Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion)
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]

July 13[edit]

Nothing sucks like a vax[edit]

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

Division of China[edit]

This is not the only time that China was divided, China has been dividem many times in its history (i.e. the Warlord Era), thus Disambiguate TheChampionMan1234 07:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)}}

Windows Janus[edit]

According to List of Microsoft codenames, Janus is the codename for Windows 2000 x64, and nothing to do with Win3.1. But the target says that Win3.1's codename is Janus, I will add a [citation needed] tag there because that statement in unsourced, I could not find any reliable sources proving that it is also a code name for Windows 3.1 TheChampionMan1234 06:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Luna Element[edit]

This is a third party desktop theme for Windows XP which is not mentioned at the target, and isn't even notable. TheChampionMan1234 06:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


NotAllMen[edit]

Action: I would like the redirect from NotAllMen to YesAllWomen to be deleted. The reasons for this are as follows: 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.

I feel that deleting the redirect and having NotAllMen be redlinked would be ideal. Previous discussion on this redirect centred around the presence of NotAllMen in media discussion related to the IslaVista Shootings. The current YesAllWomen page has zero discussion of NotAllMen. Furthermore, NotAllMen could reasonably be expanded into an article in its own right.

(Apologies in advance for errors in protocol.) A Canadian Toker (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • speedy keep this was just discussed a month ago. The redirect is there b/c it's a reasonable search term and the best Article we have is yesallwomen. And the article does discuss notallmen as the genesis of yesallwomen. I'm not convinced we need a separate Article, but if we do then that's still no reason to delete the redirect in the meantime. In whAt possible way is a red link better than a redirect? It makes zero sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

July 12[edit]

Windows 8.2[edit]

There is currently no such thing andthe target is currently no help, it has nothing about the future OS, which is what most readers would type this for. TheChampionMan1234 11:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Apparently even rumors are against this title: next version of Windows is believed to be called "Windows 9". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 13:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. There is no such thing. There is not even rumors about such a thing. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Their date is before May 2014; hence, they are no longer rumors. But so what? WP:CRYSTAL even forbids official product announcements. Look, I can't really see where you are going with this comment; but wherever you are going, I am not coming. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Winblows 2000[edit]

No idea what this could possibly mean, google is no help TheChampionMan1234 11:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

String Bean Software[edit]

Private comapany with no affiliation for the target page TheChampionMan1234 11:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Windows 4.1 (disambiguation)[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 per criterion G6. Performed by RHaworth (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 20:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The target is not a disambiguation page, nor do I see need for one. TheChampionMan1234 11:23, 12 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.

Hungarian Geographical Name Committee[edit]

WP:REDLINK TheChampionMan1234 11:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

LZ 114[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. Multiple articles (current target Dixmude (airship), French ship Dixmude, List of Zeppelins and multiple other articles) state that this is German name for Dixmude, which indeed was not finished. If this information is indeed wrong, please correct it there, and only then nominate this redirect. (non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 12:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Pointless and inaccurate redirect: LZ 114 was an unbuilt airship, not the Dixmude. I cannot imagine this redirect being used (I have just eliminated a link from an article where its use was an error) TheLongTone (talk) 10:46, 12 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.

July 11[edit]

Cernăuţi[edit]

Delete all as mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I believe we should have CSD criterion for mojibake. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep years and years old harmless, don't be hatin' on the mojibake. All the best: Rich Farmbrough22:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete Should be Speedy Deleted per R3, implausible typo. Same reason we shouldn't have l33tspeak or pig Latin redirects. Bgwhite (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Rich Farmbrough. And R3? 2008 isnt "recently created". Christian75 (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment At least one of these is, unfortunately, at least somewhat plausible, given that it show up in professional databases [1], and the redirects at least do help utterly baffled Googlers get to the right place without them having to track down some obscure encoding-detector. OTOH redirects are a horrible hackish solution to this problem, and all these endless permutations of mojibake would be better handled by some sort of Mediawiki-level solution. quant18 (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

פארטוגאל[edit]

Delete. These were improperly nominated for deletion and were not deleted. Gorobay (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Artists biggest hit[edit]

