Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

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 do not need to 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. Place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect.

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

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 "Search results 1–10 out of 378" 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 proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's 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 ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

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.

Additionally, 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.

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):

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.) See also: § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. 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:.) Speedy deletion criterion R2 may also apply.
  7. 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.
  8. 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 criterion R3, if recently created.
  9. 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.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. The pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.
  7. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent unregistered and non-confirmed users from expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (Unregistered and non-confirmed users cannot create new pages in the mainspace; they can only edit existing pages, including redirects, which they can expand.) This criterion does not apply to redirects that are indefinitely semi-protected or more highly protected.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

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:

  1. 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. ClimategateClimatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. 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).
  3. 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]

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.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the rfd tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination
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]]

If the result might result in significant changes to other pages (e.g., changing the names of other pages, merging or splitting content), you can leave notices about the RFD discussion on relevant talk pages, too.

  • 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]

January 17[edit]

Sverbank[edit]

Should be deleted as misnomer. Александр Мотин (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Philippine Americans[edit]

Surely this should point to Filipino Americans instead? The current target is an anomaly compared to all other "[demonym] Americans" article titles. feminist (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom, but add a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Maram language (Austro-Asiatic)[edit]

Implausible redirect. There is already a page at Maram language, but even that is not a plausible target. 66.87.149.206 (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. According to the Maram language article it is a Sino-Tibetan language (as are the Kuki-Chin languages) not Austroasiatic so obviously neither of them are the correct target. I can't find information on Ethnologue about any language with this name, other than the Sino-Tibetan language we have an article on. There is though a mention of one at Khasic languages (which are Austroasiatic), I don't know that it would help anyone looking for information about the language though and I can't see what else is available (the table with the mention is referenced but only to an offline source and google isn't showing anything useful). I'm left at delete as misleading without prejudice to recreation as an article if sources are available. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


January 16[edit]

Unununium element 111[edit]

Delete. This is a strange title that reads more like a search engine term and that would be inappropriate as an article title (WP:AT), and it is probably no longer even a common search as element 111 has been known as roentgenium since 2003. ComplexRational (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Heart pain[edit]

Delete. "Heart pain" can have various reasons, and hence, that term is not to be restricted merely to angina pectoris. Hildeoc (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • This feels like the sort of title that would be best targetted at a broad concept article or set index. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
This could be a dab, referring to chest pain, angina, heartache, or other ideas. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Environmental issues in Europe[edit]

We do not have an article about environmental issues in Europe, and the category targeted by this cross-namespace redirect does not concern environmental issues in Europe. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Rotator[edit]

At the very least this needs a hatnote to Rotator (album) and Rotation (disambiguation) but there are other targets too that might be suitable for dab page - Antenna rotator, Polarization rotator, Kicked rotator, Faraday rotator and maybe others - e.g. I was looking for the type of tow truck, but I don't have time now to fully investigate the options and whether the current target is primary. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Make a dab with a link to the current target. I can't pinpoint the best primary target for the redirect --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • DABify many possible meanings. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A draft disambiguation page would be helpful. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Agreed BDD: "A draft disambiguation page would be helpful".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

William henry west[edit]

Combining a second list of unnecessary redirects from implausible capitalisations I reviewed these at NPP but on second thoughts they are beyond what's reasonable:

Policeman
Soldier

Not necessary: his notability is entirely from being a policeman, not a soldier. I've just reviewed at NPP a vast number of redirects to this man from likely and (mostly) unlikely variations of capitalisation, initials, "officer", etc (eg William h. west (policeman)), and I really don't see that we need this extra swathe of "soldier" redirects. I'm a great believer in making redirects from plausible alternative titles, but this lot is going too far: was someone trying to make a point? There are a list beyond this in the NPP feed which I will include under this discussion. PamD 13:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Tweaked and expanded PamD 13:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • note I've combined these very similar nominations into one. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete the ones with uppercase "Solidier" and/or lowercase "h", keep the rest as plausible {{R from other disambiguation}} - he was a solider (the article even lists that before policeman) so it's not incorrect and redirects are WP:CHEAP so there is no harm in keeping those that are correctly formatted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • My above comment applies only to the "soldier" list, for the "policeman" list: Delete those starting with "Officer" and/or which are incorrectly capitalised, Keep the rest. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Creator comment A full list of redirects can be found under the collapsed header on the article's talk page. I wasn't trying to make a point, just be helpful as there were other people named William H West and I tend to get frustrated by deficient redirects, esp when I am on mobile and making 15 queries isn't easy. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Irmageddon[edit]

Can also referred to an author and a character B dash (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep but add a mention of the term into the target article (sources such as thisand this as evidence of its use). We don't take account of topics which aren't in Wikipedia when deciding on redirects etc: if the author or the character get an article, or a mention worth a dab page entry, then create a dab page (or a {{redirect}} hatnote). Until then, the redirects are good once the term is included in the target page. PamD 10:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Pam D. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

January 15[edit]

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000[edit]

Delete Very unlikely natural search term given its length. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep, given this is what a googol is. It's plausible via copy and paste, or if someone knows that 1 + 100 zeros has a special name, but doesn't know what that name is. -- Tavix (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --B dash (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per those above. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep this one per above. Ben5218 (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'll take Tavix's word that the redirect contains 100 zeroes ... because of it does, the redirect is accurate and helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I counted the zeros and its accurate (and helpful). Rlendog (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Egg Gang[edit]

No mention of "Egg Gang" in article it redirects to, which is at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/@world record egg). Redirect was originally a dup which was then deleted under A10. CoolSkittle (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep That is the name of the Instagram account which is what the page is about.  Nixinova  T  C  04:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete - because it's a joke. WP does not catalog memes. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000[edit]

Delete Yes, that is how you write out 10^60, a British decillion, But no, no one is going to type that many zeros and commas into any search box, anywhere. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as unlikely search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely; searches for this number would probably be 10^60 without writing so many zeros. ComplexRational (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep for exactly the same reason that the googol nomination above, this takes a searcher to the content we have about this number. I agree typing it into the search box is unlikely but copying and pasting and links are both very plausible ways to reach this title. Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    Copying and pasting from where? What links? UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    @UnitedStatesian: Copy and pasting from anywhere on the internet or offline document where they see it. Similarly links to Wikipedia can be found on many websites on the internet but whatlinkshere shows only links from current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't think anyone might actually type that in the search box. Ben5218 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --B dash (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Just because a title is long does not make it implausible. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Thryduulf. It may not be typed in often but there is no reason not to have the redirect for the rare times it is (or copied and pasted). Rlendog (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Page Curation.[edit]

Delete Apparently originally created in error; full stop makes this an unlikely search term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:2019 in basketball[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted

Wikipedia:Votes for Keeping[edit]

This redirect serves no purpose whatsoever and redirecting it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion does not make it any useful. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed the discussion for "Wikipedia:Votes for keep" referred to above as delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Deletion process per Thryduulf. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Deletion process. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The only stated reason for retargeting was to keep it in sync with one bizarre peripheral redirect, which has now been deleted. The current redirect, however, is an established historical remnant of the times when its target was known as "Votes for Deletion". Its only in this context that the redirect makes sense, and retargeting it anywhere else would be gratuitous. – Uanfala (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bugs & Daffy Show[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article. However, The Bugs & Daffy Show is a {{R with history}}; per the history, these redirects seem to not be about the subject at Bugs 'n' Daffy. Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Not nearly so clear cut – The Bugs & Daffy Show is how the Looney Tunes were shown in television syndication (in the 1970s and 1980s?... I think on ABC). Anyway, I'm definitely inclined to Keep these redirects (and then maybe add a mention of this at the Looney Tunes page...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The last sentence of the lead of Bugs 'n' Daffy states that the block was shown on Cartoon Network, which correlates with my memory. —Ost (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ladyboy[edit]

Ladyboy sometimes means an offensive term of Shemale. Sharouser (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is another synonym. See Lady Boy (song). Sharouser (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep this points to the primary topic for the term, the song is already linked from a hatnote and one can be added to shemale if required. Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as primary topic. [1] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Icon(comics)[edit]

Delete per WP:RDAB: malformed (no space). UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Voltron: Defender of the Universe[edit]

Currently Voltron: Defender of the Universe redirects to Voltron. The Voltron article specifically talks about Voltron as a media franchise and the multiple versions while the Voltron (1984 TV series) specially talks about the 1984 cartoon version Voltron: Defender of the Universe is the actual name of the first season of the 1984 version that is the reason why I believe that Voltron: Defender of the Universe should be redirected to Voltron (1984 TV series). }} Dwanyewest (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Vehicle Voltron[edit]

Currently Vehicle Voltron redirects to Voltron. The Voltron article specifically talks about Voltron as a media franchise and the multiple versions while the Voltron (1984 TV series) specially talks about the 1984 cartoon version and the second season of the 1984 version was referred to as Vehicle Voltron that is the reason why I believe that Vehicle voltron should be redirected to Voltron (1984 TV series). Dwanyewest (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Go-Lion[edit]

There is no reason Go-Lion should redirect toVoltron when Go Lion redirects to Beast King GoLion its a minor difference in spelling. Go-Lion should redirect to Beast King GoLion Dwanyewest (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Equation of State (Cosmology)[edit]

Delete per WP:RDAB: capitalized disambiguator. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: misinterpretation of the guidelines. The guideline only applies to capitalisation errors in the term disambiguation within parentheses, not to any disambiguator word: "the capitalization and spelling errors portion only applies if (x) is an error variation of "disambiguation"". Lithopsian (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as a WP:COSTLY redirect due to the use of capitalization in the redirect's disambiguator for a non-proper noun. Steel1943 (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep with over 700 hits last year this is an unquestionably useful redirect which is WP:CHEAP. The costly argument is erroneous: the maintenance required is zero, and it's no more or less likely to be vandalised than any other redirect so the actual cost to keeping the redirect is trivial at worst and far, far outweighed by its proven utility. . Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:CVG character[edit]

Unused redirect and not something a reader would probably write as it isn't very clear what the "c" in "cvg" stands for. Gonnym (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Castlevania character[edit]

Unused redirect and not following the convention of prefixing by "infobox". Gonnym (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Sdesc[edit]

This is a template redirect, a shortcut intended to save typing during the large-scale project of adding short descriptions to ultimately all articles in Wikipedia. However, Gonnym appears not to like this shortcut and has removed the links to it from the project pages Short description and WikiProject Short descriptions. As a shortcut is of little value if no-one knows about it, should this template shortcut be kept (and the links reinstated), or deleted? : Bhunacat10 (talk), 10:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support deletion Seeing a trend the past few years of templates moving from short, unreadable titles, to clear full word/sentence titles, which I personally agree with, I see no value in having a template, which is used only once per page, be cryptic. If this were a template which was used a lot on the page, I could see some value in the arguments for it saving time, but since it is used only once, better for it to stay clear and let editors know what it is, without them needing to click the redirect. --Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support deletion {{short description}} is clearer in the wikitext; only benefit would be to save typing but one should be using User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper anyhow :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support deletion per Galobtter. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Please delete There is enough confusion about the strange squiggles at the top of many articles without adding another layer of obfuscation. A good example of useful obscurity is {{dda}} which is a redirect to {{death date and age}}; the shortcut is useful in tables listing dozens of people along with birth/death dates. However, {{death date and age}} should be used when it appears only once in an infobox. Johnuniq (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Cornelia Maria Catharina Andreoli[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Inkotanyi[edit]

Not mentioned in target article, though creation edit summary says "Ishyaka FPR-Inkotanyi in kinyarwanda language" - please add this info with a source. PamD 10:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)- edited my own garbled text for clarity. PamD 17:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Television companies of the United States[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no longer a redirect

Ascending chain[edit]

No mention of term in target article. PamD 10:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • The term "chain" is defined there, and it is easy enough to understand what an "ascending" chain is in the context of a total order. But ascending chain condition is a reasonable target as well. —Kusma (t·c) 13:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: the nominator has the point; I know I have made the redirect but maybe I was little too lazy. The readers may be able to guess the meaning of ascending but that’s a very bad practice (the readers should not be asked to find the definitions themselves). ACC is related but it’s about the condition on a partially ordered set and so it’s not an appropriate redirect target. —- Taku (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    Incidentally, there is an article “Infinite descending chain”; what is needed is an article ascending chain and descending chain. —- Taku (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED[edit]

We don't need redirects from capitalised version of every company name. PamD 10:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

MAS 78[edit]

Term not present in target article. PamD 10:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

because FAMAS first use in 1978, so they may be called MAS-78, just like MAS-49Scout MLG (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Then mention in target article with reference. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Princess Changge[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted

Nokmim[edit]

Nokmim is the Hebrew word for "Avengers", it was the name of several Jewish partisan groups in Eastern Europe during the Holocaust, none of which were directly related to the later Nakam group that tried to get revenge. Delete per WP:REDLINK. Catrìona (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the interwikis, the Hebrew wiki link is for HaNokmim, "organized the final stages of World War II and thereafter" -- which would appear to be the relevant concept for this redirect. If User:Catrìona is correct that Nakam should be identified as a different concept, then a new item for it should be created on Wikidata, and the various current sitelinks be assigned to one or the other appropriately. It might be worth starting a new stub here (perhaps based on a translation of the he-wiki article), that these present redirects could be updated to point to. The subject does appear significant. Jheald (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jheald: The hewiki article on "HaNokmim" actually discusses two separate groups, Nakam and Tilhas Tizig Gesheften, both of which already have enwiki articles. A dab page is a possible solution, but the phrase "(Jewish) Avengers" is probably too vague for a separate dab page from Avenger, considering that across history there are many Jews who have sought revenge for various offenses. And I don't think it would make sense to redirect "Jewish Avengers" or a Hebrew word for Avenger to that dab page, per Wikipedia:Redirects from foreign languages. Catrìona (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: So, probably makes sense to create a stub-dab at Nokmim (or at one of the terms being discussed), that would pick up incoming interwiki clicks and appropriately dab them. No opinion as to whether it would make sense to include a link from Avenger to that new page, but you may be right that it might be too niche a meaning. Jheald (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure it makes sense to keep Nokmim as stub or dab just for interwiki purposes: the Czech, German, Romanian and Spanish interwiki articles are all about Nakam itself. Besides, as stated above, Nokmim was the name of several Jewish partisan brigades during the Holocaust itself. Catrìona (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep or disambiguate "Nokmim" and "Nokim"; disambiguate "Jewish avenger" or hatnote to Goel. The Modern Hebrew name for this group he:הנוקמים transliterates to haNokmim (pl.), i.e. Nokmim (pl.) and Nok(i)m (sg.). If we don't have information about the other Nokmim on the English Wikipedia, then Nakam stands as the primary topic. If we do, a disambiguation page would be appropriate. As for "Jewish avenger", this can also refer to Goel (i.e. "avenger of blood") so disambiguation would be appropriate, whether by a standalone disambiguation page or by a hatnote. Deryck C. 19:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since Nokim and Jewish Avengers were not tagged with {{Rfd}} until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Warsaw Film Festival NETPAC Award for Best Asian Film[edit]

