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. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)


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 "" 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 the 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]

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
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|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.
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]

June 16[edit]

Ahmed Hassan (actor)[edit]

A redirect (which is in use) to a list article which contains nothing relevant. There is no actor on the DAB page Ahmed Hassan. I propose deletion to encourage article creation, if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

GitHub Atom[edit]

I propose deletion of this redirect because no other articles link to this redirect and one uses this name (there are no relevant Google search results). The most recent contributor Brian Kendig approves of this deletion. Anton.bersh (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Developed by GitHub, and named "atom". Seems like a plausible redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep' per Steel1943. I'm not sure what google query the nominator was using, but when I search for GitHub Atom as an exact phrase I see only results related to the target. The lack of links from articles on en.wp is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Sack of Florence[edit]

It doesn't seem like Florence was sacked in this battle.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment this site states that Florence was sacked in 1530, and this one mentions a sack of Florence in 542. Several others mention threatened and averted sackings. Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete from what Thryduulf said, mentioning several sacks, this redirect seems too vague to link to just one article. If possible though, I would disambiguate it. James-the-Charizard (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Kill on sight[edit]

Pretty sure this term is used for more things than just bot-enforced Usenet bans. . .  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[edit]

The existing website appears to be unrelated. As a consequence, I'm uncertain whether it should be considered a valid r from typo signed, Rosguill talk 02:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Personified Fear[edit]

Personified Fear appears to refer to a glitch on the PS1, but the article doesn't say anything about it. I think this is better off as a redlink. signed, Rosguill talk 02:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Photo finishing[edit]

Not included in given target. See WP:R#PLA. Hildeoc (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

C.F. Hanon[edit]

I cannot see a valid reason that this should point to the French musician. C.L. Hanon, perhaps, but not C.F.. Does not appear to be a plausible typo. Onel5969 TT me 19:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Onel5969. I am the author of the redirect and I see your point. I created it when editing the page Adam Rafferty which refers to Rafferty's work: Rafferty, Adam. "How to Develop Virtuoso Technique for Jazz Guitar - based on "The Virtuoso Pianist" by C.F. Hanon".
I have written to Rafferty asking if he meant CL Hanon and await a reply. Regards DadaNeem (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Onel5969: I've merged these two into a single discussion, hope you don't mind! PC78 (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing that, PC78 - wasn't sure how to do it, so thanks for taking care of it for me. And DadaNeem - thanks for looking into the matter. Just reviewed a whole bunch of your redirects, and these were the only two I found issue with. I simply couldn't see a connection. Onel5969 TT me 22:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the interest everybody. I got a reply from Adam Rafferty that indicates he made a typo in his book title. Before that gets corrected I suggest we delete the C.F. Hanon redirects. As Hanon redirects to Charles-Louis Hanon I've edited the Adam Rafferty page that way. An especial thanks to Onel5969 TT me for finding my mistake and checking out the rest as well! Best DadaNeem (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The existence of this error in the Rafferty work makes it plausible: someone might encounter that work and decide to look up C.F. Hanon. WP:RDELETE#2 refers to a similar situation (a source calls Andrew Smith "Adam Smith" by mistake) and advocates deleting it lest confusion result with the real Adam Smith, but I think that's less likely with initials, and we don't appear to have any actual C.F. Hanons with whom to confuse this person. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Justin Smollett[edit]

Per this discussion at Talk:Jussie Smollett#Government name. There are no sources verifying that this is his real name, and was subsequently removed from the article. Since this is not his real name, keeping the redirect would only cause confusion Mysticair667537 (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Even if Justin is not his real name, it has been reported as his real name in the past, so it's plausible as a redirect. It can be tagged as {{R from incorrect name}} if it's been confirmed as incorrect. -- Tavix (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. We have plenty of redirects for erroneous names if people are likely to use them by mistake; it would be silly to delete Geroge Bush merely because nobody has that name. And that's just a typo, which nobody will use intentionally; the discussion at talk demonstrates that people are likely to look for this fellow under the name of "Justin". Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, from Talk:Jussie Smollett: "BIRTH NAME – PLEASE READ: The use of primary sources in general, and the California Birth Index and FamilySearch in particular, to source claims that the given name of this subject at birth was anything other than their current name is precluded by the Biographies of living persons policy (BLP), specifically WP:BLPPRIMARY." This redirect is an unsourced BLP violation. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is reported in at least one reliable source: the BBC News that the subject's "real name" is Justin, The Washington Times consistently names him has "Justin Smullet" but notes he is better known as "Jussie Smullet" (the consensus at RSN seems to be that the Washington Times is borderline reliable). Raw Story use Justin in the headline and Jussie in the article. There are also tons of unreliable sources that use the name Justin - that they are unreliable is irrelevant for the purposes of this redirect, what matters is that it is very plausible someone will search for him using "Justin" and they should be taken directly to the article about the person they are definitely looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:R from tpyo[edit]

Joke redirect. Nardog (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. I would normally be against having template redirects from typos, but this is one word that I believe we should be allowed to misspell. Besides, the typo is only visible in edit mode, so it doesn't affect any reader-facing parts of the encyclopedia. – Uanfala (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep for same reasons as Uanfala. --Pokechu22 (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete We do not want to encourage inside jokes in the "live" part of the encyclopedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, half per humour, half per WP:CHEAP. It's also actually in use. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course we would correct the handful of uses if deleted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Headbomb. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, it is misspellt - Nabla (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Headbomb and Uanfala. There is no actual benefit to the encyclopaedia from deleting this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

June 15[edit]


I'm not sure what "Wk42lawzt" is supposed to mean, much less what it has to do with KNBC. WCQuidditch 23:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. I've drawn a complete blank researching this too. Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

ABC 7 News[edit]

Is WABC-TV really the best target for this redirect? ABC 7 News is the title for the newscasts on KGO-TV in San Francisco, WJLA-TV in Washington, WWSB in Sarasota, WZVN-TV in Naples/Fort Myers, KVIA-TV in El Paso, KVII-TV in Amarillo, and WVII-TV in Bangor (and, formerly, WLS-TV in Chicago) — but not WABC-TV, which calls its newscasts Channel 7 Eyewitness News and has never solely been ABC 7 News (the closest it came was a period from 1999–2004 when it was ABC 7 Eyewitness News). WCQuidditch 23:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Maryam Noor[edit]

Not in target list. Onel5969 TT me 15:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sadia Faisal[edit]

Not in target. Onel5969 TT me 15:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Kiran Malik[edit]

Not listed in target. Onel5969 TT me 15:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Faiza Ali[edit]

Not in target. Onel5969 TT me 15:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Aashir Wajahat[edit]

Does not appear in target. Onel5969 TT me 15:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Non-existence of the Devil[edit]

Makes no sense. 2001:16A2:51CD:8C00:58E1:E527:90CC:21C2 (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Planet bob[edit]

This appears to be from a quote at the end of the movie. Not mentioned in the article, and probably shouldn't be. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 11:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Originally this was an article with content "Planet Bob is a fictional planet from the movie Titan AE.", then "The New Earth", then getting redirected. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 12:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


Delete Per XY, since could also very credibly target Portal:Evolutionary biology (Darwin is a disambiguation page). UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I would expect a portal about Charles Darwin (I have no idea if there is scope for one), but with Darwin being a disambiguation page others might reasonably expect something different (as presumably did the creator). Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

June 14[edit]

Asterisk Animation[edit]

Based on the information at Ace & Son the only connected between the redirect and the target is that the have a (co-)founder in common. Is that enough to keep it? Would it be better going to The Ink Tank, since there's just as much information there? Primefac (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Students' Unions redirects for articles that don't mention them[edit]

No mention in target, not a particularly useful search term. I'm pretty sure we deleted a very similar redirect a week or two ago. signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I created these (and some of the others) to discourage the creation of a likely non-notable articles. I started making these after I saw several student union articles come up for AfD and failing on notability grounds. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


I'm not quite sure what to make of this redirect. (1) Is it printworthy or unprintworthy? It's tagged with both {{R from Unicode}} and {{R with possibilities}}, so something is not quite right here. (2) Should it (a) be tagged {{R avoided double redirect|Negation (symbol)}} or (b) retargeted to List of logic symbols#¬? (3) Would it realistically be worthy of an article at all? I am having my doubts on that front. Maybe a dab page?

This is quite open ended to say the least. Slightly curious if I can even successfully nominate this page with Twinkle.MJLTalk 22:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. all users who have edited this redirect have been notified of this discussion. –MJLTalk 22:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I would say not printworthy, should redirect to List of logic symbols#¬. Someone typing in ¬ who is unaware of its meaning would most benefit from seeing it in the context of other logical operators (and the link to Negation is right there in the entry for anyone who wants to investigate further). signed, Rosguill talk 22:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above suggestion. As for printworthiness, both have been automatically added by other templates. I disagree with the choice of automatic (un)printworthiness for many templates. That's something that needs to looked into generally with these templates; it's not specific to this redirect. M.Clay1 (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I would think that Negation#Notation is ultimately the best target, even if it could do with a bit of expansion to incorporate for example the Unicode value or the Latex symbols currently listed in List of logic symbols. I don't think retargeting to the list article is best: the relevant entry is pretty far down the list (so inconvenient for readers arriving at the top) and adding an anchor for this entry won't do because of the peculiar structure of the table (which makes it confusing for anyone who hasn't first seen the table headings). Categorising as "R with possibilities" isn't as far fetched as it may seem. – Uanfala (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I favour the status quo, but I have no great objection to redirecting to the list. Could the symbol support an article? Well, the symbol does have a history (Reddit user lcarroll's summary is sound AFAIK ); if we had the story behind why Frege used the vertical dash to indicate negation, then maybe it could be fleshed out to more than a stub, especially if it could be combined with an article on the main alternative, '~'. If we were to try to grow a baby article about the symbol(s), then doing so in the negation article rather than in the list would be altogether better. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


At best this appears to be an example of a pentagraph in a language that uses the Cyrillic alphabet. The creator was blocked/retired, but it didn't seem appropriate to WP:G5 as their block was for completely unrelated behavior. signed, Rosguill talk 17:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Xbox compatible[edit]

Delete - overly vague redirect that could refer to any Xbox console or device. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Unai Emery League[edit]

While the Europa league has jokingly been called the Unai Emery League, this isn't a real alias for the league, and anyone hoping for an explanation of this phrase would be better off at Unai Emery signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - This isn't really a likely search term for the target. – PeeJay 15:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Management[edit]

This redirect is 3 months old and just odd. I'd be expecting to find a WikiProject about "management" if I looked up this redirect, not WP:MFD. Steel1943 (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh I get it, the creator (who is known for having been on a bent of deleting things they find unnecessary, like small portals and apparently substandard WikiProjects) intended this as a redirect instructing on the "management" (i.e. deletion) of WikiProjects. Well, no, WP:POINT describes what this is, as well as being WP:RFD#D2 confusing as everyone commenting here is demonstrating, and probably D1, D5, and D10 also apply. Delete it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ivanvector and the others above. If there is a WikiProject about management or a page about the management of WikiProjects it would be better for everyone concerned if a new page or redirect was created without legitimising the creation of this one. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Untitled Deadwood film[edit]

No longer untitled. Steel1943 (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

VV Vinayak's Untitled Project[edit]

