Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
Jump to: navigation, 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.

Note: If you just 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.

Note: If you want to move a page but a redirect is preventing this, do not list it here. Place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.

Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as the only reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted too, so it's not a necessary condition either. (See When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)


Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

Before listing a redirect for discussion, please familiarize yourself with the following:

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page 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. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another page's talk page don't need to be listed here, as anyone can simply remove the redirect by blanking the page. G6 speedy deletion may be appropriate in such cases.
  • Try to consider whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader when discussing.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

Shortcut:

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Shortcut:

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 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.)
  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. Improbable typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion. If not, take the article to Requested Moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself.
Shortcut:

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or 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. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them.
  5. Someone finds them useful. You might not find it useful, but this may be because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. stats.grok.se can also provide evidence of outside utility.
  6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut:

Just like 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 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]

Shortcut:
I.
Tag the redirect.

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

{{subst:rfd|content=
#REDIRECT [[Foo]]
{{R from move}}
}}
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page.
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
II.
List the entry on RfD.

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

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For the template in the previous step:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of "RedirectName", put the target article's name in place of "TargetArticle", and include a reason after "text=".
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after "text=").
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • 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.
  • 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]]

Current list[edit]

August 20[edit]

Capital of Hong Kong[edit]

There is no capital of Hong Kong. 84.141.7.42 (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"B-Double-O-T-Y[edit]

No idea what the initial double quote is doing there... Fram (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

John Bunnnion[edit]

Too many typos to be a reasonable alternative spelling. "Bunion" or "Bunnion" may be somewhat plausible, but "Bunnnion" with three Ns in a row? Fram (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Its only one typo, "Bunnion" was the spelling used in the indulgence issued by the king, for example, and in the muster rolls, and this spelling exists in parish registers back to 1581. All the best: Rich Farmbrough11:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC).

Ronald Reagan Election Eve Speech "A Vision For America"[edit]

Unlikely search term and a lot of typing. - TheChampionMan1234 03:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

한채영- Han Chae Yeong[edit]

Another mixed foreign/English name. - TheChampionMan1234 02:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Potpoupri (album)[edit]

Implausible typo. Has existed for years so not eligible for R3. Safiel (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

August 19[edit]

Trolly Line[edit]

Delete as unlikely and misspelled redirect - the redirect was created (it appears) only because an editor was confused about the technical limitations of article names. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Bang Bang (telenovela)[edit]

The redirect should be deleted cause it's inappropriate to redirect a TV show to one of the actors. At last there's no further information about the telenovela provided in Fernanda Lima. So a red link would be the better choice and an appropriate solution in this case. 84.141.7.214 (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Intrasomatic model[edit]

delete: This was deleted in February 2013 but was created as a redirect to a passage which does not mention this obscure and non-notable notion. Mangoe (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Capital of Macau[edit]

There is no official capital of Macau. - TheChampionMan1234 03:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your compelling evidence. It's not only a pointless but a fallacious redirect which has to be deleted. --84.141.7.214 (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment there is the legislature Macau Legislative Assembly Building -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Of course but what has that got to do with the subject? For example: there are legislative buildings in Hong Kong too - but (assuming that capitalcapitol) there are no capitals - either of Hong Kong or of Macao. --84.141.7.42 (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Seúl[edit]

No affinity for Spanish. - TheChampionMan1234 03:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Visitor interpretive center[edit]

There are many many places called "visitor interpretive center" - this is essentially a generic name redirecting to a specific place Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comment. Though I did not find any others with this exact name, this is a reasonable concern. Perhaps a stronger alternative would be a DAB page? Or possibly a List of visitor interpretive centers. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • A list might be appropriate, but my concern with either that or a disambiguation is that it essentially becomes a list of parks. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Valid concerns, both... Thanks again, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not we are agreed that the existing target (Adirondack Park Agency visitor interpretive centers) is subpar. --84.141.7.42 (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Mau̯ː˧˥ tsɤ˧˥.tʊŋ˥[edit]

Unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 00:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment what is this, some form of IPA or similar notation? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like mojibake to me, but might just be vandalism. The creator was a long-term vandal who still uses IPs and throw-away accounts to trash articles and editors. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: mojibake at best. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
+1: useless redirect: not even a moji baker would rummage an encyclopedia for that "character" sequence. --84.141.7.214 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is perfectly valid IPA. We don’t keep redirects from pronunciations, so delete it anyway. Just stop calling characters you don’t recognize mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I had no idea what it is, but I knew it certainly wasn't mojibake. - TheChampionMan1234 01:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment also, its not IPA, because at the target it says that the IPA is "(/ˈmaʊ zəˈdʊŋ," - TheChampionMan1234 03:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

August 18[edit]

英文[edit]

Not especially Chinese. - TheChampionMan1234 23:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete while Britain did rule Hong Kong, and English is still legal in HK, the British Empire ruled many parts of the world, so this is best suited to Wiktionary, as only core parts of Britain should be considered for foreign language redirects. (and possible considerations for native languages of USA/AUS/CAN/NZ) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

China Aviation Development Foundation[edit]

Related, but not the same. - TheChampionMan1234 23:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. - 華碩電腦股份有限公司[edit]

Same reason as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 18#Acer Inc. - 宏碁股份有限公司. - TheChampionMan1234 23:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

French Polish[edit]

Misleading, suggests a variety of Polish language spoken in France]] � (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Microsoft 7[edit]

Unlikely search term, MSFT has had many 7s and many 2000s � (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: with most significant word left out these redirects are pointless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete too ambiguous for dab or retarget.--Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

List of The Wiggles' video and audio releases[edit]

Filmography/Videography and Discography pages already exist, there would not be a case where they need to be combined like this AngusWOOF (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: this redirect is a result of page move from title where the article resided for 2 years, and the title is completely harmless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sky girl[edit]

Retarget to Sky Girls, perhaps, I mean I could not find any uses of this term referring to flight attendants. - TheChampionMan1234 08:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Civil Aviation Administration of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea[edit]

WP:REDLINK. Completely different topic at target. - TheChampionMan1234 05:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I may have put the redirect in place because Air Koryo and the DPRK Civil Administration are the same thing, but if that's so I'll need to get a source to confirm it WhisperToMe (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Acer Inc. - 宏碁股份有限公司[edit]

Redundant title. - TheChampionMan1234 05:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom: both native and international names together form an implausible search term. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete even if we were to account for foreign language users using 宏碁股份有限公司 I see no reason why anyone would use that and the English name at the same time.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Business Machine[edit]

Computers aren't the only machines used in the workplace. - TheChampionMan1234 03:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I wonder if "Business machine" is a historical definition? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Moskvá[edit]

What language is this? Not romanised Russian, google is no help. - TheChampionMan1234 02:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "Moskva" is romanized Russian. When I look at ru:Москва the article starts with "Москва́" so I'm guessing the "á" is there to show where the stress is in the word: Russian_language#Orthography WhisperToMe (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Сербия[edit]

Not especially Russian. - TheChampionMan1234 02:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

August 17[edit]

Wikipedia:Fundrazr[edit]

Had been created in error, no reason to keep a redirect from WP-namespace to article-namespace. Trofobi (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia guidance on Cross Name Space Redirects is kind of fuzzy at best, but this seems to be useless enough to go ahead and delete. Safiel (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as G6, page obviously created in error. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. Just a mistake. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 09:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

August 16[edit]

Malik Newman[edit]

  • I have changed the redirects of those to pages to Basketball. --Nba-fan-11 — Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Nba-fan-11, the point of a redirect is to point the reader to a page that has encyclopedic content related to the subject and that demonstratees the notability of the subject. You need to point the redirect to a page that has content about the players. I think the only page on WP with information about those players is 2014 FIBA Under-17 World Championship. However, that page does not establish notability because it is largely unreferenced. You either need to create the biographies or beef up a page on WP with WP:RS that establish sufficient notability for the pages to point a redirect at that page. If you are going to go through that much trouble, you might as well find references for their own biographies.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Agreed, I don't know where these should redirect to but basketball certainly is not the place,--67.68.22.129 (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK or stubbify -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete or stubbify per IP. TonyTheTiger, you did your research on these people; why don't you write two short stubs? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Microsoft Windows[edit]

Cross-namespace redirect, seems unused. There were no incoming links until yesterday. Keφr 18:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Interwar hungary[edit]

deletion, there already exists a properly-capped redirect for this, but this miscap is the one that shows up in the search bar. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep Improperly capitalized? So what, really. No reason to delete. Kintetsu, I suggest you read through the reasons to not delete before you nominate redirects in the future. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Read it, still find it worthwhile to nominate. I suggest you not be so smug, Oiyarbepsy.
The search bar is almost irrelevant. Not everyone uses the search bar to find things. When we delete redirects, an unknown number of people across the internet click links and see "page not found" or "page deleted" messages instead of the relevant article. There is increasing awareness that it's the destination site's fault for killing links and not the source site's fault for linking to them. Seeing not found messages reflects badly on Wikipedia, and in this case, provides zero benefit whatsoever. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

IPhone nano[edit]

Invented name. - TheChampionMan1234 08:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

August 15[edit]

Mustaneros[edit]

Mustaneros, a redirect page to correct a misspelling of another page, may be removed now as it links to no other page needing it to be used and is of no use in itself.Asiaticus (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I've asked for a histmerge, as this mispelling contains the edit history for the correct spelling's article. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Histmerge has been completed. (NOTE: Histmerge usually leaves a redirect behind. and WP:MAD a histmerge is needed anyways) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and don't history merge (if it hasn't been done yet). This is a rather likely misspelling and so shouldn't be deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect and history merge: I have heard of "Mustangers" or "Mustang runners" (English) all my life, but though"Mustaneros" is not common, it has some use Mesteñeros is seen more often, as here. Both should probably redirect to Mesteñeros. Montanabw(talk) 22:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: plausible misspelling. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Grey's Law[edit]

No longer covered at the target page, nothing to redirect to. Paradoctor (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Clarke's three laws, where it is also mentioned (also uncited). Or simply revert the removal – the term is used off-site, so it is probably wiser to wait until someone finds its origin then to remove mention. FWIW {{citation needed}} was added less then a year ago. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Knowing about Clarke, a revert would violate WP:R#DELETE 1,2,5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talkcontribs) 12:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

XHSS-TV[edit]

The creation of this redirect was part of a mistake in Template:Hermosillo TV. The actual station is XHHSS-TV. There is no station with this call sign in Mexico according to the Federal Telecommunications Institute station list. Raymie (tc) 19:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Azteca Trece for now: this may be a plausible typo, and stats count is high. Although most hits certainly come from the template Raymie have fixed, clean hit count would be needed to make sure the redirect is not linked off-site. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Moropant Pingle[edit]

This redirects Moropant Pingle to Moropant Trimbak Pingle. The latter was a Maratha military figure in the 1600s; the former could (and does, such as here) refer to a 20th century RSS figure. However, the RSS figure does not currently have an article, but could do in the future; therefore, his name should currently be a redlink. Ergo, this redirect needs deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment RSS means Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a charitable group in India. Vanamonde, please don't assume that we know this.
  • Redlink to encourage article creation and because current redirect is deceptive and leads to bad links. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oiyarbepsy, it was a careless mistake on my part, not an assumption. Apologies. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate or keep, seems to be a plausible search term for the current target. Siuenti (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Siuenti, correct me if I am wrong; but I was under the impression that DAB pages cannot contain redlinks, in which case the 17th century guy would be the only entry, thus rendering the DAB page useless. Keeping would mean we are actively propagating an error. Or am I missing something? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Wait, this is the same guy as Moropant_Pingley right? So that makes two blue links for a Dab, but maybe there should be a hatnote instead. I don't see why Moropant Pingle is an erroneous search term for Moropant Trimbak Pingle. Siuenti (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Can I withdraw this nom? yes, it's this guy; Moropant_Pingley. So a DAB page would work. I thought I had tried all spelling variants to find a blue-link, it looks like I had not. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Fine with a hatnote, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Duwang[edit]

Suggesting deletion per WP:RFD#D2.

Duwang is a meme in fansubbing/scanlation circles relating to a particularly bad JoJo's Bizarre Adventure translation. (if you must know more, scroll down to Duwang here) It's not really right to point it to internet meme or JJBA because it's not really about either one of them, and neither article talks about this specific meme.

I'm not sure a reasonable target exists. Even an article about corrupted translations would probably not be quite right as this is a specific instance. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: misleading redirect, no relevant mention is available on Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 09:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - not mentioned at target; the word only appears as the name of the guy who founded this monastary Likir Monastery; but I read it as just his first name, and thus probably not an appropriate target? WilyD 10:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Chinese (Taiwan) diplomatic missions[edit]

Unlikely search term. Particularly the use of the word "Chinese" at the beginning. - TheChampionMan1234 05:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: it is not that unlikely. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 09:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - plausible search term is the standard, not likely, for an excellent reason: we don't want to fuck over a small but noticeable percentage of our readership for no reason whatsoever. This is a plausible (if perhaps unlikely) search term. WilyD 10:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Shouldn't this disambiguate between missions to Taiwan and missions from Taiwan? In any case, keep per aboves -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Chokolade[edit]

Not especially Danish. - TheChampionMan1234 04:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: it has no right to exist on English Wikipedia as Danish name per WP:FORRED, and two typos are too much for misspelled English name. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 09:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - unambiguously directs readers to the content they're looking for, which is the purpose of redirects, and makes encyclopaedias useful. There's no reason to fuck over the readership for no encyclopaedia gain, (or certainly, the delete arguments don't explain why they want to do this). WilyD 10:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • There is an excellent reason to "fuck over the readership for no encyclopaedia gain": WP:NOTDICT. We have Wikitionary for these things, and the term "Chokolade" ha no encyclopedic meaning in English whatsoever. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 13:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Northern Spain[edit]

WP:REDLINK could not find an article on the subject. - TheChampionMan1234 01:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you paying too much for your car insurance?[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G7 at author's request. JohnCD (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Added with the edit summary " Dennis frequently employs this as a gag in panel shows" . As it is not mentioned on the article, I don't see how it is sufficiently noteworthy.. Considering that the line is a routine part of thousands of advertisements, it won't be primarily from this show that people will encounter it. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair point - no point wasting any time on a RfD. G7d.--Launchballer 09:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Floorball-vs-team end[edit]

Delete. Unused cross-namespace redirect. Artefact left behind after template was accidentally created in mainspace and then moved into template space. DH85868993 (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:XNR to a formatting template, cannot be used for navigation. Not readable by an ordinary user -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: this CNR violates well-established pseudo-namespace convention for templates. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

August 14[edit]

미셸오바마[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was WP:SNOW delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete per WP:FORRED - no particular connection to Korea. JohnCD (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Piotr Żyżelewicz[edit]

He also played in other bands � (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: apparently Piotr Żyżelewicz is best known for his participation in this band, so redirect is warranted. Other notable bands he played in could be listed in his entry within target article, which is more then enough to address the nom's issue. As I gather, there are several articles about him in Polish music-related media, which on its own does not allow to stubify the title immediately (narrow topical and geographical scope of sources) or delete the redirect per WP:RED, but warrants tagging redirect with {{R with possibilities}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 13:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as creator, per above. GiantSnowman 18:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

T:SINGLE[edit]

Unused cross-namespace redirect. Keφr 10:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. A standard psuedo-namespace template shortcut. This shortcut was previously nominated for deletion three times, and was kept each time. - Eureka Lott 01:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTAGAIN is an argument to avoid. Also, previous discussions were batch nominations; at least part of the reason for keeping was that the nomination failed to address templates individually. What are the merits of this particular redirect? Nobody seems to be using it. This one hit every few days might just as well be Googlebot. Keφr 05:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
      • It might be better to ask what has changed since those earlier discussions. You haven't identified any of our reasons for deleting a redirect. What makes this harmful? - Eureka Lott 06:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
        • It is a cross-namespace redirect from article space, which defeats separation of encyclopaedic content from infrastructure, and there is no evidence of its usefulness, so it makes little sense to apply the grandfather clause to it. The template has other redirects; typing {{tl|Oneref}} is only one character longer, for one. {{SINGLE}} and other variations are free to create. Do I have to repeat it every single time? Keφr 06:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: no more or less valid deletion rationale was presented. While term "SINGLE" is ambiguous (there are single issue warnings, templates for singles, etc.), page history does not reveal any confusion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 16:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete this pseudo-namespace is not needed. Frietjes (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • 'keep. Convenient, which is a reason for a redirect of this nature. "not needed" is in a sense true of every shortcut--we could always write them out in full. "NOTAGAIN" can be a valid argument--because of variable attendance here, sufficient nominations can delete anything; it's accepted at afd that too many are a bad practice, though it has proven incapable of numerical definition. DGG ( talk ) 15:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Convenient for whom? Literally nobody uses these particular two redirects, if backlinks and visit counters are any indication: one visit every few days is just a web crawler, and the only backlinks come from deletion nominations. The "we could always write them out in full" argument is a strawman — I am not arguing against shortcuts in general. Keφr 10:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

IPhone 6[edit]

