posworth, B all over again. Si Trew (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

iF Ifs and ands' were pots and pans then Rock and roll would be skiffle, Si Trew (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2015 (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.

Thomas Wrench[edit]

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 Hugh Owen Thomas#Medical legacy. --BDD (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Wrench → Godwin's Law (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

There does not appear to be any person (real or fictitious) by the name of Thomas Wrench who is associated in any way with Godwin's Law, and the redirect therefore serves no useful purpose. I propose that the redirect be Deleted. Tevildo (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 17:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete useless redirect as per above, so that a Victorian surgical tool known as the Thomas wrench can be listed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Just retarget. RFD is for when you need an administrator to actually delete the redirect, so that it becomes a redlink (or so that you can move another article on top of it, though that one is usually done with a speedy unless it's controversial). In this case, no process at all is required; once the article is in place, just edit the redirect so that it points to the new article. --Trovatore (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Update. On closer reading of the thread at WP:RD/Misc, it appears to me that Tevildo was not in fact proposing to write a new article, but simply wanted a redirect to Hugh Owen Thomas. I've sorted it. Someone please close this section. --Trovatore (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
'Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, patently, if sonome say this and another says that, the redirect is confusing. For if not, why should not Thumb Wrench be added into the mix, since Tom Thumb is notable and Thumbscrews are a kind of wrench, and presumably both owned a spanner if only a small one. Si Trew (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment How is it confusing? No one, as far as I'm aware, says that "Thomas Wrench" has anything to do with Godwin's law. I don't see any prospect for confusion here. --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be confusing were it kept. It is kinda all right to have Monkey Wrench go to Charles Mönke, for whom it is but to which it doesn't.Si Trew (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it does now (see below). Sorry, I stated that unclearly. What I mean is that Thomas Wrench now points to a section of the inventor's bio, as you were suggesting would in some imaginable circumstances be OK for Monkey Wrench. Certainly, I don't think anyone is proposing that it should continue to point to Godwin's law. I assumed that was not even on the table. --Trovatore (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A little background: this is the gadget that Tevildo wants referenced by whatever article you get to by entering "Thomas wrench" into the search box. I have retargeted Thomas Wrench to Hugh Owen Thomas#Medical legacy, which I admit was probably slightly out-of-process, but as far as I can tell ought to satisfy everyone. If an article is written at Thomas wrench, then Thomas Wrench should just be retargeted there, as a routine case variant, not really useful but also not worth deleting. If there were really anyone who would be surprised to arrive at the H. Thomas article rather than something relating to Godwin's law, then I suppose there should be a hatnote, but I frankly doubt any such person exists; I conjecture that the original redirect to Godwin's law was some odd sort of joke. --Trovatore (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
no, since Thomas wrench is red there is no need to take Thomas Wrench there as some kind of {{tlx|R from other capitalisation]]. Si Trew (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- No need now, I agree. I said if such an article were to be written. --Trovatore (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  - Comment I still consider, despite Trovatore's obviously well-meaning intervention, that Thomas Wrench should be redlinked (as there isn't, as yet, an article about a person of that name), and Thomas wrench should be a redirect (which I've created) to Hugh Owen Thomas. I was hoping for the initial redirect situation to be resolved before taking any other action, but events have overtaken us. Tevildo (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    - I don't agree that Thomas Wrench needs to be about a person of that name. In older capitalization styles, this is a perfectly plausible way of capitalizing the medical implement. If someone finds a notable person named Thomas Wrench and wants to write an article, nothing prevents that, but in the mean time I think it's a reasonable redirect. --Trovatore (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  - Comment. Thomas Wrench was red when I wrote it, but since has become blue, thus kinda invalidating my earlier argument? I didn't make myself clear either, so my fault there. My kinda vague point was that if we have an eponym such as Monkey Wrench, or vaguely as mentioned in the lede there a Ford Wrench, it makes sense to point them to where people can find out why a tool is called a monkey wrench or a Ford wrench, or a Birmingham screwdriver -> Hammer for that matter (which I've just tagged as {{R from slang}} but am going to bring here as not at target). But this one/these ones doesn't or don't seem to fit into that kinda thing, and seemed to me more like there should actually just be a person called Thomas Wrench. Tom Wrench is red, for example. Si Trew (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
'Comment. It's a bit of a distance, but thumbscrew is a DAB. It appears that Thomas Wrench is a real person, a Graphic designer, from Kalamazoo. However, at least in Britain it is also a Scottish device of torture (joke) for trying to fix club feet, www.rcpsg.ac.uk/library/archive-and-heritage/instrument-collection/thomas-wrench-for-club-foot.aspx, from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow. Si Trew (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment. OK, it looks like it was imprudent of me to make the change out of process. I didn't quite understand that User:Tevildo's concern was that "Thomas Wrench" looks like a name, because to me it does not look like a name. I do not recall that, before this discussion, I ever heard of anyone surnamed "Wrench", although on searching it does appear that there are quite a few.
In any case, if people really think a redirect from "Thomas Wrench" is confusing, I have no objection to deleting it. The MediaWiki engine will make sure that anyone who enters "Thomas Wrench" into the search box will arrive at the right place (namely the target of Thomas wrench), and surely we don't want anyone linking to Thomas Wrench. So I still don't think the Thomas Wrench redirect is confusing, but I also see no need to keep it if others find it a problem. --Trovatore (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2015 (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:The Big Night poster.jpg[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