Not mentioned in target buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 20:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Network for the Promotion of Asian Cinema (NETPAC). It's not specific to the Warsaw festival, but this would get people to the article that mentions all the venues in which NETPAC awards have been given as well as the actual recipients which is probably what the searcher wants. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Witches' Church[edit]

Implausible search term, not mentioned in target buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 20:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Wiccan church as a possible term. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose retargeting to Wiccan church as Wicca is not the only religion with witches. feminist (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for sanction[edit]

This isn't really a useful redirect as there hasn't been ever been voting for sanction in the first place when I look at the history of this redirect. There were only 5 pageviews over the past year which suggests that this redirect isn't really useful. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Storm of a lifetime[edit]

It can also referred to a book "The Storm of a Lifetime: A Report to U.S. Catholic Bishops and Pope Francis" in 2016, or other notable storms B dash (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Post-Tropical Cyclone Michael[edit]

Michael in 2000 also became post-tropical B dash (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Crate Amplifiers[edit]

suggest deletion or other more relevant redirect. It appears that Crate Amplifiers are no longer in production, and there is no article currently for the parent company most relevant to the topic (St Louis Music). synthfiend (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

American Studies Journal[edit]

American Studies (journal) (ISSN 0026-3079) is not American Studies Journal (ISSN 2199-7268) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap[edit]

Delete This cross-namespace redirect was created to make a point, according to the edit summary. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unnecessary and confusing cross-namespace redirect to an essay page. Steel1943 (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep because 1) redirects are cheap after all and 2) I'll recreate it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    • "...and 2) I'll recreate it."??? If there's consensus to delete this, a recreation of it will be eligible for speedy deletion criterion G4. Unless you intend to get the title WP:SALT-ed due to continuous recreations, I'm not clear what purpose that part of your comment served. Steel1943 (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I like it. Not sure who would be confused by it. Whatever you do, do not retarget to a mainspace page because that would be confusing. —Kusma (t·c) 10:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - A user essay does not merit its own article - not even as a redirect. Cabayi (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete While the joke might have been amusing for a short while, an unused POINT violation has no purpose and should be deleted. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Redirect stock theatre[edit]

Delete "Redirect" should not be part of the article title UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Imperial Japanese Air Force[edit]

Delete redirect, as no such thing ever existed in history. BilCat (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

If so, Lanzhou should be updated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
It should be changed regardless, but I don't know if it was bombed by the IJAAS or IJNAS. It certainly wasn't bombed by the Japan Air Self-Defense Force, which is where this currently redirects to. - BilCat (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

January 14[edit]

Eva Dennis[edit]

Currently redirects to a page without content about the redirect topic/name. Can be restored once that content is in place. Jessamyn (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Picture(superstring)[edit]

Delete. Per WP:RDAB; malformed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Direwolf[edit]

Should be changed to redirect to Dire wolf as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I'm not sure it's obvious to most people that the spelling without a space refers to the Game of Thrones creature and not the real one. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there any indication that people are spelling the real creature without a space (to make it the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT)? "I'm not sure it's obvious" is not one of the primary topic criteria. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dire wolf as above since that already has the hatnote to Song of Fire and Ice as well as the dab. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    Same question: while the hatnote does indeed exist, is there any indication that people are spelling the real creature without a space (to make it the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT)? The status quo also serves reader navigation, and possibly better. And if readers primarily use the non-spaced version for the GoT creature, the improvement would be to retarget Direwolf to List of Game of Thrones characters#Animals as the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and add hatnotes to that section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    If someone made a fictional monster and called it the Cavebear, would we also redirect it to the fictional monster and not Cave bear? I think some WP:COMMONSENSE is warranted in this situation where the real creature should take priority if it even so much as a chance of being confused with the fake one.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    There's nothing counter to WP:COMMONSENSE being asked, so we needn't beg the question. If someone made a fictional monster and called it "cavebear", would the readers who have so far made it to cave bear without touching the redirect from cavebear[4] suddenly be seized with the desire to omit the space? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    Consider that the direwolf is named after the real dire wolf and is defined as a larger relative of the wolf http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Direwolf Also the redirect to GoT characters does not go to a page where they explain what the heck a direwolf is. The reader is left to guess that perhaps direwolf in GoT is similar to a dire wolf. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    JHunterJ, I think it would help the case if the direwolf in GoT is actually defined somewhere in the opening of the characters list paragraph or in Westeros, like "A number of characters retain wolf-like pets called direwolves." AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    The things you suggest to consider do not consider what the reader is seeking when they enter "direwolf" in the search bar and go. The addition of information might indeed change the case either way, but given the current information, the question still remains "Is there any indication that people are spelling the real creature without a space (to make it the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT)?" -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, I am calling for the addition of that information. It's like if someone made up a fictional race of creatures called "vam paires", which are essentially vampires. Doing general searches would assume they are looking for vampires or vam paires in equal proportions. If the result is a link to the characters list, and the only thing it said was "JHunterJ is a vam paire", "Angus is a vam paire", then we're not getting any more knowledge about the creature, so might as well just look at the vampire page. With GoT, people search for direwolf and want to know how it differs from dire wolf or whether they are essentially the same. A presented definition would be better than no definition, and would even sway searches to look for direwolf as GoT primary topic with hatnote pointing to the dab. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep (i.e. continue pointing to the dab page) per JHunterJ. I don't see any evidence Dire wolf is the WP:PTOPIC for "Direwolf". feminist (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 15:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep given lack of indication to retarget. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Per cursory Google searches, I think that the prehistoric creature is more of a primary topic than the GoT version. We can always a hatnote anyways. --Lenticel (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    I think based on the comment that you intended to !vote Redirect? Regardless, "we can always hatnote anyways" is a valid option with the current arrangement, with retargeting to the GoT creature as primary topic, and with retargeting to the prehistoric creature. But a cursory Google search would indicate retargeting to GoT, not to the prehistoric creature.[5] -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Spezial:Beobachtungsliste[edit]

Delete Very unlikely a user would type the German term into en wiki's search bar. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Indeed, but highly likely that a user will switch from their German watchlist to their English one by editing the URL, changing "de" to "en". I am pretty sure that is what this redirect is for. —Kusma (t·c) 12:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible cross-namespace redirect. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per above buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 20:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful for German editors to quickly move between watchlists, and harmless. —Kusma (t·c) 12:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per the last three consensuses to keep - no indication that anything has changed since then. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED, specifically in the spirit of the portion regarding...

    In addition, having redirects from foreign languages gives readers the impression that an article exists in their native language. This is not always the case. Due to how third-party search engines work, readers could be forwarded to the English Wikipedia without any reference to an article in their foreign language, especially in the event that the article does not exist on the Wikipedia of the redirect's language. This issue can hinder the potential for an article to be created in the Wikipedia of the redirect's language.

    The fact that this redirect exists on a Wikipedia other than the German Wikipedia is problematic since it could potentially be a magnet, pulling German readers from third-party search engines and forwarding them to the English Wikipedia ... which is problematic since they are most likely attempting to look up pages in the German Wikipedia is looking up this term. This redirect serves no utility on the English Wikipedia; in addition, the essay at WP:FORRED underwent a major overhaul in August 2014 which applies more to this discussion than it did before, considering that the most recent discussion for this redirect before this one happened in January 2014. Steel1943 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    I fail to see the relevance of your quote to this discussion. —Kusma (t·c) 14:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    In the quote, "article" should say "page" when referring to this discussion. (May have to fix that in the essay.) That, and I think I copied the wrong quote from WP:FORRED, but the latter part of my comment still applies. Steel1943 (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - If this is kept, it should be retained as a hard redirect to Wikipedia:Spezial:Beobachtungsliste as it existed from March 10, 2017‎ until January 6, 2019‎. Plain {{soft redirect}} is not used in the mainspace, see here. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    Disagree strongly with that, for two reasons. 1) making it a hard redirect was contrary to the outcome of the 2014 RfD discussion, and 2) making it a hard redirect turns it into a double redirect: first to the Wikipedia: space (hard) and then to the Special: pseudo namespace (soft). The fact that it is the only soft redirect to the Special: pseudo-namespace in the article space is precisely why we are here and why it should be deleted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    There are hundreds (at least) of soft redirects in the main namespace, it's just most of them use specialised templates to link to sister projects. Anyway, I agree with Godsy's suggestion if this is kept it should be a hard redirect to the soft redirect, if we want it to be a soft redirect then just make it a direct soft redirect to the target, rather than making a user click more than necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    A hard redirect to a page bearing a soft redirect is fine. A double redirect is one hard redirect that points to another hard redirect. Many hard redirects point to soft redirects, which can be seen by exploring Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Wiktionary redirect a bit (e.g. the hard redirect Floccinaucinihilipilificatious that points to the specialized soft redirect Floccinaucinihilipilification). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    Accidentally omitted qualifier to my initial comment added in bold above; hope that clarifies. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 15:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - per this discussion and 3 prior discussions, some editors find this redirect helpful, and I am not seeing any deletion rationale here that would override that, even if this is IAR. Rlendog (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Blue squirrel[edit]

It doesn't appear that blue squirrels actually exist— therefore, having a redirect to the Siberian fur trade should probably just be deleted, as it implies that such animals do exist and are part of that trade. There are artist's brushes made of what vendors call "blue squirrel hair", but what they are actually made of no one seems to know. In any case, blue squirrels were once added to the article on Sciurus but were eventually removed as a hoax (which it appears they are). I think we are better off here having the term deleted than having it point to another article to which it is not actually related. This also goes for the redirect at Blue squirrel (animal). A loose noose (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are a great many businesses called blue squirrel, but none with a Wikipedia article, and several different cartoon characters that are blue squirrels but none more prominent than the other and the only list I can find is List of fictional rodents which both too generic, incomplete and sorted by medium not by species. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Charles de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona.[edit]

As already requested on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona., I re-request the deletion of this useless redirect. Long story short: Article Charles de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona. (with an useless full stop in the article's name) has been created. I created a redirect to the correct article's name (Charles de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona), so the redirect becomes redundant/useless. Cheers, ––AiPee213-100 (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Do not speedy delete the article existed at this title from 4 September 2017 to 11 January 2019, so if it is deleted then it needs to be done slowly to allow any mirrors and links, etc at least some time to update. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

January 13[edit]

Harbinger Community[edit]

Not even mentioned in it's targeted article. To no surprise, the actual redirect pageviews are low as it can be seen on stats button. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete there are plenty of google hits for the term, but all of them are about communities associated with something/somewhere called Harbinger. Most prominent in my search results is that related to Harbinger Primary School, but that's probably just an artefact of it being just down the road from me and even then doesn't rise to the level of primary topic. Even if it did we wouldn't have anywhere to target this as it only has a list entry at List of schools in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets#Primary schools. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Candidates for Speedy Deletion[edit]

This is a redirect from mainspace to category space that concerns project space activity. A 2014 RfD concluded keep on the basis it's useful (I paraphrase) but it isn't anymore: pageviews since Mar 2017 are single figures per month. Time to reconsider a delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep for exactly the same reasons as it was kept last time: we need to give new users who don't understand namespaces a way in to our deletion processes when they find their article is or was nominated for speedy deletion. It doesn't matter that there haven't been very many of them in absolute numbers, but it does matter that those who needed to find it were able to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Dunkin' (franchise)[edit]

Cleanup from a botched page move; requesting deletion. Unnecessary because Dunkin' already redirects to Dunkin' Donuts. ONR (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Anglican Church[edit]

Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, for example, there is no singular Anglican church.

As a quick background, the various Anglican churches around the world find their origin in the Church of England (with the exception of the Church of Ireland technically). Through British imperialism, Anglicanism spread throughout the world and the Church of England would come to give complete independence – or autocephaly, in ecclesiological terms – to many of these churches. Later on, in the late 19th century, these churches came together to form the Anglican Communion, a sort of association of all of these autocephalous churches. Positions taken by the communion's instruments of unity influenced and continue to influence the churches of the communion, but even at its strongest, the communion can only exert soft diplomatic power.

Since the formation of the communion, there have been a number of schisms (or splinters) from the communion's churches. Most notable are the Anglican Church in North America, formed in 2009 from the merger of a number of churches which had schismed mostly in the late 20th or early 21st century, as well as the multitude of Continuing Anglican churches, formed mostly in the mid- to late 20th century, and numerous others. While not part of the Anglican Communion, these churches both self-identify as Anglican and are generally regarded as such by other Anglicans (both within and without the communion) and the relevant scholarship.