It is the 4th Nomination for RFD. See 1st, 2nd, 3rd nomination for reason. I want that page to be deleted. CloudComputation Talk freely
CloudTracker
04:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL: there is no such product, no launch date, and no information to provide to readers. This redirect is unhelpful and confusing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 07:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Are we really going to rehash this again? The last discussion took a month and a half to close and it is not even two months cold yet. Do we really need to continue to disrupt this redirect with this pointedness? To be clear WP:CRYSTAL is only a guideline about article content. It does not, however, prohibit useful redirects, especially a redirect from a term that has gotten massive coverage. How much coverage? The latest google search brings up 77 Million results, all of which link the term "iPhone 6" with the "iPhone" line of devices. Now how can a Wikipedia redirect ignore such a massive amount of coverage? This is turning out to be a classic example of gaming the system and wikilawyering, in order to prevent the redirect from serving its function.
  • Some very notable examples of articles that link the term "iPhone 6" to the iPhone include: Forbes, International Business Times, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, Bloomberg, The Daily Mail, Yahoo, India Today, The Telegraph, and many more. Not only are these not rumor sites, but these are very reliable sources, and these are all from this past week.
  • Its time to stop this charade and let the redirect do its work. Stop disrupting Wikipedia for very minor issues. A redirect is not hurting anyone, so just Back away from the horse, its dead already.--JOJ Hutton 13:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

speedy or snow keep. It is obvious that the term is used.It is less obvious to me why we do not have an article on it--if any future product is certain to be real, this one is. In the meantime we need at once a redirect. There are real problems at WP that need cleanup. DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep for two reasons. First, no deletion rationale provided. Second, This is the third RFD in six months. Trying again and again and again until one gets the result they want is disrupty and WP:POINTy. Resolute 16:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - obvious search term, sends readers to what they're looking for, and at this point we want to discourage creation. No apparent encyclopaedic rationale for deletion. WilyD 16:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and Protect. Nothing has changed since previous discussions. --erachima talk 19:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I meant the precise reverse, exactly as I stated. This is a clear candidate for Category:Protected redirects due to the continued edit warring and disruption related to it. --erachima talk 16:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It is protected because for keeping the "temporarily soft redirect" with RFD template to prevent adding spetaculations. "Nothing has changed" is not a sufficient reason. CloudComputation Talk freely
    CloudTracker
    04:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems to be an abuse of process, if the first, second, and third time didn't merit a change or deletion - why should it now? Nominator should know better and simply wanting the page deleted for no other reason is incredibly disruptive. Stop wasting our time already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Windows 9 now have 1.15 Billion results. But, those are from the sources that JOJHutton has said (BusinessNewsDaily, Yahoo, Recode)! As now Windows 9 is deleted, why don't delete iPhone 6?! This discussion will end up like Windows 9. CloudComputation Talk freely
    CloudTracker
    01:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • P.S. This is Wikipedia, not Google. or Bing. Windows 9 was salted right after the RFD closed as delete even 1.15 Billion results were found in Google. CloudComputation Talk freely
      CloudTracker
      02:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • More reasons: This redirect is misleading people who is finding info for the upcoming iPhone. This redirect will not be harmful once Apple officers have told that iPhone 6 is coming and the Shipping date. And Per the comment below. CloudComputation Talk freely
        CloudTracker
        10:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
        • More reasons: This redirect misleads 500 readers a day. There is no such spetaculations for iPhone 6 in the iPhone article, so readers don't get what they find. Instead of redirecting, how about telling them there's no such article to persuade them to find another websites for spetaculations? CloudComputation Talk freely
          CloudTracker
          00:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redirects are means of leading readers to information. A redirect that is not doing so is misleading and harmful, instead of being useful. It sends the reader after a wild goose chase: He or she peruses 58 pages (A4 pages) and finds nothing, eventually realizing that his time is wasted. It is better to let readers' search for iPhone 6 to reach the search page, where they immediately realize no such article exists. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete per Codename Lisa, people looking for iPhone 6 on Wikipedia will instead get redirected to a page that has nothing about what they're meant to look for, we don't want to mislead our readers, do we? - TheChampionMan1234 10:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment CloudComputation forgot one little thing when he/she made the comparison of the "iPhone 6" redirect to the "Windows 9" redirect. When doing a Google search, you need to use "Quotes" in order to refine the search and get the exact search results that you are looking for. Case in point, when the Google search is conducted using actual "quotes", the result is not in the billions, but a few million. Thats a massive 12 to 1 comparison of the two searches. --JOJ Hutton 13:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • What exactly does it change? How does this 12 to 1 count change the fact that both "Windows 9" and "iPhone 6" are not covered in Wikipedia, and that we have absolutely no target for both redirects? Obviously, all people searching for "iPhone 6" did type " 6" because they did not want to get to "iPhone" article. P.S.: 48,500,000 to 6,200,000 is actually less then 8:1, but who cares... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 13:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Again Oh and those of you using WP:CRYSTAL as some sort of reason for deletion should actually read what it says, especially the part that says Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Good Day.--JOJ Hutton 16:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In Addition Given the fact that last month, this redirect alone averaged around 500 article views a day and this month the views have increased, its obvious that this redirect needs to go somewhere, instead of simply be deleted. In fact, I would argue that the amount of information coming out about this product is so unprecedentedly massive, that we may need to create the article anyway, well ahead of the announcement date in September.--JOJ Hutton 19:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Please, stop flooding! 4 comments in sequence...
      Where can I read a product announcement about iPhone 6? Where can I read any information about iPhone 6 on Wikipedia? Redirects exist with a single purpose: to get reader to the information he looks for. Until Wikipedia contains information about iPhone 6, there is nowhere to redirect to. Of these 500 daily viewers exactly 0 (zero) found information they were searching.
      Massive amount of information? Please, point me to any single reliable source whose statement about iPhone 6 is more or less credible. All of this massive amount of information can't be included per WP:CRYSTAL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Last time, I said delete. Everyday 500 users (As what JOJHutton said) can't find their desired information about the iPhone Six. JOJHutton, stop it! I promise, this is the last discussion if you agree with Lisa, Czarkoff, TC1234 and me. A redirect shouldn't be an placeholder. Link to related AN/I notice: Click here CloudComputation See also: 3rd nomination Talk freely
        CloudTracker
        00:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy procedural keep Nominator offers WP:IDONTLIKEIT with no listed reason, and lists prior nominations that failed to delete it (so all previous reasons have failed). -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment Reason listed on my comment. Find the reason. I nominated this not only for WP:IDONTLIKEIT but the redirect is definitely a disruption. It misleads 500 users. Speedy keep is no good for readers. CloudComputation Talk freely
      CloudTracker
      12:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
      • "find it" is not a reason, we're not supposed to be mind readers, trying to interpret what parts of previous nominations apply to your current nomination -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
        • The reason is not to "find it"! Reason/Rationale here: This redirect misleads 500 readers a day. There is no such spetaculations for iPhone 6 in the iPhone article, so readers don't get what they find. Instead of redirecting, how about telling them there's no such article to persuade them to find another websites for spetaculations? CloudComputation Talk freely
          CloudTracker
          00:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTAGAIN is an argument to avoid either. Particularily after previous AfD ended with "no consensus". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
      • It isn't a NOTAGAIN, since the nominator didn't provide sufficient reasoning. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
        • It is. Reason provided on your comment. It's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, instead, you're favors keeping because it's the 4th nomination? I'm sure when the iPhone 6 is officially introduced the 5th nomination is running but will be ended a few days after all. CloudComputation Talk freely
          CloudTracker
          00:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep We should discourage wikilawyering and pointy nominations. Besides, a google search shows that the web is abuzz about the gadget.--Lenticel (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Sure! And what does it change? We have no information to redirect people to. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Uh, right. That's the point: "iPhone 6" redirects people to the page on the iPhone, which tells them by omission that the iPhone 6 has yet to be announced. Which answers their question. The alternative is that "iPhone 6" take them to WP:SALT, which does the same thing but in a less helpful fashion. --erachima talk 08:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
        • No, lack of information at iPhone tells nothing: the page may have been vandalized, information may have been moved elsewhere without a notice, etc. Deletion and creation protection, on the other hand, indeed would inform readers of lack of material. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No, you think the page might be vandalized and prefer the technical error message because you are well-acquainted with the behind-the-curtains of Wikipedia. The casual reader will figure out their answer much more quickly from the the fact that the page on the iPhone says there are five iPhones than to an apparent technical error message. They're both ultimately acceptable methods, but principle of least astonishment says that we take people to articles rather than error messages whenever possible. --erachima talk 09:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
          • How come it's wikilawyering? Provide a reason! Wikilawyering is just, using WP policies beyond WP:COMMONSENSE. In addition, This redirect misleads 500 readers a day. There is no such spetaculations for iPhone 6 in the iPhone article, so readers don't get what they find. Instead of redirecting, how about telling them there's no such article to persuade them to find another websites for spetaculations? 00:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment After some IP replaced the redirect with a copyvio article (that I have revdeleted), I have semiprotected the redirect for a short time. I don't see much harm in the redirect being there and a proper article made soon, when information is available. —Kusma (t·c) 14:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I disagree with erachima, I think it's more astonishing to be taken to an article which has no information about what you are looking for. Siuenti (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh Look More iPhone 6 articles [2], [3], [4]. And these are just today. All of them link the iPhone 6 to the iPhone. So its better to have this redirect that follows what the reliable sources say, than to have nothing at all. This is obviously not going to be deleted. Time to close and move on.--JOJ Hutton 18:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

August 13[edit]

Membrane Theory[edit]

Deletion. According to a discussion I have recently had with Polytope24 "membrane theory" is not an accurate alternative term for "M theory" and should not redirect to it. I do not know that there is any other topic to which it should redirect, therefore it appears a deletion may be the best alternative. KDS4444Talk 10:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • (Confused) Oppose, redirect to membrane theory of shells I thought it was clear that there is now a use for the redirect, I don't understand why this was relisted. Paradoctor (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Venetian snares/Higgins Ultra Low Track Glue Funk Hits[edit]

Discovered this by accident: can't see a CSD criteria but article clearly should have been moved without creating this. Despite its age it serves no purpose and should be deleted. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: article only resided for a day there, and the naming scheme makes this title implausible search term. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Braveheart (Neon Jungle album)[edit]

Neon Jungle have never released an album called Braveheart. Their new album is called "Welcome to the Jungle". Launchballer 09:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It was my understanding that singles and albums were distinctly different things.--Launchballer 23:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Apparently they are, although I didn't know that, and I am pretty sure I am not alone in doing so. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I could see the potential for confusion if the song were a "single" in the sense that it was the A-side of two-sided albums that were distributed. That doesn't seem to be the case, unsurprisingly, so I would have to call this an unlikely search term, and misleading. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - seems to be a mistakenly created redirect. Who would search for this given that it's a song/single, not an album? starship.paint ~ regal 12:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the song article. Someone is searching for this. It has been viewed 222 times in the last 90 days. Dream Focus 15:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget - plausible search term, and would clearly send readers to what they're searching for. No case for deletion. WilyD 16:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Whom[edit]

Violates WP:LEAST. Should be bypassed and redirected to Template:Whom2 instead. � (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: any action on this redirect will break 7 years worth of pages, so people inspecting page history will see bizarre statements like this:

    The physical properties of the final gelatin product are better.[whom?]

    Given that "According to whom?" is one of several reasonable things to expect from typing {{whom}}, I don't see the benefits of change outweighting the damage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Template specifications are routinely edited and nobody complains about breaking histories. The reasonable thing to see after typing {{whom}} is [whom?].� (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
      • "Template specifications" are "routinely edited" without making such huge changes. That's why "nobody complains about breaking histories". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Both good arguments, though I'd suggest that if we're going to follow Ï¿½'s recommendation, it would be better to simply move Template:Whom2 to Template:Whom. At that point, it might be worth updating uses of Whom2 and deleting that. --BDD (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Template:According to whom is used far more often than either whom or whom2. Do we need whom2 at all? Bots automatically read the relevant things, and rearrange things to a new format, so it wouldn't break articles. I doubt anyone ever types in According to whom, it just a bot that changes Whom into that. Might as well rename it Whom to begin with. Dream Focus 11:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

People's Republic of Kalifornia[edit]

Invented name. TheChampionMan1234 07:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep it's not a novel invention, it's derogatory slang used by some right-wingers against left-winger areas. [5]; the "K" is faux-Russian. There's similar terms for other areas of the country like the People's Republic of Massachusetts [6] or People's Republic of Vermont [7]. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Then current target is inappropriate: it doesn't seem likely that people would use this query to search for information about California. Most likely the search would be intended to reveal the context of this term. Do we have any article where this subject can be mentioned and retargetted to? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
        • This is the article that should be pointed to as "California" covers the sociology of the state, the politics of the state, the government of the state. Since the term in question, PRKal, is a critique of the state as it is, it would seem that it should point to the state article, because it is a term that criticizes big government, the social safety net, taxation, government regulation, government inverventionism, pro-environmental policies, sociological mindset, left-coast liberalism, of the state. IOW, it criticizes the state in its government, sociological whole and body politic. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Maybe if there was some kind of article on political perceptions of each state? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
        • There's the more general topic Left Coast, but that only deals with left coast liberalism, and not big government found in the state of California, as it deals with the political bias of the entire western seaboard of central North America -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Politics of California which is probably the best match. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Arguments for keeping are less effective if the phrase isn't mentioned on Wikipedia. Relisting to allow for more opinions, or for incorporation of the phrase somewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Robotrain[edit]

No one calls the L line the "Robotrain", not even in New York City. If anything, it is more suitably redirected to Automatic train operation, but the "Robotrain" term is very sporadically used. Epicgenius (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Then it should be mentioned at the target article, in which case it can be kept. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Automatic train operation. As a lifetime NYC resident, I hardly believe the term is exclusively used in New York City, but the term was used for trains on the L line because it was the first to have such an overhaul. The 7 line is slated to be next; so if my assertion in the second sentence did not apply, then I would have suggested retargeting to Automation of the New York City Subway. Thus I would retarget per The Whispering Wind. I also have not heard the term in general usage except for some specific newspaper editors (such as the author of the article cited above), but what do I know? I'm not in the loop of such 'hip' terms. Tinlinkin (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ONUS[edit]

Not mentioned at target article. Launchballer 09:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • keep has been used here as abbreviation -- I don;t think that abbreviated redirects in WP space should be judged on the basis of "not used in target article". There is no target article, and such redirects are meant as mnemonics. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, the whole reason I nominated is because I thought that it redirecting there was an error and that it should redirect to a page which says 'the onus is on...' which I couldn't remember the name of, and was hoping that this would unearth it. What exactly is 'onus' an abbreviation for?--Launchballer 19:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not an abbreviation, but a Latin word for legal concept of "burden" (as in burden of proof). Page you are looking for is onus. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: while I would prefer to see this redirect mirroring WP:BURDEN, current target is also appropriate, and this shortcut is used enough to make any changes really damaging. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep' per above. I think "onus" goes nicely with the burden of getting sources which is discussed in the target page. --Lenticel (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

ウィキペディア[edit]