No longer untitled. Steel1943 (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. "Keep" may have been the correct outcome in 2012, but this redirect serves no purpose for a film that was released six years ago. No significant history, no significant usage. Could easily refer to a future project by the director. PC78 (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - per PC78. This had 19 hits in the year preceding the nomination. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


This is the username of the editor reponsible for the "Bicholm Conflict" hoax article, which is mentioned in the target section, but the username is not mentioned anywhere in article space that I can find. The hoax was discoved in December 2012 (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-01-28/In the media#Wikipedia hoaxes draw media attention: Bicholim conflict, Legolas2186 for the full story) and the redirect was creted in February 2013, but neither I nor Wikiblame can find the username was ever mentioned in the article. The options as I see it are either deletion or retargetting to the Signpost article - the latter will educate people searching for this (it got 121 hits last year, which is far from trivial) but it is crossnamespace (and arguably a WP:SELFREF violation too). I'm not immediately sure which I prefer. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. There is no suitable target since retargeting to Signpost is inappropriate, and page views are trivial anyway. It'd be easy to add to the target, but I don't think it's a good idea to give recognition to this hoaxster. -- Tavix (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • 121 hits a year is two orders of magnitude more than trivial! Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Untitled Annabelle film[edit]

No longer untitled. Has no incoming links from the "article" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Remove the redirect, keep as Annabelle Comes Home. Cardei012597 (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. This film hasn't even been released yet, and the redirect is registering 8 hits per day. But revisit in the near future, as it seems reasonably likely that there could be additional films in this series. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"Upcoming" redirects[edit]

More "upcoming" redirects whose subjects are no longer "upcoming". Steel1943 (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I skimmed the list and only saw "2019", but I see that you're right. Still, many of these are registering pageviews in the 1000s or 10,000s for the past 30 days. If they're not inaccurate (they don't redirect to the wrong film and they're not ambiguous with a different film which has not been released) they're harmless, serving a function, and should be kept. The ones that have practically no pageviews should be deleted as a matter of housekeeping. Accordingly, delete:
Also delete Hellboy (upcoming film) for probable ambiguity. Keep the rest. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally happy to delete per past precedent; outdated, inaccurate dismabiguation is not useful but is potentially confusing, so there should be no reason to keep any of these in the long term. That said, it appears that some of these films have only been released in the past few days so I can see the argument for a temporary short term reprieve, particularly if the film remains "upcoming" in certain territories; The Dead Don't Die won't be released in the UK and Ireland until next month, for example. PC78 (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Growing elephant ear plants[edit]

WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to the elephant ear disambiguation page. Four of the six articles linked from there describe the conditions in which elephant ear plants are grown (and for what purpose, etc.). To the extent that an encyclopedia provides a general overview of a topic, those are it for "growing elephant ear plants". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. NOTHOWTO, we don't need titles that imply "how to". Plantdrew (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Tank (for storing liquid in)[edit]

This isn't normally used as a disambiguator. Interstellarity T 🌟 11:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete or weak retarget to Tank (disambiguation)#Storage vessels. Turns out this redirect is ambiguous per the existence of Water tank; however, due to the oddity of the disambiguator, I believe that deletion would better help our readers in this case since the search results would provide more useful than redirecting to a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget, per Ivanvector this is useful. There is nothing that search results could find that is both relevant and not listed already at the disambiguation page, and per the many times I've explained previously search results are not reliable and may be several clicks away so where a suitable page exists (as here) it is always the better choice. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Note that there are a couple of links from mainspace which probably account for the pageviews. PC78 (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • So? That just demonstrates the utility of the redirect. Those links will also be present in mirrors which may or may not get updated if our article does (and if they do they aren't necessarily going to be updated soon). Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Blimey, cool your beans... It was simply an observation, the links are probably left over from when this was an article and they may need updating, particuarly if the term is to be considered ambiguous. PC78 (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Have you ever eaten cold beans? Gross. Warm your beans! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and added it. It was a redirect from this page having been moved through it, it makes sense to treat both the same. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Elephant ear plant[edit]

There are apparently many plants called 'elephant ear', not all of which are in the genus Colocasia. The redirect should perhaps point to Araceae, the family that contains Colocasia and other genera called 'elephant ear'. Alternately, perhaps it should point to Elephant ear, which is a disambiguation page. Cnilep (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

June 13[edit]


Unclear how this redirect relates to its target. Most results on third party engines for the redirect return results for company names and horses. Steel1943 (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, a Google search doesn't seem to bring up anything relevant. Also not mentioned in the target article. PC78 (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think it came from this. David Cameron was quoted as saying he believes the role of a European president should be more "chairmanic" than presidential. This is Paul (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete; one passing reference by a politician is not enough to support a redirect for a neologism. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I've never heard of this, and I don't think it's actually a thing. –MJLTalk 16:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I parsed this as "chair+manic" and was might confused, but if This is Paul's supposition is correct the etymology is actually "chairman+-ic". Regardless, the only significant uses I can find that are not quotations of David Cameron or comments about his speech are an Irish race horse that doesn't seem to have won any races (and so would seem unlikely to be notable) and comments about the vice-chairman of the non-notable Dartmoor Gliding Club. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Rotating chair[edit]

An unavoidable WP:SURPRISE. Not mentioned in the target article, and can be used to describe chairs such as office chairs. Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Maybe retarget to Swivel chair which is what a Google search for "rotating chair" brings up. PC78 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disamb. Rotating chair is actually a thing some organizations do. This would be best served as a disambiguation page. –MJLTalk 16:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Aladdin (upcoming film)[edit]

No longer "upcoming". Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom. Not linked from mainspace, no significant page history, no longer valid search terms. PC78 (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The Kid (upcoming film)[edit]

No longer "upcoming". Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Remove the redirect, keep the wiki page as The Kid (2019 film). Cardei012597 (Cardei012597) 22:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom. Not linked from mainspace, no significant page history, no longer a valid search term. PC78 (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Delta dust[edit]

Not mentioned in target, unclear connection DannyS712 (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

KEEP Delta dust is a marketing name of Deltamethrin in the United States. It is simply a redirect for those searching for the product name (instead of the chemical). StevePrutz (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Steveprutz: - do you have proof? starship.paint (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Packaging label: StevePrutz (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Remote location[edit]

Not mentioned in target, I don't really see the connection, and an internet search of the term mostly returns results about locations that are remote. signed, Rosguill talk 21:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 19:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per King of Hearts and Paul above. There are many meanings of the phrase that rely on the remoteness of one thing from another, rather than some generic sense of remoteness. For example, a secure remote location (no article yet), is only remote from where an attack is likely to happen, but might be right next to a populated place unlikely to be targeted. bd2412 T 20:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. This redirect may cause confusion and prevents Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. Let's try one more round.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as no suitable target exists. There are so many possible meanings that it really doesn't belong here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disamb. That's why we disambiguate these types of pages. –MJLTalk 16:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Trade center[edit]

Redirect term neither explained or included in nor identical or synonymous with given target. See WP:R#PLA. Hildeoc (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Maybe needs a dab page? PC78 (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I.e. Trade Centre 1, Trade Centre 2, Trade Centre Limited, Trade Centre Wales, etc. PC78 (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per PC78, could be useful for those looking for a specific location. funplussmart (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per PC78. Could also link to World Trade Center (disambiguation) - PaulT+/C 00:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and let Search do its job. All the proposed disambiguation page entries are partial title matches, and none are known as simply "Trade center". Note there is no Trade centre. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Mahala (Kalesija)[edit]

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry. The place is mentioned in bs:Kalesija, but there is no article in Bosnian WP. The redirect is called in Kalesija, but its target is thoroughly useless. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Intergenerational transmission[edit]

Not mentioned anywhere in the target. It's also not mentioned at First language, where this page previously redirected. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I created the redirect to First language because I noticed the term was used (and red-linked) in articles about language acquisition. For example, in the article Canadian Gaelic: "The sudden stop of Gaelic intergenerational transmission, caused by shame and prejudice, was the immediate cause of the drastic decline in Gaelic fluency in the 20th century." See the article's "What links here", where four of the articles refer to first language transmission. Perhaps a better redirect would be Language acquisition. Goustien (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the term is broader than just language or violence/child abuse - it is about learned behavior in general. Neither target is really a good one for this term though. It needs its own article (unless there is a similar one out there that I'm not aware of). See this entry at or this search. - PaulT+/C 20:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to retarget it to Socialization, the article covering the broadest common denominator. – Uanfala (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm concerned with this suggestion since there's no mention of generations, and socialization can occur within generations too. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Potential keep with retarget to unspecified article. Is it reasonable to use this term for when a pregnant woman transmits something to her unborn child? I'm thinking crack babies, infants with HIV, etc. But I've read crack baby and haven't noticed any links to articles discussing the transmission of disease from mother to child. If such an article exists, this would be a good redirect there. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Int main[edit]

Inappropriate redirect created by disruptive editor. I never heard of the term. If it really is used somewhere, this one might be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment This article is full of examples that have lines starting "int main", but it is not the only article to do so (e.g. C syntax also includes some examples beginning this way), so it seems likely that this is a useful search term. I'll alert the Computer science WikiProject as they'll likely be able to identify the most appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Needs a stub article, rather than a misleading redirect. C syntax#Global structure might be a good target if it is not used in languages other than C and C++. MOST of the editor's edits are absurd; this one is less so than most. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: The entry point to a C, D or Pike program is defined using code which begins int main, and C# uses similar words. Readers seeing such a snippet may use it as a search term, and the current target describes it well. As C is far more widely used than D or Pike, C syntax#Global structure is also a sensible target. Certes (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to C syntax#Global structure per above. The current target is fine, but the C-family is the main place folks will be looking for in this context, so we might as well be most useful. ~ Amory (utc) 14:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see int main used as an example several times at the current target and at C syntax, but I don't see it specifically defined, leaving someone like me who is trying to figure out what it means confused. I like the idea of a stub article that Arthur Rubin suggested, because that might offer better clarity than what's currently there, and am fine with this being WP:REDLINKED in the meantime. -- Tavix (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete the newly proposed target doesn't explain it well enough, speaking as someone who is fairly comfortable coding in C. signed, Rosguill talk 06:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Iterative for loop[edit]

Doesn't seem appropriate or helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to For loop which mentions iteration in the first sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    Good point. "Foreach" is a particular type of NON-iterative loop. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: the lead of Foreach loop claims that it is sometimes called an iterative for-loop but I've never heard the term and can't find sources for it. A for loop is equally iterative. The term seems tautologous: what would a non-iterative for loop do? Certes (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    A foreach loop could be parallel, rather than iterative. In any case, programmers are not allowed to depend on the order of execution, even if there can't be two executions operating simultaneously in different threads. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


Deletion recommended. Based on a random sampling, most if not all of the uses of this redirect actually intended WP:Copyvio. The equivalent all upper-case COPYVIO had the same issue and was recently deleted at RDF. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 2#COPYVIO. TJRC (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. There is already a hatnote on Copyright infringement directing users to WP:Copyvio so a redirect seems entirely appropriate and will help people find what they need. PC78 (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per PC78. The current target clearly explains our jargon for someone who doens't know what it means and links to the Wikipedia page that others will be looking for. Deletion would hinder both groups of people without benefiting anyone. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep useful enough especially considering that's the term we all use. –MJLTalk 16:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Virginia Giuffre[edit]