Tl;dr: This is all to say that it is inappropriate for "Anglican Church" and "Anglican church" to redirect to "Anglican Communion" given that (1) the Anglican Communion is not an individual church and (2) there are numerous Anglican churches outside of the Anglican Communion which are frequently described as "Anglican churches". Rather, the pages should redirect to "Anglicanism", the article about the ecclesiastical and theological tradition they all share. This would be in line with what is done for other Protestant denominations (see, e.g., "Methodist church", "Presbyterian church", "Lutheran church", "Baptist church", "Pentecostal church"). 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, though of course The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a church, whereas the Anglican Communion is not. Rather, it is a communion of churches. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: That will sometimes be the case in Australia and Canada (I'm in Canada myself), but in the US, they're at least as likely to be looking for the Anglican Church in North America, given that the word Anglican is (confusingly) not in the name of the Episcopal Church. Unfortunately, a false distinction between Anglican and Episcopal – two synonymous terms – is rapidly becoming part of the American lexicon since the formation of the ACNA, which makes it all the more likely that users searching "Anglican Church" in the US will be looking for the ACNA.
And outside of the US, it is just as likely that they are under the popular misconception that there is a singular Anglican church in the world (as opposed to the reality that there are a multitude, many of which are part of the Anglican Communion, which is not itself a church, and others of which are not part of the communion at all).
Additionally, the existing targeting is unique amongst those of the same class in sending readers to a particular communion/association of churches from that tradition. For example, "Methodist church" doesn't redirect to World Methodist Council; "Presbyterian church" doesn't redirect to World Communion of Reformed Churches; "Lutheran church" doesn't redirect to Lutheran World Federation; etc. In all three of those examples, the organization is well-established as the preeminent organization representing churches from their respective tradition.
As an Anglican within the Anglican Communion who does not believe in schism, I wish I could say that Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion are synonymous, but in 2019, it simply isn't the case. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace with disambiguation page listing the several churches that a user may be looking for. —teb728 t c 00:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Would you suggest the same with respect to other denominations with a preeminent international body (which is not itself a church) representing churches from that tradition, e.g., "Methodist church" (World Methodist Council), "Presbyterian church" (World Communion of Reformed Churches), "Lutheran church" (Lutheran World Federation)?
Also, are you referring to the Anglican Communion as a church? Because if so, that simply isn't the case. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Anglicanism (improving visibility of links from that article if necessary), per nom's thoughtful rationale. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Replacing with a disambiguation is a non-starter. There are over 500 links to this title, none via templates, and no obvious alternative contender for primary topic. This is clearly a WP:Broad-concept topic; the only question is what the title of the article discussing the concept should be. While there may be "no singular Anglican church", Wikipedia's WP:summary style topic structure forces us to have only one article about that "Anglican church", and then it is up to that article to explain why there is "no singular Anglican church". That single article should have clear and obvious, quickly found when scanning the content, links to all the members of the so-called "Anglican Communion", or at least all the Anglican Communion members that call themselves "Anglican Church", including "Anglican Church in [wherever]". Perhaps the problem may be solved by merging Anglican Communion into Anglicanism. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • So, as an exercise for purposes of discussion, let's assume that we are trying to disambiguate all the 500+ links to "Anglican Church". I've randomly chosen David Leake:
In 1963 he went to [[South America]] where he served the [[Anglican Church|Church]] as a [[Missionary]] eventually rising to the [[Episcopate]].
What specific "Church" did he serve as a Missionary? The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America? If so, then [[Anglican Church|Church]] is an OVERLINK which should be replaced with simply "Church", where it is assumed and implied that means the previously linked Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America. Presumably he serves a specific Church, and not some nonspecific "ism". – wbm1058 (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sami Hyypiö[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted by JIP. -- Tavix (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Mahtisaari[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted by JIP. -- Tavix (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Harja Talonen[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted by JIP. -- Tavix (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Pandawoman[edit]

This is an extremely minor easter egg character that I don't believe has ever been mentioned at the target article. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Padme`[edit]

Appears to be a failed attempt at writing an é. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as there aren't any notable people named Padmè. Otherwise it could go to Padme which is a disambiguation. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

January 12[edit]

Hidden Fences[edit]

Years later I still do not understand why this gaffe, that was clearly just a simple mistake when reading nominations, is being redirected here as if it’s a real thing. It’s kind of racist. Hidden Fences is not a real movie—it doesn’t exist! Hidden Figures is a movie, Fences is a completely unrelated movie yet my previous attempts to compromise by distinguishing the two were removed without explanation. Can we please just delete this already? People know “Hidden Fences” is not the movie. Trillfendi (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • High-profile gaffes may make likely search terms. See Adele Dazeem (RfD). We could debate at length the role of racism in the original gaffe, but I don't at all think that keeping this would be racist on our part. Apparently, someone made a play of Hidden Fences, though the playwright is not currently notable. I'm not saying keep or delete at this point—just "not so fast". --BDD (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

1,000,000 AD[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn

1,000,000,000,000 AD[edit]

It is absolutely meaningless to create a redirect for a year which is far in the future. There is nothing special about this and it is not linked in any Wikipedia articles. Also, there were only 25 pageviews last year compared to the target which received just under 750,000 pageviews which does not make this redirect useful in anyway. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep perfectly plausible search term with an unambiguous target. There will be no benefit to deletion but it would significantly inconvenience those people who use it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    With only 25 pageviews last year, there won't be any inconvenience by deleting this. 1,000,000,000,000 (number) makes sense as a number but as a year, it doesn't make sense. Pkbwcgs (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    Circa 25 people will be inconvenienced by deletion, which would be acceptable if it were misleading (it isn't), it was incorrect (it isn't), there was no information at the target (there is), it was ambiguous (it isn't), or there was some other benefit to deletion (there isn't any). The ratio of views of a redirect to a target is only ever relevant when determining which of multiple possible targets a redirect should point to, but when the target is unambiguous (as here) the only thing that matters is whether people using the redirect are reaching the content they are looking for, which they unquestionably are. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete 25 page views over a year proves that it is implausible. There is no discussion of this specific year at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I've fully refuted this argument in the related discussion below. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

1,000,000,000 AD[edit]

It is absolutely meaningless to create a redirect for a year which is far in the future. There is nothing special about this and it is not linked in any Wikipedia articles. Also, there were only 36 pageviews last year compared to the target which received just under 750,000 pageviews which does not make this redirect useful in anyway. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep perfectly plausible search term with an unambiguous target. There will be no benefit to deletion but it would significantly inconvenience those people who use it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete 36 page views over a year proves that it is implausible. There is no discussion of this specific year at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I've fully refuted these two delete arguments in the related discussion below. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

1,000,000,000,000,000 AD[edit]

It is absolutely meaningless to create a redirect for a year which is far in the future. There is nothing special about this and it is not linked in any Wikipedia articles. Also, there were only 77 pageviews last year compared to the target which received just under 750,000 pageviews which does not make this redirect useful in anyway. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. ComplexRational (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep perfectly plausible search term with an unambiguous target. There will be no benefit to deletion but it would significantly inconvenience those people who use it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: It is not at all plausible by having a redirects that goes more than a trillion years into the future. Very few people used this redirect last year so it wouldn't cause any inconvenience. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    77 page views is not "very few" by any measure, not even the 25-35 of the others you nominated is "very few". The target article goes way further than this (1 trillion is 1012, the article goes to , so someone searching for this will find information at the target, further demonstrating its plausibility. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: Your reason for keeping this redirect is not convincing me. We already have 1,000,000,000,000,000 for the purpose you have explained. Adding "AD" does not make this useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkbwcgs (talkcontribs) 23:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    The fact that ~77 people used this redirect last year proves that it is useful - just because we have a similar redirect is not relevant (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Rubbish computer: the fact that ~77 people have used this in the last year rather proves that it isn't implausible at all. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete 77 page views over a year proves that it is implausible. There is no discussion of this specific year at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • We've been over this many times before, so I will keep it brief, but inconveniencing ~77 people a year (around 6-7 every month on average) for absolutely no benefit whatsoever to be extremely harmful to the project. Anyone searching for a year this far in the future is not looking for content about that exact year specifically to the exclusion of all others (even 2119 is a redirect to 22nd Century) but for content about that approximate time in the future which is exactly what they will find at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I would support the deletion of 2119 for the same reason. Someone searching 2119 is looking for information about that year, and the target does not provide that information. Update: 22nd century in fiction does mention that The story "Under the Lake" is set in 2119. Maybe it would be best to retarget there or perhaps it's okay after all since the "in fiction" is a sub-list of the target. -- Tavix (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of specific value. In typing "1,000,000,000,000,000" one would get to "1,000,000,000" first and the options there. There seems to be no value to the extra increments. --Bejnar (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Eka-quicksilver[edit]

Delete: Obscure name not mentioned in the target article, with no evidence of external usage. ComplexRational (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, I can't find any uses of this that don't originate with Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Double sharp (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Something Strange About Marci[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. A quick Google search shows this is an entry in the Goosebumps series, but it's also not mentioned in any of the related pages. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete no independent notability, refers to a short story in the More and More Tales to Give You Goosebumps but that does not have an entry, so it doesn't have any useful information to redirect to. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Isla de estabilidad[edit]

Delete: This is an arbitrary WP:FORRED for a scientific concept, with no clear indication as to why the Spanish title is notable. ComplexRational (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Direct (DJ)[edit]

No longer mentioned at the target (why was the article's artist list cleared in the first place?) and I can't find an accurate place to retarget this redirect supposedly about a music artist signed with the label. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the various other discussions regarding DJ redirects to Monstercat that the nominator has nominated during the past 2–3 years. JalenFolf, would you be chance be able to link a few of the discussions which I'm referring as I recall seeing them before? Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

List of aquarium fish (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete the target is a disambiguation page. List of aquarium fish by itself already points to the target. This title with the "(disambiguation)" addition is an unlikely entrant, has no significant links, and was created recently, moved to article space on 16 December 2018‎. It is unclear why it was created. --Bejnar (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, target is not a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree the target is not a disambiguation page, but it is definitely a navigation page of some sort. --Bejnar (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Almost qualifies under CSD G7. --Bejnar (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Desexualization[edit]

These redirects are not exclusive to their target. Males can be desexualized as well. Steel1943 (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I originally made these redirects via a request at WP:AFCRD, where the original target was a section in Antisexualism that is now removed per WP:NOR. Somehow, in my absence, the targets were changed to this. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Isn't the primary usage of these terms as a part of feminist and anti-corporate critiques on pornographic-like media? Given that 'Sexualization' needs a lot of work, wouldn't depictions of the broader concept of 'desexualizing society' be included over at that article? Ideally? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Sexualization and add {{R from antonym}}. Alternatively, Wiktionary could be in place of this. Note that Desex goes to Castration, but I don't think Desexualize is the same thing. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary or delete. None of the topics we have on Wikipedia can accurately capture the breadth of meanings that this word can refer to. Deryck C. 13:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 13:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Auto accessories[edit]

Redirects to category space are strongly discouraged, and these redirects would be better targeted at a mainspace article such as Automotive aftermarket, since the category is nowhere near comprehensive and thus not that useful as a list. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane ida[edit]

Useless redirect, was created when Hurricane Ida (2009) was moved to Hurricane Ida as a primary topic, and should've been deleted in the first place. CycloneYoris talk! 05:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

MAKE THE PIE HIGHER[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Moved

Quote Schrödinger cat[edit]

Delete The "Quote" prefix makes these into search-engine-type pages that are not appropriate redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, the article does not contain quotes about (or by) Shrödinger's cat. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible search terms. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as unuseful, unlikely. --Bejnar (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep America Great![edit]

  • Delete We have Keep America Great (unpunctuated) pointing to the same target; the version with the punctuation is not needed (and not justified). UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as possible search term. If we keep "Keep America Great", why would we not also keep "Keep America Great!" in case someone includes the punctuation. Redirects are cheap, so let the thing serve a purpose. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Another Believer. Not every combination of search term and punctuation makes a good redirect, but this is a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: redundant to Keep America Great which already exists. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as a plausible search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Baby Bush[edit]

I’m not seeing evidence that this is a currently-user nickname for its target. I’m also not finding references that this was ever used as a nickname. In addition, most results for looking up this phrase on third-party search engines are either for Bush baby or the target of this redirect holding a baby. Steel1943 (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible, as does not appear to be used as a nickname. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Redirects don't have to be NPOV, but this term is pretty obscure and doesn't have much in the way of a connection to the former President. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Could this be a plausible error for Lil' Bush? --BDD (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: BDD's question deserves a chance to be considered
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete In response to BDD's question the answer is "no", not found. except for one comment in an Amazon review, which did not conflate the two. Interestingly, "Shrub", a relatively derogatory nickname for GWB, does not occur on either the Shrub (disambiguation) page, nor on the Bush family page, the two likely places directed to by the hatnote at shrub. --Bejnar (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

January 11[edit]

Pop-cultural imperialism[edit]

I’m not sure what I’d be looking for if I searched this term, but it sure would not be the target. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Cultural imperialism, possibly the Contemporary ideas and debate section. Contra Wikipedia stereotypes, it's heavier on history and scholarship than pop culture, but clearly in the same neighborhood as this idea. Mostly a weak vote because I'm not sure how common the term is. Google is showing some usage, but not extensive (and the first result deals with "K-pop cultural imperialism"). --BDD (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Brongniartia (trilobite)[edit]

A circular redirect to a DAB page. It has an incoming link, and User:DPL bot is complaining about the WP:INTDABLINK error. I propose deletion to encourage article creation. (I suspect the name is invalid, but that's another matter.) Narky Blert (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Isotelus, per the dabpage statement Brongniartia isotelea, a junior synonym of the trilobite Isotelus gigas; the other value Serolis trilobitoides is an Antarctic isopod, and not a trilobite (thus should be Brongniartia (isopod)). -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Given that the other species name has "trilobitoides", this would at least be a plausible error for that topic. Until an article is written on the actual trilobite genus (is there an actual trilobite genus?), this is helpful. I can clean up the disambiguation page after this closes. --BDD (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Pandorus sphinx moth,[edit]

This is the species' common name with an extra comma. Not a probable typo or anything like that.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. An implausible typo. —Hyperik talk 00:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Diversity clause[edit]

I’m not finding what this redirect refers to. There are some resources that stated that "Article 3, section 2" refers to diversity, but that’s a section, not a clause. Steel1943 (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'm seeing sources such as this appear to use this term in reference to a specific part of the 'article 3, section 2' text. At any rate, the overall concept seems to fall under the article 'diversity jurisdiction' in the broader sense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Shoot The Pyramid[edit]

created by now blocked account Kippering, which may be a hacked account , or part of a large set of troll sleeper accounts that vandalize WP:ANI. For the redirect, the target article Stargate (pinball) had no context of Shoot The Pyramid, so i nominated the redirect to deletion. Matthew hk (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Per this and this and this it seems to be some sort of mode or objective in the game, and a repeated phrase that is apparently well-known in those circles. ~ Amory (utc) 16:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Arsak[edit]