Language not particularly relevant TheChampionMan1234 04:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep I don't see a problem with these redirects. Jaqeli 10:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to an rticle on appriopriate language edition of Wikipedia. � (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete at least two
I have no strong opinion about whether the rest should be kept or deleted. Retargeting to the entry on the language-specific Wikipedia might work for some of these. However it would be problematic for many of the Cyrillic ones because the title is ambiguous as to which language it is but only one of those language-versions has an article (e.g. Вікіпедія where Ukrainian Wikipedia exists but Rusyn Wikipedia does not). quant18 (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all: this is English Wikipedia, and the way "Wikipedia" spells in English is easy to find on every single page of English Wikipedia. This is just a well of WP:BADIDEAs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll just expand a bit on "BADIDEAs":
  1. These redirects aid accidential linking exactly where they should not: Russian Wikipedia should be mentioned in Wikipedia articles and talk pages as Russian Wikipedia, not as Википедия. English Wikipedia is supposed to be used by English speakers and should not require knowledge of other languages.
  2. The task of providing translations is not the task of Wikipedia. We have Wiktionary for that.
  3. These redirects are inherently ambiguous – one can't deduce whether the link Википедия is supposed to mean Wikipedia in general or Russian branch of the project. Each of them requires disambiguation, and disambiguating non-English words is not the business of English Wikipedia.
Keeping such redirects means saying that such redirects are OK, and similar redirects may be created. In my opinion, we just should not send such messages. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • For cases that are spelled correctly, I think retargeting as � suggested would be good. --BDD (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • FWIW the following table lists the targets for these redirects according to proposal by �:
Redirect Target Problems?
ウィキペディア Japanese Wikipedia no
Википедиja Bosnian Wikipedia first 8 letters Cyrillic, last 2 – Latin
Macedonian Wikipedia
Serbian Wikipedia
Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia
Википедию Russian Wikipedia in accusative case
Википедия Avar Wikipedia no
Bashkir Wikipedia
Komi-Permyak Wikipedia
Karachay-Balkar Wikipedia
Lak Wikipedia
Lezgian Wikipedia
Moldovan Wikipedia
Russian Wikipedia
Tatar Wikipedia
Tuvan Wikipedia
Udmurt Wikipedia
Википедија Bosnian Wikipedia no
Macedonian Wikipedia
Serbian Wikipedia
Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia
Вікіпедія Rusyn Wikipedia no
Ukrainian Wikipedia
Уикипедия Bulgarian Wikipedia no
Kazakh Wikipedia
Kyrgyz Wikipedia
Վիքիպեդիա Armenian Wikipedia no
ויקיפעדיע Yiddish Wikipedia partial match
ویکیپدیا ? can't find it
ويكيبيديا Arabic Wikipedia no
Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia
विकिपीडिया Bihari Wikipedia no
Hindi Wikipedia
Marathi Wikipedia
Nepali Wikipedia
Sanskrit Wikipedia
விக்கிபீடியா ? can't find it
వికిపీడియా ? can't find it
ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ Kannada Wikipedia no
വിക്കിപീഡിയ Malayalam Wikipedia no
วิกิพีเดีย Thai Wikipedia no
ვიკიპედია Mingrelian Wikipedia no
Georgian Wikipedia
維基大典 Chinese Wikipedia no
위키피디아 ? can't find it
위키백과 Korean Wikipedia no
Википеди Chechen Wikipedia no
Chuvash Wikipedia
Hill Mari Wikipedia
Ossetian Wikipedia
Supporters of retarget view (�, quant18, BDD), please specify targets for non-obvious cases. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
“ویکیپدیا” is the Persian “ویکی‌پدیا” without the necessary ZWNJ. “விக்கிபீடியா” is vikkipīṭīyā instead of Tamil vikkippīṭīyā and “వికిపీడియా” is vikipīḍiyā instead of Telugu vikīpīḍiyā; I don’t know whether these are valid alternative spellings. “위키피디아” (Wikipidia) is well-attested in Korean sources. Gorobay (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I assume the multitarget versions become disambiguation pages? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Depens on this discussion. I strongly oppose disambiguating foreign language titles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 12:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I see no problem with disambiguating, as the language is relevant to the subject of the article. � (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheChampionMan1234 08:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • delete all per "Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary," which may not be a formal guideline, but it's blinking obvious. Look, people looking in the English Wikipedia for foreign words can be presumed to know what Wikipedia is, so all these links do is provide a bunch of translations. When we get this far out in the orthography it's hard to imagine that people either can decode the word out enough to sound it out, or they can read it outright and therefore don't need our help, or they can't even tell what part of speech they're looking at. These links are thus unnecessary for the first two groups, and unhelpful to the last. Mangoe (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget or disambiguate to appropriate language-specific Wikipedias if they exist, according to Ï¿½'s proposal, as likely search terms for a topic related to the language. Keep the accusative-case Russian one, as it may be encountered in text by someone without the knowledge or keyboard to transform it to nominative. Delete the mixed Cyrillic-Latin one (Википедиja) as unlikely misspelling. Delete the "can't find it"s in the table, except the Korean one 위키피디아 which is common in Google news. And delete the partial title match Yiddish one ויקיפעדיע Siuenti (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a terrible idea. If people are in a Google function, then it certainly makes sense for them to use Google to find the foreign language wikipedia directly rather than trying to route them through us. Mangoe (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
We are assuming they are looking for the English Wikipedia article about the foreign language Wikipedia. If they are looking for the foreign language Wikipedia itself then yes, they should be using Google, the proposal isn't designed to help them. Siuenti (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - in general. Where specific language version articles exist, retargetting to those specific versions is preferable, I think. In general, no reason has been presented for deletion, nor do any appear to exist; deletion of these useful navigation links would only serve to damage the functionality/usability of the encyclopaedia. WilyD 16:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Honor, Courage, Commitment[edit]

I'm not sure the US Navy should be the target of this article. The phrase is not mentioned in the article. While the Navy describes these as their core values (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=193), so do the Marines (http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/hrom/NewEmployees/AbouttheMarineCorps/Values.aspx). There is also a non-profit veteran's organization with this name (http://www.honorcouragecommitment.org/) which may not be notable. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: as far as I know, this wording is not specifically tied to any organization (apart from non-notable non-profit), and the concept is too wide to be worth disambiguation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Chumathang[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted to move Chumathang Village there. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Another editor has repeatedly and incorrectly tried to apply a CSD tag to this redirect. So I will take it to RfD. No opinion on it myself. That user can comment here if he wishes. Safiel (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry - this is the first time I have tried to speedily delete a redirection page and I have, obviously made a mess of it. However, it clearly needs to be deleted, as Chumathang is a completely separate settlement to Nyoma where one is redirected to. The two towns are about 41 km apart along the Indus river valley. I am sorry to have caused all this inconvenience - please accept my apologies for giving you extra work because of my ignorance. In the meantime, I have created a new page called Chumathang village to fill the gap. sincerely, John Hill (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Democratic America[edit]

Not sure about this one. - TheChampionMan1234 01:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think most Americans will think of the Democratic Party, which might suggest Blue state or Left coast as possible targets. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete not the Democratic Party of America, not about democracy in the Americas, etc -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete Could just as well mean Canada, after all (/snark). Too open-ended to even disambiguate. Mangoe (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: we generally only keep POV redirects when they are not ambiguous. Canada is at least as democratic as US. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Retarget to Politics of the United States. I'm also open to Delete if we really can't find a viable target. BTW, Democracy in America is a book so it's not a good idea to retarget it there. --Lenticel (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

蒙古族[edit]

Not especially Chinese. - TheChampionMan1234 00:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

August 12[edit]

لعبة كرة القدم[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Soccer isn’t especially related to Arabic. Gorobay (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete the world cup shows lack of soccer strength in the Arabic world, the game was invented in England, so no significant ties to Arabic. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED: subject is international. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

پائولو زامبونی[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete. This Italian doctor has no connection with Persian. Gorobay (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Malaysia Airlines Timeline[edit]

There is no timeline at the target plus unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 03:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yu Song-Suk[edit]

Implausible typo. It should probably be deleted. Sawol (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Or {{R from misspelling}} and a short post on the talk page with a link to this discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Aimee Richardson[edit]

Inappropriate redirect. If the actress is non-notable, her article should not misleadingly redirect to the series in which she played a very minor role, but remain a red link.  Sandstein  01:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh, I didn't recall that. Still, any opinions are welcome. She did get some recent coverage, perhaps enough for a stub?  Sandstein  03:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

American Federation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Invented name. - TheChampionMan1234 01:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Over three decades in the USA and I have never once heard "American Federation". It's just as plausible as "United States of Russia". Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Russia does not have states. It has federal subjects. USA, like Russia, is a federation. American Federation can be used. AbelM7 (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

August 11[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive N[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Performed by Nyttend (talk · contribs). See comment below. (Non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Useless redirect. No one is going to look for this page title. Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
I created it by mistake while creating a new archive page. My apologies, yes go ahead and delete it.
Thanks, Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per G6 and G7 criteria. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Deleted. Redirects created by pagemoves normally aren't deleted, but that's because we don't want to produce linkrot by breaking on-wiki or off-wiki links. When the page existed under an implausible title for just a minute, nobody will have made links to it since its creation, so we won't hurt anything by trashing it. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Israel Occupation Forces[edit]

This is a procedural nomination from 24.47.134.133. He blanked the redirect with the summary of "Please delete this page. There is no such organization as the "Israel Occupation Forces," and redirecting this page to the Israel Defense Forces is not accurate and misleading. Thank you," which I have reverted because I don't like empty pages. The IP then left a note on my talkpage saying "the page is a slanderous and derogatory parody of the "Israel Defense forces" (the former page redirects to the latter). The Israel Occupation forces is a nonexistent entity and thus the page is inaccurate and does not belong on wikipedia." Piguy101 (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I, myself, am neutral. Piguy101 (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: this apprears to be a proper POV redirect with some off-site usage of the term. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Please, read before !voting: here, on Wikipedia, we only include material if it is notable. When doing so, we choose neutral article names and maintain neutrality in the article. But some people come to Wikipedia because they look up a biased wording or specially-crafted term from POV material. Instead of ignoring such search queries we redirect them to our neutral articles with neutral titles, discharging this bias. That is: POV redirects are Wikipedia's weapon against POV.Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: this is a hateful redirect and has no educational or constructive relevance to the IDF. Regarding what Dmitrij D. Czarkoff said; the only people who would claim to have such a POV would be those who incite hate and violence against the Israel DEFENSE forces. I, for one, have never heard, seen, or read the terminology "Israel Occupation forces" other than on the provocative wikipedia page that we are currently discussing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.134.133 (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, please scroll up the page and re-read this vote:" Strong delete It's not about whether you think the IDF "occupies" the Palestinian territories. It's about the actual name of the IDF. The official English name is the Israel Defense Forces. There is no such thing as the "Israel Occupation Forces.... " Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.134.133 (talk)
Duplicate !vote: 24.47.134.133 (talkcontribs) has already cast a !vote above.
Please read the previous discussions and guideline linked in my posting above, and in Nyttend’s just below. Briefly, a principal purpose of redirects is to make terms that are ‘wrong’, in one way or another, lead readers to an appropriate article nonetheless. That includes not only ‘innocent‘ misspellings but also biased or misleading names, like this one, that should never be used to title an actual article.—Odysseus1479 04:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Our standards for redirects note that blatantly partisan redirects are sometimes appropriate, and the relevant section of those guidelines note that one appropriate use of a partisan redirect is a situation in which "The subject matter of articles [is] represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms". A quick Google search reveals numerous uses of this term to refer to the IDF, so this is clearly the kind of situation covered by the redirects standards. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete Although such redirects may sometimes be appropriate, please enlighten me as to what is appropriate in this case. The google results I found all come from terrorist organizations' websites such as electronicintifada.com aljazeera.com . Do you believe that terrorism's POV is the correct one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christinamorsi (talkcontribs) 02:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Closing admin, please note that Christina has double-voted. Christina, please note that we have a neutral point of view policy — we try to represent multiple perspectives when they exist, especially in contentious situations such as Israel-Palestinian issues. We need to present the Israeli POV and the Palestinian POV without saying which is the correct one. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • DELETE Dear Nyttend, please note that Christina was not talking about Palestinians. Although many terrorist factions do reside and operate amongst the Palestinians, I believe Christina was speaking specifically about terror groups. Again, there is no clear POV issue at hand; The official and internationally recognized name is Israel Defense Forces. Israel Occupation Forces is a made up name for a made up organization which has no legitimacy in the non-terrorist and/or international vernacular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEagleScout (talkcontribs) 03:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC) TheEagleScout (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment it can possibly be retargetted to Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep It redirects to the article the person would probably have in mind. Nytten has given what I think is the correct argument about POV redirects. We make them within reason. It's not totally hateful or implausible even for someone with a neutral POV. It is only incorrect according to some but not all Israeli views, and even those do not make it "hateful" . An improper Redirect would be something like "Army of Occupation" IDF without the specification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs) 09:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the real improper redirect would be something like Middle Eastern Murder Force to IDF. Army of Occupation would changed to disambiguation. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Bangerz: Reloaded[edit]

Delete, because this project was nothing more than a rumor that has faded as fast as it came about. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Replacement parameter[edit]

PRODed with the reason "I cannot find this topic in the directed article at all". The term indeed does not appear verbatim at the target, though to be fair there is a mention of "replaceable parameters (aka replacement variables or batch file parameters %1, %2, %3, %4, %5, %6, %7, %8, %9, and %0)". But this variability in terminology suggests that this is not really an established term, and perhaps a redirect is not warranted here (WP:RFD#DEL #8 "obscure synonym").

For the record, if this is kept, it should not be marked {{R with possibilities}}; such a trivial topic does not warrant an article, and whether this content is in-scope is already questionable. We have no articles about , $2 and $3 in Unix shells either and not just by accident.

(Apologies for the verbosity.) Keφr 16:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: apparently it is not obscure at all. I agree that this is not an {{R with possibilities}}, or at least the topic should evolve from its parrent article first. I am not sure that current target is appropriate, but I can't find anything better. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Okay, that is some argument for keeping, though that article seems to refer to environment variables in general. Keφr 16:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
      • This article basically shows that this wording is used in this context. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • redirect to Evaluation strategy#Call by name Microsoft is far from the only user of this term, and from what I can tell all it means is that, in an interpretive language, the text value of the parameter is dropped into the expression and then interpreted in place as part of the whole. It is perhaps not exactly what they had in mind in Algol 60 but at any rate the appropriate target is somewhere either in this article or in Parameter (computer programming). Mangoe (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Hm, I don't see the term being used in that article. Can you point us to a source, where it is being used in this context? (I do see your point that someone could adopt an "ad-hoc" usage of the term for this concept, but that's different from being used in the literature over a long time.) There are other semantically related articles like f.e. argv, but I could not find the term being used for this purpose in the literature either. If we can establish alternative meanings, changing the redirect into a disambiguation page would be the proper route to go. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Microsoft and IBM seem to be consistent to name these parameters either replacement parameters or replaceable parameters, whereas Digital Research, Novell and Caldera consistently use(d) the term replacement variables and JP Software (a maker of various powerful alternative command-line processors, and therefore also "authorative" in this regard) consistently calls them batch file parameters. So, while there is no single term used by all, the companies who implemented this feature in their operating systems and/or shells were at least consistent in their own usage over ca. three decades. I do think this warrants a redirect to catch the term. Ideally, it should go to an article about batch file processing in DOS, OS/2 and Windows, but since there does not appear to be a suitable article at present, I parked it in the SHIFT batch command section, which, over time, will become an article of its own and then certainly discuss these parameters in somewhat better details. Another link target could be a generic article also explaining similar parameters in Unix shells. If specifically the term "replacement parameter" would be used also in other contexts, the redirect could become a disamgiguation page. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The article about batch file processing is called, quite unsurprisingly, Batch file. What makes it unsuitable? Keφr 16:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Nothing in general, except for that it does not even mention these parameters at present (unless I'd have overlooked it). Otherwise, I would consider it a better target for the redirect than the SHIFT section in the list of DOS commands. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I have added a short section about these parameters (subject for expansion) to the batch file article and retargetted the redirect accordingly. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It is the computer science/programmer community as a whole that is authoritative. One can easily search on the term and see it being used outside the context of MS's products. Mangoe (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Actually, searching the web I only found this term being used in conjunction with the PHP preg_replace function and (but this appears to be more by chance than as a deliberately chosen term) SQL query user parameters. I could not find it used anywhere (except for in its batch parameter meaning) in Wikipedia. In either case, if the term needs to be disambiguated, because it will be used in other articles for other purposes in the future, we can simply change it into a disambiguation page then, like we normally do. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy Kehrt[edit]

Non notable minor league ballplayer... doesnt meet the notability requirements for the list page so redirect is unnecessary Spanneraol (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes he does not meet the inclusion criteria and he is not included in the list.Spanneraol (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
He is mentioned in table at Los Angeles Dodgers minor league players#Double-A, which is enough to keep this redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. The page has information on him, and notability isn't a criterion for redirects. We sometimes delete redirects to encourage the creation of articles, because redirects can hinder article creation — that's part of a reason for having this redirect, since he shouldn't have an article, and the redirect makes it less likely that someone will create an article about him. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Aholic[edit]

delete. As -aholic exists, a search should find the concept anyway. Somewhat confusing, as the word (without hyphen) is never used in the real world. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep -aholic exists, so aholic can also exist (we shouldn't expect people to be experts at writing dictionaries, if this suffix is important enough to merit a redirect, then this form should also exist). -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    Nonsense. WP:Redirects are cheap, but one that is clearly grammatically wrong and would show up in the default search is not useful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    You can easily strip it from search results with {{R from typo}} ; whether it is grammatically correct or not is immaterial to the existence of the redirect. Indeed, it is useful because it is not grammatically correct, since not everyone writes dictionaries and grammar books. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    NOTE if -aholic is deleted, then "aholic" can be deleted, but if "-aholic" is kept, then "aholic" should also be kept. IMO. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) (my IP address has rolled over) 09:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: added -aholic to nomination. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • czarkoff: You misrepresented the nominator in doing so. The nominator's deletion rationale depends on -aholic being kept. Now nobody will know for sure which of these two is supposed to be deleted or kept. Keφr 16:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I just added similar redirect, as the discussion with nom and one participant (at that time) was concerning both. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete both per WP:R#DELETE criteria 2 and 8: not words, not typos, not mentioned in target. They just confuse readers making them think it is a real word. We just should not redirect suffixes per WP:NOTDICT. And indeed Wiktionary has corresponding article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget all four to the disambiguation page Holic, and expand said disambiguation page's Wiktionary soft redirect to include -aholic and -oholic. Don't delete the versions without a dash because I'm under the impression that people assume typing an initial minus in Wikipedia's search box means "exclude this word" as it does on web search engines. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. The suffix "-aholic" is well known in the real world. People may want information about it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
And where do we provide information about it? Not at the target article, at least. --BDD (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. As Anthony notes, the concept is well known and commonly used to indicate addiction. We can always have a hatnote on Addiction telling readers to go to Wiktionary if they want to read about etymology and other dictionary-type things that won't belong in an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Oholic[edit]

move (without redirect) to -oholic. Again, a search should find the concept (once the move is done). The word (without the hyphen) is not used in the real world. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep per nom. Yes, that's what I meant to say: as the IP says, if -oholic should exist, the hyphen-less version also ought to exist. Spelling/punctuation variants, such as the omission of an initial hyphen, ought to have redirects. Nyttend (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Time in Colorado[edit]

Delete. All other bluelinks at {{Time in the United States}} are articles (some minimal, some extensive), and having a bluelink for Colorado makes it appear that no article is needed for the state. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: I don't see an encyclopedic topic here. Apparently there are no time-related nuances in Colorado that would warrant an article, thus defeating WP:RED rationale. It seems more appropriate to create such redirects for all similar states and replace them with [[Time in the United States|other]] link in the template. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • There aren't any at the present time, but an article could easily discuss time in Colorado before standard time zones were created in 1883, as well as developments in the state's timekeeping (e.g. observance of daylight saving time) between 1883 and 2014. Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Does this discussion indeed belong to the separate article? My concern is that this article will end up as collection of trivia that could be described better in Time in the United States. Eg. the topic of DST observance definitely would benefit from more context, and timekeeping in Colorado before 1883 was not much different from neighbour states either I suppose. (I may easily be wrong here.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 01:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Someone familiar with Colorado history (in other words, not I) could put together a discussion of time-related differences from city to city, as well as the process of implementing time zones. Numerous states have gone without daylight saving time at various points; we could mention Colorado's resistance to DST or the fact that it never resisted it. Meanwhile, the state's not always been uniformly Mountain Time — see File:Time zone map of the United States 1913.tif, which shows that a little bit in the northeast was Central. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

MediaMatter.com[edit]

The correct website is mediamatters.org. This redirect is wrong in that it:

  1. omits the plural 's'
  2. uses .com instead of .org.