Delete: a misleading redirect; we have no reason to think that someone who searches for the phrase "artists biggest hit" is interested in this particular song. R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: current target is indeed inappropriate, and the term is not a plausible search term for any encyclopedic topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 20:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete with no prejudice against recreating as a redirect, list, article or dab page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough22:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete highly inappropriate. "artists" is more than one person, and this clearly isn't the greatest hit ever. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Canadian current events[edit]

It is a time sensitive page that currently redirects to 2010. Even if it did link to 2014, the year is a poor proxy for current events as there are things like the Charbonneau Commission that have been ongoing for years. As such, I propose it be deleted. I erroneously posted this on Afd; you can see its entry here. - Sweet Nightmares 17:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not facebook[edit]

Inappropriate CNR TheChampionMan1234 07:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Orphan and delete per WP:CROSSNAMESPACEREDIRECTSARETHESPAWNOFFREDDIEKRUGER. All the best: Rich Farmbrough22:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC).

Kazik Na Żywo[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. (CSD G1 (patent nonsense (non-admin closure) TheChampionMan1234 07:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Implausible typo. � (talk) 07:08, 11 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.
  • WHOAH This is patently not patent nonsense! Listing at RFd then adding a CSD tag is very bad practice. Please request undeletion and let the discussion of the 10 year old harmless redirect occur! All the best: Rich Farmbrough23:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC).

Republic of Germany[edit]

IPod 5[edit]

The title just says "iPod", it could refer to the 5th generation of any iPod. TheChampionMan1234 06:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Iphone linux[edit]

There is no mention of the word 'Linux' at the target. TheChampionMan1234 06:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Aerospace Physiologist Insignia[edit]

There is no such insignia nor Badge for Aerospace Physiologists (ie those in Air Force Specialty Code 4M0X1 just use a medical badge). At some point long ago Aerospace Physiologist got conflated with the Navy Aerospace Experimental Psychologist, aka Navy Aviation Psychologist, (which does have a badge), however a Physiologist is not a Psychologist. Gecko G (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WPTW[edit]

  • Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwan, due to that touchwood is not mentioned at the dab page for TW and is not a common usage anyway. TheChampionMan1234 02:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • RETARGET per nom -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: this redirect follows common naming pattern for WikiProjects and their task forces. Given that Torchwood is composed of two distinct words "torch" and "wood", I see no problems with current state of affairs. That said, WikiProject Taiwan has well-established shortcuts WP:TAIWAN and WP:TWN, so I don't see any urgent need of their to occupy this redirect. Also note: WP:WPTW is forever embedded into pages' edit histories, so retargetting it will violate WP:SURPRISE, which is last thing shortcuts should do, particularily without good reason. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 18:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per user Czarkoff. A lot of shortcuts arent listed at the article disambiguation pages, e.g. RFD (redirect for deletion) isnt listed at RFD (and shouldnt)... Christian75 (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Might be an improvement. I don't see a WP:SURPRISE issue; there's hatnotes to handle people who get misdirected, and the actual Torchwood WikiProject members apparently use the WP:TORCHWOOD shortcut instead. OTOH there's no widespread practice of redirecting WP + ISO 3166-2 abbreviations to the country WikiProject (c.f. WP:WPCN, WP:WPBE, WP:WPDE, WP:WPIN, WP:WPCA). quant18 (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

July 10[edit]

Power Morphicon[edit]