Implausible. Also means 'pomegranate' in Farsi.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 23:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry for not having the time to properly look into that, but the term can be a plausible phonetic misspelling of the target (though how plausible you find it depends on how you segment it). So whatever happens to the redirect, its target ought to have a pointer to Artsakh (as well as to Arsac). Now, I'm not sure whether enough material can be extracted out of All pages with a title containing Arsak for a disambiguation page, but at least the redirect can be retargeted to the topic that seems to be split between the articles Ashk and Arsaces. Also noting that Arshak needs some attention too. – Uanfala (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. I agree that Arsak is a plausible letter-to-letter phonetic transliteration of Artsakh (Armenian has a much more complicated consonant phonology than English and Artsakh is only five letters in Armenian, A-r-ts-a-kh, making Arsak a plausible alternative). But we have uncovered other options of what this might mean, so disambiguation might be the best thing to do. Deryck C. 16:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A draft of a disambiguation page could help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency[edit]

This redirect has the potential to create errors with templates such as {{Old AfD}} or even the functionality of WP:AFD itself since its parent page is technically Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The redirect has no incoming links, and this redirect's existence could lead to technical issues since Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency (the page title sans the "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/" at the beginning) never existed, a title in the "(article)" namespace. This title was created/moved in error by a bot in 2010 (most likely as part of a task to move all pages with the "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" parent page to corresponding "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion" pages), but the move was then reverted about 4 months later, resulting in this leftover nominated redirect. (I attempted to have this deleted per WP:G6, but the request was denied.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hemogram[edit]

Delete, since redirect term does not occur within given target. Hildeoc (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep. It's a synonym. Add it to the article if its absence bothers you. - Nunh-huh 18:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the target really needs a sourced explanation of the relationship between the two terms. As one of the people who is "bothered" by the term's absence I thought of adding it myself, but then I got contradictory information from sources: I found one saying that a hemogram is a complete blood count [10] and others saying that a hemogram is part of a complete blood count [11]. This is not my area of expertise and I have no idea whether that's right or not. In any case, readers who don't know what a hemogram is (likely a large fraction of people who type the term "hemogram" into the search box) should not be left wondering about the exact relationship and not being presented with any information to answer their question. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 18:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hemogramme[edit]

Delete, since redirect term does not occur within given target. Hildeoc (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep: strange as it may seem, that's not a good reason to delete a redirect. The questions you should be asking are: is this anyone is likely to search for while wishing to get to the information in the redirect target; is it confusing or mis-leading for the redirect term to exist or to use that redirect target; is it excessively promotional, spam, or abusive. Hemogram is effectively a synonym of complete blood count and is a redirect to it, although it is not mentioned in the article either (probably should be). Hemogramme is a mis-spelling (also foreign spelling) and can be tagged as such, but would still be a reasonable redirect. Lithopsian (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per the above comment for "keep"; even if it not mentioned in the target article, this specific redirect has a WP:FORRED issue. Steel1943 (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
    • This spelling appears occasionally in English too, e.g. PMID 14127635. Though I suspect it may be erroneous, e.g. a sort of hypercorrection by someone who knew about the program/programme spelling difference and thought it applied to other -gram words as well. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 18:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Bokashi composting.[edit]

I've recently AFC approved Bokashi (horticulture) but encountered this old extra period redirect. No articles are linking to this. Do we still need this? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

(Sorry, I didn't realise you were talking about two different redirects. Over here a period is a full stop :-)) ... The real oddity here is Bokashi bucket, which is just one idiom among several for the bokashi fermentation vessel. It is not mentioned in Compost#Bokashi. Hardly a "notable subject". Left to me, I would get rid of it like a shot. Manofcarbon (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC) Malcolm

MLive.com[edit]

These should presumably all point to a single target; I'm not sure, however, what that target should be. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Retarget all to Booth Newspapers since that article goes into detail as to when MLive was created or merged, and it does have the connections to Advance Publications. MLive should then be bolded there. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 17:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Phraseology:Tian Gao Huang-di Yuan[edit]

Delete Descriptive prefixes are not appropriate forms in redirects. Created by User:Neelix. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • For the record, this one isn't "created by Neelix" in the usual sense; the only reason he's shown as the creator is that he moved it to the correct title, leaving a redirect in the process. ‑ Iridescent 17:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    You're right, of course; struck.UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Bill of Rights (disambiguation)[edit]

Target is not a disambiguation. (However, Bill of Rights was a disambiguation page ... twice ... since 2006.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - target should be Bill of Rights, which should be reverted from its current redirect status back to a dab page - Bill of rights, the concept, appears to be a valid primary topic, but many countries have "Bills of Rights", so that is rightly a dab page. Onel5969 TT me 13:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 17:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete since the target is not a disambiguation page and there are no incoming links. Bill of rights#List of bills of rights is much better as an aid to navigation that the (now-redirected) Bill of Rights. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Restore disambiguation page which lists specific bills of rights in certain countries. Deryck C. 13:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Restore DAB page. 'Bill of Rights' is an important but independent topic in both English and US history at least. (Yes, I did say English; and I meant to do so, not British or UK. It was 1689.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Quigibo & Quijibo[edit]

Neither of these terms are mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Both are misspellings of kwyjibo a gag which is mentioned in the article of the episode Bart the Genius. If kept they should be retarged there I’m unsure if they should be kept since I’m not sure how plausible these misspellings are.--67.68.28.220 (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth redirecting to Bart the Genius?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 17:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. No need to retarget, since the correctly spelled "Kwyjibo" is mentioned at the present target. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  19:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Bart the Genius, where Kwyjibo redirects and the context of the term is explained in the most detail. -- Tavix (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Kauffman (disambiguation)[edit]

This had been nominated for WP:G14 speedy deletion using the additional rationale; "Title uses the ligature , no article title does. Implausible typo." I declined it as G14 does not apply to redirects and it wasn't recently created so WP:R3 doesn't apply. I then changed the target of the redirect to Kaufman (disambiguation) as that actually has items on it that use the Kauffman spelling and it is a disambiguation page. The IP that originally nominated the redirect for speedy deletion reverted that change in redirect saying it wasn't a better target for the redirection. So here we are. Either it should be deleted as an implausible redirect or redirected to the DAB page. ~ GB fan 17:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. The ligature makes it an unlikely search term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Not as likely as Kauffman with double-character f-f, but that is not a valid reason for deletion per WP:R#DELETE. (In fact, it is just the opposite, a reason to keep the redirect.) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep it redirecting to the Kaufman (disambiguation) page, which combines the various spelling variants for disambiguation. This is not an "implausible redirect", but a perfect match per WP:REDIR and WP:R#KEEP.
If, as a surname, it is or was spelled with double-character f-f or with a ligature-ff is a matter of context (time in history, locale and publishing media), so it is obvious that we need to "catch" it through a redirect.
Also, OCRs of books will often pick up a double-"ff" as "ff", so people might end up putting that into the search box via copy & paste. This also applies to non-surnames.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

2019 NCAA Division I FBS football season navbox[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: deleted.

Black Monday (January 2008)[edit]

Delete Target section has been deleted, and "Black Monday" is mentioned anywhere in the article UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • It's listed at Black Monday. I think it should probably either be removed from there or reinstated at the target article. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    29 September 2008 is listed there; there is no January 2008 date listed there. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    Oops, you're right. Struck. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I can't find mention of this black Monday in other related articles either. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Sony's Marvel Universe[edit]

There's an interesting disclaimer on this one. Regardless, there's an WP:XY problem in that the idea of a Sony Marvel Universe has some cursory discussion both at the target page and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (more at the latter IMO). Draft space is indeed the place for this for now. I think it's WP:TOOSOON for mainspace redirects. --BDD (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Even if there is some discussion at Into the Spider-Verse, that film is not technically part of the universe while Venom was announced as the start of it by Sony which is why it is more appropriate to link there. As for the need of these, both "Sony's Marvel Universe" and "Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters" have become reasonably well-known terms over the last year and people are likely to search for them. In fact, Pageviews Analysis says that the two pages are being visited (on average) 128 and 65 times a day, respectively. So removing these redirects is just going to lead people to page creation templates and encourage them to start the page too early, when we actually want them to wait until it is time to move the draft into the mainspace. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
We could protect the pages if people creating pages is a concern. Note that navigating to a nonexistent article with the same name as a draft automatically includes a link to the draft (e.g., Egyptian e-Government). Page views don't necessarily mean much in a context like this. It's reasonable to assume most, if not all, of those readers were looking for an article on a Sony Marvel Universe. Do you think they were satisfied? --BDD (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I think, at least in the context I've read up on, "Sony's Marvel Universe" is talking more about the live-action films, and less about the animated/Spider-Verse films. So I think, for the time being, the redirects are directed properly and are not an XY issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep until the draft is finished. This term has been used quite a bit over the last year, which is evidenced in the redirect's existing page view statistics. The discussion at Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is irrelevant since that movie is not a part of this cinematic universe, and is currently planned to be launched into it's own universe/franchise separate from the live-action one in question. Nathan2055talk - contribs 01:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Redirect to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC (again).
This was decided at the previous RfD (opened December 26, closed 3 January), but one editor is of the opinion that the previous RfD did not decide this issue because there was another, later RfC.[12][13][14] Also see [15]
I am relisting it and notifying all who participated in the last RfD. The only alternative that I can see would be edit warring.
I will leave it up to someone who is uninvolved to decide what to do here. My choice would be a WP:SNOW close this as already having been decided. Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC) (Edited for clarity 14:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC))

  • This should obviously be targeted to somewhere that all the debates are summarised, and the perennial page seems the obvious one to me. The previous RfD discussion happened when there was a single large RfC: now there are two, the second much larger than the first and incorporating new data on editorship and so on. The obvious target now is the perennial page, where both RfCs are listed along with other discussions.
Second choice would be to the archive of the newer RfC. Or we could move all debates about the Mail from the time-based archives to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive - Daily Mail or something. It's nothing to do with thinking the previous RfC didn't settle it, the facts have changed. Directing only to the original RfC makes no sense in the light of subsequent debate. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • As per the above, we need some centralised place for the DM debates and RFCs, and it should point there. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with this redirect going to any summary. Many people (including many people on other sites) have already used the redirect to link to the RfC and it shouldn't go to another page that they did not intend to link to. Given the contentious nature of the Daily Mail ban, I really think the link should go to the official close, not to anyone's summary of it.
The RfC at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC already has a link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#2nd RfC: The Daily Mail at the very top, so the interested reader can easily find both.
The second RfC is a bit malformed. The first RfC is much clearer.
We have no guarantee that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail will link to the two RfCs forever. Like any other Wikipedia page, it can be changed by anyone, and the change would not be obvious to those of us who are interested in where these redirects should go.
Moving the first RfC is a bit of a problem. While many people (including many people on other sites) have already used the redirect to link to the RfC. many others have directly liked to the first RfC.
When I link to, say, WP:BRD or WP:1AM, I don't expect my link to silently change to going somewhere else, and I don't want to have to watch every redirect to see if it gets changed. Heavily linked redirects should be stable. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Daily Mail. There are two RfCs on the Daily Mail, and the first one doesn't provide full context for the current community consensus. If an editor volunteers to write a new essay that interprets both of the RfCs in more detail than the perennial sources entry, and includes the verbatim closing summaries of both RfCs, then I would support retargeting the shortcut there. — Newslinger talk 14:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Seems to me we should re target to the last RFC we have had (as I am sure we have not seen the last one).Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Re-target to RSPS seems fine. Target to either of the RfCs also seems fine, so long as they link to each other. Making an IAR RfC dab is also fine. Whatever means we don't have to spend any more time having discussions about our discussions about our discussions. GMGtalk 15:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Love the above idea. Brilliant! Don't want any existing redirects changed to point to it, because many people have already used those redirects to point to something else, and we should not alter the meaning of their posts. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
That amounts to "never change any redirects ever". Historical stuff is historical, the most common use of this going forward is going to be in sourcing discussions for articles. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Daily Mail - This target, which is part of an explanatory supplement to a guideline (not an essay), has been vetted by the community and provides essential context about this blacklisted source. Specifically, 34 previous discussions and two RfCs are linked from WP:RSP, making it the most informative target imaginable. Linking to an isolated RfC does not help contributors who would otherwise benefit from a more thorough examination of this source. RSP has proven to be a very useful resource. Creating another metapage is not desirable per WP:NOTBUREAU. - MrX 🖋 18:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC (the first RfC), to avoid changing the meaning of existing links which refer specifically to this RfC and not whatever the current consensus happens to be. Perhaps WP:DAILYMAIL2 should be used for the second RfC. I also support Guy Macon's addition of a note, and it may be appropriate to include a link to RSP as well. –dlthewave 23:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail. That page provides summaries and links to the past RfCs so it would be always up-to-date. I don't understand how existing uses of the shortcut could be a problem because "per WP:DAILYMAIL" is easily understood as "per whatever was the latest consensus on it when the edit/comment was made". Nardog (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:POVN[edit]

I recommend retargeting to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Naming because WP:POVNAMING is too long. wumbolo ^^^ 13:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: Most likely, "POVN" = "Point of view/Noticeboard". Also, the redirect has several incoming links. Steel1943 (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    There is about a hundred of them, not too bad. wumbolo ^^^ 15:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    There's a good chance that these redirects are in edit summaries as well, which cannot he changed. In addition, it has been targeting its current target for almost 11 years, so I don't see a reason to change this considering that this is a "Wikipedia:" namespace shortcut. Steel1943 (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    I wish it were easier to take account of redirects used in edit summaries. At least once I've followed an edit summary redirect and been puzzled at where I ended up before finding that it had been retargeted. ekips39 (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Steel1943. Also, shortcuts prefixed suffixed with -N are more often redirects to various noticeboards, so people will naturally use WP:ABCN if they want to link to the noticeboard for a certain topic (e.g. WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, WP:FTN, WP:ELN, WP:ORN etc.). And many people still use the abbreviation "POV" and not "NPOV", so they will also naturally use "POVN" and not "NPOVN". Regards SoWhy 16:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    @SoWhy: Sorry about the grammar-correcting part of me coming out, but ... don't you mean "suffixed"? Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    Right you are. Thanks! Face-smile.svg Regards SoWhy 18:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per SoWhy. If there's really confusion with WP:POVNAMING then add a {{Distinguish}} to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard instead, retargeting a decade old shortcut will potentially break too many old links and discussions. Nathan2055talk - contribs 01:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Teep[edit]

It seems strange for this to go where it does when there are several other related topics that readers are also quite likely to search for. This includes the two previous targets: Telepathy and Overall equipment effectiveness (TEEP = Total Effective Equipment Performance). Here are some links to give an idea of this, though I know they're not reliable sources.