It should be deleted because it is factually incorrect and not useful. Contrast this with MediaMatters.com, which is useful, because it is a registered domain name of the organization that redirects to their official website, and therefore is useful in Wikipedia as well. Senator2029 “Talk” 10:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: combination of plausible typos make this overall implausible. This URL may lead to completely different contant, making this redirect confusing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Jungguk[edit]

Not especially Korean - TheChampionMan1234 04:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • It's unfortunate we don't have those redirects but that's not a reason to make the problem worse per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. These redirects may be useful for people whose first language isn't Korean but can understand it to some extent and/or who don't have access to a Korean keyboard. Siuenti (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I think Siuenti's argument is correct. If it's an official minority language of a country we should have the redirect in all cases. I unfortunately do not have the linguistic ability to make them accurately, or I would do so. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • There are 56 officially recognized languages in China. Several of these languages have different written forms and prominent dialects, probably amassing to 500+ ways to state those two terms that are subjects of this discussion. Am I getting you right – you suggest to create redirects for all of them? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Tsaina[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what language this is, but whatever it is, not relevant to the target. - TheChampionMan1234 03:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Update According to Wikidata, it is the spelling in several languages (tl:Tsina war:Tsina ceb:Republikang Popular sa Tsina ilo:Tsína] etc) But none of these languages are related to the target.- TheChampionMan1234 04:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Update "Tsaina" does not appear to be any language, also according to Wikidata (see d:Q29520 and d:Q148 - TheChampionMan1234 04:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: I am not sure what it is, but I see no indication that it is connected to the subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Filipinos do call the country "Tsina" but our language didn't originate from China. --Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it maybe did (Austronesian peoples), but this is so long ago that it doesn't change anything. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

ZRG[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Mirgan language. JohnCD (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Not an abbreviation for China. - TheChampionMan1234 03:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

TL;DR: I created it and see no reason to keep it.
"ZRG" is not an abbreviation for "China"; I intended it as an abbreviation for Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó. I created "ZRG" in May 2008 as a redirect not to "China" but to "People's Republic of China", which at that time was not another redirect but the location of the actual article. In September 2011, somebody moved the "People's Republic of China" article to "China". Before that move, having a redirect from "ZRG" to "People's Republic of China" perhaps made some sense for when you wanted to go to "People's Republic of China" but were too lazy to type "People's Republic of China" and wanted to avoid fully loading an article on "China" in general and somehow didn't know the common abbreviation "PRC".
Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages, "examples of appropriate use of foreign-language redirects include original or official names … of places". But it doesn't say anything about abbreviations of such names, and I don't think the abbreviation ZRG is used much, either officially or inofficially. Pinyin abbreviations are very common in URIs of Chinese sites, but almost all such URI abbreviations I've seen didn't skip syllables, so Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó would be zhrmghg, not zrg. To sum up, ZRG is probably just an unknown, made-up, at best very uncommon (in either language) abbreviation of the official romanization (presidential order no. 37, §18) of the state's official name in the state's official standard language. Wikipeditor (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

China;[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Implausible typo. - TheChampionMan1234 03:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of comedies[edit]

Ambiguous. No real one target for this anyway. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • disambiguate or listify, we also have other lists this can be used to point to such as List of comedy films -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate, because the vast majority of comedies are stage plays, in addition to what 65.94.169.222 says. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Convert into a list of lists (in this case, different lists of comedy types)--Lenticel (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

August 10[edit]

Am I Wrong 7" vinyl[edit]

Not mentioned at target article. (A while back I XfDd Am I Wrong CD 1 and Am I Wrong CD 2 for the same reason, but as it was not explicitly mentioned at that discussion, I don't think this counts?) Launchballer 21:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Redirect to more normally formatted single redirect Am I Wrong (Mull Historical Society song). Actually there was an article on this single which was deleted without AFD, probably correctly, this 7" redirect is a legacy from that. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not sure where to look for that info, but I would !vote delete if there was no 7" vinyl or keep and mention if there was. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Markovian parallax denigrate[edit]

Delete. The target page has nothing to do with the redirect except beginning with the same word. "Markovian parallax denigrate" refers to a Usenet spamming incident in 1996, which has previously been deemed non-notable, and which is not mentioned in the Markovian page. 75.4.20.212 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Easter Island Syndrome[edit]

Unhelpful and misleading redirect: no indication in target page what the syndrome is. ÷seresin 06:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. As far as I can tell, the term was coined by William E. Rees in a 2002 article published in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society.[10] Rees refers to the idea in this way: "The exuberant flowering of complex societies seems invariably to be followed by their unceremonious wilting and collapse." Rees' idea is based upon the concept of unsustainability (or non-sustainability) previously described by Jared Diamond in 1995 in an article called "Easter's End", published in Discover Magazine.[11] In 2004, economist Palanisamy Nagarajan began using the term in several of his published papers, and some others refer to his work when the term comes up.[12] Nevertheless, Amardeep Dhanju seems to suggest that Rees is responsible for the term.[13] The term was first added to the encyclopedia in 2003 by a Canadian IP.[14] In 2004, after reading the ecophagy article, I created the redirect to point to the term at that target.[15] Unfortunately, a year later, an IP erroneously removed the material from the article and it has remained deleted ever since.[16] After the deletion, the redirect has been moved, vandalized, and moved again.[17] It is very likely that the reason the redirect was changed to the current target was a result of the 2008 paper "Economic Growth and a Low Carbon Economy―Does the Earth Suffer from an “Easter Island Syndrome”?"[18] So clearly, the question isn't whether the redirect should be deleted, the question is, what target should hold the corresponding content? Furthermore, this nomination has me concerned that people aren't checking to see that IPs have deleted content that was formerly a target for a redirect. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see any mention of this theory in current target, and more importantly I see no reason to mention it there. Retarget to William E. Rees and mention. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Áustria[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not especially portuguese - TheChampionMan1234 00:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Portugal was not part of the Holy Roman Empire, no significant linkages -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED: Portugese is not significant language within modern Austria, so no reason to have this redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

法國[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not especially Chinese. - TheChampionMan1234 00:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete even though the French Concession (French Quarter) is part of Shanghai, it's not a very significant relationship. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED: no specific ties. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Chartered Institutue of Library and Information Professionals in Scotland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a misspelling that I don't believe needs a redirect, it should probably be deleted. XeroxKleenex (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. This looks like a rather unlikely typo to me. De728631 (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: implausible typo. There are many similar typos to make in this title alone. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

August 9[edit]

Jazzi Peak[edit]

Not mentioned at target article. Launchballer 13:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep and mention: translation of the native name to English. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 14:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak delete (I made this redirect a long time ago but I don't remember why and I wouldn't do it now). "Jazzi peak" is not a real name, just my literal translation from Italian. And it could be also "Jazzi summit", "Jazzi mountain" etc.. So I don't think we should keep this redirect, but I don't really mind it either. ZachG (Talk) 15:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep this is why redirects should sometimes have documentation. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Preventive medicine in islam[edit]

Not covered. - TheChampionMan1234 12:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Medicine in the medieval Islamic world, which appears to match subject most closely. That said, I am not sure this page is worth retention: its title does not appear to be a plausible search term, and page views stats suggest that even bots are not particularily interested. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 13:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I have seen many redirects titled X in Y X of Y, List of X's in Y etc, that all redirect to Y. Is there a guideline, or at least an essay about this? - TheChampionMan1234 03:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Witches' milk[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

not sure about this - does it make sense to keep such spelling variations as redirects? Richiez (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: pretty valid {{R from misspelling}}, and probably even {{R from plural}} (I don't know whether plural form is common). While wording of nomination implies deletion, no deletion rationale is presented or is obvious from situation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 12:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep spelling variations are why redirects exist -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep plausible plural form -Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ukraine map[edit]

Unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 07:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

South-East Ukraine[edit]

Not quite sure what I should do with these. - TheChampionMan1234 07:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget both to Novorossiya: both current targets are inappropriate. The term "Юго-Восточная Украина" is a disambiguated reference to the geopolitical region "Eastern Ukraine" (the latter name is claimed by more prominent economical region "Eastern Ukraine"). Despite its name and maps in Russian Wikipedia article this region does not match territory of South Ukraine and East Ukraine. The division mostly refers the prevelence of political views rising from historical split of modern-day Ukraine between Austro-Hungary and Russian Empire, so retargetting these pages to the section about modern use of the name of historical entity that gave birth to this item of aforementioned geopolitical division makes most sense to me.
    Still, I would strongly prefer a different target, because currently the term "Novorossiya" is pushed by Russia, and Wikipedia should not take sides in 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.
    Whatever happens to these redirects, Southeastern Ukraine should be tagged with {{R with possibilities}}. While it qualifies for WP:RED, I strongly oppose deletion, because the red link will quickly turn into an outrageously biased article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

M'sia[edit]

This is by no means an abbreviation for Malaysia - TheChampionMan1234 07:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: an IP attempted to add this note yesterday but was stopped by the abuse filter. See [19] for details. I have no comment myself. Nyttend (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Current events[edit]

Inappropriate CNR. - TheChampionMan1234 00:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • REtarget to news -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: IMO this is the rare case of appropriate CNR, as the search term "current events" is most likely used in attempt to find out the list of articles about current events. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirects to Portal space should not be considered cross-space redirects. The whole point of this is that we don't take readers to a non-reader portion of the site - but Portals are written for readers. Thus, Article -> Portal should never be considered a cross-space redirect and such targets should be kept as appropriate. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

August 8[edit]

North Carolina State[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep and add hatnote. JohnCD (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I recommend this be turned into a disambiguation page that suggests either North Carolina or North Carolina State University. As it is currently, this redirect might be confusing, especially for people unfamiliar with United States universities. (I listed it here because I want to know what other editors think.) --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 20:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

My new opinion, per the discussion, is Keep, adding hatnote. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 12:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: as I gather, this wording is frequently used in reference to target and follows the common pattern. A hatnote may be used on target article, although I think that wikilink to the article about the state in the very first sentense of the article already does the job. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per nom. The State of North Carolina, North Carolina State University; doesn't seem to be an article on the prosecutor's office/state district attorney/state attorney - 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
    • DABs are not normally created for disambiguating between two articles. Please see WP:TWODAB for details. Also note, an article on the prosecutor's office/state district attorney/state attorney is ruled out of this hypothetic DAB by WP:PTM. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 07:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, they're not normal, but this might be a special case. From the page, "If neither of the two meanings is primary, then a normal disambiguation page is used at the base name." --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 12:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Primary topic is pretty obvious here: the university is routinely called by this name, while this wording, particularily with capitalized "State" is not a typical reference to the state. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 12:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per czarkoff, since this in reference to the state would be a typo —PC-XT+ 18:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and add hatnote.--Lenticel (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Portal:South Korea[edit]

Misleading target, there is no SK portal, even though there is an portal for North Korea, so its best to delete it until someone can make a portal specifically dedicated to South Korea TheChampionMan1234 00:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep portals are not WP:REDLINK applicable. The Korean portal deals with both North and South, so is a useful navigation point. Writers of portals are supposedly experienced Wikipedians, so should be able to bypass the redirect and rewrite it into a portal if they feel they want to do so. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading, since it indicates that there is a portal specific to South Korea, when there is not. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: this redirect adheres to naming scheme of portals and takes readers to the most relevant portal. I strongly disagree with idea that redirects from related topics and subtopics imply logical equity. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 16:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep for now as a redirect to the most appropriate portal Wikipedia has, until something better comes along —PC-XT+ 02:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Red link to encourage portal creation, just like we would do with an article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment you've already lodged an opinion on 23 July -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and comment I share the same reason as others who voted keep. Is somebody willing to create a portal for South Korea? Jaewon [Talk] 15:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:PAGENAME[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator, judging by this edit and this comment on my talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Re-target WP:PAGENAME to WP:Page name, considering the following:

  • WP:Page name has no redirect to its title, and I see very little choice other than wp:pagename.
  • While WP:PAGENAME goes to Magic words#variables, the shortcut WP:VAR is published, which is great. Magic words also provisions fifty-five other redirects for itself, which is great.
  • Page name is an important project page that needs that particular redirect to ease its use and encourage its use. It champions a consistent, concise, standard terminology featuring "pagename" (and "fullpagename" and "namespace") for future-wiki instructing and explaining day to day operations on template and admin page instruction. It is mature and stable, now for almost two years. OTOH {{PAGENAME}}, {{FULLPAGENAME}}, {{NAMESPACE}} (and many other variables) are important for specialists, but it seems to me that the average user experience is more with Wikipedia terminology on the many rendered pages than the few hidden MediaWiki variables, because there are probably tens of thousands of times more project readers than coders. For related rationales that supports lost "new admins" against "established" habits see
  • Searching just Project and Template namespaces for pagename shows that "magic" accounts for about 20% of the hits. So it would seem there's probably more usage of "page name" than "magic words" in the template and admin documentation.
  • Help:PAGENAME exists, but not balanced with WP:PAGENAME. — CpiralCpiral 04:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom and place a hatnote {{redirect|WP:PAGENAME|PAGENAME variable|Help:Magic Words}} (this redirect is here since 2007, and it may be burried down the edit histories of several talk pages). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ffox[edit]

It is also an abbreviation for OMX Helsinki 25. Its not common as an abbreviation for Firefox. —— TheChampionMan1234 03:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MAKINGSHITUP[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly a case of biting the newcomers. It was deleted at a previous RfD but subsequently got recreated. —— TheChampionMan1234 03:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It actually was not recreate and is a separate redirect that existed before the other deletion and was simply overlooked. I don't think it is necessary and even if it was kept I think Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A11 would be a better choice though I still don't think it's needed.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete per WP:SHIT. Considering one of the meanings of shit, it officially conflates imagination and waste, as if to say "don't even think", like the unencyclopedia web site would. Delete unless our administration is faddish. — CpiralCpiral 21:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:GRATUITOUS. Profanity should not be included for its own sake. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 22:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: strictly speaking, I see no valid deletion rationale for this redirect, but nevertheless usage of such shortcuts never helps making discussion productive, particularily in discussions about including some content hanging on WP:OR border. FWIW Wikipedia:Offensive material (which Cpiral and Gdfusion refer to under respective shortcuts) is content guideline, and does not apply to redirects in "Wikipedia" namespace. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kobiecie[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Not especially Polish. —— TheChampionMan1234 03:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Yhdistyneet Kansakunnat[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not an official language of the UN. —— TheChampionMan1234 00:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

August 7[edit]

WhitesCantBeRaped[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. No policy compliant delete rationale has been presented. In the event that this phrase is removed from the target at a future date then this redirect would need to be revisited. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a completely unreasonable redirect. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Question Why? NotBetaFive (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't see the problem. It redirects to a sourced section of another article. Unless we think that it's an implausible search term it should probably be kept.- MrX 22:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: completely reasonable redirect, hashtag is discussed in target article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 01:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

UkrAine[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete as R3 [non-admin closure] � (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a search term generally used. No source call Ukraine as UkrAine. And this is not a typo that people often make. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete under WP:R3, as a recently created redirect from implausible typo or misnomer. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cars 3 (2013 3D animated sequel film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete as G5 (block evasion) [non-admin closure] � (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Highly unlikely redirect. Created by sock of a blocked user. SummerPhD (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

冰岛[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not especially Chinese. —— TheChampionMan1234 06:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Slovaquie[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not related to any of these languages. —— TheChampionMan1234 06:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Templates on Wikipedia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Recently created, unlikely search term, unhelpful. —— TheChampionMan1234 06:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: rather pointless XNR promoting the worst possible path for getting used to Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete XNR redirect to pipeworking, not for the readership -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