Not mentioned in target. While I suspect that this is likely Virginia Roberts's current name, if it's not relevant enough to mention in the article it's not necessary to have a redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 05:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. I have put it in the article. wumbolo ^^^ 13:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per fix entered by Wumbolo. The nominator should have simply fixed this one instead of wasting time with a completely unnecessary RFD. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Reunion Day[edit]

I was fixing the links on Ron Haddrick. A link that was meant to go to Reunion Day (TV movie) went to Public holidays in Denmark. Shouldn't this be a disambiguation page? –MJLTalk 17:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Reunion Day, meaning the national day in Denmark, has two links. Reunion Day (TV movie) has four. I would say neither is a clear primary meaning, so probably converting the redirect to a disambig page would be appropriate. And a new redirect Reunion Day (Denmark) should be created, pointing to the same target as the current redirect, and the two Denmark-related articles modified to use that link. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I would agree with that assessment, but I just wanted consensus first. If no one comments in the next few days, I'll just go ahead and do it. –MJLTalk 16:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambig I've drafted a disambiguation page (while MJL was writing their comment above) and created the Reunion Day (Denmark) redirect (although I've not retargetted anything to it). If anyone knows of an article about public holidays and/or national days in Réunion then that would make a good see also but I wasn't able to find anything on a quick look. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: Bastille/National Day according to that Maybe that would work? –MJLTalk 16:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    Maybe, but our Bastille Day article doesn't mention Réunion at all. I have found the Réunion Island day gecko is sometimes called the "Réunion day gecko" though so I'll add that. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    I think that's a bit of a trap. Despite having both words in its name, "Réunion Island day gecko" is really "Réunion Island" + "day gecko", and you wouldn't really shorten both of them and come up with just "Réunion day". Worth a see-also, though. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Fremont Police Station[edit]

Target doesn't mention Fremont (or its police) in any capacity. From comparing the map on the target page and on Fremont, California, it seems that Fremont is entirely outside of OPD's jurisdiction signed, Rosguill talk 17:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Based on Apple Maps search results, there's no streets named Fremont in Oakland. My guess for why this was created is that Fremont and Oakland are both in Alameda County, so the creator may have assumed that their police departments are connected. Searching online, it doesn't seem that there is any place at all titled "Fremont Police Station" signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Then I recommend deleting unless there are articles about the police departments (which there aren't) of multiple places named "Fremont". ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Single-letter WikiProject abbreviations[edit]

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

European Parliament election, 2019 (Untied Kingdom)[edit]

No need to keep a redirect for an obvious typo. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

June 12[edit]

The Green Bag (magazine)[edit]

The Green Bag is the name of two different magazines, the historical legal humor journal at The Green Bag (1889–1914), and the current journal located at The Green Bag. My retargeting of this redirect to the disambiguation page Green Bag, per WP:INCOMPDAB, was reverted without explanation by User:Jay D. Easy, so I bring this here to settle the question. bd2412 T 20:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Is a journal considered a magazine? If it is then pointing to Green Bag is best, or The Green Bag as a redirect from unnecessary disambiguation, assuming it's the primary topic. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • In terms of the publication format, I don't know what distinction can be drawn between a journal and a magazine. In this case, both are regular publications containing collections of relatively short pieces by varying authors. bd2412 T 11:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to The Green Bag. If we think there's no primary topic between the two publications, rename the current one and retarget to the disambiguation page. I would support either of these outcomes. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Gamer’s gaze[edit]

The term is not mentioned at all in the article in question. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • N.b., not mentioned in Gaze or Male gaze either. Seems to be a neologism, though I certainly know what they're getting at. --BDD (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Sexism In Gameing[edit]

Delete - an obvious typo unlikely to ever be useful as a redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as unlikely search target. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 06:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, the two miscapitalisations in addition to the misspelling makes it too implausible. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

House wine[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy Procedural close

Raza Talish[edit]

There shouldn't be a redirect to a navigation list especially considering the list is only for subjects which have articles. Praxidicae (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


Appears to be an original initialism with no usage in reliable sources. signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, Google search draws a complete blank. PC78 (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You could argue the same thing about DKL, which redirects to Donkey Kong Land. We have a DOAWK redirect, and Diary of an Awesome Friendly Kid is a spin-off, so I gave it an abbreviated redirect too. Scrooge200 (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wanaque Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy procedural close

Role account[edit]

Unhelpful WP:XNR, unsure if there is an appropriate mainspace target. funplussmart (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Khristie Bandhu[edit]

Not mentioned in target. Onel5969 TT me 15:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the target, though it's questionable and it's spelled wrong. It should be Khristi Bandhu. Praxidicae (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Drew Scott (reality TV)[edit]

Delete. Nothing links here and the redirect is poorly named Esprit15d • talkcontribs 05:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'm actually the original creator of this, but the actual reason why I did that is no longer applicable the way things are now. At the time (2013), Drew Scott the Property Brother had no article at all yet, while the undisambiguated Drew Scott was an article about somebody else. So I created this as a redirect to Property Brothers (mainly because somebody else had predabbed him that way as a redlink, not because I thought that "reality TV" was a good choice of disambiguator myself) — but then sometime after that the other Drew Scott got deleted as non-notable, and then the Property Brother finally got his standalone BLP in 2016, and then this was repointed there. It really should have just been deleted at that point, because the fact that he had now gained the primary topic title basically eliminated the need to keep a disambiguated redirect. So there's no need to hang onto this anymore, and it should just be deleted: there was a genuine reason for this at the time I did it, but stuff changed later on to basically make it redundant and unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep In use, and takes readers where they want to go. I don't see a problem. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
In use where? There's not a single articlespace link using this: it's "in use" only in temporary "article alert" lists, where it appears precisely because it's up for RFD right now, and all of those uses will disappear as soon as this discussion gets closed. Bearcat (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
It's getting page views. See the "stats" link in the nomination. --BDD (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Gambit (2020 film)[edit]

It will not be released in 2020. In fact, it is cancelled. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • This page has history so it may be useful to keep. Maybe it could be moved to another title, but since the redirect is in draft space I don't think we need to be too hung up on what it's called. PC78 (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a {{R with history}} with a substantial amount of edit history, cannot be WP:HISTMERGE-d due to parallel histories, the entire "Draft:" namespace is WP:NOINDEX-ed (meaning that this redirect should not appear on third party search engine results), and the "Draft:" namespace is not for using redirects to reach articles. In other words, this redirect is harmless and its edit history could prove useful in the event Disney decides to take a 180 on their decision to cancel the film. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Gambit (upcoming film)[edit]

It is no longer upcoming. In fact, it is cancelled. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Serves no purpose now this film has been cancelled. PC78 (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

June 11[edit]

Crown of England[edit]

Potential retarget to The Crown or Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom. The current target isn't particularly closely related to the crown; it's just a list of individuals who wore or embodied the crown. The Crown discusses the history of the concept, including its origins in England before the union with Scotland, so I think it would be a better target. However, Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom could be a good target too, since it covers the literal crown, including the headgear worn by English monarchs before the union with Scotland. So what's the best place? Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Curt Doolittle[edit]

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

Alberta Ten Thije[edit]

Neither the target nor its sources make use of the name "Alberta", I'm not sure what justification there is for it. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • A relative, perhaps? Or maybe "Alberta" is her middle name? The former would be legitimate, the latter not, but the page's references are totally silent. --BDD (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Leeds Trinity Students' Union[edit]

Not mentioned in target, not a useful search term. signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete As I put it in a similar discussion, a student union is probably WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, and the redirect as it stands certainly does no one any good. Anyone searching this term knows about Leeds Trinity University already. --BDD (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Makru language[edit]

Maybe I missed it, but can't find this mentioned in the target article. Onel5969 TT me 17:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Papuan languages are often referred to by village and other locality names. Makru is one of the names listed in Ethnologue. Foley (2018) lists Makru as one of the areas where Mehek is spoken. Sagotreespirit (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Komolom languages[edit]

Not mentioned in the target. Onel5969 TT me 17:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Komolom is the name for Mombum as given by Pawley and Hammarström (2018). It's now cited in the main article. Sagotreespirit (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Socialist Party (Italy, July 2007)[edit]

Wrong month, this redirect should be deleted: there was no real date of foundation of this party, but the only available source states that the agreement for the split took place on 23 June. Wololoo (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Seems a plausible error still, and it was the article title for a while. Probably not a very likely search term, though. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment The title "Socialist Party (Italy, July 2007)" was proposed by me, but the only available source (it is an unknown party) says that the split was agreed on of June, so it was my error.--Wololoo (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Could others make the same error, though? If the split was on 23 June, it's just about a week off. --BDD (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I would say no, since the party is unknown, the same members continued to act on behalf of the Nuovo PSI until they joined the real Socialist Party of 2007. I proposed the deletion of the redirect only because it is inconsistent with the date indicated on the page (taken from the only source that treats the party)..--Wololoo (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Socialist Party (De Michelis)[edit]

Wrong redirect, it should be deleted: it was not the only "Socialist Party" led by Gianni De Michelis, and certainly not the most important one. Wololoo (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

ACON Investments LLC[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: convert ACON Investments into an article, and retarget ACON Investments LLC and ACON there.


Unlikely typo Abote2 (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep, aware you aware of tooday's educational sistem? Of the level of reeding and writeing abillity? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete very implausible. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Implausible. Edgeweyes (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Keep plausible misspelling per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - The typo is plausible on Dvorak, where the "i" key is located to the left of the "d" key. The typo is also plausible on Colemak, where the "i" key is to the right of the "e" key. I'm sure there are readers who use Dvorak or Colemak, so the redirect can be kept. InvalidOS (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


Unlikely typo Abote2 (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep, people who write or type in the face of spell-correct, and with the level of the education system (cursive isn't being taught in most schools), might be lucky to get the name this right. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete very implausible. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Implausible. Edgeweyes (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Only plausible on Colemak, and just barely. The "y" key is above and to the right of the "e" key. While it gives the redirect a reason to exist, it won't hurt to let it go. InvalidOS (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


Unlikely typo Abote2 (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep, that's not how it's spelled? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as an implausible typo. PC78 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete very implausible. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Implausible. Edgeweyes (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per my argument in the discussion on Wikkippedia. InvalidOS (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


Unlikely typo Abote2 (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Gilling (textiles)[edit]

I don't think this redirect should ever have been created. I should have been left as a redlink. [[Gilling (textiles)]] is used in only one article, the article on Worsted, where it explicitly says: ''"Pasture wool was not [[Carding|card]]ed; instead it was washed, [[gilling (textiles)|gilled]] and [[combing|comb]]ed"'''

so it renders two wikilinks to combing, when the context strongly implies "gilling" is a process distinct from "combing".