I don't know exactly what should be done here, but a disambiguation page might be a good idea, similarly to those for other acronyms and initialisms. Given the number of well-known topics it can refer to, retargeting would probably not be justified. I'll also note that there are no incoming links except for a talk page archive, for what that's worth (not much). ekips39 (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Given the number of possibilities in terms of definition, Support replacing with disambig page Dax Bane 09:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm also in favor of the disambiguation option, since there's not likely going to be agreement on which target is the most notable/proper/whatever. Nathan2055talk - contribs 10:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. I have provided a draft. A disambiguation page can only include entries that actually occur in Wikipedia (see MOS:DABABBREV). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    Nice, thanks. I hope it's ok that I've combined the two telepathy-related entries, since the term occurs in at least one other notable work. I haven't worked with disambiguation pages much. ekips39 (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ekips39: happy to help. A disambiguation page entry must link to a target that actually mentions the term: your combined fictional character entry doesn't because Babylon 5 doesn't mention "teep". If teep is a term used a lot for fictional characters with telepathic powers, perhaps this is worthy of a mention at the Telepathy article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I see. I have exchanged that link for a link to The Hood Maker, which does mention the term. The content relating to fiction in Telepathy was significantly cut down in 2014, leaving only the short section Telepathy#Use in fiction, so it doesn't seem appropriate to add this there. A better place would be Babylon 5. I see the main B5 article doesn't mention it but Psi Corps does. Clearly the term is used in the series, and it doesn't say it means members of that organization, but we can't link to the main series article. Difficult. As for other works whose articles mention the term, all I found was the TV adaptation of The Hood Maker and The War Against the Chtorr. I know there are others, but I suppose there's only so much we can say about this. Maybe we can't say it occurs in several different works including (etc.). It seems misleading not to, though. ekips39 (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Lewis' law[edit]

The paragraph to which this redirect points has been deleted, leaving this as a redirect to nowhere. The "law" is nowhere mentioned in the current text of the article, so that the redirect is misleading.

This redirect interferes with acceptance of Draft:Lewis' law, which is unrelated. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Request redirect be deleted.

@Robert McClenon: I think you meant to link Draft:Lewis' law... Steel1943 (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
User:Steel1943 - capitalization corrected - isn't case sensitivity annoying? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Growthandform: It doesn't matter that there is inconsistency elsewhere between Lewis, Lewis' and Lewis's, or what the most popular form is elsewhere. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style which we use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The real question is whether the sense referring to Helen Lewis is sufficiently notable to require an entry. If so, disambiguation is required, so that the sense referring to Frederic Lewis can be accepted. We can't distinguish the two senses based on spelling; they are both possessive forms of the same surname with different people. If the sense referring to Helen Lewis is not considered sufficiently notable for an entry in the article, then a redirect is inappropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm saying it is notable, and that disambiguation will be available in due course with the hatnote I propose above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

M. petiolaris[edit]

This abbreviation could be used for both Maxillaria petiolaris and Micranthes petiolaris, among others species not yet on Wikipedia. Delete per WP:XY. Redirects from abbreviated binomial scientific names are a bad idea. They are rarely unique, and don't have clear primary targets. C. elegans is on of the few abbreviations strongly associated with a single species, but C. elegans (disambiguation) is a monument to the folly of trying to associate these abbreviations with Wikipedia articles. Plantdrew (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Also note that redirect was created by blocked user User:Nono64. —Hyperik talk 00:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Department of Transport (Victoria, Australia)[edit]

Background: The Department of Transport (Victoria, 2008–13) was abolished. When a new Department of Transport (Victoria, 2019–) was created it turned out there were dozens of redirects to and from variations on the title.

This one, Department of Transport (Victoria, Australia), is now not linked from mainspace, provides no useful disambiguation, and merely adds to the confusion. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • There’s no logical reason Department of Transport (Victoria) couldn’t a disambiguation for any such entities, which is why deleting this redirect makes sense. Realistically, however, there is little to no prospect of such disambiguation being required: any related government entity in North America would doubtless be named the Department of Transportation, but as per the policy WP:NATURALDIS, that would be a natural disambiguation. Moreover, relatively few places listed at Victoria have government jurisdictions attached.
I’d add that is is extremely common practice for articles about Victoria, Australia to forego further disambiguation when none is necessary, even when it might be plausible by your standards: e.g. Government of Victoria, Parliament of Victoria, Rail transport in Victoria, to name but a few. This is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but rather an illustration of the precision section of WP:TITLE applied in this precise context.
I’d also like to note that Steel1943 has edited Victoria during this discussion to make Victoria, BC appear more prominently, which I think is inappropriate given the basis of his arguments here. The layout of the dab page is not germane to this RfD discussion, but I do not believe Victoria, BC – a metropolitan area, population 350,000 – is self-evidently as significant a topic as Victoria, Australia – a sovereign polity of 6 million people – simply because it is North American. Triptothecottage (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I did edit Victoria because it's blatantly not clear which one has more primary than the other per pageviews and had absolutely nothing to do with where either one is located, considering that I did not make that claim in my edit (which interesting enough seemed to be disregarded as I even made mention of the pageviews in my aforementioned edit.) Either way, your previous comment seems to be a total strawman/red herring given Victoria is not directly related to the fate of this nominated redirect, and in fact, none of your aforementioned comment has yet to disputed, in even the least, my "Keep as a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}" comment. Steel1943 (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Not a straw man or a red herring – I was not critiquing your argument for keeping this redirect on the basis of your character or trying to distract from the topic at hand. I was merely observing your logic here is thus: There are other places called Victoria that might have a DOT, and one of them, Victoria BC, is particularly signficant, and therefore this disambiguation might be useful. There was no urgent need to refactor Victoria – it could have waited until after this discussion – and so making the edit could be seen as POINTy behaviour in an attempt to strengthen the second premise of your argument.
I won’t press the issue any further though, and I will instead say that I did show it was common practice to apply the article title precision policy to Victoria articles by foregoing additional disambiguation when none is needed. That is a direct response to your “R from unnecessary dab” argument – just because we can and because a template exists for the situation doesn’t mean we should in this case.
However, my continuing position is that this redirect is not useful, potentially confusing, and should thus be deleted. Every other bridge can be crossed if and when we ever come to it. Triptothecottage (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Triptothecottage: Thank you for your clarification, and my apologies on the misunderstanding. Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Disused disambiguation with no links from main namespace. --Bsherr (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thatcherite fallacy[edit]

This term is not mentioned in its target article. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - I can find no sources defining this particular term, either as a synonym for Politician's syllogism or any other possible definition. Nathan2055talk - contribs 10:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm in UK, and follow UK politics, and couldn't stand the woman; but I've never heard of 'Thatcherite fallacy' before. Narky Blert (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    Narky, speaking as a fellow Brit who can't stand those who couldn't stand her, it's nonetheless rather sobering that we reached the same conclusion on this redirect. Face-wink.svg Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The dufflebag[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

January 10[edit]

Four-year college[edit]

These articles should redirect to the same place. Mstrojny (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: why should they redirect to the same place? Do you have better targets in mind? Why does it need to be discussed here? The existing targets appear to be good articles for people searching for those terms. Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete 2-year college and Two-year college since these terms could also refer to Community college. No opinion on the "4-year" ones at this time. In addition, I disagree with the nominator that the "2-year" and "4-year" redirects should target the same place, but now that I'm aware of the "2-year" redirects, I believe that they should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    (Struck our parts that no longer apply to this nomination due to the nomination being split.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    Everything at Junior college seems to indeed be two-year, though. That's not true of Community college, so this seems unwise. I'll also register my disagreement with the initial nomination that all four of these should point to the same place. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Junior college and community college are very nearly the same thing in the US, and generally 2-year colleges, but often very different elsewhere and not necessarily a 2-year college. One or the other still seems like the best target unless anyone comes up with something better. There is Community colleges in the United States - could that be what a majority of people are looking for when they type 2-year college? Lithopsian (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lithopsian, Steel1943, and BDD: Sorry about the nominations. I got confused. Is it OK if I partially withdraw the nomination by withdrawing the four year college redirects, but leave the two year college redirects up for discussion? Mstrojny (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    Actually, while you have the two "four-year college" redirects here, I think there is reason to discuss them. See below. --Bsherr (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget the two "four-year college" redirects to College. Whether a college is four years or not is not the distinction between a college or a university. Thus, a four-year college is always a college but only sometimes a university. I think those two should therefore be retargeted. --Bsherr (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could anyone be so WP:BOLD as to split this nomination before it becomes even more of a potential WP:TRAINWRECK? Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
     Done I have not modified any of the above comments, since most touch on both the four-year and two-year redirects. Anyone should feel free to modify their own to suit the split nominations, though. This diff shows the single discussion pre-split. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment this could remain at College but can also redirect to Undergraduate education. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. another option is Bachelor's degree which implies the four years typical study period, but that would be a degree and not a college. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

2-year college[edit]

These articles should redirect to the same place. Mstrojny (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: why should they redirect to the same place? Do you have better targets in mind? Why does it need to be discussed here? The existing targets appear to be good articles for people searching for those terms. Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete 2-year college and Two-year college since these terms could also refer to Community college. No opinion on the "4-year" ones at this time. In addition, I disagree with the nominator that the "2-year" and "4-year" redirects should target the same place, but now that I'm aware of the "2-year" redirects, I believe that they should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    (Struck out parts that no longer apply to this nomination due to the nomination being split.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    Everything at Junior college seems to indeed be two-year, though. That's not true of Community college, so this seems unwise. I'll also register my disagreement with the initial nomination that all four of these should point to the same place. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Junior college and community college are very nearly the same thing in the US, and generally 2-year colleges, but often very different elsewhere and not necessarily a 2-year college. One or the other still seems like the best target unless anyone comes up with something better. There is Community colleges in the United States - could that be what a majority of people are looking for when they type 2-year college? Lithopsian (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lithopsian, Steel1943, and BDD: Sorry about the nominations. I got confused. Is it OK if I partially withdraw the nomination by withdrawing the four year college redirects, but leave the two year college redirects up for discussion? Mstrojny (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    Actually, while you have the two "four-year college" redirects here, I think there is reason to discuss them. See below. --Bsherr (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep the two "two-year college" redirects. The two "two-year college" redirects are best targeted to junior college, as that's generally an accurate synonym. --Bsherr (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could anyone be so WP:BOLD as to split this nomination before it becomes even more of a potential WP:TRAINWRECK? Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
     Done I have not modified any of the above comments, since most touch on both the four-year and two-year redirects. Anyone should feel free to modify their own to suit the split nominations, though. This diff shows the single discussion pre-split. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Repost[edit]

WP:SURPRISE. When people search for "repost", they will be trying to find the term very commonly used in internet culture, not an obscure action in a sport. The word "repost" isn't even used in that article.  Nixinova  T  C  19:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. The redirect makes no sense. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and retarget: The redirect right now makes no sense, but this is a term that I can see people searching on Wikipedia. It should be retargeted to a more appropriate article. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
    • ...So, "delete" if there is no appropriate target to retarget this? Or how about wikt:repost if there is no appropriate target on Wikipedia, considering that this term may be looked up by others? Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Either that, or retarget to wikt:repost. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Soft retarget to wikt:Repost as appears most suitable target. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't support a retarget to wiktionary. If there is no encyclopedia article then there's no article: a user can search wikt his/herself. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 17:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Nice. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep with a hatnote to Wiktionary and Reblogging or soft redirect. This is a very plausible misspelling of an uncommon term that many people looking for will not have seen written. I support a soft redirect as a second choice, as this is a term that is commonly searched for (318 hits in the first 11 months of last year) and while there isn't scope for an encyclopaedia article we should take users to the best alternative content, that at Wiktionary - remember many more people know about Wikipedia than know about Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment not a surprise since repost and riposte sound the same. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to reblogging with a hatnote to riposte per Thryduulf's logic. I know it's not the same everywhere but in my part of the world "repost" and "riposte" are not homonyms. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 03:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as outlined by Thryduulf. --Bsherr (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

HMS Partridge (G30)[edit]

This should probably be better as a redlink, to encourage article creation. L293D ( • ) 17:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep A redirect is no barrier to article creation. We have a redirect to a class article that covers the technical details of the ship and a one-line history of it. It's already linked from a few articles where it's of some minor relevance. If anyone wants to write a full history for this ship, it's going to be because they've got a particular interest in it beyond that – and a redirect wouldn't deter that. In the meantime, removing the redirect would degrade articles we already have. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"White" redirects to Ethnic stereotype[edit]

Due to lack of related content in the target article, these redirects seem like a bunch of WP:SURPRISEs with no good alternative targets. Steel1943 (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Would any of these be suitable redirects to Whitewashing in film? White films and White movies, perhaps? –LaundryPizza03 (d) 00:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, I think that may be somewhat of a stretch since the terms could still be vague. Someone may look up these terms expecting to find something about white supremacy or something of the like. Steel1943 (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Confusing redirects. A person searching for the terms isn't necessarily thinking of the word white in the demographic sense. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like there's a vague sense leaning toward delete, but I'm not convinced there's consensus here, especially given the age of these.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 16:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not sure what someone would have in mind when searching for "white agenda", but they aren't likely to find it at ethnic stereotype. Same with the others, delete all unless there's a more appropriate target that actually mentions the term. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per Xezbeth. --Bsherr (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Little Bang[edit]