No original resarch[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely search term if not referring to project policy, it is mentioned nowhere at the target except for a hatnote. - TheChampionMan1234 04:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOR is not something for the readership, so anyone linking to the current redirect expecting WPNOR, will be mislinked, and original research is something research covers. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: apparently this wording has no strong connection with anything but WP:NOR, and creating another XNRs as an outcome of RfD is something I would like to avoid. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: NOR is a WP policy. This redirect avoids violating WP:META by making no sense. We don't need it. NotBetaFive (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Uragan (spaceplane)[edit]

The only mention of Uragan in this article is in an external link, now that the section on it has been removed. An ip requested this be either mentioned in the article or the redirect deleted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#A very small tropical disturbance. I believe this is similar to reason #10 for deletion. —PC-XT+ 04:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  • According to Gleb Lozino-Lozinskiy this project never existed. Apparently there was a project of space rocket Uragan, which would serve an good target for this redirect if "(spaceplane)" disambiguator was not attached – space planes and space rockets are sufficiently different topics. Reported off-site link for this subject deserves some explanation; I can't find any appropriate target, so I could suggest to retarget this redirect to Uragan DAB, where its entry should be changed to
    • Uragan, rumored, reportedly non-existing Soviet project of spaceplane
    On the other hand, incoming links for baseless speculations should be punished, so it could make as much sense to delete this redirect per WP:CRYSTAL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I would support either of those options. —PC-XT+ 05:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate[edit]

What is this supposed to mean? - TheChampionMan1234 01:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-neutral —PC-XT+ 04:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Ok, I see how this could be acceptable as an opinion redirect. I retract my !vote. —PC-XT+ 05:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment the former name for AfD was VfD -- votes for deletion , so this is commentary about the Wikipedia deletion process in the form of a redirect. (like WP:DRAMA used to [20] about WP:AN) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: this redirect expresses opinion of its author about the process. I just don't see a valid deletion rationale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

All right good night[edit]

Unlikely search term as these were not the correct words, this quote is not mentioned at the target, see [21] - TheChampionMan1234 01:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: plausible search term. It is much easier to remember then any other details about missing flight. I don't think that missing comma makes any difference in this regard. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - not really a plausible search term, since the misreporting was refuted. Unlikely that someone would search using the term because all they could remember of the reporting was a single phrase and not the airline, or the date of disappearance, or any of more natural searches. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for now per Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, with support for renomination in a few months. I expect the term will only become less used, and would support immediate deletion, except that I know people don't remember (or don't want to spell) Malaysian airlines, flight numbers, dates or other details that are less memorable to them, and use fleeting terms like this. —PC-XT+ 19:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:SinSQ800-805/Singapore Airlines[edit]

Inappropriate redirect from article space. - TheChampionMan1234 00:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Italië[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

All of these languages aren't related to the target. - TheChampionMan1234 00:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Seoul International Film Festival[edit]

It redirects to Seoul, which has one sentence about the film industry (in the Museums section, not the Festivals one). That sentence does not mention the festival. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

August 6[edit]

First Battle of Picardy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move 1st Battle of Picardy to First Battle of Picardy. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

An article has been written which should have this title (mistakenly called 1st Battle of Picardy by me), so this needs to be deleted so the page can be moved. This redirect is circular, incidentally. TheLongTone (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

See discussion below.TheLongTone (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1st Picardy[edit]

Does not seem to be a particularly likely term to use as an abbreviation of title article has been moved to (1st Battle of Picardy) TheLongTone (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history I left this: I started an article First Battle of Picardy but it redirects to Race to the Sea or goes to a page titled 1st Picardy, which is the abbreviation in the Race to the Sea template. I've tried to edit the redirect following Wikipedia:Redirect and only managed to bugger things up more.
  • I managed to change the redirect wording to First Battle of Picardy and then found that it was still going to Race to the Sea which was the target of the original redirect. Everything I tried made things worse. Please help.Keith-264 (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


The new article on the 1st Battle of Picardy is a good start - but I believe it should be called the First Battle of Picardy (for consistency). Then, the redirect can be fixed to point to this newly created article, and a link added to the Race to the Sea#Battle of Picardy, 22–26 September article. MWadwell (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
See above, there's a redirect in the way.TheLongTone (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: the title is not specific enough to establish the target, while not being plausible search term. This redirect arguably qualifies for WP:CSD#R3. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep until it's ready to be retargeted. "First X" is a common short form for "First Battle of X", and the same is true of other numbers; see our redirects for First Bull Run and Third Ypres for some examples. Any time we have a "First" title, "1st" is a reasonable alternate title. No objection to disambiguation if appropriate, but it shouldn't be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Fryderyk Shopin[edit]

Implausible typo. � (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree with Dmitrij. I can never remember how to spell this guy's name (how did he get a French name, anyway?), and those three are reasonable misspellings. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Chrome 1[edit]

The version numbers are not particularly significant. TheChampionMan1234 08:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete all, Chrome has always used a rolling release system, so particular versions are not significant � (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all Chrome versions are not significant milestones. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Google Chrome#Release history: I see no harm from these, neither I see a valid deletion rationale. All of these are partial matches for respective Chrome releases, and they are plausible search terms. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Refine target to Google Chrome#Release history. These are plausible search terms. "Not significant" is not a policy-compliant ground for deletion. For established redirects, to keep is the default action with only harmful redirects being deleted - see WP:RFD#HARMFUL and WP:RFD#DELETE. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Chrome did never have “releases”. The version number is strictly internal — read what rolling release means. (Ignore the bulk of the artiicle, since only the header is relevant to individual programs.) � (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      • What do you mean by "strictly internal"? Version number of Chrome can be easily found from the program, and they are routinely referenced off-site (example). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 09:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Chrome releases are not marketed separately, unlike eg. IE releases. � (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
          • We are not bound to decisions by Google's marketing department. When you need to describe the point at time when new feature was added, you may either refer to vague date (in April 2011) or to Chrome version (in Chrome 11); the latter is IMO much more precise and encyclopedic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 04:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
            • This is not a marketing decision. I see nothing wrong with saying that some feature was added in Fabrikam version 1.45.678.9, even if it was a non-notable point release. And Chrome versions are just that. � (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
              • Exactly. It is nothing wrong to address non-notable point releases, and it is routinely done on Wikipedia and off-site. That's why deletion rationale here is flawed and these redirects qualify for WP:R#KEEP criterion 2. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 13:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete all. None of the Google Chrome releases was numbered with an integer. That makes the redirects "novel or very obscure" synonyms for certain versions of the browser, satisfying WP:RFD#DELETE. G. C. Hood (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Taïwan[edit]

Not especially French and implausible typo TheChampionMan1234 00:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep This redirect resembles the target's name enough to not be particularly astonishing. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED, and as an implausible typo. Additionally it misleads English-speakers about the pronunciation of the target title: the "ai" in Taiwan is a diphthong and is not pronounced with diaresis (as in the famous New Yorker example coöperate). quant18 (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Taylor Trescott and since I created this redirect in the first place. Then again, should it be deleted, I won't throw a fit. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, harmless, and deprecate FORRED since it is being constantly abused. All the best: Rich Farmbrough14:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC).
Rich, in what sense is FORRED being "abused"? Such redirects are often deleted with clear consensus. Is this standard really being "abused," or do you just disagree with it? --BDD (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention if that was ever agreed to it would mean that we would need to remove WP:R#DELETE criterion 8 since FORRED is basically a reiteration of that.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:R#DELETE criterion 8: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Special thanks to Rich Farmbrough for necessity to spell it out instead of saying "per WP:FORRED". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, this isn't pronounced “Ta-yee-wan” in English, which this redirect suggests � (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Quaint18. --BDD (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Taylor Trescott, and an apparently plausible search term per the only objective factor we have, ie stats [22]. Cavarrone 15:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Stats are at normal bot-only level actually. FWIW the link you gave shows that this RfD alone doubles viewer count. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hert[edit]

This redirect page links to no misspellings of "Hertz" but to two correct uses of "Hert". : Noyster (talk), 10:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate, there are three things called Hert or HERT according to Wikipedia, I have put a suggested DAB on the talk page. Siuenti (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Dabify per Siuenti -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with above: Noyster (talk), 06:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate Apparently, it's also a synonym for "hart", meaning a male Red Deer. G. C. Hood (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Dabify per Siuenti --Lenticel (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

They are supposed to be out of bed, you blithering idiot[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close — already deleted as G7 [non-admin closure] � (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Random quote from a Harry Potter film. Unlikely search term. gobonobo + c 06:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I created this redirect purely because it made me laugh. No point wasting any more time on this - WP:G7d.--Launchballer 12:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:RfU[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion as a helpful and logical target. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what this should be. - TheChampionMan1234 04:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

猶太人大屠殺[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


This topic has no affiliation for any of these languages. - TheChampionMan1234 04:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

COPY (command)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to copy (command) [non-admin closure] � (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is the best target for this. DOS is far from the only computer to have a copy command. I'd say copy and paste functionality seen in modern GUIs is a more likely target. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to copy (command). This capitalization is used on many case-insensitive OSes. - TheChampionMan1234 04:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to copy (command) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to copy (command). Ideally this should have been disambiguated, but I can't find good targets for other operating systems. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to copy (command). I think the discussion can be closed, since I (as the creator of the redirect) agree with the new proposal. (Of course, I had a rationale for creating it different in the first place, but that's a more general long-term vision how to create more consistency at least within groups of related articles without violating conventions established by different operating systems (as we often do now), and in that vision, the target would have been changed at a later stage, anyway.) Like Dmitrij, I think both "COPY (command)" and "copy (commmand)" should ideally point to a disambiguation page, and at present "copy (command)" is the closest to a concept-disambiguation page we have, so that's fine with me. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Listcruft[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Improper redirect outside of reader-space. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: XNRs to Wikipedia essays with limited acceptance; I tried to locate an article that would mention attitude towards excessive lists in established style guidelines, but apparently we have nothing on this topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete XNR to essay not meaningful to the readership, as it is for the editorship. Further, crufty lists are not the sole province of Wikipedia, so the essay is not meaningful to other circumstances. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tomatœ[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Implausible typo, and this does not mean "Tomato" in any language. - TheChampionMan1234 03:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak keep {{R from misspelling}} -- we have tomatoe , and Dan Quayle couldn't spell potatoe ; -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: this appears to have more to do with metal umlaut then with misspelling. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 09:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment:Its impossible to type this using English US Qwerty Keyboard- TheChampionMan1234 06:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The symbol is present in "us (intl.)" and "gb" layouts in XKB, so this is rather weak argument. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete implausible diacritic � (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. œ isn't used in English, and "Tomatœ" isn't the correct name in any other language. The title is an implausible typo. G. C. Hood (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    • wikt:fœtus is a spelling that shows "œ" is used in English, so not just Mœtley Crue -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The entry you link specifically says that it is very rare hypercorrection case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
        • It is an English word that uses "œ", it doesn't really matter what that particular English word is, it shows that "œ" is used in English. My biology professor insisted on using that form of that word (I think he was emphasizing being a Brit and not a local). Other words exist with this form. onomatopœia, fœderal, diarrhœa, etc. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

August 5[edit]

No Pants Day[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was wrong forum. This has been sorted out elsewhere. JohnCD (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Restore article and edit history The edit history has been moved to a dictionary definition article without any references.  It is inappropriate that the material in this article be associated with the "nudity" category. Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Wrong forum (and oppose) - What is being recommended by the nominator? Are you suggesting that No Pants Day be split off from the Pantlessness article? Are you suggesting that the Pantlessness article be moved back to No Pants Day? Either way, this isn't the right forum. I would also oppose both of those courses of action. Furthermore, the current article is far from sourceless; there are twenty-three references cited in the article at present. Neelix (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I avoided stating an opinion about what happens to the pantlessness article.  I figure such is a matter for AfD once the No Pants Day edit history and article is restored.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As for these 23 references, which of the 23 are for pantlessness?  (Ans: none)  Unscintillating (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: This discussion was closed by me (non-admin), and the closure was subsequently contested by nominator, so I re-open this discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wrong forum: whatever this bizarre nomination may mean, RfD does not deal with restoring articles, edit histories or anything at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This is "Redirects for discussion".  This is a problem with a redirect that needs admin tools.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Your problem is not with redirect, but rather with an article edited away. Although you still don't specify, what exactly do you want to happen, it is definitely not going to happen here. If you want to delete revisions of Pantlessness preceding page move, you should follow Wikipedia:Revision deletion § How to request Revision Deletion. If you want split page history of Pantlessness, you should ask at WP:AN. If you want to move back the article and return it to previous state, you should gather consensus on article's talk page. If you want something else, you should at least state your wish in plain language with sufficient detail. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 01:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a redirect, this is redirects for discussion, and the request requires admin tools.  My request in opening this RfD is stated in bold.  This does not delete Pantlessness, and this does not involve revision deletions.  I've explained that the Pantlessness article should be left with the zero sources that it has, suitable for taking to AfD.  I don't see that your various claims for why this belongs at another forum are backed with policy, guidelines, or case history of similar cases.  This is not within the scope of WP:Editing policy, so discussions on the talk page do not apply.  Split is related, but this is not a normal split, and you've provided no evidence that this discussion should be moved to WP:AN.  We've already discussed moving the article back, and in reverting your close you've agreed that you understand that this is not a WP:RM.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
No, you don't ask for action on this redirect. You ask for action on Pantlessness article's edit history. Please, gather consensus first at article's talk page, and then ask at WP:AN. The only action regarding this redirect is its speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G6, which can't be discussed now (due to lack of proper discussion of the changes you want to perform to article's edit history) and will need no discussion if your suggestion will be supported by consensus. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 02:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you agree that we are discussing a redirect?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
No, we are discussing article, that could be previously found in the same location where now resides the redirect. We are not discussing redirect, and we are not having a constructive discussion because you opened this discussion in wrong forum. We are just wasting our time and storage space of Wikimedia Foundation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 12:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
By your own words, at the location there "now resides the redirect".  Unscintillating (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
And so what? This redirect is not the subject of your request. You request manipultion with edit history of a Pantlessness, and whatever happens here, it will have no effect on that article. No Pants Day does not contain edit history to restore, so you request can't be fullfilled in discussion of this redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment  Wikipedia:Deletion process states, "Never close a discussion as a wrong venue without opening a discussion at an appropriate one.".  Unscintillating (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment to nominator — as far as I can tell, no admin tools are needed. There are no deleted revisions in this page's history and no deleted revisions in the history of the target article: the only way that we'd need admin tools is if we decided to move the target over the redirect, and that would be a requested move, which would be advertised in different places (e.g. target's talk page and WP:RM, so that move-watchers can notice) that don't pay attention to RFDs. If you want that process and don't know how to work it, let me know and I can set it up for you. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Moving the target back over the redirect would bring with it the few sentences about Pantlessness, which are (IMO) material that needs to stay with the Pantlessness title so that Pantlessness can be taken to AfD.  In theory, I could merge/split the No Pants Day material back and cite the edit history in Pantlessness in an edit comment, but this would create a WP:MAD problem if Pantlessness were then taken to AfD, as all of the edit history for No Pants Day currently resides with Pantlessness.  And as per the above comment, there is an objection to such a merge/split.  I suppose that there is another option, which is to take Pantlessness to AfD and try to get the entire thing deleted, then I can request a Userfy to re-create No Pants Day, which by itself has survived AfD.  There seems to be nothing I can do with the two edit histories confounded.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If you want a history split, this isn't the way to go about it — request a history split specifically. I can help with that if you want, or you can lay it out for another admin; whichever you prefer, you need to be really specific so that we don't end up with any revisions in the wrong place. Just say "Edits from 2 May 2005 until X need to be at No Pants Day, and edits from Y until the most recent need to be at Pantlessness" if it's that simple, or if it's more complicated, you may need to give even an edit-by-edit account of things. Regardless of whom you want to perform the split, dump your list on the talk page, and then drop me a note or tag the article with {{db-g6|History split; see explanation at the talk page}} for another admin to find. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