File:The Big Night poster.jpg → File:The Big Night (1960 film) poster.jpg (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

File rename recently created, All links updated, Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Per WP:FILEMOVE, In most cases a file redirect should be left on the original page, except if the original name falls under one of the revision deletion criteria (purely disruptive, grossly insulting, privacy breaching, etc.). BethNaught (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep per BethNaught. Rubbish computer 17:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Recently created (just a month ago), but it's not a silly or otherwise extremely implausible redirect, so it wouldn't be a good R3 candidate, and there aren't any other problems with it either. In other words, there's no good reason to create linkrot here. Nyttend (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2015 (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:WSVA-AM 2015.PNG[edit]

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 speedily deleted by Nyttend; the target page was deleted. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

File:WSVA-AM 2015.PNG → File:WSVA-AM Logo (until August 3, 2015).png (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Unused file redirect - recently created. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep per BethNaught's rational on the above discussion. Rubbish computer 17:05, 6 September 2015 (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.

My Boy (1921 film)[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My Boy (1921 film) → My Boy (film) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Misleading redirect name: the film is from 1922, not 1921 (see film encyclopedia as well as all references in current article). SteveStrummer (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment There are also sources which misidentify this as a 1921 film [20]. Edit history needs to be preserved somewhere since content has been merged into My Boy (film). If consensus is that this redirect is unnecessary, it should either be history-merged or moved without leaving a redirect behind (e.g. to My Boy (1922 film) and tagged as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

- Comment For the record, I created the new page because I found My Boy (film) as a redlink at Jackie Coogan, Victor Heerman, and My Boy (disambiguation). Once I discovered the (1921 film) page, I compared and matched content, but "merged" is probably not the correct term. SteveStrummer (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep as an incorrect but plausible synonym, tagged with {{r from incorrect name}}. Rubbish computer 17:06, 6 September 2015 (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:Redirects for discussion

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

Reasons for deleting[edit]

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Closing notes[edit]

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Current list[edit]

September 23[edit]

Windex.php[edit]

Defeat device[edit]

Tripping Up Trump[edit]

South African Antarctica[edit]

Fifth Avenue (LIRR station)[edit]

Anatidaephobia[edit]

Saarland Protectorate[edit]

Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF[edit]

Untied Airline[edit]

September 22[edit]

2014–15 Pakistan Super League[edit]

2017 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season[edit]

2006-2007 NHL Team Playoff Run[edit]

Non-Resident Students' Centre[edit]

Wikipedia:PIMP[edit]

Öga[edit]

2018 NHL Entry Draft[edit]

2001 U(c)S(c) Attack on Afghanistan[edit]

Iraq mistake[edit]

Southern kurdish native homeland/southern Kurdistan/KRG[edit]

Iraqnam[edit]

WAR (file format) (disambiguation)[edit]

War V (comics)[edit]

Susan Campbell[edit]

September 21[edit]

Town Square[edit]

Ijime[edit]

Cussing people[edit]

Debation[edit]

Technical tap[edit]

Ovaloid[edit]

Murder of workers in labor disputes in the United States[edit]

Public Square[edit]

Genocide in Syria[edit]

September 20[edit]

Yemeni Civil War[edit]

Clamshell Laptop[edit]

Thaïlande[edit]

Hapan[edit]

September 19[edit]

Peter O'Carroll[edit]

Raymundo Del Rosario[edit]

Bir avtomobil oğurlamaq və Las Vegas[edit]

2017 Pakistan Super League[edit]

Tolicha Peak[edit]

Flag of the Southeastern United States[edit]

September 18[edit]

Wakopedia[edit]

Lists of Juice[edit]

Heathen[edit]

Wikipedia:BADGER[edit]

Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda[edit]

Truth (film)[edit]

Shitface[edit]

The Eighth Wonder (film)[edit]

Beneath the Deep (film)[edit]

Antivillain[edit]

Intel Core i5 430m[edit]

Intel Core i7-4558U[edit]

Lincoln middle school (alameda,california)[edit]

Kurushima-Kaikyo Bridge[edit]

Level pack[edit]

Data disk[edit]

Fleeing[edit]

Kutru[edit]

September 17[edit]

Steel worker[edit]

Katrina Richardson[edit]