Term not mentioned in the target article. The redirect is a WP:SURPRISE since readers looking up this term are most likely trying to find some sort of unique subject comparable to Big Bang. Steel1943 (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Quark-gluon plasma; the one source I found [16] makes a mention of little bang in the context of particle physics and draws an analogy with the big bang. ComplexRational (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and do not retarget to QGP. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Retail politics[edit]

The phrase "retail politics" (Wiktionary: "The political strategy of engaging with small groups of individuals in face-to-face interactions") is mentioned nowhere in the target, so someone who searches for this in search of a definition is left none the wiser. I can't find any particularly viable alternative targets. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as is not at target. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. It is the sort of term that people will look up and in the absence of an article, linking to Wiktionary is better than nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 16:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Species in Inoceramus[edit]

List of nominations
Species in Inoceramus (abritrary break)[edit]

Some of these, such as I. saskatchewanensis, are linked only from the target article, which contains no nontrivial information about any specific species, and others, such as I. walterdorfensis, are not mentioned at all. All should be deleted per WP:REDLINK. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 22:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the bulk nature of this, we could use some more discussion. Moreover, none of these redirects were tagged; I have now done so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 16:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • These types are tough. Redlinks in taxonomic articles are normal, and that certainly points to delete. But {{R to subtopic}} could be appropriate for a species that's never going to have its own article. Without any specific (pardon the pun) knowledge of these, I could easily see that being the case for a bunch of species of fossil bivalves, which points to keep. Those without mention sure feel like a delete, but maybe they should be mentioned, and maybe that just means listing them. (How "selected" are the "Selected species"?) I suppose I'm leaning delete, cautiously. Pinging Plantdrew, whose input on taxonomic discussions I always value. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wow. This is quite an unusual case. The accepted wisdom among editors working on taxonomic articles is that fossil species are usually best covered in an article about the genus, not separate articles for each species. However, I'm having trouble finding that position documented anywhere; it certainly comes up on talk pages frequently, but WikiProject Dinosaurs seems to have the only explicit mention of it (WikiProject Palaeontology takes a weaker stance against species articles). However, for most genera known from fossils, it's unusual to have more than 2-3 known species (which could be readily compared and contrasted in an article on the genus). Bivalves fossilize exceptionally well, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there are fossil bivalve genera with dozens of species, but that's certainly not the norm for fossil genera overall.
"Selected species" on Wikipedia never means very much "selecting" was being done. More typically it means "here's all the species listed in whatever sources I had at hand, but I'm not sure if those sources are comprehensive". Both WoRMS and FossilWorks include some species not listed in the article, as well as species listed not listed in the other database (WoRMS doesn't aim to be comprehensive for fossil species; FossilWorks aims for comprehensiveness, but isn't there in practice).
I think it's quite unlikely that articles will be created for each species, so I'm not sure the logic of REDLINK applies here. Some of these species may end up placed in other genera; I. walterdorfensis is now Cremnoceramus walterdorfensis according to WoRMS. Having these redirects poses a maintenance burden (an article on Cremnoceramus needs to be written before I. waltderdorensis can be pointed to the right place). I'm not inclined to take the time to check each redirect for current taxonomic placement (let alone writing any missing genus articles); I feel like these redirects are really more of a headache than they are worth. However, it does appear that many of these have incoming links. I'm going with weak keep due to incoming links. If they are kept, {{R from species to genus}} (which is currently a redirect to {{R from subtopic}}) would be an appropriate tag. 19:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantdrew (talkcontribs)
  • Keep. I'm more of a lumper than a splitter, even with living organisms (see e.g. Floridobolus), and comprehensive context is key. There is no rule mandating every taxon MUST have an article, especially if the article says no more than "Inoceramus aequicostatus is a species of bivalve in the genus Inoceramus described by Voronetz in 1937" (lots of extant insect stubs consist of such pablum). That exact same information (species, genus, author and year of description) is present in the full scientific name, and placed in better context in the list at Inoceramus. I don't think it's worth deleting any redirects. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Regardless of article content these are useful for fleshing out categories for taxa by year and author of description. Abyssal (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge to genus - palaeontology project guidelines are clear about this. Prehistoric species articles should be covered at the genus level, and only split off if that article becomes too long, which is not the case here. Prehistoric species stubs should not be created in general. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Acute HIV Infection and Early Diseases Research Program[edit]

There does not seem to be any subject this WP:PRECISE in the target article, and I’m not finding one in other articles either. Steel1943 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - inherently spammy; readers will not find any useful information on this topic at the target, only general information about what I assume is the program's research subject. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as no suitable target. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • AIEDRP was a US research program to study acute HIV infection ("what happens when you first get infected", in plain English). If we had a proper article about Acute HIV infection, then it would be mentioned there; if NIAID (which already mentions HIV 14 times) were complete, it would be mentioned there. As it stands, however, the most relevant reason to keep this redirect is that it's 12 years old, and WP:RFD#KEEP says to keep "Links that have existed for a significant length of time". WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 16:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

MSNPC[edit]

This does not appear to be a useful or likely redirect. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I have just removed the only mention of it in the article and went to nominate it for deletion – what a coincidence it has just been nommed two hours ago. wumbolo ^^^ 14:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Don't really see a reason too, Know your meme classifies MSNPC as a separate topic related to the NPC meme, so I don't really see why we shouldn't follow the suit and the nom failed to explain it in my opinion. Openlydialectic (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Know Your Meme is user generated content. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
So? Redirects are here for other people to quickly find the content they are looking for. It's not a factual statement. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Potentially useful for those unfamiliar with the meme and/or MSNBC. Џ 04:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I can see an argument for keeping as a {{R to article without mention}} (useful search term, and usage is above noise level) and an argument for deleting (not mentioned in article, and difficult to source for a mention). A DuckDuckGo search showed no mention in usable sources, the KYM entry is only a submission thus it is unusable. Leaning delete as redirects to an article without a mention are generally discouraged. feminist (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Another possible option would be to retarget to MSNBC as a typo. feminist (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 16:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete There aren't many cases where keeping a redirect without mention is a good idea, and this isn't one of them. If you know the meme, it could be a fun little easter egg, but otherwise, it's just going to mislead readers. --BDD (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Contractor combatant[edit]

These phrases may have interpretations other than "mercenary". Keep, retarget to Private military company, or delete as vague? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 16:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak delete "Contractor combatant" seems to have very little use outside Wikipedia. "Combat contractor" has some, but often in phrases like "combat contractor fraud", i.e., regarding general contractors, from consumer protection agencies. I'd be ok with a retarget to Private military company, though. --BDD (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Security regulation[edit]

"Security regulation" is not mentioned at the target article and has uses outside the subject of mercenaries. I suggest delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 16:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

French-speakers outside of Quebec[edit]

No suitable target, since there are French speakers outside of Canada. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 00:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Also, it would be quite impossible to have or create and retain an article (or section of an article) with such a scope. Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Refine target to French Canadians#Canada or French Canadians#Elsewhere in Canada. Presumably the phrasing of this title (because it mentions Quebec) suggests a reader searching for information on French speakers in Canada but outside of Quebec. Either one of these sections deal with that specific topic. The "Elsewhere in Canada" section also contains a list of links to more specific information by region. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as too vague a search term to have one suitable target. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep in some form per Ivanvector. Useful search term. feminist (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Refine to French_Canadians#Elsewhere_in_Canada per Ivanvector. The context of the search implies that they are looking for information on Canada. I think the latter section is better, since the former section seems general to all French Canadians, while the latter is about those not in Quebec. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Geographical distribution of French speakers. There are French speakers outside of Quebec that are also outside of Canada. I would prefer deletion over refining because that target is inaccurate. -- Tavix (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants seem to favor keeping this in some form, but I'm not convinced where yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 16:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and refine to French Canadians#Elsewhere in Canada per Ivanvector. With "Quebec" in the name, it does seem like a really safe bet that a reader is looking for Canada. It's possible a reader would know French is spoken in Quebec but not know that it's spoken in other countries... possible, but not likely. I don't want to create further hoops for the great majority of readers to jump through. --BDD (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

RS:OPINION[edit]

A cross-namespace redirect which has only been used four times since its creation (indicating that it's not an overwhelmingly common search term to merit its existence). feminist (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap. Is there a reason why you'd what to break those three archived discussions by making it impossible to know where they were pointing to? Diego (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete Cross namespace redirects are expensive. The archived discussions can be corrected. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@UnitedStatesian: Not challenging the !vote, just out of a desire to understand: in what sense are this kind of redirects "expensive"? Deleting it won't take less space in the database, nor is the link so heavily used that it will affect trafic. Diego (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. The links in the archived discussions can be changed if necessary. --Bsherr (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hovno[edit]

Appears to be Hungarian equivalent word, but isn't mentioned in the article - we don't need redirects from every language. PamD 13:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Canadian stereotypes[edit]

Nothing in target article, nor at Canadians, about stereotypes - pointless redirect. Write the article, or section, first. PamD 13:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Vela Sierra[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retargeted

Political Synergy[edit]

Term not present in target article. Capital "S" suggests this refers to some specific work? political synergy is neither a redirect nor an article. No apparent reason for this redirect: not an obvious synonym. PamD 13:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Rogue (brand)[edit]

No mention of term in target article. Note that the entry was removed from the Rogue dab page. PamD 13:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Individual One[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Heat wheel[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: resolved

Bacolod South Road[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: article created.

Throttle (musician)[edit]

The music artist is not mentioned at the target. I would expect something about them at the articles for the record labels they were signed to, but no information there either. 66.87.148.40 (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Question: Does G7 apply here? I am the creator of this redirect and aside from me, only one other user has changed its target. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • No, unless Frosteh also agrees to deletion (I've just alerted them to this discussion) this is not eligible for G7. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as G7 doesn't apply (pending Frosteh's vote) per Thryduulf. There is a mention of the artist at Oliver Heldens, but it's confusing to redirect one music artist to another completely different one from a reader's perspective. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment (yes, my ISP jumps me between IPs): Can someone please keep an eye on this page? Another IP wrote an article over this redirect, which has now been reverted, and it’s likely this might happen again because of this music artist’s fanbase. 66.87.148.176 (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget, there are many other articles for Monstercat artists (I would link the category but don't know how to without setting the category of this discussion page) that redirect to the main Monstercat page, so I changed the redirect when I noticed the inconsistency. My vote would be to keep the redirect but retarget it to the main Monstercat page. Sorry for any trouble I've caused. Frosteh (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The problem with this action is that Throttle is not even mentioned at Monstercat, and likely won't be mentioned there for a while as he is not a "current artist" (which the list at the moment only contains artists that released on the label in 2019), and there isn't a sufficient source to use to write up a blurb about his time with the label among the other list of referenced artists. Writing up a "former artists" section to justify such a redirect has already proven tedious for users who have edited the page in the past, and was one of the many reasons Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monstercat (3rd nomination) was even a thing. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Alight Solutions[edit]

I'd like editors to discuss whether Alight Solutions, formerly a division of Aon Hewitt that was sold off in 2017 and is mentioned in a single sentence, should redirect to Aon Hewitt. Should it redirect to The Blackstone Group#Investments since 2011, the article about its current owner, where it also has a single sentence? Should we delete it altogether to encourage somebody to write an article about Alight? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a bit of back story. I created the redirect back in October after the page was initially created as an attack page, then redirected to Aon Hewitt. If there is enough for it to be an article, then of course create the article for it and remove the redirect. I'm neutral on its deletion, at the time I did this merely as a tidying up task more than anything else, and if it doesn't need to be here, then so be it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Alight Solutions is a completely separate company - ideally it would have it's own page. Thanks for your consideration.--Bbkahlich (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Fuckload[edit]

Propose retargeting to Fuck or soft retargeting to wikt:Fuckload: current target seems unlikely to be related to search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 03:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep or redirect to wikitionary. A fuckload is indeed an indefinitely large number. The redirect is appropriate. We could have one for truckload and boatload too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't really belong to the target article as it's not a number of any sort, just an indefinitely large quantity, usually not numeric - see here and the examples here. Now shedload and shitload are both included in the Oxford English Dictionary as "A large amount or number" (while "fuckload" doesn't get a mention): if this redirect is kept, there should perhaps be an addition to the target article to include all three of these terms. PamD 12:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I once calculated a metric unit equivalent of a fuckton, but can't find that notebook now and it wasn't published anyway. It's colloquial, unlikely to have a formal definition. Keep or retarget per Headbomb. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 03:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ivory 503[edit]

Proposing deletion. This redirect is from a shortened name of an insignificant suite in a residence hall. Bsherr (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Mike, Lu Og[edit]

This redirect is in a peculiar format that doesn't contain the "and" or any form of the word (&) in its name. It seems unnecessary to me. Paper Luigi TC 01:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

January 9[edit]

Public Test Realm[edit]

Not mentioned in the target, though the term is not exclusive to WoW. Other video games, including non-notable ones, have used the term in regards to public beta testing versions of their titles before an update or a release. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)[edit]

RFD-ing this solve it seems that there was prior discussion (per the redirect's edit history) that resulted in this redirect targeting where it currently does. However, it is a bit unclear what the "(identity)" disambiguator is meant to refer to in the present target.