TheChurchOfJesusChristofLatterdaySaints[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This should be deleted. This is a completely implausible typos or misnomers that is unused by any page. --- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: although it looks like a CamelCase title of the article, it is not. The fact that it is there since 2001 does not add much plausibility to this title, and stats show that it is not used by humans. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 18:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirects that have existed for 13 years are bound to have a wide range of incoming links from across the Internet. We're not in the business of breaking long-standing URLs. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    • There is no evidence that there actually ever was a significant traffic over this redirect. Also note: initial target was Disabilities, and this CamelCase redirect did not point to the article about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints during the period when Wikipedia disallowed space in article names, and even a full year after this restriction was dropped. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Comment: I agree with Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. There is no evidence that there actually ever any traffic over this redirect. It's a completely implausible typos that has just been sitting used since 2001. Just because it's old doesn't make it likely that incoming links from the internet are there.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep update Neutral {{R from misspelling}} - lack of spaces, thus a possible outcome when entering a URL directly into the addressbar and thinking our article page names are formatted like the rest of the web; per WP:CamelCase very old links were formatted this was on Wikipedia, and for the period after the restriction was dropped, people still made these because they were the traditional link names. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm going to say the same here as I've said in another nomination discussion of the same date. I've no idea where the policy may be that says breaking incoming links is a keep rationale but it certainly isn't one I've ever seen expressed at WP:AFD and I really do not see what the difference is between a redirect and an article in this context. We regularly delete articles, seemingly without any concern for incoming links. Why are redirects different? - Sitush (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep "Not breaking links" has never been heard of at AfD because it is hard to think of how it would be relevant; a redirect will cover the problem. The links that went to the merged or redirected article will automatically go yo the new target, while if the information is being deleted entirely, the links should go nowhere. There might be reasons for redirecting to a deleted article list or redirecting tho the AfD, but there would be obvious disadvantages in doing it automatically; if anyone would like to propose this as an option as a new policy, please let me know, & I'll join the discussion. But when we direct a redirect like this the target still exists, and the information is there, but we are making it impossible for the incoming links to find it. DGG ( talk ) 08:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @DGG: thanks for that explanation. I certainly now see why it would not appear as an argument at AfD. I'm still not convinced about why it should appear as one at RfD. To take an extreme example, if someone created a redirect They Are An Odd Bunch Of People and redirected to a valid article about some religious group, political party or whatever then the target would be retained but would we really worry about breaking incoming links to the redirect? I guess that common sense has to play a part, not merely policy? - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
That would be a delete as negative POV. A closer example would be a redirect from random letters. That would be a delete as useless. Runon names are used all the time on the web, so this is not useless. Yes, it is a matter of common sense to distinguish, which is why we need these discussions, to see if what one person thinks common sense is shared by others. DGG ( talk ) 09:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. This becomes more clear. I now also understand the earlier reference to this being a camel case issue. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
What links are you talking about? Stats show bot-level activity even including the unprecedented hit count increase during this RfD. And again: this was never an article or visible page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep DGG has persuaded me, primarily because of the camel case point. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not hurting anything, and nothing that's so extremely old (it was created just three months after the wikipedia was set up!) should be deleted unless it's quite actively causing problems. Remember that in the earliest days of the wikipedia, all page titles were in CamelCase because that was the only way to make a link, and people sometimes didn't know what 2+ letters needed to be capitalised (I remember seeing some old archived discussion about AUstralia v. AustraliA v. other options) because there was no standard. I don't know, but it's very possible that in the earliest days it wasn't possible to include punctuation. With that in mind, it's very likely that links to this redirect exist in old revisions of articles, and deleting this redirect would break those links with no benefit to anyone. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Economic slavery[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Wage slavery. JohnCD (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Current target does not contain this phrase nor discuss anything related to this concept. Not sure what should be done with this. Maybe retarget to wage slavery (which comes up pretty high in Google results for economic slavery). Wouldn't object to deletion either. quant18 (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dhanada Kanta Mishra[edit]

Fails WP:NPOL, as per the previous AfD. While that AfD resulted in a redirect based on the claim that non-notable election candidates should redirect to the constituency that they contested, I've no idea where that policy comes from. If they're not notable, why bother? Sitush (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: the subject is mentioned in the target. Notability has nothing to do with redirects, and no valid rationale for any change was presented. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:IAR. It should never have been redirected in the first place. That's the problem: it cannot go back to AfD because of the redirect but the guy is not notable and no-one has denied that fact. I understand the principle of "plausible redirects" but, honestly, we're looking at the very thin end of an extremely thick wedge if we start doing this for unsuccessful election candidates: there are several thousand in each Indian election, for example, and there are multiple notable electoins (two national houses and 26/27 states with their own elections). - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Correction: 29 states - I can't count. Sorry for the delay in correcting but it doesn't substantively alter my argument. - Sitush (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The only reason that keeps such redirects from deletion is possibility of off-site linking: Wikipedia articles are routinely linked from everywhere on the web, and there was an article here for some time. Creation of similar redirects is discouraged. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 18:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Who cares about off-site linking? I certainly don't and loads of articles that are much older get deleted. The article was created as part of a massive spam-my campaign at the end of March, when the Aam Aadmi Party was flooding Wikipedia with references to its candidates in the May 2014 elections. The general issue was raised at, for example, WT:INB and WP:AN. Most of the duds got deleted but this one seems to have slipped through the net. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Please, see WP:R#HARMFUL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Please see WP:IAR and stop being so officious about things. Use your common sense and consider WP:FLOODGATES if you allow this thing to remain (yes, I know it is a redlink). - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Common sense is failing to find a good reason to delete this redirect. Why would ignoring rules make Wikipedia better here? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
As you should know, we don't keep articles about non-notable people. A failed election candidate with no other claim to notability is indeed non-notable. The problem here is that a prior AfD, while agreeing that he was non-notable, resulted in a redirect even though there was no consensus for either that or for deletion. I've no idea why Joe Decker (talk · contribs) came to the conclusion that they did because it does not seem to be based on policy-compliant arguments unless they were thinking that it was a "plausible redirect", in which case no-one actually advanced that argument.
Now we have a situation where a spammed, recently-created article about a non-notable person remains on the project despite umpteen similar ones created around the same time having been deleted. And we have a situation where there is allegedly no mechanism for policy-compliant deletion of the redirect. This then causes a precedent whereby in future all election candidates are entitled to a page of their own even and if they are non-notable then that page would ultimately be redirected to the constituency that they contested. That is thousands and thousands of additional BLP pages that we would have to monitor aside from this one (and, I guarantee you, in the case of India they will mostly not be monitored and BLP issues are rife). We could ignore all the rules about what can and cannot be deletion under the RfD process in order to bring this situation into line with what normally happens (deletion); alternatively, we could restore the article to its pre-redirect state (also IAR) and run it through AfD again. Some of the RfD rules are spurious in any case; for example, Dmitrij says that the article has been around for a while (it hasn't really) and that off-wiki links would be an issue if it is deleted (it wouldn't - we regularly delete articles without concerning ourselves about off-wiki links and a redirect is no different from an article in that sense).
Now, give me some reasons why we should retain the redirect, other than the off-wiki links issue that is in fact a red herring. - Sitush (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Comment: Notability is not temporary. While the subject was contesting elections some trivial references about him were seen in news and stuff. Those still remain on internet. After failure in elections, the subject hasn't reached the WP:NPOL bar required by us. But he still remains a possible searchable item. I would agree on deletion of the redirect if someday someone convinced us all of how in bulk redirects are actually costly. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Eh? Sure, notability isn't temporary but he hasn't attained that standard, even by your own recognition. If he ever does (eg: he is elected in some future contest) then we recreate. Forget the rubbish about cheap redirects: on that basis, and the often-mentioned more general one that storage is cheap anyway, we wouldn't need a notability policy: we'd just retain anything that could be reliably sourced even to a passing mention. It is as if everyone has suddenly been affected by a full moon or something. I mean, I know you're sensible, Dharmadhyaksha, but that's why I'm flabbergasted by the arguments that you and others are putting up. You, in particular, are aware of the problems connected to Indian BLPs and of the sheer scale of Indian elections. Not to mention how in, say, Punjab, the commonality of names is pretty extreme and thus if we allow this precedent we're really heading towards a massive disambiguation problem. - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, the NPOL is basically discussing criteria for an article's existence. (No way am I suggesting that different lenient criterion be written for redirects of all N-essays.) But we can't neglect the fact that the term is searchable (or more practically, was while he was contesting). I can foresee the problem that would arise if all nominees of all numerous elections of past and present started having redirects; that also include independent candidates who will only be mentioned in some official notices, etc. But I suppose we have to handle that problem if and when it comes. I would side on deletion with you if the redirects were directly created based on this as precedent.....
(Actually, its getting complicated now. I have previously opposed AfDs that resulted in redirecting Hindi songs to their respective Bollywood films. In those cases, they were random Hindi-words strings. But here the notability of people is slightly more than songs. Nevertheless, confused now and hence striking off keep.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I have just (neutrally) mentioned this discussion at the India Project talk page. Is there anywhere else that might be appropriate? - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, and I would support making these universally for failed candidates, and not just in India. The criterion is that they are mentioned in the article, if they include independent candidates the redirects would be made also. Present and past. It leads a person searching to useful information: where and when they ran, and how many votes they received. WP can handle it; I see no practical objections other than the problem of those running in multiple elections. If there are 10,000 election districts worldwide with an avg of 4 candidates, with one every 2 years average for the last 50 years, that's 1,000,000. We now have 6,433,947 redirects in main space--it's adding only another 16%. If anyone wants to make a bot proposal to do it, I'll support it. DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Singh is an extremely common name in the Punjab. In fact, probably 90% or so of the males in that state use the name, mainly because it is common to all Sikh males. This creates big problems in real life and probably creates problems on Wikipedia because of the extent of disambiguation required (I've not checked but am rather going off my anecdotal experience here). Adding many thousand more Singhs as redirects will serve to amplify the problem for scant gain. And I repeat: the BLP issues surrounding India and Pakistani subjects are immense, and creating thousands of redirects at each election will increase the exposure to BLP problems because someone has got to monitor that lot for usurpation of the redirect. As you'll be aware, Indian topics are poorly maintained anyway without overloading the system like this. Similar problems would exist for other extremely common Indian names, of which Yadav might be an example (the Yadavs are an extremely large community and they are extremely politicised, often controversial as individuals when in working the public sphere, and thus often subject to extremely poor edits).
I suppose some might say that, for example, UK equivalents are Smith, Brown, Jones etc and they would be right, although the number of Smith, Browns and Jones' combined in the UK are likely to be less that the number of Singhs just in Punjab. There would still be a disambig and BLP problems in the UK articles, although it wouldn't be to the same extent.If a person fails GNG then they should not be here: please do not cause us to create almost overnight an even bigger problem than already exists. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thinking about it, we'd probably end up with, for example, Yogesh Singh (2014 Lok Sabha general election candidate), Yogesh Singh (2018 Lok Sabha general election candidate), Yogesh Singh (2013 Punjab Legislative Assembly election candidate), Yogesh Singh (2013 Haryana Legislative Assembly election candidate) and so on. There will be such clashes even in one election but multiplying that by 29 state elections held every few years and it is going to be a mess. - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Adding to what Sitush says; we have Harsh Vardhan (Delhi politician) and Harsh Vardhan (Uttar Pradesh politician), Manoj Kumar (politician) and Manoj Kumar (Delhi politician). One more funny thing; our article Jarnail Singh (politician) started about the person who won the Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 2013 from Tilak Nagar (Delhi Assembly constituency). It eventually turned into another person's article who contested the Indian general election, 2014. We currently have a disclaimer at the top and also a sentence "He is sometimes confused with an MLA of Tilak Nagar". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, applying NPOL criteria is to determine what politicians merit standalone articles, not redirects. NPOL instead actually supports keeping this redirect, by stating that for "candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." So honestly this nomination, made on the basis of a guideline that expressly contradicts its rationale, should have been speedy closed as without any merit.

    Notability is also not the standard for determining what subjects are appropriate to merely mention within an article on an indisputably notable topic. WP:N, by its own terms, does not govern internal article content ("These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list."). As noted above, the relevant considerations are whether the term/name is mentioned in the target article and the redirect title could be a useful search term. That is easily satisfied here. Responding to all of that with nothing more than "IAR" is not an argument. postdlf (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) My response has not just been "IAR". I do think that if people saw the big picture then they wouldn't be so hung up on the policy but I have pointed out at the beginning that the real problem here is that this redirect should never have been created in the first place. If needs be, I'll start a site-wide RfC because the lack of common sense being applied here is staggering me. We've got ourselves in a pickle because someone basically assessed consensus in the AfD without correctly weighing the GNG/NPOL situation, which was not denied by those who commented. They accepted what appear to be non-compliant arguments: the article should have been deleted at the outset and instead they created the redirect, which is why we are here now. This is an extremely worrying precedent and I'm not going to let a bit of bureaucracy get in the way of what (I think is) common sense. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That the redirect was created by the admin as part of his close is effectively irrelevant, because deleting the article would not preclude any other editor from creating the redirect after deletion, nor would the subsequently created redirect be deletable on the basis of that AFD (i.e., WP:CSD#G4 would not apply to it). You would still have to come here to RFD, and you'd still get the same answer: that your argument is contrary to existing guidelines (even the one you started out by citing) and contrary to longstanding and site-wide consensus on redirects. That this redirect exists (whether or not created as a consequence of an AFD) is is not a "worrying precedent", but rather "business as usual". postdlf (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Fine. So I can download the candidate lists for the 2014 general election in India and create maybe 20,000 redirects for BLPs to the various constituencies. We'll have utter chaos in no time at all. It isn't as if you or anyone else who has contributed to this discussion (other than Dharmdhyaksha) are regularly involved in the crap that happens on India-related stuff but each time it appears, I'll send it your way. This is process wonkery, it really is. We're struggling already, folks and you should at least know how problematic copyvio can be in that particular sphere. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In case you are serious, please read WP:POINT first. Gorobay (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You'd better believe that I'm serious. Why should this one guy be the exception when we've denied it to all of the others. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • And, fyi, the constituency of Chennai South set something of a record: there were 40-odd candidates just for that one. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • While in the 1996 assembly elections, there were 1033 candidates for one constituency in Tamil Nadu. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • One of the key points is that the article must actually mention the search term. If there are 20,000 names listed in various sourced election articles, then perhaps we should have 20,000 redirects. But we both know that not all of the candidates are listed on WP in these articles (or prove me wrong by showing me), so you're raising a straw man.

    I don't see why you saw it relevant to characterize them as "BLPs (never mind the fact that neither a person nor a redirect is a "biography of a living person"), as the sole question is whether it's verifiable that they were candidates in a particular election. If it's not, then remove them from the election article and do not redirect the name there. If it is verifiable, then there's no problem with BLP compliance to include the name and a redirect. Screaming "BLP!" doesn't give any added weight to your position.

    But regardless, if you create 20,000 redirects just because you think it would illustrate why that approach would be a bad idea and not because you honestly think it would be a good idea, then you would be violating WP:POINT. Plus the fact that it's far better for redirects to be created organically by editors who are interested or think it would be useful. If someone creates an article for a nonnotable candidate, that's possibly a measure of reader interest and so may point to some value for the redirect, versus a candidate no one has ever tried to post content about. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Despite what some people seem to think, I'm not thick. We have articles for the constituencies. Many of those already mention all of the candidates and where they do not then I'll make sure that they do. The BLP thing is because the redirects will be hijacked, then the BLP issue comes in. Don't believe that? Just watch. And I do think it would be a good idea if it is a good idea for this one that is under specific discussion. As I said a few minutes ago, why should this person get to see his name linked through from Google etc and others do not? - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be a reasonable outcome to redirect non-notable candidates to the constituency articles. I agree with Sitush that it can cause problems if it's a disambiguated name, but in this case it is not. Perhaps a realistic future guideline is that redirects can stand where (a) the candidate has only contested one constituency (some try their luck in several) and the name does not require disambiguation. Number 57 15:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Sitush, you've mentioned the difficulties of making NPOV articles in this area-- this very difficulty is one reason why redirects are helpful. It permits us to make lists rather than deal with individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Only if we full-protect the redirects. And I'd still like to know how we're going to deal with the disambigs. We'll need some sort of standard naming format. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This probably belongs at RfC, folks. The discussion is only tangentially about Dhanada Kanta Mishra; it's about how notability guidelines interact with redirects.—S Marshall T/C 21:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • But there's not a real question about that; the nominator just disagrees with the answer. postdlf (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I would tend to concur with you that redirects are an appropriate way of dealing with failed election candidates who are named in the target article, but I think Sitush's position is arguable. I think there's a real question for a RfC.—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. This person didn't win even 1% of the votes polled. No articles link to the redirect, and it's going to stay that way for forseeable future, because the person doesn't meet the notability criteria for politicians. The redirect is actually misleading, since DK Mishra is an academic, whose closest claim to being notable is probably being a departmental dean at the KIIT University. This redirect just ensures that a nearly irrelevant Wikipedia article appears at the top of search engine pages, when someone searches for "Dhanada Kanta Mishra". It doesn't do any good for the reader, because the article has no information on the person. It doesn't do any good for DK Mishra, because when people search for his name, they don't get to see his academic credentials; instead they see him as someone who lost an election badly. It doesn't do any good for Wikipedia's reputation, because people don't find what they're looking for. utcursch | talk 03:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sitush and Utcursch (though I agree this should probably go to an RfC). There are good reasons why Wikipedia does not attempt to be a "list of everything and everyone"; among them (to quote M:Deletionism): "having articles on the many unnoteworthy individuals named John Anderson makes it difficult for readers to find the article about the notable U.S. presidential candidate with that name". That applies just as much to redirects. Also, we need to discourage the use of Wikipedia for self-promotion. Some political systems allow large numbers of candidates most of whom have no chance of election and know it, but are there to make a point or get their name in the papers. Redirects for every failed candidate offer a tempting chance to get your name to pop up in Google listings. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Re: your last sentence, I think you're presuming the tail will wag the dog. A redirect should not exist to an article that does not even mention the redirect title, and whether an election article mentions a candidate is for editors to decide by applying an appropriate threshold. The OP raises fears of thousands of candidates for individual constituency elections, but does not claim that any articles currently list that many (notwithstanding his POINTy threat to make it so). postdlf (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as argued by postd and DGG.Shyamsunder (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete DKM's redirect to the constituency per what info utcursch brings here. We truely are portraying the guy like a bad loser than maybe an average academic. And maybe start an RfC for the overall generic case. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • While I understand and even agree with some of the nominator's concerns about the utility and value of redirecting an unsuccessful candidate's name to an election article or a candidates list, this isn't the right venue for the discussion — our policies do currently allow it, and no particular reason has been offered as to why this particular candidate would be uniquely ineligible for the same treatment that many others get. If there were a policy discussion around removing all such redirects, I might support that position — but an RFD about one non-notable candidate's redirect isn't the place to establish that sort of consensus. Keep, but consider a different venue if you'd like to pursue having the existing consensus revised or overturned. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Faculty of Automotive and Construction Machinery Engineering[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This was an article but has been changed to a redirect: however the title is too generic to be useful. An article of this name has previously been renamed to be more specific & changed to a redirect, without creating a reirect. TheLongTone (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