If gilling is a distinct notable topic then [[Gilling (textiles)]] should point to a distinct article on that topic. If gilling is not a notable topic, there should be no [[Gilling (textiles)]] wikilink, including no redirect. And, until that article is created, this should be a redlink. The redirect was clearly created in error. Geo Swan (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I do think the redirect is justified- though I am out of my comfort zone when it come to animal fibres- Lancashire did cotton. gives a complete description of drafting with a pin giller. With in the textile field the topic is notable and has multiple potential references. It is just that a separate article has not yet been written. It is wl-ed from sliver (textiles) too. I had hoped that a hobby weaver would have picked up the link and written an article. The redirect is correctly placed- as it most mentioned in the Combing lead. There is a problem with two wls in one sentence with the same target but redlinking is not the answer. Any further proposals? ClemRutter (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


Delete. Offensive, non-intuitive, and unused. I'd argue that WP:RNEUTRAL doesn't apply because it's a template; we made up the name. Julia 03:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This redirect was created as a result of this discussion in 2012. Perhaps it makes sense to invite those editors to participate here? - PaulT+/C 20:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  1. Julia says this redirect is unused. Checking I find it has been used.
  2. As to whether the redirect is offensive, well, it redirects to Template:Rough translation. Is Template:Rough translation offensive? Who, exactly is this redirect offending?
  3. Perhaps nominator could explain more fully why they think WP:RNEUTRAL doesn't apply?
In my opinion, if more compelling arguments aren't offered, I think it should be kept as is. Geo Swan (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I assume the "unused" comment refers to the lack of transclusions for {{Engrish}}, but clearly 96 pageviews over four years does not indicate significant usage. And I think "offensive" clearly refers to the term "Engrish"... PC78 (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep; harmless, and it gets the point across well. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not sure what the nom means by "we made up the name": we literally have an article named Engrish and there is nothing there to suggest that the term is considered offensive. However, it's also clear from the article that the term refers to something quite specific rather than "rough translations" in general, so it's use here is misapplied and therefore inappropriate. PC78 (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Phonetic spelling/pronunciation for some non-English speakers. For OP, please be aware Wikipedia is not censored and may offend. Lexlex (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


Term not mentioned at target. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_22#Category:Pseudoegyptology and Talk:Egyptology#Pseudoegyptology. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 03:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Could alternatively be redirected to pseudoarchaeology. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Pseudoarchaeology. I like that. There's plenty of discussion of Egypt there, which makes sense. This is a case where I'm not bothered by the term not being explicitly given there, because the link is clear. (That's not to say that working the term into it somewhere couldn't be useful.) --BDD (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No opinion on pseudoarchaeology, but aside from that topic, I'd say keep. The link between pseudoegyptology and egyptology is clear as well. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Winged lizard[edit]

Draco volans is just one example of an actual winged lizard, and I'm sure there are more. Someone else is probably more knowledgeable about the subject and could make a better dab page than I could. signed, Rosguill talk 04:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Or perhaps Flying and gliding animals#Reptiles, since Draco is not the only "flying" lizard. PC78 (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Flying and gliding animals#Reptiles seems like a good option. signed, Rosguill talk 18:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate? - It seems like multiple targets are being discussed, but I do believe the redirect should at least be retargeted away from Dragon. InvalidOS (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation sounds like the best solution here. bd2412 T 11:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

June 10[edit]


We already had a discussion about these useless abbreviation redirects in 2015 but apparently its not enough to get this one deleted without discussion. No one except Swift fans would find this redirect useful, not a commonly used abbr. NØ 21:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Isn't this a town in Wales? </humor> --BDD (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Borbón, Juan Carlos I de -- King[edit]

Delete due to the implausible formatting. If unscrambled, it becomes King Juan Carlos I de Borbón which no one has found useful enough to create to date. -- Tavix (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unlikely search terms and no significant usage. They may be quite old but it doesn't necessarily follow that they have ever been linked from mainspace. PC78 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Adnan Haydar[edit]

this redirect is just wrong. Adnan Haidar is a 29-year old Norwegian footballer. Adnan Haydar (referred to in the article [Paula Haydar]) appears to be an American academic old enough to have a grown up son, so not the same person. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Adnan Haydar doesn't seem to be used to refer to the footballer. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is certainly potential for confusion because of the academic Adnan Haydar who exists, has several mentions, but who doesn't have an article. Delete to leave a redlink would enable Search to do its job and avoid confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 07:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as a valid alternative spelling. GiantSnowman 08:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment How can you justify describing it as a "valid alternative spelling"? Adnan Haidar is Norwegian and that is consistenly the spelling of his name in our alphabet. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per GiantSnowman, though I might say "plausible misspelling" rather than suggesting the Haydar spelling is correct. Obviously, don't link the name from other articles if the academic is intended, and if an article is ever written on the academic, it can be at this title. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment "plausible misspelling" is right, but the redirect is not particularly useful or necessary, as Adnan Haidar's name is offered when you type "Adnan Ha" or even just "Adnan H" in the search box. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    That's just one way readers find articles, though. Many could copy and paste whole search terms into the search box or directly enter URLs, for example. Consider this: so long as we have no article on the academic, readers looking for the academic will be disappointed regardless of what happens with this redirect. Keeping it allows us to better satisfy those who are looking for the footballer. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. This individual is an Arab with an Arabic name. There's plenty of precedent for spelling variants of Arabic names, especially since Arabic uses an abjad without normal vowels. Yes, his name is written in Latin now, but "Haydar" is not the only way to spell this name. Look at Hyder Ali, for example, a Muslim Indian with an Arabic name: some sources call him "Hyder", some "Haidar", and probably some "Haydar". Or look at Haydar and see all the other spelling variants. There simply is no standard way to spell this name in English, so even though this particular person's name has a single correct spelling, it's quite likely that someone could look for him under a different spelling of this name. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Giant chicken[edit]

Too vague. There are other giant chickens in fiction and I would have expected a redirect to Jersey Giant instead. I don't think a dab page is justified however. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Jersey Giant seems reasonable. signed, Rosguill talk 06:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. This redirect is ambiguous and could cause confusion. Deleting it allows Search to do its job. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Full translation of the Behistun Inscription[edit]

Convert to {{wikisource redirect}} per WP:SOFTTEMP or delete. Plain {{soft redirect}} is not used in the article namespace. Doesn't really meet the criteria for soft redirecting to a sister project outlined at WP:SOFTSISP. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Wikisource redirect. pretty much works for me. I would advise against deletion since this is a matter currently being discussed on WP:AN. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯MJLTalk 17:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as soft redirect. What the nom forget to mention was that this page was removed by an AFD discussion on WP:NOT grounds. A template that invites recreation is therefore not appropriate. It is also not helpful that it suggests searching Wikipedia for an article that is not going to be found. SpinningSpark 18:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • WP:SOFTSISP does not proscribe using soft redirect, it explicitly offers it as a possibility. I note that most of the pages in the Wikisource redirect category actually started out as soft redirects. The only reason the soft redirect category is empty is that they have been systematically converted to the Wikisource template – very likely including some equally inappropriate ones. SpinningSpark 18:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Behistun Inscription#External links. It's unusual to point to an External links section, but "hard" links are preferred to soft ones when practical. I've added a Wikisource link there, and there are a couple of other links to various English translations. This will do the most good for readers. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • That's circular. It's a nonsense to redirect to an article that links to the redirect – in three separate places! SpinningSpark 15:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    I would not recommend adding such a link. This should remain unlinked in mainspace. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
    • That's a good idea. It doesn't violate WP:CIRCRED since it aids navigation by linking to the bottom of the article. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Furius, Agricolae, Eastmain, पाटलिपुत्र, Smmurphy, RobDuch, and Peterkingiron: pinging AFD participants. SpinningSpark 15:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Xaosflux, MJL, Billinghurst, Xover, Fram, Anthony Appleyard, and Nyttend: pinging ANB discussion participants. SpinningSpark 15:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Is someone really going to come to Wikipedia and search for "Full translation of Foo" rather than just searching for Foo? This seems to be the only page in all of Wikipedia that begins with "Full translation of . . . ." so I have to conclude it is a highly unlikely search phrase. Much more likely is that someone will just search for Behistun Inscription, so once the situation with the article at Wikisource stabilizes, mention of that Wikisourse page on the Behistun Inscription page would be quite helpful, but I don't see why we need to do gymnastics to figure out a redirect target for a never-likely-to-be-used search phrase that doesn't really need a redirect at all. So, Delete (once AN, Wikisource and possible DRV issues have been resolved). Agricolae (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The links to Full translation of the Behistun Inscription are mostly placed below quotations from said translation. Would it be permissable for those links to send the interested reader to the page on Wikisource directly? Then it doesn't matter what happens to this redirect... Furius (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Furius: I imagine that wouldn't be too great for the outside links as Thryduulf sometimes likes to mention. –MJLTalk 20:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The links I saw were: 1) in See Also sections - these should be removed or replaced with a Wikisource pointer - you don't use See Also for a redirect, particularly one that points off Wikipedia; 2) references to the Behistun Inscription that were inexplicably piped instead to the Full Translation page; 3) awkward/unnatural piping of common phrases so that the same sentence could be linked to both the Full Translation and the Behistun Inscription pages and (as with the previous set) are entirely unnecessary given that the Behistun Inscription page has a Wikisource pointer and External Links to other translations, so just like pointing to the soft redirect, pointing to Behistun Inscription brings the reader one click away from the source, but has the advantage of being a full page of information; 4) similarly awkward/unnatural linking of common phrases in lieu of using a citation for the sentence, not the way we are supposed to provide verifiability; 5) one example in which a footnote consisted entirely of the link without further information, in violation of WP:CIRCULAR and 6) used under quotes or within more detailed footnotes. Only the last of these really have any value at all, and I don't see why we should treat these any different than quotes from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or the Codice de Roda or the Epic of Gilgamesh, none of which we cite by linking to a soft redirect page. Had this page never been, there would be no question of creating such a redirect page just to cite the source, and that should guide how we deal with a page that the AfD basically concluded should never have existed. Agricolae (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I have begun retargeting some of these to Behistun Inscription, starting with those that should be pointing there independent of the outcome of this discussion, so you won't find all of the types I talked about any more. Agricolae (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I would be fine with a delete and retarget of the incoming links. It is the inappropriate template that I object to. SpinningSpark 23:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Agree with Agricolae that it's not something we would ever create. But since it did exist it might be reasonable to do something more than just deleting it (I originally tagged it for speedy after it was transwikied). A template similar to {{wikisource redirect}} (modulo the concerns raised about its contents and phrasing above) would be quite reasonable IMO. But the incoming links should then be changed to point at Behistun Inscription (top level) and a normal link to Wikisource placed in its last section (sisterlinks go in the last non-empty section iirc, not extlinks as such): there is little value in mainspace links to a soft interwiki redirect (it's a potential search target, or target of links from offsite, more than internally useful on enwp). I would also not object to just deleting it outright (with the same result for incoming links etc.). --Xover (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This should have been A5d instead of leaving this implausible (per Agricolae above) redirect behind. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