Long story short, this redirect has several incoming links, and the intended target seems to be Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Identity (failed proposal). Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Circle of eath[edit]

Delete, title is a typo for Circle of death, and a disambiguation page with that title already exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John a s (talkcontribs) 19:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete I assumed this would be a typo for "Circle of Earth" (not that we have a page by that title). Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Beano[edit]

Has only 1 maintenance link (database report for unused redirects...). Not a plausible link to a character article, as "beano" can mean a lot of things, including a comic (and not the characters). Gonnym (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Charmed group[edit]

Not a really plausible template name. Has 4 non-main-space links - 3 are maintenance links and 1 a talk page from 2006. Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Mozambaquie[edit]

This is not a common typo. There have been only 31 pageviews in the last year compared to this redirect's target which received over 1,000,000 views. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Implausible misspelling. Any reader who's got as far as typing 'Mozamb' into the search box will have found a link to what they're looking for. Narky Blert (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. The search box is only one of many ways people use to search and browse Wikipedia, most of which do not have auto-completion or other suggestions, so the typo appearing only in the later part of the word is not at all relevant. However, I can only find a single instance of this spelling that didn't originate with this redirect which is in the comments section of a video which has no apparent connection to the country. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

List of active separtest movments[edit]

This is not a very useful redirect. There isn't just one typo, there are multiple typos which makes this a useless redirect and there have only been six pageviews in the last year. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

"Help" redirects to Help:Contents or Help:Help[edit]

It's rather confusing that for one, Help:HELP targets Help:Contents instead of Help:Help, the redirect's non-caps equivalent. In any case, my primary opinion is that all of these redirects should target the same page. Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Retarget all to Help:Help. Help:Contents has no useful information to justify redirecting, except links to other help pages. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with all going to our main Help:Contents as H:Help is just an info page. If people are looking for help the main page should be linked as it is on our contents sidebar. Going to be bold and fix this now!!. move Help:Help to Help:About help pages and fixed the redirects with the ? and fixed targets as seen here. The last thing we want are people not familiar with our help system redirect thousands of pages to the wrong thing as mentioned above. We could close this now if User:Steel1943 is ok with me implementing hes suggestion. --Moxy (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    It also seems that you removed the {{Rfd}} tags from H:? and Help:? after retargeting them both to Help:Contents. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    What really should have happened is a talk at the help project over a talk here or at least a notification. The reason I was bold is because I saw the suggestion by User:Jalen Folf that would have messed up thousands of info pages and their talk pages. Best bring theses kind of things up at project pages before bring them here. --Moxy (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    That comment you made regarding JalenFolf's vote would have been helpful to form consensus for this discussion prior to the page moves you performed as that comment could/can be used for determining consensus on all of this. In addition, I nominated all redirects, so this is the proper venue to bring this up first; moving pages and targets during an an active discussion fragments and breaks the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    This is the proper venue, as defined at the top of this page: "Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed."    — The Transhumanist   23:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I think all (except WP:Help page which should go to Help:About help pages) should be redirected to [[Help:Contents[[ and a hatnote on the top of this page like "Several titles redirect here. For more about help pages, see Help:About help pages." PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 12:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I changed my mind, i think The Transhumanist's suggestion is better. PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 16:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggestion – The context of the help namespace is help on Wikipedia. The main help page is Help:Contents, our help starting point, so, all shortcut equivalents of the F1 key should lead there. It's where the user generally needs to go when they mean "Help me please", as it will direct the reader to more specific pages to address their specific need at the moment. Therefore, redirect all of the above to Help:Contents. Shortcuts to metahelp (help about help) are H:A and H:ABOUT.    — The Transhumanist   23:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Aperspectival[edit]

The term is not mentioned in the target and is not exclusively used in Wilber's work. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Happybihday[edit]

A seriously implausible triple misspelling. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Electric mouse[edit]

Besides the fact that there have been more "electric"-type mouse-like Pokémon created since Pikachu (like Dedenne), the term could be confused for the subject at Computer mouse or even electric toys that are shaped like mice. Steel1943 (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Plus, he is not a mouse, he is a pika. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Optical mouse, feasible that some may search for the optical mouse at this title. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Computer mouses are "electronic" as well. Steel1943 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Then how about redirecting to Computer mouse? That covers both electric mice (and a better mousetrap or two). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I'd consider that a better option since it's a higher-level topic. (I'd think deletion may be a better option to let search results provide answers for the term, but Computer mouse is preferable.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Computer mouse - the only entry on Mouse (disambiguation) that is plausibly electric. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is no mention at all of an "electric mouse" at Computer mouse or at Optical mouse per WP:R#PLA. This should be done to show how (if at all) the name is connected to any redirect target. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - no compatible target. "electronic mouse" may be could redirect to computer mouse, although same can be said by appending the word to every electronic device in the world. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Page views don't show anyone going there at all until it was nominated for deletion. No one will ever search for this. Dream Focus 01:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

ArticleFirst[edit]

Delete. Does not appear in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

2018 CAF Super Cup (disambiguation)[edit]

2018 CAF Super Cup no longer a disambiguation page and nothing to disambiguation. Maybe G6 or G14 Hhkohh (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'd say WP:G6. Narky Blert (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:G14 - nothing at that title to disambiguate. ComplexRational (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useful when created, but no longer needed. Matches were scheduled for Feb 2018, Dec 2018 and Aug 2019. As the middle match was moved to Feb 2019, "2018 CAF Super Cup" is now unambiguous. Certes (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Greninja[edit]

I believe this redirect should be converted to an article. I'm making this request here to follow the WP:BRD guideline, as previous attempts by other users have been reverted (one for unrelated sockpuppetry, however). In addition to the games, the character is featured quite prominently in the anime (as a bit of a main character) and in other media (like the incredibly popular Super Smash Bros. series). Greninja is well-known, with sources backing this up (even being featured as the most popular Pokémon of a 700-character survey in Japan). Greninja is consistently featured in Pokémon-related (and other) media, and is more relevant of a character to the world at large than various other Pokémon species that have pages. Edit: See Draft:Greninja. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintspot (talkcontribs) 13:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep since there is no guarantee that an article will be created and/or that will meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, and since this term will continue to be looked up on Wikipedia for the reason alone that this Pokémon is a playable Super Smash Bros. character. I'd recommend creating a draft at Draft:Greninja first (...wait, that exists and is a redirect ... may work to resolve this). Either way, deleting per WP:REDLINK is not really an option in this case due to the popularity of this title as a search term; readers need to go somewhere when looking up this term. Steel1943 (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Support. The article in the redirect's history looks to be in good shape and has plenty of sources. -- Tavix (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    • ...Just a follow-up, the aforementioned edit is now at Draft:Greninja. I just resolved some WP:CWW issues that resulted from a recent WP:CUTPASTE move, and the edit, as well as the former article, ended up there. Steel1943 (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect - Draft does not establish notability yet. Per WP:POKEMON and the WP:GNG, consensus is not to make an article for every single one of these fictional creatures, especially in cases like this, where it’s largely a list of in-game attributes and game appearances. Reception section is very weak, and at least one source (Gamerant) is not considered a reliable source. It’s a valid redirect, so I really don’t think this is the best avenue to discuss this. I’d recommend developing a better draft and then getting a consensus of support at WP:VG by starting a discussion there. Sergecross73 msg me 16:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Just did that! Thanks. Hopefully it better establishes its notability further.
  • Keep as redirect - draft doesn't come close to establishing any real world notability. Onel5969 TT me 22:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Its still not there. I think you need to do some research into notability and how to write encyclopedic articles. There’s an entire paragraph in the Reception section listing off how the subject is in trading card games and has its own amiibo (essentially an action figure). That fundamentally not “reception”, nor does it help the case for notability. Large unsourced paragraphs detailing his in-game attributes don’t help either. I dont say this to be mean, but as advice to benefit you - wait and learn how to do this correctly before you end up wasting more of your own time, because you’re not on the right track here... Sergecross73 msg me 02:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Code hygiene[edit]

The redirect target program optimization does not mention the term "code hygiene" at all. Code hygiene is more about maintainability (in the sense of code smell or technical debt) than algorithmic efficiency, I think. Tea2min (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

City of Atlanta, GA.[edit]

Excessively implausible orthography. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. per nom. No more plausible than CIA., as opposed to CIA or even C.I.A. And redirects ending with periods have a long history of getting deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 06:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I must have seen this on a particular website before, but I don't remember where I saw it. I think this is why it's good to keep track of which URLs a particular name form comes from. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see how this is "excessively implausible" at all. It got 14 hits last year, for example, it clearly links to the correct target (City of Atlanta also redirects to Atlanta) and this orthgraphy is used in sources, e.g. Library of Congress, Hathi Trust. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The orthography in both those links is City of Atlanta, Ga. (the state's abbreviation, not its all-caps. postal code). UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
(previously redlinked redirect subsequently created by another editor) UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete 14 hits over the course of a year to a target that received 1,676,078 hits last year is excessively implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I was hoping you wouldn't need me to repeat myself, but as happens nearly every time you bring up this fallacy you are wrong - the relative number of people using different targets is irrelevant. What matters is that by deleting this we would, completely unnecessarily be making life harder for people who use this redirect without bringing any benefits to the encyclopaedia or anyone else. There are no maintenance requirements: there is no need to bypass any links to this, it's no more or less likely to be vandalised than any other redirect on the project and in the exceedingly unlikely event the target page is moved a bot will update this redirect so the cost of the redirect is exactly zero and it does help people find the content they are looking for so it's the very definition of WP:CHEAP. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Given we do not have City of Atlanta, GA I cannot see how the one with the period is more plausible. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    (previously redlinked redirect subsequently created by another editor; I hold to my delete !vote, as postal codes like GA are NOT abbreviations and so should not have a period) UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I recall that there may have been a RfD in the past like this one regarding mailing codes or census codes or something like that. I cannot find it at the moment... Steel1943 (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep (for now, subject to change) per Thryduulf's statement regarding "orthgraphy" in lieu of me finding the discussion which I am referring to. I believe the end result of that discussion was "keep" and included some examples of redirects which would normally seem implausible such as this one (and some contained non-Latin alphabet letters), so I'd believe that there has to be some plausibility in this redirect per either an antiquated use or a current use. Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:A[edit]

I propose that Template:A be redirected to Template:Abbr the current redirect is barley used (12 times) and leads to a template that is only used 15 times. The redirect should be pointed to Template:Abbr because it used WAY more (446, 804 times) and is more useful, making the redirect more useful. BrandonXLF (t@lk) 02:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This redirect was created as a result of this discussion, and it was discusssed again at RfD in June. – Uanfala (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per my arguments in, and the consensus of, the previous discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace current links and retarget to Template:Abbr. If this is meant to be an abbreviation of "abbreviation", then let's have it target the actual template for abbreviations that is well used, instead of an extremely narrow meta-template that gets barely any use. -- Tavix (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Tooltip[edit]

I propose that redirect should be re-targeted to Template:Hover title as a tool-tip is more like Template:Hover title rather than an abbreviation (Template:Abbr). BrandonXLF (t@lk) 02:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep because retargetting it would break hundreds of transclusions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

January 8[edit]

Featured article candidates[edit]

See WP:CNR. Redirects from mainspace to Project space are normally not desirable, and I don't see the value in keeping this particular one, which a reader (non-editor) would be unlikely to search. funplussmart (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. By that same token, if it's such an unlikely search term, anyone who does search for it would logically be looking for the WP process. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 03:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete We have to set a pretty high bar for cross-namespace redirects, and this one does not reach it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. This redirect could refer to some sort of specific featured articles list of some publication, etc., causing confusion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I was going to propose that it go to a section of Wikipedia covering internal ratings of article quality (as opposed to external ratings, e.g. the Nature Wikipedia-versus-Britannica study), but to my surprise I didn't find any such section. Looks like our only options are keeping or deleting. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steel1943. This can refer to candidates for (almost) any of the subjects listed at Feature article. -- Tavix (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to English Wikipedia#Wikiprojects, and assessments of articles' importance and quality, where featured articles are covered. That's the section linked on the dab page Tavix noted above. The other entries on the dab are broad categories, rather than this specific meaning. The section header is complicated and misleading, so maybe that's why Nyttend didn't spot it at first glance, but we've got content on FAs in an article, so we should point this there. ~ Amory (utc) 20:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The proposed section discusses featured articles, but nothing about candidates or how articles achieve featured status. Since the section has cross-namespace redirects in it, is this acceptable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Christian identity[edit]

Change redirect target to Christians. The main meaning of "Christian identity" is not the Christian Identity movement, as a Google Books or Google Scholar search will show. Srnec (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom and principle of least astonishment. It would be unfortunate if a link to Christian identity took the unsuspecting reader to Christian Identity. Catrìona (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think this is clear cut. On one hand, Christian (small-i) identity is certainly a thing that people talk/write about. However, I think it's probably the case that recently, use of the phrase is more likely to refer to the racist ideology, scholarly articles notwithstanding. Is that just recentism? A tough call. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
    How recently ? According to article, Christian Identity theories date from early 20th century. Place Clichy (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom, or alt retarget to Christendom. The fringe racist ideology is, well, fringe, and does not deserve to be treated as primary topic. Place Clichy (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The problem I see with retargeting to Christians is that there would then need to be a hatnote at Christians to Christian Identity, which will probably bring more attention to that article then this redirect would. -- Tavix (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: good point. Would you support the alternative retargeting to Christendom which I suggested? Place Clichy (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and add hatnote at Christian Identity. Having a hatnote pointing to Christian Identity from a less fringe page (which would be necessitated by all of the retargettings) seems less beneficial than keeping this redirect. —Kusma (t·c) 17:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Sport Utility Truck[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Wikipedia:Wikipedia redirects[edit]

  • I created this one and it should be a Speedy delete. Forgot to do so myself. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • As the co-founder of both WikiProject Women and WikiProject Women in Red, I know the history behind this. We changed our naming convention, so this redirect should be a Speedy delete. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia redirects created in error. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Dahn Y'Israel Nokeam[edit]