...Redirect has now been changed back to an article, don't know where this leaves this discussion.TheLongTone (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: I reverted the changes back so we can delete the redirect. It had originally appeared to me as though an editor was vandalizing the article. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as a vague redirect. --Lenticel (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Noni Ιoannidou[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural closure. This redirect is already nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 29#Noni Ιoannidou. (Non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 18:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_29#Noni_.CE.99oannidou. I don't see a diffference, but there is another iota somewhere. - TheChampionMan1234 06:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hrvåtski[edit]

å is not used in Croatian, and this is not a name for the Croatian language in any language. - TheChampionMan1234 05:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 18:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Keith Fullerton Whitman, this is the original target of the redirect and seems to be a pseudonym of this artist. � (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Apparently this is a rare stylization of his alias, which does not deserve redirect per WP:NEO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Does not seem to be rare at all, since the article was created under this title. � (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Currently the article does not even mention this title. The nickname is spelled as "Hrvatski" with ordinary "a". This is consistent with my search results. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per I?1/2. I don't know whether Allmusic is a reliable source, but it's popular enough that its use of this spelling shouldn't be ignored. Either it's a valid spelling, in which case we definitely shouldn't delete it, or it's an error that's plausible enough to confuse people at a very popular website, in which case it's very likely that people will search for the guy via this spelling. Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

რუსები[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not especially Georgian. TheChampionMan1234 03:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Learn Japanese[edit]

WP:NOTGUIDE TheChampionMan1234 03:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Idioma japonés[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not especially Spanish. TheChampionMan1234 03:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Holokus[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Mother Hubbard dress for which it provides a useful search term. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Not especially Malaysian. TheChampionMan1234 03:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

FJS[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was dabify. --BDD (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The current target is somewhat misleading, given that this person doesn't seem to have been notably mentioned by their initials. Also, a search on the English Wikipedia for pages containing "FJS" seems to not provide amicable results to warrant converting FJS into a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate Fallskärmsjägarskolan (FJS) ; Lunar regolith simulant#FJS-1 (FJS-1) ; Toyota FJ Cruiser#FJ-S Cruiser Concept (FJ-S) ; Airline codes-F (FLORIDAJET aka FJS) ; FJ singular form for FJs/fJs -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • WTF? I do not think I get what the argument is here. There is not enough content for a disambiguation page? Well, then don't convert it to one (would be fine with me, though). "[T]his person doesn't seem to have been notably mentioned by their initials"? It would have been nice if the original poster had left the slightest indication of how they arrived at that conclusion. A google search for FJS in the individual's language or limited to sites from the individual's country results in a helpful box on top "See results about Franz Josef Strauss (German Politician)". His party's foundation runs a tribute website at fjs.de. Tried any German newspaper? Or is the point that he is not mentioned as FJS in English? Well, that might be because he is not talked about that much at all. (FWIW, the German wikipedia pages for FDR and LBJ still list individuals not usually mentioned by these initials in German.) --a.bit (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per IP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 18:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

August 4[edit]

Wikipedia:STICKY[edit]

Not mentioned at target article. Launchballer 22:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep The name is mentioned at Special:Newpages TheChampionMan1234 03:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Change all uses to WP:STICKYPROD. Then delete. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep This has been used as a kkeyword in the past, and is still the link I think of for the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Could DGG or someone else explain the meaning of the term? I've seen it used but have no idea where it's coming from. You "stick" a BLPPROD on an article, I guess, but you can also stick many other types of tags. It would probably be good to mention the lingo at the target page. --BDD (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It means a PROD tag that cannot be removed without adding a reference -- unlike an ordinary prod which can be removed by anyone for any reason or without even giving a reason or making an improvement. This particular feature was the whole point of the BLPPROD-- a compromise between those who wanted to subject them only to the normal deletion process, which would require an afd if anyone removed a prod, and those who wanted to delete unreferenced BLPs by speedy. I didn't think much of the compromise at the time, but it has proved to be workable. We similarly say that an edit or revert sticks, if no one changes it. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Which Star Is Your State[edit]

WP:NOTFORUM TheChampionMan1234 23:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: I see a lot of search results for this phrase, all referring to US flag. It should not have been created: not exactly plausible search term (target is too obvious to expect someone to search for this phrase); but this redirect is harmless and it is already there since 2008. I don't see how WP:NOTFORUM applies. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete I really don't know what this phrase means, and wouldn't be any the wiser for using it as a search term. That said, TheChampionMan1234, what do you mean by calling NOTFORUM on this? --BDD (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@BDD: I think this sounds like a question in online forums, thats all- TheChampionMan1234 00:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Bronwen Lewis[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Not mentioned at target article. Launchballer 19:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

CARD[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Retarget to Card#As an acronym since there are several other notable uses. Muffinator (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

August 1[edit]

Lotus: Legend Of The United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Should be deleted; created by user also responsible for Legendtina and Legend X redirects, which seem to have been created as vandalism. Mmrsofgreen (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as a misleading redirect. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading redirect --Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: apparently the name of the album is believed to be acronym for "Legend Of The United States", but combination of acronym and its expansion don't seem overly plausible combined. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 16:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Me. I Am Mariah World Tour[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

False redirect since no tour by this name was ever confirmed. This should be deleted because of WP:OR redirect creation. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 15:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - Name of tour hasn't even been announced, and one concert in Singapore hardly confirms a tour at all, not to mention a world tour.  — ₳aron 15:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Wait until Mimi herself says something about upcoming tours. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 16:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. The artist hasn't announced a tour yet anyways.--Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: combination of weird punctuation and capitaization with WP:CRYSTAL issues make this redirect highly implausible. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 16:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nondemocracy[edit]

Current target is not helpful TheChampionMan1234 02:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Tag as {{R from antonym}} -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • We see throughout the world that countries that aren't the slightest bit democratic make a half-assed attempt at appearing that way. Such as North Korea calling itself "Democratic Republic" and claiming to guarantee free speech and religious rights, or the obviously fraudulent elections run in oppressive states. I've been trying to find an article that addresses this, since that would be the best target, but I'm failing at that. Maybe someone else knows where to point? Ego White Tray (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    Single-party_state#Current_single-party_states is the best I can find TheChampionMan1234 01:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Single-party state - There is no need to further specify the "current" section because nondemocratic states have existed in the past as well. Neelix (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • A single-party state does not automatically make it nondemocratic. If there are democratic processes within the party, then there's still a possibility of some sort of democracy. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide an example or source? I don't see any form of single-party state democracy discussed on the Democracy article. Neelix (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
You don't really want the sources: any Chinese editor may provide countless sources about PRC being the most democratic country ever. Likely, these sources would even outnumber the sources saying otherwise... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I actually really would like to see such sources, if they are reliable enough to use on Wikipedia. I am not confident that there are reliable sources stating that single-party states can simultaneously be democratic, but you are welcome to produce some if you think otherwise. Neelix (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't provide Chinese sources (I don't speak Chinese), but I can suggest Lenin's works (all of them, actually) as widely accepted sources stating that single-party communist regimes are inherently democratic. Pretty reliable primary third-party sources; or at least reliable per WP:EXPERT. I believe the amount of communists these days allows to conclude that the view behind this source is prominent enough, if not most prominent. I am pretty confident that there are newer similar WP:EXPERT sources, but I am not interested in Communist ideology enough to bother digging them. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 14:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you cite any in particular? If so, we can expand this redirect into an article on the subject. At present, none of the sources we have indicate a difference between single-party states and nondemocracies. Neelix (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag with {{R from antonym}}: the article about democracy provides the best answer to the question "What is nondemocracy?". Being a national of nondemocratic state with four parties in the parliamant, I strongly oppose the idea of retargetting these terms to single-party state. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Russia is a dominant-party system that is de jure democratic and has been argued to be de facto nondemocratic. De facto single-party states are discussed on the Single-party state article, therefore retargeting Nondemocracy there is not excluding countries like Russia. Neelix (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Still, retargetting these to an article containing arguably incomplete list is misleading in my opinion. I hold to my argument that an article about democracy explains the subject best. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I think a better solution would be to add Russia to the single-party state article as an example of an arguably de facto single-party state. If the Nondemocracy redirect were expanded into a full-fledged article, I would expect it to simply be a duplication of the Single-party state article. Neelix (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
See, nondemocracy is not all about single-party. Eg. pre-crysis Ukraine was arguably nondemocratic state with real multi-party political system, which arguably denied participation for vast majority of citizens as well. (I am not implying anything about Ukraine as it is now.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any difference between being arguably single-party and being arguably nondemocratic, just as I don't see any difference between being single-party and being nondemocratic. Even if excluding portions of the population from voting is unjust, it doesn't make a country nondemocratic. Women were excluded from voting in the early 19th-century United States, but we don't call the early 19th-century United States nondemocratic. Neelix (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Under that standard, the Holy Roman Empire was a democracy, because electors elected the emperor, and did so each time the emperor died. Franchise was very limited, but some people were enfranchised. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to decide how to define these words. We are only supposed to reproduce what is found in reliable sources on the subject. Even if you had sources stating that some people believe the Holy Roman Empire was a single-party state and simultaneously a democracy, that point of contention could easily be explained on the Single-party state article with reference to that source. Neelix (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Add a section to Democracy and target there - Have a section on non-democratic systems that sometimes fool people, and explain why there are not democracies. Some possibilities include Apartheid, Single-party state, Oligarchy and Totalitarian democracy which all have some elements of democratic systems but are unquestionably not democracies. Essentially a "what democracy is not" section. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless and until a section like what Oiyarbepsy has described. --BDD (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I have created the section that Oiyarbepsy described. Neelix (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ilbo[edit]

Not especially Japanese. TheChampionMan1234 04:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget Ilbo to List of newspapers in South Korea and Shimbun to List of newspapers in Japan: plausible search terms as parts of the names of many Korean and Japanese newspapers. (Unless there is an established practice of not having partial-title redirects?) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Hasirpad -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    @65.94.171.126: I oppose this retarget due to, a: the subject of newspapers is not especially Japanese or Korean, b:it is unlikely that Japanese or Korean users type Roman letters as opposed to Kana or Hangeul TheChampionMan1234 11:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    Normally I'd agree with (b), but a lot of these newspapers use "Ilbo" or "Shimbun" even in their English editions' titles, instead of translating their name (e.g. The Chosun Ilbo instead of "The Chosun Daily"), making it likely that an English-speaker will see the romanised form and wonder about it (i.e. plausible search term). Clearly newspaper isn't the right target, but the country-specific lists might be. quant18 (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Per Quant18, these terms are used in the English language names of newspapers from Korea and Japan. The only relevant articles for these terms are those that deal with Korea and Japan, and not the general newspaper article. What are especially Japanese or Korean are those papers from Japan or Korea, not the general topic of newspapers. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Hasirpad --Lenticel (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED: definitely not plausible search terms for lists, and no other language-related target was proposed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • But they are plausible search terms for someone who remembers half the name of a newspaper, and these lists are (theoretically) a perfect index for finding the full name—definitely preferable to browsing through pages of search results. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      • This is exactly why I want to see these redirects deleted: we should not redirect fragments. If someone remembers part of the name of something, he should look up articles "List of something" and "Something in its country", but not name fragments he remembers. Alternatively we would end up with countless redirects like geotPeugeot and wskilist of Polish people. Just don't feed editors with WP:BADIDEAs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 03:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
        • the difference is that “wski” and “geot” are not complete words. � (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget Ilbo to List of newspapers in South Korea and Shimbun to List of newspapers in Japan. Redirects exist as a service to our readers and when, as here, they are harmless and potentially useful they should be kept. As a BTW I don't subscribe to what I term the 'Chinese deletion rationale' ie 'if this article on X is kept then 1 million articles of the same type will be created'. They never are and we need to deal with each page on its merits. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's the essence of WP:OTHERSTUFF. --BDD (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing sucks like a vax[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Consider this a WP:REDLINK deletion—there may well be interest in this subject, but we currently have nothing to say about it. --BDD (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Kinda harmful, unlikely search term. TheChampionMan1234 07:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't see what makes it harmful. This was the VAX sales pitch. No comment on whether it's worth keeping. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Stubify: as the story goes, this phrase was a slogan of vax (vacuum), but it gained popularity among IT folks for obvious reasons. Provided that vax just copied slogan of Electrolux, retargetting this slogan there is not really a good idea. Neither is keeping current target, as apparently it was used against CISC, and not VAX in particular. It may, of course, be deleted per WP:R#DELETE criterion 8 as obscure, but it would be a loss IMO: this amusing story would really improve the coverage of RISC vs. CISC topic. The only problem is lack of sources – I can't find anything that would look like RS to pass WP:GNG for this topic. I hope someone else will. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Page history says: "Nothing_sucks_like_a_vax has been viewed 51 times in the last 90 days." Someone is searching for the old slogan. Dream Focus 20:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2013 F1 Standings templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Unused, no prospect of use and misleading. The targets ({{F1 Drivers Standings}} and {{F1 Constructors Standings}}) are intended to always contain the standings for the current season, i.e. they currently contains the 2014 standings. They will never again contain the 2013 standings. The existence of "2013" templates could possibly encourage the creation of other "year" templates (this has happened in the past). DH85868993 (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. The way it is done now it not what is was when they were created. GyaroMaguus 16:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

SARS[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Consensus remains that the current target is best. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This redirect was created in 2003; on a few occasions since then, editors have sought to retarget it to the disambiguation page, SARS (disambiguation). I request a determination as to whether there is consensus to change the longstanding target of this term. bd2412 T 02:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep as is. With the rise of MERS, SARS has increased its visibility. No other topic has global reach/coverage on the disambiguation page. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per IP. Otherwise, we might as well go ahead and retarget AIDS as well, which is probably not happening any time soon. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Eluosi[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a redirect in Chinese pinyin for the Chinese name of the country, a topic which is not especially Chinese. TheChampionMan1234 00:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

July 31[edit]

国庆节[edit]

This term is not just restricted to the PRC, it is used by Chinese people around the world to refer to the national day of their respective country as well. TheChampionMan1234 00:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep this redirect is only relevant to regions where Chinese is a legal language. It is not appropriate to refer to other countries that are not Chinese. If any other Chinese jurisdiction uses this phrase as the name of the day, then a disambiguation page can be created. This is not Chinese Wikipedia, so non Chinese topics are not relevant. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    • At the PRC article, you could also just add a hatnote indicating {{redirect-distinguish|国庆节|国庆日}} instead.
      "国庆节" redirects here. It is not to be confused with 国庆日.
       ; The option presented by the nominator, of retargeting to 国庆日 is acceptable to me, since, from a grammar and world selection point of view, holiday (节) is a minor variation on day (日) in this context. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Question what is the translation of this? Part of a complete nomination here is to translate any foreign phrases, and if you can't do that, you have no business nominating it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: as I gather, this term refers partiularily to PRC, so this redirect is appropriate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

IYDKYDG[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of Coca-Cola slogans. --BDD (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Appears to be some 1990s internet meme related to the target, but the meme isn't mentioned there. TheChampionMan1234 23:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

קפיטליזם[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Not especially Hebrew. TheChampionMan1234 23:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

South Mexico[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_23#Southern_Mexico, pretty much the same thing. TheChampionMan1234 23:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Michael Lee Curran,[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close — redirect already deleted under G7 [non-admin closure] � (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Recently created, implausible redirect (note the comma at the end) Fram (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Dreaming (band) – USA[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Implausible redirect. A disambiguation, and then a dash (or hyphen, whatever) and the country? Inventing new formats can create many more redirects, but their use seems extremely limited. Not a plausible search term. Fram (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep it is pure ignorance to suggest that redirects only exist for search purposes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough23:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC).
  • delete per nom; unlikely redirect, unlikely construct -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a dash, and there's no dash key on standard keyboards. Altamel (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Those Were the Days!(film)[edit]