Retarget to {{v}} This makes more sense since that is what the template ends up looking like. –MJLTalk 14:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep I don't see any reason to change this and I would not be comfortable supporting any change unless there has been discussion somewhere at {{v}} and/or {{navbar}} that explains the need for this change. This is a redirect from 2013 and both potential targets are protected due to their heavy use. Presumably both exist because they have different uses; if the nominator wants to merge {{v}} and {{navbar}} this is not the proper venue for that discussion. - PaulT+/C 16:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Psantora: Huh? {{v}} is listed as a "Shortcut" template for {{navbar}} in the documentation. It wouldn't be that major of a fix to retarget it. Also, for good reason this redirect was not protected. It's barely been used. –MJLTalk 19:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    Hmm... It seems I may have been a little hyperbolic here. The point I was worried about is that this redirect was made a while ago, it points to a highly-used template, and it is currently in use (though minimally - it looks like only 6 pages/articles use it - Template:Timeline of Holland House, London, Template:Crimean Council changes after 2010 election, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Character Table 1, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Character Table 2, Template:NCAA Season 94 seniors basketball playoffs, and Template:NCAA Season 94 juniors basketball playoffs - other uses look to be transclusions from these pages). My concern is, since it has always pointed to {{navbar}}, that some editors might be surprised by the new target. However, given how similar these two targets are, there probably wouldn't be significant confusion between them (especially since it is highly likely editors using this template would be previewing any changes to make sure they render as expected). Regarding my (probably off-topic) point on merging: I see there has been some previous discussion (2014) on merging {{v}}/{{navbar}} (even some suggestions that {{v}} was created to replace {{navbar}}) and there is also a mention of merging with {{view}} (another listed shortcut) at Template talk:navbarsuperceded by 2017 discussion where they were effectively merged. Anyway, after looking through the specific use cases for these templates, I don't have as much of a concern and have withdrawn my "Keep" !vote above. I would still prefer that more involvement from the people more intimately familiar with these family of templates weigh-in before any changes are made, but I now see that there is a much lower risk for making this change than I had originally feared. - PaulT+/C 19:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)To illustrate the difference(s) between the two proposed targets, see below:
    • Current target - {{navbar}}, {{navbar}}, produces:
    • Proposed target - {{v}}, {{v}}, produces:
    • Actual template - {{vte}}, {{vte}}, produces:
     - PaulT+/C 20:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with repointing but would prefer existing uses edited to use navbar directly before doing that. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 14:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Why not move {{v}} over the redirect {{vte}}? One-letter names should be reserved for templates that are either frequently used or are common in running article text. I don't see why a niche metatemplate – intended, as fas as I can see, to be used only on other templates, one at a time – should be claiming this short title. – Uanfala (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Move {{v}} to {{vte}} so the name of the template is less cryptic. Keep {{v}} as a shortcut, especially since it's well used at over 458 transclusions. -- Tavix (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In addition to exploring the possibility of moving Template:V to Template:Vte, at the present time, Template:Vte has transclusions that should be resolved prior to changes happening.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Fiji Urdu[edit]

The phrase "Fiji Urdu" is some wikipedian's invention. There's no variety of Urdu that is specific to Fiji, there's no evidence of Urdu being natively spoken there at all. This started out as an article about Urdu being taught in schools in Fiji, but it was unsourced, there don't appear to be any sources out there at all, and even if there were, the title of such an article would rather be Urdu in Fiji. – Uanfala (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

(Weak) keep: Urdu is listed in the article, btw. But Urdu-Hindi is rather like Serbo-Croat: the answer to linguistic questions ends up depending on the respondent's religion. Someone who remembers that Fiji uses the north-Indian language family might well forget whether it was Urdu or Hindi, so the redirect could well be helpful. And it is not confusing unrelated languages, so what's the harm? Imaginatorium (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah my bad: I had overlooked that the article mentions that there were several hundred households who reported speaking Urdu in the 1966 census. Still, there's no Fijian variety of Urdu as far as I'm aware, and the Fiji Hindi spoken there is Hindi in name only (and so it's not particularly close to Urdu, the way Hindi is). I see your point about the redirect being helpful as an {{R from misnomer}}, but I don't think this makes it plausible as the logic can be applied to any of the dozens of major languages of Northern India, ending up redirects like Fiji Bengali, Fiji Magahi, etc. – Uanfala (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bengali, Magahi, etc. are not the same as Hindi in any sense, but Urdu and Hindi are basically the same when spoken. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hawkeye (DC Comics)[edit]

Delete - subject not mentioned at the target article. The section that used to refer to it was removed 20 November 2012. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Spice rack[edit]

WP:REDLINK. I think this is probably worth an article, but either way, there's no discussion at the target article of spice racks or storage of spices otherwise. BDD (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Adhurs Raghu[edit]

This title is a combination of the actor's name and their breakout film, Adhurs. This would already be a stretch for a redirect, but Karumanchi isn't even the only person named Raghu that was in the movie. signed, Rosguill talk 19:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Raghu Babu didn't rise to fame from this movie, but Raghu Karumanchi did. For this reason, he is popularly known as Adhurs Raghu, which is his stage name. --DragoMynaa (Talk) 19:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
DragoMynaa, can you provide a source for this? It isn't mentioned at all in Raghu Karumanchi signed, Rosguill talk 18:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Here is the source: --DragoMynaa (Talk) 19:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
That establishes that he had an important role in Adhurs, which we already knew. It doesn't establish that "Adhurs Raghu" is a commonly used nickname. signed, Rosguill talk 18:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


Delete per XY; could just as easily refer to Portal:History, Portal:Horses, many others. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unintuitive, ambiguous cross-namespace redirect. PC78 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Petdam Gaiyanghadao[edit]

It's not implausible that this would be an alternate name, but I see nothing in the target or in the sources cited there. signed, Rosguill talk 17:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: It seems like a very obvious alternative name to me (Muay Thai boxers often change ring names according to sponsorship changes), but I can't seem to find explicit mention of this change anywhere. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


Not mentioned at the target. Apparently a Japanese word, so delete per WP:FORRED Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, that's a bad target. The previous target of cuckold was better but still wrong. A redlink to encourage article creation would be the best since there is currently no coverage of this term/subgenre. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a dictionary, and should not contain romanised versions of random Japanese words, unless they are discussed and explained in the article. Imaginatorium (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Bernando LaPallo[edit]

Non-notable parent of a notable person. None of the content that was merged anywhere as a result of WP:Articles for deletion/Bernando LaPallo is currently in any articles, so the edit history is no longer necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


Retarget to T series (the disambiguation page) as an ambiguous search term. I don't see why this should target the company specifically. Geolodus (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

One (Romania)[edit]

"One (Romania)" could mean anything related to various meanings of the word "one" in relation to Romania; the association with NUTS is so weak that the redirect is counterproductive

Similarly delete Two (Romania) Three (Romania) Four (Romania). Imaginatorium (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I have formally added those three redirects to this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I should have proded instead of redirected. Redirects are cheap but this is not a plausible search term. Reywas92Talk 06:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

June 9[edit]

Francesco Federico Cerruti[edit]

Neither the target article, nor its citations, nor the linked articles on itWiki and deWiki, make any mention of the subject's first name being Francesco. signed, Rosguill talk 21:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Hallo, I pointed out that the complete name of the collector from Rivoli is "Francesco Federico Cerruti": please see the webpage of the Rivoli Castle, that hosts this collection, at: The Cerruti Collection: the new museum expansion. Another english reference is this. Cheers, --Marco Ciaramella (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The page should probably be moved to that title since that was his name and that is how he was known. The foundation that administers his collection is the Fondazione Francesco Federico Cerruti per l'Arte. See, e.g., La Stampa, La Stampa, the Gazzetta Ufficiale etc. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Given that the sources currently cited for the actual article skew toward not including Francesco, however, I'm not sure it's appropriate to move it yet, although I think the redirect has been justified at this point. signed, Rosguill talk 23:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill: I fully agree with your point. Cheers, --Marco Ciaramella (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


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


Not mentioned in the target or discussed in any depth in any other article. Per Wiktionary, Acalephae is an obsolete taxonomic group in the phylum Coelenterata, so that article might be a closer match, but I think the term would have to be mentioned somewhere, so as to clarify whether it's in current use and how it relates or related to the target (as a synonym, subgroup or something else) for the redirect to be useful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Nadeș River (Arieș)[edit]

I don't know anything about Romanian rivers. Is this redirect targeted correctly? There is no mention of "Nadeș" at "Arieș" and there is another article Nadeș (river). Should we delete to avoid confusion? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


Unused redundant shortcut. We already have WP:AN/B and WP:AN/Δ. I suggest this be deleted with no prejudice against a recreation for another target. –MJLTalk 01:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Fine, delete it. I had already forgotten about it.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: My apologies for the talk page notification if that was rude. I didn't actually check who made this redirect. :/ –MJLTalk 03:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: Not rude, expected.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

June 8[edit]

Photo finishing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 16#Photo finishing

New York Rangers.[edit]

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

Queen of Poland[edit]

Queen of Poland should not be redirect to List of Polish monarchs. This one should redirected to disambiguation page where thera are two articles: List of Polish monarchs and pl:Najświętsza Maryja Panna Królowa Polski (Currently red link on English Wikipedia). English Wikipedia should have this article when ENwiki has article like Church of the Holy Virgin Mary The Queen of Poland, Słubice. Why redirect is better than disambiguation page? Only List of Polish monarchs is notable here? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

If we take look through history of changes we can found also other redirect to List of Polish consorts Dawid2009 (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, the proposed disambiguation is in violation of WP:DABSISTER. The current list has information on queens of Poland, so this is fine until a separate article is created. -- Tavix (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. If "King of X" isn't the name of an article, it's typically redirected to "List of rulers of X"; see King of Poland, for example. (This is even the case when King of X can have an alternate meaning; see King of Prussia and its hatnote.) I don't see a reason to treat queens differently. Of course, the consorts list would be quite acceptable too. Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The Fifth Season (EP)[edit]

Target is not an EP. PC78 (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

That is to say, there is an album titled The Fifth Season with a song named "The Fifth Season" which was also released as a single, but apparently no EP (although there is an EP with this title by a seemingly non-notable band called Tragic Seasons [1]). The question is, do we nontheless regard the definition of an EP as sufficiently ambiguous to justify keeping the redirect? PC78 (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


According to the Fandom wiki, this is "a nickname given by fans of the series" to a particular character. It should not be a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ComplexRational (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Flat list[edit]

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

Eden (2014 Spanish film)[edit]

The film is neither a 2014 nor a Spanish film. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 19:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  • According to IMDb it was a Spanish/American/Malaysian film, and it was released in Belgium in 2014. PC78 (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    Refer to Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 18:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    Don't see how that applies here. I'm only taking that info at face value, it's not automatically false just because it's on IMDb. Since you raissed the RfD, it's on you to support your argument. PC78 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    You should add Eden (2014 spanish film) to this nom. The 2014 release date on IMDb appears to be erroneous and probably refers to Eden (2014 film) per [2]. Maybe the redirects are meant to refer to that fim instead? Though it doesn't appear to be Spanish. PC78 (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    In fact it is, WP:TERTIARY sources are hardly reliable. Also refer to WP:RS/IMDB. And no, it is not my job to support my argument. The article never mentions a) being a 2014 film, b) being a Spanish film (other than in categorization left before the current title was adopted), c) being, and I cite you, "a Spanish/American/Malaysian film [that] was released in Belgium in 2014." It is, on the opposite, the job of anyone that supports it from being deleted to prove that Eden was released in 2014 and was produced by Spaniards. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 22:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    The decision to delete something should be based on evidence, not the vague assertions of the nominator, so yes, it absolutely is your job to support your own argument. And yet you give no indication that you've looked beyond the article, which is of course a tertiary source itself. I have looked and while I can't find anything definitive regarding the films nationality, various sites including Mubi [3] and the Danish Film Institute [4] list this as Spanish so I'm happy to take this on faith. Per my above comment I don't believe the film was released in 2014 (though bear in mind that other sites will date the film by year of production) so it's a weak delete from me. I'll also add the other redirect if you're not going to. PC78 (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @PC78: No, it isn't, just stop. Oh, the irony... "The decision to delete something should be based on evidence, not the vague assertions of the nominator", yet, you do that on your own nominations. I don't know what's going on with you and if you have something against me, but this is like the 3rd time you behave like this with me. I am politely asking you to comment on the subject of the nominations I do, and not on what I should do. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    Well I had stopped, but apparently I must now reassure you that anything "personal" is strictly imagined on your part. If you feel there's anything further to say then I'd appreciate you doing so on my talk page, but please, let's try to assume a little more good faith going forward. PC78 (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