Unlikely misspelling of Dam Yisrael Noter, the full Hebrew name of Nakam Catrìona (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete; this is nonsense. "Dam...Noter" and "Dahn Nokeam" are radically different in English, as are דםנתר and דהןנכאמ in Hebrew. (I can't promise that this is the right transliteration, but it's at least approximate.) Hebrew's similarly shaped letters, e.g. כ and ב (Kaph and Beth) sometimes get confused, especially in ancient manuscripts (which obviously these aren't), but you're not going to get these items confused. It's not even the same number of letters, seven versus five, if I did the transliteration correctly. Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment: @Catrìona and Nyttend: This redirect was created as a result of "Dahn Y'Israel Nokeam / Avenging Israel's Blood" appearing on User:Skysmith's "Missing topics about Judaism" list in September 2013 (version of page at that date). If, as seems from the above, that may have been the product of bad OCR, the most appropriate thing might be to keep the redirect, but flag it {{redirect from misspelling}}. Jheald (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that makes sense, because it is an unlikely misseplling and doesn't appear on the current version of the list. It's getting no views and as pointed out above, is nonsense Hebrew. All 6 google hits are probably copied from Wikipedia. Catrìona (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: It doesn't appear on the current version of the list because the list is a list of missing terms, and the term is no longer missing. Whether it's nonsense Hebrew or not is irrelevant - the OCR misidentification occurred in English ("m" <--> "hn", etc). Yes, it's an unlikely misspelling for a human, but evidently it's an OCR mis-read that's been made at least once by a machine, and is now loose in the wild. Redirects are cheap, so I see no particular harm in keeping it. Jheald (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 Comment:: I do not remember any more where I got that but I have seen different transliterations before (I have used several dictionaries and encyclopedias to create the Missing Topics pages) and I have often turned them into redirects since I don't know what version someone might be trying to use to find information. I do remove the blue links from the lists periodically and I have no doubt there may be more things like this. As far as I am concerned, I would support the "redirect from misspelling" version myself - Skysmith (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
This is too implausible. Spelling errors for English? Yes, keep those if they're plausible. Spelling errors for foreign languages in their own scripts, e.g. ישדאל for ישראל (see my comment about similarly shaped letters) are perhaps okay. Spelling errors for foreign languages in transliteration? Probably too unlikely to keep. OCR-caused spelling errors of foreign languages in transliteration? That's simply too many layers. There's always a risk that a redirect for a spelling error in another language will be seen by someone as the correct spelling (or an alternate spelling), and when the spelling error is a machine error that humans are quite unlikely to make, the risk of confusing humans is greater than the benefit of serving the very small population who's relying on an OCR-generated list. Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

List of supermarket chains in Bangladesh[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no longer a redirect

Nokmim[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 15#Nokmim

Speculative philosophy[edit]

I can't see why speculative philosophy should be redirected to continental philosophy. It is true that post-Kantian continental philosophy tends to be more non-empirical than analytic philosophy, but this has always been true of mainland European philosophy, e.g. with the rationalists Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz (against the British empiricists Locke, Berkeley and Hume), who came before "continental philosophy" in the post-Kantian sense (which is what the continental philosophy article is focusing on; as the article states, 'The history of continental philosophy (taken in its narrower sense) is usually thought to begin with German idealism'). For as long as Anglo-Saxon philosophy has existed, it has tended to be more empirical than mainland European philosophy. Post-Kantian continental philosophy is distinguished both from Anglo-Saxon (including analytic) philosophy and from pre-Kantian mainland European philosophy by things other than being speculative, most notably by its overwhelming adherence to Kant's "Copernican revolution" and its overwhelming rejection of realism. (Admittedly I'm painting in broad brush strokes here.)

Looking at the history of Speculative philosophy, it seems somebody tried to delete it by blanking it in 2010, saying 'del bad redirect', but the page was then changed back by someone saying 'Please do not blank redirects. To delete them, list them at WP:RFD but do not just blank pages.'.

A few pages link to Speculative philosophy - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Speculative_philosophy. But I'd be happy to go through those pages and edit them to remove the links and whatnot, and moreover, I had a look at some of the pages and some of the pages seem to illustrate precisely why "speculative philosophy" and "continental philosophy" cannot be taken as synonymous. For example, from Islamic-Jewish relations:

'The 12th century saw the apotheosis of pure philosophy. This supreme exaltation of philosophy was due, in great measure, to Ghazali (1058–1111) among the Arabs, and to Judah ha-Levi (1140) among the Jews. Like Ghazali, Judah ha-Levi took upon himself to free religion from the shackles of speculative philosophy, and to this end wrote the Kuzari, in which he sought to discredit all schools of philosophy alike.'

In this, the phrase 'speculative philosophy' is linked to the page Speculative philosophy.

Another example, from Isaac Watts:

'Throughout Logic, Watts revealed his high conception of logic by stressing the practical side of logic, rather than the speculative side.'

In this, the word 'speculative' is linked to the page Speculative philosophy.

A final example, from Christopher Jacob Boström:

'According to the different kinds of personal beings that are known to us, theoretical philosophy is further divided into speculative theology, speculative ethnology and speculative anthropology; practical philosophy into philosophy of religion, philosophy of law and ethics, corresponding to the terms of the division of theoretical philosophy'

In this, the first occurrence of the word 'speculative' is linked to the page Speculative philosophy.

I think this page should be deleted rather than re-targeted or turned into an article - I can't think of anything better to re-target it to (looking at its history, it was once targeted to Sublation but this was changed back) and I don't think it deserves an article of its own any more than, say, "Abstract philosophy". Matthew Fennell (talk) 17:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with a deletion. The term is found in the wiktionary and for that matter in Merriam-Webster and gets 360,000 Google hits. There is a Journal of Speculative Philosophy (not the first by that name, I might add), and the term is commonly used in contrast to analytic philosophy.
I agree that the term is broader than Continental philosophy. If anything, I would put an article here that dealt with the subject more broadly and included a one-paragraph summary and link to Continental philosophy. I think complete elimination is exactly the wrong direction to go. - Jmabel | Talk 17:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm the one who originally created that as a redirect, but that was in 2004, when Wikipedia was much less extensive. - Jmabel | Talk 17:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Matthew Fennell: I apologize to have to ask this, considering that I got hit with a bit of a WP:TLDR issue while reading this since the target subject is not in my realm of expertise: Are you claiming that the redirect should be deleted per WP:REDLINK as a subject separate of the target? (Disregarding the subject of the redirect's potentially notability as a stand-alone article?) Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
    • As I said Steel1943, 'I think this page should be deleted rather than re-targeted or turned into an article - I can't think of anything better to re-target it to (looking at its history, it was once targeted to Sublation but this was changed back) and I don't think it deserves an article of its own any more than, say, "Abstract philosophy".' I don't really understand what is meant by 'Are you claiming that the redirect should be deleted per WP:REDLINK as a subject separate of the target? (Disregarding the subject of the redirect's potentially notability as a stand-alone article?)'. I don't have a good enough understanding of the technicalities of Wikipedia policies to really understand what you mean I'm afraid. Matthew Fennell (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @Matthew Fennell: See the link. In a nutshell, "WP:REDLINK" means that whatever is at the title should be deleted to encourage the creation of an article at that title. Steel1943 (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speculative Philosophy also exists, which I will bundle shortly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedysta:BartoszGwóźdź/brudnopis[edit]

Delete Misformed foreign language redirect; copied from a non-en wiki's non-article namespace. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The redirect serves no purpose.- MrX 🖋 18:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as not useful. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Semiprotect[edit]

Apparently, this page was redirected in 2011 as a result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Semiprotect. However, as it stands, the redirect does not make sense since the target is not a WikiProject about semi-protection. Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Move the history somewhere. Rather than a WikiProject this was actually more of an attempt to workshop a proposal for semi-protection, possibly the earliest such proposal - maybe Wikipedia:Semi-protection/July 2005 proposal would be a good place to keep it (the month would be needed as Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy began as a proposal in November 2005, and the feature arrived in December 2005). Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I'd be fine with simply restoring it, but it looks like the MfD already resolved that option. -- Tavix (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject /Hong Kong Cinema[edit]

Delete This misformed (space then slash) redirect pollutes the search bar. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Policium[edit]

This is a hardly used name (29 views since its creation with few mentions in outside sources) and was previously deleted under WP:R3. ComplexRational (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  • It looks to be a rejected proposed name (since the emergency telephone number in Germany is 110) [17]. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 20:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep there is nothing wrong with this redirect, the name is used and so it should redirect to the artikle about the element, the term is used for Norschweden (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Farke[edit]

Propose retargetting to Daniel Farke. It is perfectly acceptable to redirect Farke to the person, as people will search for him by surname, as that is how football players are usually mentioned. Daniel Farke gets 600 views a day, whereas the place is obscure, and only gets 2 views a day, of which only 4 this month have been from Farke redirect. As such, I believe that Daniel Farke is the primary topic for the Farke redirect, and hatnote from Daniel Farke to Farkë would be sufficient Joseph2302 (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Daniel Farke per nom with a hatnote per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak disambiguate. We can't know how many of the readers searching for "Farke" are looking for the manager or the village, but given that there are so few of them anyway (four per month), I don't think we're likely to be able to gather meaningful usage data and I don't think there's going to be any material difference either way. But if we're to judge based on "fundamental considerations", I don't think there's a reason to favour an {{R from surname}} (even from a popular target) over an {{R without diacritics}}. – Uanfala (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

ٮ[edit]

The target section for this redirect is broken (it should be Arabic diacritics#I‘jām (phonetic distinctions of consonants), but I'm not sure that this section is a suitable target anyway. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep (and fix). All single unicode characters with a clear meaning should be blue links and I can't find anything better for this one than the section of the article that describes it. The {{Anchor}} template can (and should) be used to avoid breaking links to sections when sections get renamed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I agree that characters should have redirects (and I agree about anchors). But I don't think this section of this article does describe it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There is relevant content in the target article (this relevance isn't immediately clear from the text, but the text can be made more explicit), and there is some content at Rasm (somewhat clearer). Presumably, an article can be created as well (one exists on the French wikipedia). – Uanfala (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:WikiProjects Alternate History[edit]

Delete This misformed (plural) soft redirect pollutes the search bar. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Eath food[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete

Failed miscarriage[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Rabbi Levi Shemtov[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn by nom.

Spezial[edit]

Delete Section has been deleted, and term does not appear in the target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

ALL-CAPS with spaces redirects to Wikipedia:Protection policy[edit]

{{R from shortcut}}s are traditionally supposed to have no spaces in them. For all of these, their non-space versions exist. I do not see the usefulness of these since the versions without spaces will be used, and having to maintain these redirects is unnecessarily WP:COSTLY. (All of these were created by the same editor around the same time frame.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep all as harmless per WP:CHEAP. Maintenance requirements are minimal as the targets do not frequently change, links to them do not need to be corrected and they are all plausible search terms leading to the correct target so the argument these are costly doesn't hold any water at all. I tried to spot check the usage of some of them, but the pageviews API seems to be broken at the moment, but I don't see any evidence of them being problematic in the slightest and someone evidently finds them useful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Parturient[edit]

"Parturient" isn't mentioned in the target, so someone who searches for this in search of a definition is left none the wiser. This might be best converted to a soft redirect to Wiktionary, or deleted so that the Wiktionary entry appears alongside possibly useful Wikipedia articles when one searches for this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, parturition is mentioned (in the infobox). Childbirth is human parturition, while "parturition" redirects to the article. I would expect "parturition" to redirect to birth instead, because that would be more accurate. And I would therefore also expect "parturient" to redirect there (note that one of the links from "parturient" is in Cotswold sheep). Treat as a veterinarian matter, therefore. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I retargeted parturition from birth to childbirth yesterday, because it's mentioned in the latter but not (or only in a reference) in the former. Perhaps I should have brought it to RfD instead. Some dictionary definitions of "parturition" define it as synonyous with childbirth (e.g. Merriam-Webster, Oxford, Britannica), though some don't (Cambridge), and Collins treats childbirth as part of the American English definition but not the British English. If you or someone else were to add a mention of the word to the birth article I'd be happy for parturition to redirect there. (There's a separate question of whether a mention of "parturition" at either/any target is sufficient for a redirect from "parturient" to be useful; my feeling is that it is not.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Seems the issues lie in the articles, not the redirects. As for utility: if a user tries a term in the search box, and gets nothing at all, they are no further forward. If they are sent to a synonym and don't know why, they are still somewhat informed. It depends which search they use, they may find places an uncommon term occurs, and learn from context. I would have thought that adding a dicdef of "parturition" to birth, as a veterinarian term, would be a service to the encyclopedia. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
There's no possibility of "getting nothing at all" though, apart from in the very unlikely event of the wiktionary entry parturition (or parturient) being deleted. So long as the Wiktionary entries exist they'll be shown in the sidebar of Wikipedia searches. I agree with your final sentence. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

January 7[edit]

Water fab[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Xian (abbreviation)[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

"Template:Template" redirects[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Movie: crash[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Article(publishing)[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cashina Krabs[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Polystar[edit]

Delete, since Polystar is no UMG, and the article on UMG does not mention Polystar at all. RekishiEJ (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

El Tigre (comics)[edit]

Kukulcan is not mentioned in the list article, and El Tigre is not listed at #E or #T. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Media racism[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

QUALIFIED TEACHER LEARNING AND SKILLS[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch railway station[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn

Qrigin of Species[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wik.is[edit]

  • Delete Does not appear in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Content was removed in 2010; apparently it used to be part of their services offered. Now it is... spam? Crap? I dunno. Delete as misleading. ~ Amory (utc) 11:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Alabama (band)[edit]

This redirect was recently retargeted to Alabama (disambiguation) as an incomplete disambiguation (due to the existence of Alabama (Canadian band)). I reverted the change as undiscussed, as there were incoming links. I have since resolved all incoming links, and bring this here for the appropriate discussion. My opinion is that the American band is the primary topic of the term either way, and perhaps Alabama (American band) should be moved back to Alabama (band). Precedents for this would be Nirvana (band) and Kiss (band), both at those titles despite other bands by those names in other countries. Alternately, the recent retargeting could be restored. It seems like an incorrect half-measure to maintain the redirect pointing to the further disambiguated title. bd2412 T 13:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NAWARD[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Speculated to have been autistic[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Little Ed Blue/A Twist of Ed[edit]

There's already a redirect for Little Ed Blue, so why have this longer one, too? Paper Luigi TC 09:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Run Ed Run / A Town Called Ed[edit]

Redundant and implausible redirect. There's a redirect for Run Ed Run already, so why have both? Paper Luigi TC 08:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Take This Ed and Shove It Pts. 1 and 2[edit]

Implausible redirect. There exists a redirect already for Take This Ed and Shove It. Paper Luigi TC 08:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Episodes from Ed, Edd n Eddy, Special episodes[edit]

Really implausible redirect. Paper Luigi TC 08:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible Department of Redundancy Department. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Deletes per Special deletes. Steel1943 (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Is Special deletes in reference to something? ~ Amory (utc) 22:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
      • It's just word play on "Episodes per special Episodes", sort of WP:PTM-ing the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Cheap to keep, and while the previous content may not 100% be needed for attribution, it doesn't really hurt to keep it. ~ Amory (utc) 22:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Once upon an Ed[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore page

Once Upon An Ed[edit]