Implausible redirect (note the lack of space between the exclamation mark and the disambiguation). Fram (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep How implausible is it that someone would omit a space? Not implausible at all since they did. All the best: Rich Farmbrough23:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC).
  • Weak keep Seems possible, some sources I've found have an exclamation point in the 1940 film, others don't, so keep for now. I can imagine someone leaving out a space. Altamel (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: missing space in title of five words is not worth redirect. P.S.: if this discussion does not end with deletion even regardless the lack of arguments in favor of keeping it, it definitely should point to Those Were the Days!, and not to the DAB page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Jin Zhengri[edit]

Not Chinese. TheChampionMan1234 05:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. Isn't that the Chinese translation of Kim Jong-il's name? The "Dear Leader" may not be Chinese but I can imagine Mandarin speakers visiting the English Wikipedia searching with this pinying. Altamel (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
What on Earth are you talking about? That doesn't look anything like Chinese, which doesn't even use an alphabet, much less the Latin one. No Chinese speaker will search for a name using the Latin alphabet, either here or on Chinese Wikipedia. Not to mention that this person isn't Chinese. We're not a translation dictionary, if we kept this kind of redirect, we'd have hundreds of redirects for various languages and how they spell his name. And so, delete. Read WP:FORRED for a better understanding. Champion, this is not the first time someone has told you to actually explain your nominations, and apparently it won't be the last. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
As for the rule in WP:FORRED to avoid "foreign-language" redirects, I need to make it clear that the Korean Hanja is not foreign to Chinese at all. I am bad at explaining languages to nonspeakers, so let me give Western examples instead: Alex Rodriguez, an American, Matthew Spiranovic, an Aussie, Steve Ogrizovic, an English, all born and raised in an English-speaking nation. Their pages have redirects from Alex Rodríguez, Matthew Špiranović and Steve Ogrizović respectively, even though in their countries none of these diacritics is used in writing. This is comparable here. Nobody is claiming that Kim Jong-il is Chinese, or that North Korea is part of China, or Koreans = Chinese, or Koreans use "Jin Zhengri", or that "Jin Zhengri" needs to be mentioned in the article. It is simply to make it convenient for English speakers who are also fluent in Chinese and knowledgeable in Chinese transliteration but have no knowledge of how Koreans transliterate their names (which are based on Chinese characters). And this is only done to Asian people with "Chinese names", like Koreans. No Chinese will do this for non-Asian Americans, for example, Beilake Aobama Balake Aobama Beilake Oubama Balake Oubama or even Aobama and Oubama are all blanks. Timmyshin (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Apparently the stats you show are lower then normal level of bots' activity. P.S.: I believe WP:FORRED discourages the rationales like this one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 18:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. So what, we're going to keep any Asian-language redirect to any other Asian topic? I don't think so. --BDD (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

July 30[edit]

Xiao Na[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Redirect targets a single section of an article on a Microsoft product within which there is a single sentence referencing the redirect term. Further the redirect was previously the name of an article about a living person that was deleted for want of sources. IMO the minimal use of the term in the targeted article is insufficient to justify this particular redirect, especially given that it also appears to be the name of at least one, and possibly more, living persons. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Legendtina[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

These redirects should probably be deleted. A cursory web search of the word "Legendtina" reveals that it and "Legend X" are stan culture nicknames for Christina Aguilera; such nicknames are non-neutral, nonsensical, and very likely to be vandalism when added to Wikipedia (indeed, the edit history of the Legend X page shows that it was a frequent target of vandalism subsequent to its original creation. Mmrsofgreen (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Legal age[edit]

Should be it's own article not a redirect "Legal Age" when one is legally allowed to enter into contracts or wills. The colloquial "of legal age" referring to the age of majority was likely the reason for the redirect. In many countries this is separated from the Age of Majority and can trigger as early as 8 years of age and as late as 21 years. In North America those of 12-16 (depending on state/province) can enter contracts for bank accounts, interest in companies, etc even though they have not yet attained the age of majority. JMJimmy (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Legal age and minimum age are not connected as legal concepts so merge would be inappropriate. Legal age would be most closely related to Capacity (law) (aka Legal [age of] Capacity) and it would in fact be appropriate to redirect it there, however, the Capacity article takes a very US centric view and draws in multiple aspects of law. I'd like to build an article that takes an international perspective and isolates concepts that cross borders. JMJimmy (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The best way to build such an article is to add to the one already there. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Procedural close this redirect is not tagged for deletion. The disambiguation page legal age (disambiguation) is tagged for deletion, and disambiguation pages are not deleted via RfD. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
    • NOTE an admin has now removed the RfD from the disambiguation page (being as it isn't a redirect, this seems to be the proper course of action) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: What should be taken into account is WP:Primary topic. If the vast majority of our readers will be looking for the age of majority topic when they type in "legal age," then "legal age" should redirect there with a disambiguation WP:Hatnote at the top of the Age of majority article pointing to other uses of "legal age"...which is the way this matter was for years without any problem. The Legal age page even currently suggests that "age of majority" is the WP:Primary topic for "legal age." WP:Disambiguation expert BD2412, you mind weighing in on this matter? What is your take on it? Flyer22 (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I did a quick Google Books search for "reached legal age" and immediately found that the vast majority of hits referred to people having reached the age of majority for their jurisdiction. I think that, despite there being different ages at which it becomes legal to do certain things (drive, smoke, drink, run for President of the United States), the term "legal age" is most commonly nearly synonymous with "age of majority". Minimum age is not so much, with Google Books references being as likely to refer to someone having "reach minimum age" to enter kindergarten or to retire and begin taking social security. In other words, for most purposes, "legal age" means "age of majority" while "minimum age" remains ambiguous. bd2412 T 13:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Challenge to assertion the assertion is made that the vast majority of hits referred to people having reached the age of majority. In looking into this further, I found that was not the case. Ensuring &pws=0 was used to eliminate personal results, this is what I found:
Result 1: refers to age of retirement. Result 2: refers to majority (psychology paper not legal referrence) Result 4: legal age (on the surface it appears to be majority, until you read the section after the first appearance where it has separated those who are of "legal age" and those who are "major") Result 3,5,6,7,10:: legal age (again, appears to be majority but it must be taken into context of law. California law at the time, the civil code prohibited minors from owning real property/anything not in their immediate possession until the age of majority (age 18f/21m), except if they were married (age 15f/18m) or if they were "bound to a master" (age 14). "Legal age" in this case would refer not only to majority but majority or married minor or bound minor. Put another way "legal age to conduct ones affairs" - these exceptions did not confer majority as if the person was divorced/widowed/unbound they and their property would be put under the management of a guardian). Continuing further there are examples like "Intercountry Adoptions: Laws and Perspectives of "Sending" Countries" which refers to adopters capacity requiring "reaching legal age (18 years)" and in the very next sentence states that "minors can adopt if married" and "the only requirement is that an adopter be 15 years older than the person to be adopted". Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law comes up - majority = "the status of one who has reached legal age", that should be definitive against my case. However, looking further, "Legal Age" is defined as "an age at which a person becomes entitled under the law to engage in a particular activity or becomes responsible for particular acts". Not exactly consistent. The detail matters though, in the definition for "legal age" it states: "broadly : Age of Majority". Broadly is used to introduce an extended or wider meaning of the preceding definition (as apposed to "esp" which denotes the "most common meaning"), colon denotes a second definition. Age of Majority's definition specifically indicates that "making a binding contract....does not necessarily correspond with the age of majority". JMJimmy (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
comment above inserted after Flyer22's August 1st comment
JMJimmy, your argument seems to be somewhat (note: I stated "somewhat," not "is") a semantics issue. Dictionaries (taking your example of Merriam-Webster into account) define legal age the same way that they define age of majority, as seen here, here and here and here compared to here and here (that last source isn't a dictionary, at least not strictly, but still). Yes, with some of these definitions, there is some wiggle room, such as in the case of the emancipation of minors, but, for the most part, the sources mean legal adulthood. This source provides some of the wiggle room you are referring to, though it still states, "In almost all states the basic legal age is 18." Because I cannot shake the belief that the vast majority of our readers will be looking for the age of majority topic when they type in or click on "legal age," I stand by my vote below. Editors looking for other meanings of "legal age" can of course find it by it showing up in the search bar as a suggested item they may be looking for when they type in "legal age" or by clicking on the Legal age (disambiguation) page at the top of the Age of majority article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
One argument is based on meaning in language or logic, yes. The matter being discussed is that of a legal nature, non-legal dictionary definitions are not really reliable Wikipedia:Law_sources_as_reliable_sources#Dictionaries.2C_encyclopedias.2C_restatements.2C_and_finding_aids. You need to be very careful with them as there's a lot of junk mixed in with the good and you can't just look at the definition, you need to compare it to other sources and look at it all as a whole. Lets take some of your links, dictionary.thefreedictionary.com first you link the lay persons definition of "legal age" and then the legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com of age of majority. Even within that site the legal-dictionary vs dictionary definitions of "legal age" are very different. Looking at where they got the definition (West's) I noticed it was out of date. The book has since been renamed (Gale's) and is in it's 3rd edition. In that it states: "The time of life at which a person acquires full capacity to make his or her own contracts and deeds and to transact business or to enter into some particular contract or relation, such as marriage. Identical definition, except that thefreedictionary has added to it changing it's meaning. Referring to Black's Law 8th (same publisher, but a dictionary not an encyclopedia, ie: higher quality source) the primary definition for both "lawful age" and "legal age" is referred back to "age of capacity": The age, usually defined by statute as 18 years, at which a person is legally capable of agreeing to a contract, maintaining a lawsuit, or the like. See Capacity. Capacity states The power to create or enter into a legal relation under the same circumstance in which a normal person would have the power to create or enter into such a relation; specifically, the satisfaction of a legal qualification such as legal age or soundness of mind, that determines one's ability to sue or be sued, to enter into a binding contract, and the like. Ok, so that's one view - Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. are the source of the 2nd definition there. Unfortunately, they publish dictionaries which hold lay person explanations that are not accurate to law. They also do not cite their definitions. It's come out in numerous forms, "The People's Law Dictionary" (you'll notice that as law.com's source), "Real life dictionary of the law", "Nolo's Plain-English Law Dictionary". It was a husband and wife team, no editorial oversight beyond General Publishing Group (1992-1999 bankruptcy). All in all a highly suspect source. There's the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law "an age at which a person becomes entitled under the law to engage in a particular activity or becomes responsible for particular acts". There's the Oran's Dictionary of Law "The age at which a person becomes old enough to make contracts to which the person can be held.", Lexic.us "The age at which persons are considered competent to manage their own affairs." this also says it's a synonym for majority, however, it's source is Wiktionary - I would not consider it a reliable source since it uses algorithms, American Heritage Dictionary 5th "The age at which a person by law attains the capacity to engage in certain transactions or be treated legally as an adult.". Then we can go to various statutes: Tennessee "(11) Minor means an individual who has not attained twenty-one (21) years of age, although the minor may already be of legal age;" but then New Hampshire says the opposite "21:44 Age of Majority; Adults. – Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the words "adult", "majority", "age of majority", "full age or lawful age, and all other terms of referring to those persons who are to be considered adults, shall mean those persons who have attained the age of 18 years." Though they recognize a minor of legal age from Tennessee as being legal age while not having reached majority. It's a messed up system I'll grant you that. My only question is, given all this, if not "legal age" then what do you suggest to use for this concept? JMJimmy (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
For a lot of topics, using a dictionary source is not adequate; so it's not just legal topics that have that problem. However, dictionary sources can often be suitable (such as in the case of using a dictionary source to define theft), which is why there is no Wikipedia guideline or policy against it; the page you linked to is a Wikipedia essay. And, to my knowledge, TheFreeDictionary.com doesn't add on to definitions; it simply reports definitions that it's gathered from other sources. As for what title to use, how about you simply expand on the legal age aspect at the Capacity (law) article? Or do you think that your legal age material would be so big that it would make that article disproportionate in size regarding other aspects of capacity in law? Either way, that's one way that WP:Split or WP:Spinout works; we split out sections that overwhelm an article and deserve their own Wikipedia article. Above (your "18:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)" post), you stated, "Legal age would be most closely related to Capacity (law) (aka Legal [age of] Capacity) and it would in fact be appropriate to redirect it there, however, the Capacity article takes a very US centric view and draws in multiple aspects of law. I'd like to build an article that takes an international perspective and isolates concepts that cross borders." Well, that can be done at the Capacity (law) article, like Oiyarbepsy also suggested. If you feel that you need a separate article, you could title it Legal age (capacity). Flyer22 (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Problem is that taking the international perspective it doesn't always have to do with capacity, that only in *some* British influenced states. In non-British states there's aspects of competence or neither. I was trying to isolate the age as the common factor to bring in capacity/competence issues within the article without getting confused with what it's actually about. As to TheFreeDictionary, I have a copy of Gale's encyclopedia, this is the separation:
West's/Gale's definition

The time of life at which a person acquires full capacity to make his or her own contracts and deeds and to transact business or to enter into some particular contract or relation, such as marriage.

What has been added to the definition

In most states a minor attains legal age at eighteen, although for certain acts, such as consuming alcoholic beverages, the age might be higher; for others, such as driving, the age might be lower. Legal age is synonymous with age of consent or age of majority.

If you look at their site, you'll notice that the definitions are in italics where the portions added separately are regular text. JMJimmy (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I think you're making this topic more complicated than it has to be; Wikipedia has done fine for years without creating an article for what you think needs an article in this case. As for TheFreeDictionary.com, if you mean they provided a definition to go along with the Gale's encyclopedia definition, with theirs in non-italics, which TheFreeDictionary.com link shows that? If they did, that doesn't mean they are citing their own definition as being a part of Gale's encyclopedia. It's also likely that they are citing a version of Gale's encyclopedia that is different than the one you are citing. Flyer22 (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, BD2412, that settles it for me: I vote to re-redirect the Legal age page to the Age of majority article and to recreate the Legal age (disambiguation) page. The Legal age (disambiguation) page should have remained as it was while this discussion was ongoing, instead of being histmerged with Legal age. Flyer22 (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Usually a histmerge would have left the disambiguation page at the location it was pasted to (in this case Legal age (disambiguation); illustrated in the history of cases at WP:SPLICE) with the source page left in the state it was in at the time the histmerge was done; this didn't happen in this case. Though this nomination was still tagged improperly, as it was the disambiguation page with the RfD nomination attached to it, and not the redirect. [28] -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
There are a lot of references to legal age being age of majority, there are equally as many referring to it as meaning age of consent, and so on. The concept that is not currently being addressed is when someone can enter contracts. Reading through various constitutions/civil codes/etc for the age of majority article it's one concept I have found frequently separated. Capacity (law) and Capacity in English law deal with assessments of a persons mental capacity in terms of contracts, aka Legal Capacity. Laws in many areas have been establishing fixed ages for these rights, partly due to court rulings like in Ontario (review of the issues). To avoid the mess freedom of contracts brings for those without legal capacity they establish a fixed age where contracts can be entered into. Some in combination with assessment of legal capacity, others fixed outright. I would estimate that, of the 30 countries I've reviewed, 70% of them had such a law. Currently there are a smattering of references to the concept scattered across various articles (child rights in X country, capacity, Contract#Affirmative_defenses) but nothing that clearly explains it. Definitions from various sources:
  • the age at which a person acquires full legal rights and responsibilities, such as the right to make contracts and deeds. [1925 30]
  • the age at which a person enters into full adult legal rights and responsibilities (as of making contracts or wills)
  • 1762 the age at which a person enters into full adult legal rights and responsibilities (as of making contracts or wills)
  • Constituted or authorized by law; rightful; as, the lawful owner of lands. [1913 Webster]
  • the age at which persons are considered competent to manage their own affairs
The concept stems from the the conflict between Age of majority and Lex loci contractus (and further back into Roman law) and dealing with the granting of rights to minors without emancipating them, since once emancipated they could not go back. Discussion of concepts at play
I'll freely admit, I am cherry-picking the definitions. I only do so because various other articles that already exist deal with the other definitions with their more appropriate terms. I cannot find any other term which is defined in a similar manner. Also, I completely agree with Flyer22 that the disambiguation page should have remained as these concepts are difficult to distinguish for many. JMJimmy (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
With how commonly "legal age" refers to "age of majority" (as also acknowledged in your "15:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)" post above), and seemingly far more to "age of majority" than to age of consent, going by sources on Google Books (BD2412's post), and considering that "legal age" redirecting to the Age of majority article has worked fine for years, I cannot agree that it's in the best interest of readers to keep the Legal age page targeted to a disambiguation page. My opinion remains that it should redirect to the Age of majority article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
So terms with multiple definitions can only address the most common in the US? JMJimmy (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that it's just the U.S. factoring into "legal age" seemingly most commonly referring to "age of majority." Like I noted above, I'm simply infusing WP:Primary topic into this matter. The sources, at least according to BD2412's research, demonstrate that they usually mean age of majority when they state "legal age." Wikipedia doesn't work by saying, "Oh, the vast majority of the sources are American, so, for example, WP:Primary topic or WP:Due weight doesn't apply," especially considering that this is the English Wikipedia and most of the sources used on it are going to be U.S. sources, Canadian sources and/or British sources. The English Wikipedia allows non-English sources, but states, in part, the following at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. (See Template:Request quotation.)" Fly