C.F. Hanon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 16#C.F. Hanon

Junior professor[edit]

Not included in given target. See WP:R#PLA. Hildeoc (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Redirect to Academic ranks in Germany where it's mentioned. fgnievinski (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


"Mordhaus" is not mentioned at the target, and is potentially ambiguous. This redirect may cause confusion and should be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Sports rbr table[edit]

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

List of songs recorded by Florence and the Machine[edit]

The target does not currently contain a list of songs. feminist (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Florence and the Machine discography may be a better target. - Eureka Lott 15:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I created this redirect, and I agree, just redirect to the discography page. Redirect could easily be expanded into list of songs by the group just like there are similar lists for many other recording artists. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Retargeting to the discography article makes sense to me too. — 🦊 23:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someone searching this would be looking for a list along the lines of those in Category:Lists of songs by recording artists. It's misleading to send readers to a place that does not have a list like that, and the discography article does not contain a list of songs recorded either. -- Tavix (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards delete per Tavix. It's simply not necessary to have this as a placeholder for an unwritten article. PC78 (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    • ...although obviously keep if Another Believer (or someone else) is going to turn this into an article. PC78 (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget. If we have an article about "X discography", how is "List of songs recorded by X" not a plausible redirect? Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    • ...because the discography does not contain a list of songs recorded. -- Tavix (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
      • What is a musical group's discography except for songs that they recorded? I see live albums, for example; I can't understand how you could have a live album of your own work without it being something you recorded. It looks like they play music; they're not merely songwriters. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
        • A list of live albums is not a list of songs recorded. -- Tavix (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This is silly. I've started expanding List of songs recorded by Florence and the Machine. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep because it's no longer a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Justin Smollett[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 16#Justin Smollett

June 7[edit]


Retarget to Strontium. Per MOS:TM and MOS:ALLCAPS, the "code name" should not be in all caps in an article title, regardless of what sources use. wumbolo ^^^ 23:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment User:Wumbolo in future, this is the right venue for discussing future target changes, preferably before unilaterally changing them to likely contested targets. Widefox; talk 11:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Do not retarget to strontium per WP:RCAPS as implausible/unnatural. While I agree that the code name should not use caps, I do not think it natural or likely to conduct a serious search for a chemical element in all caps—none of the others have such a redirect, and none need exist. ComplexRational (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC) (edited 12:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC))
  • Keep per WP:DIFFCAPS as code name all caps is common (See CIA cryptonym) and OK as a redirect e.g. ECHELON, PRISM (surveillance program), BULLRUN -> Bullrun (decryption program) (i.e. BULLRUN does not target the dab Bullrun). 1. not an article title but an alternative name, 2. It is not a trademark so MOS:TM is irrelevant. This is a valid bold alternative name used in the article (stylised) as all caps (in several places) so it is a case of fix it in the article first (and it doesn't appear broken). Saying that, secondary sources use both uppercase and lowercase so it isn't exclusively uppercase. The case for retargeting to the element is weak, where I agree with ComplexRational. Widefox; talk 00:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC) Widefox; talk 00:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:DIFFCAPS and Widefox above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


Term neither explained nor mentioned in given target. Hildeoc (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  • keep. Self-explanatory. Instead of deletion, a solution in the spirit of wikipedia would be to add at least a dicdef. - Altenmann >talk 02:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unclear what this redirect refers to. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't appear to be a valid dictionary entry either (not in OED, but is in Urban Dictionary). Widefox; talk 22:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

International Leadership Association[edit]

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

Courtauld Institute of Art Student's Union[edit]

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

Plastic smile[edit]

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

List of countries and capitals with currency and language[edit]

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


It's plausible that this is an alternate name for the subject, but it's not mentioned at the target, doesn't appear to be mentioned in the lead of the linked Malayalam Wikipedia article, and I don't see anything in a cursory internet search that would suggest that the terms are interchangeable. signed, Rosguill talk 20:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Kuttichathans are a class of demons. Karuthachan is one them. There are around 390 Kuttichathans. Their names are Vishnumaya, Parakkutty, Arukolai, Karuthachan, Mookkan, Kappiri, Kurudi, Karimkannan, etc.
The article Kuttichathan is being continuously vandalized by IP edits and recently a single purpose account User:Athuldevcr. These POV pushers want to remove all the information about other Kuttichathans except Vishnumaya because presumably they want to support the interests of sorcery businesses like this and this. Once again I have reverted the article to the original form. You are invited to check it now before getting vandalized again. Also can you take some measures to stop spamming in the page? -99v (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
That seems reasonable enough, although it would be good to see a reliable source backing this up (in which case I would go ahead and close this discussion). As for protecting the page, it looks like no one's made any changes for about a month, so I don't think there's anything to be done right now. If vandalism persists, put in a request at WP:RPP and try to engage the other editors on the talk page. If that doesn't work, bring it to WP:ANI. signed, Rosguill talk 21:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • delete and let the search engine do its work - Nabla (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Cambridge United L.F.C.[edit]

As this refers to the women's team (Ladies Football Club), which are usually given separate articles, and which is not mentioned at the target, I think this is best left as a redlink per WP:R#DELETE #10. signed, Rosguill talk 19:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


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

Reno, Arizona[edit]

I understand Reno, Utah redirecting to Reno, Nevada, since Nevada split off from the Utah territory. But Reno, Arizona? Never was Reno in the Arizona Territory, or the State of Arizona. Onel5969 TT me 08:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

[5] apparently there was a Reno, AZ at one time, so yeah, this seems inappropriate. Dave (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. My only point was to imply that having Reno, Arizona redirect to Reno, Nevada is quite inappropriate. In addition to the reason stated in the nomination, if someone did search for Reno, Arizona they probably meant this ghost town, even though not named identically. It appears either the list article or Fort McDowell would be appropriate redirect targets, as well as creating new redirects for Camp Reno, Arizona. Dave (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Catholic Church and deism[edit]

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


A redirect arising from a merge, but none of the former content has survived at the target article. Reyk YO! 11:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Reyk: I've restored the section, which was removed in april for an unclear reason. I support that Manterrupting should be an independent article. --Bageense(disc.) 12:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep somehow. Contrary to the nominator's statement, some of the merged content has survived. During the 2016 American presidential debates, the term was applied to candidate Donald Trump who interrupted Hillary Clinton dozens of times during the first and second debates. appears in both, for example. Even the removal of the section from the current article would not suffice: you can't get rid of the content from that page's history (minus an inappropriate revdel), so we have to keep this page history. If it's a problem for Manterrupting to be a blue link, the solution is to move it somewhere, e.g. Talk:Interrupting/Manterrupting, and provide an attribution link to the new title. Alternately, you could provide a prominent link (e.g. in an edit summary) to a talk subpage or talk section in which you list those who contributed to the Manterrupting page. Since we can ignore people who merely participated in the deletion process, the list would only have four names:,, Alikehank, and Bageense. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahe Language language[edit]

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

French Africa atrocities[edit]

The target of these redirects deals with only a subsection of French Africa; not included are the histories of French possessions in West Africa, North Africa, Madagascar, Djibouti (French Somaliland), and the Indian Ocean. signed, Rosguill talk 02:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. signed, Rosguill talk 22:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The creation of a draft for the proposed "set index" may help form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Voter registration campaign[edit]

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

Eurasian race groups[edit]

The terms "Eastern Eurasian" and "Western Eurasian" are introduced in the lead of the target Mongoloid as alternative, more modern terms for "Mongoloid" and "Caucasoid" respectively, but no sources are provided to back up this claim. Sources elsewhere in the article referring to "Eastern Eurasian" groups do not appear to ever refer to the term "Mongoloid" in their text. I was unable to find any decisive evidence that these are synonyms in an internet and Scholar search. Eastern Eurasian is a new redirect, whereas Western Eurasian had been pointing at Eurasia since 2008, and was changed to point to Caucasian the same day that Eastern Eurasian was created. If sources cannot be found establishing that these are actually equivalent to race science categories, these redirects should be pointed back to Eurasia or deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I seem to be getting a mixed result here. Our article Eurasian describes the term as referring to people of mixed ancestry, part European, part Asia - so that’s completely different from these redirects, which seem to be talking about native inhabitants of the continental landmass called Eurasia. The target article Caucasian is completely wrong; it is actually a DAB page and it doesn’t mention “Western Eurasian.” The article Caucasian race is probably what they meant, but it does not use the term “Western Eurasian” either, and I couldn't even find a reference to the concept under another name. So the "Western Eurasian" redirect is a bust. On the other hand, the target article Mongoloid does mention the "Eastern Eurasian" concept - once unreferenced in the lead saying it is a “more modern” synonym for Mongoloid, and once in a paragraph with three citations talking about an “eastern Eurasian clade” of the Eurasian population; it's in the context of Caucasoid-Mongoloid divergence, so they may be using the concept as a synonym for Mongoloid. What I’m coming up with is that Eastern Eurasian may be a valid redirect to Mongoloid, but Western Eurasian should be deleted unless it can be added with sources to a target article. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Part of my concern was that it wasn't clear that the sources cited in Mongoloid discussing an "eastern Eurasian clade" were using it in such a way that we could conclude that it directly refers to the category of "Mongoloid". I would presume that if it was such a direct renaming of the concept (a la mental retardation --> Intellectual disability), we could find RS saying as much in anthropology, biology, or critical race studies publications, but my attempt to find such sources in Google Scholar was a bust. This leaves me concerned that these terms as used in Mongoloid and as redirects are WP:SYNTH, and rather thorny synth given the subject matter. signed, Rosguill talk 22:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
If I didn't make it clear (and I didn't), I am fine with deleting both of them. They seem like rather unlikely search terms anyhow - not much used that I could find. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete – These are attempts to re-task broad geographical terms as neologisms for outmoded racial classifications, as in the above-mentioned wording in the Mongoloid article, which was added at the same time. The phrases are occasionally used in genetics articles, but in a broad geographical sense, not as designating racial groups. Kanguole 14:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't really have much to say about the above, but Eastern Eurasian should not be deleted, whereas it could quite reasonably be redirected to Eastern Eurasia. It's not much, but it makes sense. ~ Amory (utc) 19:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


This title has redirected to Osprey for about seven years, but it was recently retargeted without discussion to the disambiguation page Osprey (disambiguation). I have reverted this undiscussed change, and bring the topic here to determine whether there is, in fact, a consensus to change the target. I note that many of the topics on the disambiguation page can not be pluralized (e.g. Osprey, Florida, Osprey Media, Osprey Publishing, Operation Osprey). bd2412 T 18:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak keep per views [[6]] for titles of "Osprey" and per the long-term significance criteria. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not seeing a reason why this redirect should not target the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per WP:PLURALPT. To compare, there are sports teams called the "Ospreys", but there also sports teams called the "Hawks", and that redirect targets Hawk, the article about the bird. Steel1943 (talk)|
    • Whether "Hawk" is the primary topic for "Hawks" is not relevant to whether "Osprey" (the bird) is the primary topic for "Ospreys". Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep to Osprey as an {{R from plural}} and primary topic. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to disambiguation. In common usage, the term "Ospreys" in the plural primarily refers to Ospreys (rugby union), one of the major rugby union teams in Wales and also one of the top-tier teams in Europe. I can see that there is a case for the osprey bird as well, though, so having a disambiguation page caters for both possibilities. I find this recent trend towards redirecting plurals to a common DICDEF where there is also a prominent entity known by the plural (e.g. Ravens) to be quite a worrying development. Redirects are meant to help readers get to the page they're looking for, not just satisfy WP:Wikilawyering. Having Ospreys redirect to Osprey condemns to the rugby fans to having to make two clicks to get to their team.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The first page of Google Books results has eight books on the bird, one on the military aircraft, and one work of fiction. None on the rugby team. In terms of historical significance, the earliest reference I can find to ospreys (in the plural) dates back to 1658. The rugby team apparently came into existence in 2003. According to this NGram, that did not seem to have had much impact on the use of the word. bd2412 T 15:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Most of the plural titles (like Ravens) started out as redirects to the singular and are then later edited to create a DAB page or are pointed elsewhere so its not a recent trend. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to disambig the results for this seem to be highly variable by geographic location and (likely) previous searches. My first 40 results from a plain google search are: Welsh rugby team 32 hits (first result #1), bird 13 hits (first result #17), Cambridge University organisation 2 hits (first hit #34), Scottish rugby ream 1 hit (#37), note all of the first page is for the ruby team. For books of the first 30 26 were about the bird, but #4 was about the family of a Lord Osprey, #5 was about an aircraft type, #10 was about a (possibly fictional) place and #30 was about a (probably fictional) gang. 30 of 30 news hits are about the Welsh rugby team, 12 of 20 images are about the bird (but the first two are related to the rugby team). All in all this points to there being no universal primary topic for the plural. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Any word on historical significance? bd2412 T 16:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes: it's irrelevant. What matters is what people are most likely to be looking for now, and from the evidence available to us that is about equally likely to be the bird and the Welsh rugby team, so the disambiguation page is the best place to target. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Perhaps it is irrelevant to your opinion, but it is very relevant to policy (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), which states: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". If you disagree with the policy, make a proposal to change the policy. bd2412 T 17:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
          • I do disagree that that is relevant to the redirect we are discussing here. We are concerned solely what most people are currently looking for when they search using the term "Ospreys" and/or create of follow links to Ospreys. The evidence clearly shows that there is currently no universal primary topic for this term. I do not see how it is possible to determine whether a top-flight sports team or a bird have greater notability or educational value within the confines of NPOV, given they are completely distinct topics and of comparable prominence in globally averaged search results. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
          • I also note that you are selectively quoting from the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC policy, mentioning only the second bullet point of the two methods described as commonly used, the first being: A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.. The page also states In most cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance; in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic. (emphasis mine). This clearly shows that the policy does not regard long-term significance as of greater importance than current usage, and that where the two conflict there is not always a single primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
            • Well what is this, then? The Ospreys rugby team logo isn't a picture of a person playing rugby. Rather, it looks like a bird, as if the name of the team is intended to invoke the bird known by that name. This isn't a case like Philadelphia Phillies or the Houston Texans, where the team name is merely intended to evoke the location. The logo practically says, "we're the Ospreys - you know, like the bird". bd2412 T 18:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict)The stats that I provided show that the bird gets over 10x the views as the rugby union team however we don't know how many people would use the singular v plural. I'd note that I'd never heard of the team even though I'm in Great Britain. Indeed the bird is clearly primary by PT#2 but a DAB page might work better since readers could easily find what they want but that wasn't done with Cairns which remains an article about the Australian city despite the plural of Cairn. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
              • Indeed, I'm arguing the dab page is better because the evidence shows that the rugby team and bird are equally likely to be searched. Why is the logo of the rugby team at all relevant here? What the primary topic for anything other than "Ospreys" is is definitely not relevant (WP:OTHERSTUFF, but if you want a counterexample Seahawk (dab) vs Seahawks (NFL team), even though their logo depicts the bird). Page views will obviously show the bird's article as getting more views as that's (a) the clear primary topic for "Osprey" (singular) and also the current target of the plural redirect, so everyone who wants any other meaning goes via that page first. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
                • Seahawk is a dab because there is no specific kind of bird known as a seahawk. It would be a dab if no sports teams existed with the name. By contrast, Hawks, Eagles, Crows, Penguins, Owls, Falcons, and Bluejays are specific kinds of birds (species or family), and all are plural primary topic redirects despite the existence of notable sports teams bearing those names. The same with Lions, Tigers, Bears, Jaguars, Dolphins, Sharks, even Cavaliers. With respect to other Welsh rugby union teams, by the way Dragons redirects to Dragon (the fictional creature can't be more notable than a real kind of bird), and Warriors redirects to Warrior, despite there being teams by these names. bd2412 T 20:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
                  • Whether other singular things are or are not the primary topic for their plural is still irrelevant, regardless of whether you give 1 or 100 examples of them. Literally the only thing that is relevant is what people are looking for when they use the term "Ospreys". Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
                    • Of course you have to hold titles that conform to historical significance irrelevant if you want to avoid that rule. I'll make you a deal. If you can gain consensus that Dragons should be retargeted to Dragon (disambiguation) due to the existence of Dragons (rugby union), then I will reverse my position on the redirect at issue here. bd2412 T 21:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
                      • "Dragons", being an example of something that is not "Ospreys", is still irrelevant to what the primary topic for "Ospreys" is. Please re-read WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:WAX. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
                        • I see where you are confused as to the relevance of policy here. As you have requested, I have re-read WP:WAX, and found that it is part of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Since this is not a deletion discussion, consistency with the presentation of other topics in the encyclopedia is highly relevant. bd2412 T 16:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
                          • If consistency with the presentation of other topics in the encyclopaedia was a relevant consideration then it would be mentioned in at least one policy or guideline regarding redirects and/or primary topics (and probably several of them) and you would have mentioned it before now. Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles begins Wikipedia:Article titles states as its fifth naming criterion, after recognizability, naturalness, precision, and conciseness: Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. In the "Relationship between consistency and other considerations" section it notes Consistency is only one of several title considerations, and it generally falls below several other considerations in the hierarchy of title determination. at "Inconsistency resulting from primary topic determinations" it states f a topic is found to be the primary topic for a title (or if a title is found to have no primary topic), then a second topic that happens to share that title can not use that title, even if this would enable the second topic to be more consistent with other articles in its field.. All this shows that what (if anything) the primary topic for the term "Ospreys" is more significant than what other articles about topics related to one of several meanings are titled, and what other terms do. The evidence presented (which you've not attempted to refute) shows that there is no global primary topic for the search term "Ospreys" and so it should redirect to the disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I recently disambiguated the incoming links to Ospreys. 70% were about the rugby club; 30% about the bird. I've also just fixed the articles which claimed that the game is played by actual dragons. Certes (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to disambig. The Osprey article is a mess. Until very recently, Pandion haliaetus was the only living species recognized in the genus Pandion (bird). Living Australian birds have recently been treated as a different species, Pandion cristatus/Eastern osprey. If Wikipedia is going to follow the ornithological sources that recognize two species of osprey (which is how the relevant article are currently structured, but not titled), osprey should be the title of (or a redirect to) the article now at Pandion (bird). If Pandion includes multiple living species, Ospreys might be appropriately targeted there. Ospreys should not target the species Pandion haliaetus if an additional species in the genus is recognized. People searching for ospreys (plural)are more likely to be looking for a sports team, not multiple species in the genus Pandion or multiple individuals of Pandion haliaetus (as broadly construed). Plantdrew (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep As long as there's an article about birds called osprey, this is an obvious {{R from plural}} WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If we do eventually have an article about the bird that covers multiple species, I assume it will be at Osprey too. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
We do already have an article about the bird genus that covers multiple species of osprey: Pandion (bird). -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Good point. I suppose I'd prefer a retarget to Pandion (bird), though it might also appropriate for "Ospreys" to be the title there. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2019 (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) 17:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. A plural form should generally redirect to the singular, not something else. It's fine to make an exception when the plural has a different connotation (e.g. God covers the monotheistic concept, while Gods goes to deity, which includes polytheism), or when the plural has a specific normal meaning (e.g. Queen is a disambiguation page covering female monarchs and a bunch of other things, while Queens is a part of New York City), but that's not apparently the case here. The "retarget to disambiguation" voters would do better to propose moving the existing page on the bird, particularly as Google tests are vulnerable to recentism. Much of the English-speaking world has never heard of a Welsh rugby union team by this name. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Bill King(rugby league player)[edit]

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

June 6[edit]

Elmira-Corning, NY Combined Statistical Area[edit]

Incorrect and not discussed at target.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix. - PaulT+/C 17:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear consensus for a while. What is the best retarget location?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MJLTalk 18:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't remember the last time I encountered a statistical-area name that was redirected to one of the principle cities. Standard practice for single-county statistical areas (whether metropolitan, like Ithaca, NY MSA, or micropolitan, like Rock Springs, WY μSA) is to redirect to the county, while standard practice for all CSAs (since by definition they're multi-county) and multi-county MSAs and μSAs is to create separate articles. We don't have any articles that cover this region (the Southern Tier is seven or fourteen counties, far broader than this CSA); nothing that has been proposed is an appropriate target. Deletion makes it obvious that we don't have an article on this topic. Nyttend (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nyttend. A redlink will encourage article creation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Bathroom plant[edit]

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

Rave Dubin[edit]

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

United States Court of Appeals for the Zeroth Circuit[edit]

Not mentioned at target, I don't see any indication that this is a name that is used to refer to the court based on an internet search. signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, if this existed to any usable degree, I would have heard of it. I also find no reliable source making such a reference. The only book I found using such a name was not referring to the DC Circuit, but to a hypothetical nonexistent circuit for a moot court question. bd2412 T 19:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is analogous to things like Windows 9. When you have a series of concepts known by numbers, and either you have a gap in the numbers or you have something known by a name, someone's going to wonder what happened to the missing number or what number the named item has. Someone trying to find the DC Circuit by number will quickly see that there is no United States Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Circuit, so it's reasonable to wonder if it's #0. This is a good deal more relevant for the DC Circuit than for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in my opinion, since the latter isn't as widely known; you don't hear about high-profile lawsuits against acts of Congress being filed in the Federal Circuit like you do in the DC Circuit. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    I see where you're coming from, but this is just WP:MADEUP. See "United States Court of Appeals for the Zeroth Circuit" -wikipedia, where at least one of the two (!) results is still just drawing from Wikipedia data. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete While this is analogous to other construction like it which have articles, those subjects have actual references. Qwirkle (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Just being formal about it—see my comment above. --BDD (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Alliance of the Libertarian Left[edit]

Not mentioned in the target (except as a publisher of one of the references), nor discussed in sufficient depth in any other articles. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not a usual case because there is no article at Alliance of the Libertarian Left.North8000 (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Alliance of the Libertarian Left is a redirect. This is Redirects for discussion, where we discuss redirects. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Tough. It looks like this is an organization with local branches; the Tulsa one is the publisher of the reference the nominator mentions. There's definitely reason for deletion in that we don't discuss the organization, and if someone searches the term looking for the organization, they'll be disappointed. But I can also see someone searching the term just to get a sense of the underlying ideology. Not that "left-libertarianism" is especially unintuitive or anything, but if you don't know it, you don't know it. --BDD (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • What BDD writes makes sense to me.  I'd say that a bona fide article should be created for the alliance, but that, until one is created, the current redirect should remain.  allixpeeke (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, the organization not mentioned, and we have a redirect at "Libertarian Left" which should be enough to cover the concept - Nabla (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Horizontal Polka[edit]

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

June 5[edit]

Tottenham (NSW)railway station[edit]

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

Template:R from tpyo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 16#Template:R from tpyo

Air-borne toy[edit]

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


AfD consensus to merge, but no longer mentioned at target. See this diff, where the merged content was removed almost immediately per WP:UNDUE. Note that no one at the AfD actually supported a merge, but not everyone agreed to the subject's worthiness of inclusion. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 08:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Vector (skin)[edit]

Cross-namespace redirect. No incoming links. Probably should be deleted. –MJLTalk 17:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  • If this redirect is kept, please tag it with Template:R to project page. I am currently unsure on whether to keep or delete this; it seems both useful (for those who don't know about namespaces) and unuseful (because it misleads those who are actually searching for an encyclopedia article on the subject). Geolodus (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • delete users do not need to be spoon fed. If they know enough to look for this, they know enough of the 'net and wp to find it. - Nabla (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Nathaniel Mary Quinn[edit]

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

Eddie Martinez (painter)[edit]

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


Created by @Sun Creator with description "From WP:TOPRED". The only place it's linked from is User:Rybec/failed-requests-mn which seems to just be a list of redlinks (which seems kinda odd), which also links to Internet+foru. The title is implausible, as it would only be encountered if manually editing the title while also using parameter encoding for spaces (which only happens with forms and not with normal URL encoding); this doesn't seem common and I'm not aware of other such redirects like that. Pokechu22 (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as an implausible search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The appearance on the WP:TOPRED list is ample evidence that this is a very plausible search term, indeed almost by definition we should have articles or redirects for every term on that list with a clear target. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading and implying there's something called an Internet Plus Forum. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This is typo (the + and _ keys are right next to each other) that would get VERY WP:COSTLY if precedent were established. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible, and most likely relates to a search method that uses "+" instead of spaces. Steel1943 (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


This redirect, not mentioned in the target article but is presumably an R from misspelling, is ambiguous (eg with the wine variety listed in List of grape varieties) and should be deleted to avoid confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep as a very plausible misspelling. There is already a hatnote to the grape variety, which is a much less common use than the misspelling. Abelone is a Danish name (see da:Abelone) but I can't find any reliable sources about to write an article (tons of unreliable ones though, the da.wp article is unsourced) and we don't have articles about anyone with the name. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there are entities for which the term is the proper spelling, then they always take precedence over any misspellings, no matter how obscure they might be. In this case, they're too obscure to themselves be eligible as targets of a redirect (the main candidate is the grape variety, which is simply a mention among what look like thousands other mentions in a big list, without any readily identifiable source). Deletion to reveal the search results is best, with the possible creation of Abelone (sea snail) as an {{R from misspelling}} to help the current target remain prominent. – Uanfala (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Rename to Abelone (sea snail) as a {{R from misspelling}}. That should handle search results; "Abelone" as a {{R from misspelling}} can be retargetted to Abalone (disambiguation) which lists both the snail and the grape (as a confusion see also) , or deleted. -- (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Uanfala: How will it benefit Wikipedia to actively hinder people reaching the content they are looking for because something with a similar spelling is too obscure to be searched for? I've been thinking about this off and on for a few hours and I'm still drawing a blank. If there are two similarly prominent things the correct spelling will usually take precedence and a hatnote added at the target, but if the misspelling is the primary topic by a significant margin then hindering people reaching it feels distinctly spiteful. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • There are two main groups of readers: those who type "Abalone" but are actually looking for the snail, and those who are looking for any of the things properly called this name. Deleting this redirect presents both groups of readers with the search results, from which they can see where is the article they need. Keeping the redirect pointed to the sea snail article saves the first group of readers one click, doesn't substantially change the effort required of those looking for the grape (assuming the hatnote stays), but completely cuts off the way for readers who might be looking for any of the people named "Abelone" (because they can't be mentioned in the hatnote). There's also another group: those who encounter the term but don't know what it means. Given how difficult it is to notice the difference between the two terms, we risk misleading readers here: imagine someone who's just bought "Abelone juice" and wants to look up what it is – they type "Abelone" and arrive at an article about sea snails (Eeew!). Favouring a misspelling in the choice of target has an additional drawback: it is baked into the text of the article (assuming a hatnote is added). Why should this article – a reader might want wonder – start with "Abelone redirects here", is that another spelling? Does "Abelone" mean the same as "Abalone"? – Uanfala (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Relativity drive[edit]

Used by inventor briefly during a 2006 PR spree to refer to his failed invention. An uncommon term for a fringe concept, which does not involve relativity at all. – SJ + 21:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep, the term is used in sources and it is used exclusively to refer to this concept so it is correct and unambiguous. Being uncommon is not a reason on its own to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    There's just a single source that uses it in the article, though (it's from 2006), and it's just in that reference title rather than the body. Being uncommon really is reason enough—it sounds a lot like WP:RFD#DELETE #8 to me. If "relativity drive" isn't actually novel or obscure, we should be able to demonstrate that. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


This page has redirected to Suicide and Suicide crisis. I would like community input on what is the best title to redirect it to. Interstellarity (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Thryduulf and BD2412: Anybody here? Interstellarity T 🌟 20:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I think targeting it to Suicide is the most straightforward solution. bd2412 T 20:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I still think that the disambiguation page is the best thing we can target here for the reasons I outlined above. I disagree that the article is the best repository of links - that's something that (unsurprisingly) the dab page does much better. Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
The disambiguation page is a WP:DABCONCEPT plus one band. bd2412 T 02:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep going to suicide as this is the best overview and main topic. The others are minor topics such as the band. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The base "suicidal" is a good {{R from adjective}}; lots of things could be called suicidal. For now, at least, the main article is also the best place for the "behavior" ones. Pointing them to Suicidal ideation is counterintuitive to me, since one is behavior and one is thoughts, though I guess they're not completely separate concepts. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Melissa Petersen[edit]

Not actually mentioned in the target. signed, Rosguill talk 19:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Mircea Hava[edit]

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

El Assico[edit]

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

June 4[edit]


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 14#¬

Top kek[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft redirect

Radio Shanghai[edit]

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 14#ХхьӀв

Urdu languages[edit]

No such thing as "Urdu languages". The redirect was created by a user as part of a series of edits (of a CIR type) to the category structure, where it was clear they took that to be a synonym for Hindi languages (the reasoning probably coming from the fact that Hindi and Urdu are in a way the same language). A bit more plausibly, the phrase can be took to refer to the varieties described at Urdu#Dialects, but these aren't languages and I don't think anyone would dream of calling them such. Overall, this is a redirect from a non-existent term that could be mistaken, with equal implausibility, for either of two things. WP:XY. – Uanfala (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Quite aside from any technicalities about the nature of Urdu, the redirect is worthless, because there is already a redirect from Urdu language to Urdu. Having typed in "Urdu language" and gotten a live link, why would anyone go on to add an "s"? Particularly since both redirects go to the same place? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral Could be marked as {{R from typo}} if kept. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The boundaries between dialect and language are fungible, so I wouldn't so quickly dismiss that idea. The hatnote at the target article, "This article is about Modern Standard Urdu", certainly suggests other things, probably languages, called Urdu. Still, the redirect feels redundant, and I'm not really sure how we could best serve a reader searching this term. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. It fails the autocorrect test: If someone typed this title, we can't confidently autocorrect them to either "Urdu language" or "Hindi languages". So it's best to take them to the search engine. Deryck C. 20:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per u:MelanieN (looks useless given there exists "Urdu language") - Nabla (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Collusion delusion[edit]

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

Input size[edit]

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

Computational intractablity[edit]

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

Delta dust[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 13#Delta dust


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

Local Level Government[edit]

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

Rajon Das[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: revert to older version of page before it was converted to a redirect.

June 3[edit]

Bumper (Transformers)[edit]

The various Transformers articles are an impenetrable maze of nonsense, so I could be mistaken, but I think there's no coverage of this character. It gets a few brief mentions but there's nothing to point this redirect to. Xezbeth (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete With no one clear place to point this, let the search engine do its job. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, as BDD said. - Nabla (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


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


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

International Journal of Humanities and Social Science[edit]

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

"Boots" Sheck[edit]

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

Fruits Basket minor character redirects[edit]

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


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


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 11#Template:Engrish

Drew Scott (reality TV)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 12#Drew Scott (reality TV)


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

Bad Force[edit]

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


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 11#Pseudoegyptology

June 2[edit]

Venzuela Iron Mines[edit]

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


IPL is widely used to refer to Indian Premier League. As stated even in the article page of Persian Gulf Pro League, it was formerly known as IPL but currently I think it needs to point to IPL. Adithyak1997 (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as 'IPL' is too broad (see IPL disambiguation page) so retargeting is not appropriate. GiantSnowman 09:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Template:Indian Premier League. The cricket league is absolutely the highest profile organisation that uses this abbreviation, so it makes sense for this redirect to follow suit. – PeeJay 07:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The target for this page is only relevant for editors. It makes more sense to keep the existing target, which predates the Indian Premier League navigation template by two years, barring a compelling reason to change it. - PaulT+/C 03:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Considering the current target no longer uses the IPL abbreviation, it would make more sense for this redirect to be used as shorthand for something that actually does use that abbreviation. If an editor types in {{IPL}} these days, chances are they're going to expect an Indian Premier League template to be transcluded. – PeeJay 16:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
        There is no primary topic for the term. See IPL. - PaulT+/C 17:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split all over the place
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 19:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace all existing uses and disambiguate. Clearly this is ambiguous and could easily refer to other templates, e.g. {{Indonesian Premier League}}, {{Israeli Premier League}}, maybe others. Best not to use it at all and offer users a dab page instead. PC78 (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    Can you even have a disambiguation page in the template namespace?! (I can't find any info one way or the other, but I admittedly didn't search very hard either.) - PaulT+/C 21:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    You can: see {{Template ambiguous}} and Category:Template disambiguation pages. They aren't common, but it may be the best solution here. PC78 (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    Wow, TIL. I saw that category but I somehow assumed they were disambiguation templates like {{disambiguate}}. Thanks for the info. In light of this, I have struck my "keep" !vote above. I concur with disambiguate per PC78. - PaulT+/C 13:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. Whether there's a primary topic for "IPL" matters some, but not nearly as much as mainspace. Any change here is disruptive, and for little benefit IMO unless we've had a lot of problems with people blindly adding it to pages for other IPL topics. Regardless, it would probably be helpful to replace the transclusions with the right template name—and, of course, that's absolutely a requirement if we do make a change here. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Remote location[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 13#Remote location

Dr. Salvador[edit]

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


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

Wikipedia:Ignore all consequences[edit]

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

Trade center[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 13#Trade center

Mahala (Kalesija)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 13#Mahala (Kalesija)

Virginia Giuffre[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 13#Virginia Giuffre

Lin Ah Tao[edit]

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

Ghost dragon[edit]

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

WYAY (Flint, Michigan)[edit]

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

Winged lizard[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 11#Winged lizard

Lava demon[edit]

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

Elephant monster[edit]

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

Animals (Dragon Ball)[edit]

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

Wall ghost[edit]

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

Fire ghost[edit]

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