This is not a valid search term for Power Rangers after it was determined that the section it pointed to was not supported by any independent reliable sources and was removed from the article. This redirect should be deleted. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: I re-added material to the article and added first 3 references from sites/groupblogs with editorial oversight I stumbled upon. Definitely the subject is not notable enough for its own article, so this redirect is absolutely OK. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    I do not think that these three websites qualify as reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    I am not completely sure about the second one, but the other two have all attributes required by WP:IRS. At very least they are reliable enough to verify the existance of the event, which is sufficient to retain the mention. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    Yeah but they're both bloggish. Also, we really do not need to document the event on Wikipedia IMO.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    There is no problem with being bloggish – the only thing that is wrong with blogs as sources is their self-publishing, which is not the case here. (We even have an article about BoingBoing.) And I see no reason to avoid mentioning this event; to the contrary, conventions are an important aspect of such franchises. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    Not when thereve only been 3 afaik.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This looks like a two-editor dispute. The content is currently not at the target page, and at a glance, while the sourcing is somewhat weak, it perhaps could stand. More opinions would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep we don't declare something "not a valid search term", nor do we require sources (despite what one vociferous editor has been implying elsewhere). This is an old (6 years) and harmless redirect, has required no manual maintenance. Leave it in peace. All the best: Rich Farmbrough22:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC).
    It was sources for the retention of the content about the redirect's title (a section on the article).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • keep, if this redirect is deleted; Power Rangers should be deleted too, because content of the former has been merged into the latter article before 2009. Christian75 (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    This makes no sense. Why should the article being redirected to be deleted? The reason I'm seeking deletion is because I discovered that there was poor sourcing for the merged content and removed it and therefore saw no need for this redirect to exist any more. There's no longer any content on "Power Morphicon" on the Power Rangers article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    Per Wikipedia:Copyright policy edit history should be retained after merge of content. As long as historical revisions of Power Rangers contain text that was copied from this page, it has to be retained. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 03:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    That's total BS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:26, 13 July 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. [2]; the "K" is faux-Russian. There's similar terms for other areas of the country like the People's Republic of Massachusetts [3] or People's Republic of Vermont [4]. -- 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)

Norman Joseph Wisden[edit]

Delete. Google: no results found for Norman Joseph Wisden[5] (neither in Google Books). Not every possible typo or mistake needs its own redirect. Fram (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep There is widely and long held belief that Wisdom changed his name from Wisden, making this a totally reasonable search term. If (which seems unlikely, but is still possible) it turns out to be true, this is indeed his birth name. All the best: Rich Farmbrough14:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC).

July 9[edit]

Gem (band)[edit]

Nothing links to this redirect. All previous links to Gem (band) have been migrated to Gem (Dutch band) or Gem (American band), and there is a dab page for Gem. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to gem where there are three or four things which might be searched for with this term. Alternatively, if this is the primary topic among bands named Gem, no objection to keeping it with a hatnote to gem. Deletion is inappropriate as it's a likely search term and may have inbound links from other websites. Siuenti (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to gem per Siuenti. --Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Gem#Music: as proposer, I'm swayed by the above comments; just went into Gem and added a specific anchor for a retarget. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to disambiguation page -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to gem. Don't think that retargetting to specific section is needed: currently the DAB isn't too long, and if it ever becomes, there's no guarantee that there will be no other topic where word "band" would make sense as a search term. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Town Hall and Courthouse[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no way that someone using the name 'Town Hall and Courthouse' is likely to be thinking of Newport Opera House; it's not a plausible redirect at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The building in question was originally constructed to serve as a town hall and court house (as the existing text of the article says), and the redirect is the name under which it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. If you think that "Town Hall and Courthouse" should instead be something like a dab page, feel free to set one up, assuming you can find a number of other meaningful entries. Magic♪piano 15:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Why is it needed at all? Who is actually going to type this exact four-word phrase when what they want is an opera house? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Someone might be trying to find it via the National Register listing. Magic♪piano 16:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Then it should be piped on the appropriate page; redirects aren't there to stop you writing correctly-pointed wikicode. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I know how to write correctly-formatted wikicode, thanks. But I can't control what people read (and might enter) from outside wiki. This is the point of redirects, no? Magic♪piano 16:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
You mean that the NRHP actually calls this building 'Town Hall and Courthouse' without qualification in its own text? Can you provide a link? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
(The alleged link to the NRHP in the article actually links to a very general and bafflingly conversational page about the entire database; the search box there doesn't work.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the wonderful world of the National Register, where these sorts of things are amazingly (and sometimes annoyingly) common. I'd tell you to enter the string into NPS Focus, but it is sadly highly unreliable, and not returning *any* results at this time. For the moment, I will refer you to this page at NationalRegisterOfHistoricPlaces.com, which mirrors the NR database. Magic♪piano 16:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, that's something. If I hadn't worked on a similar cock-up here in the UK, I wouldn't believe something like a national heritage database could malfunction so badly. However, the link you've provided doesn't answer the implicit question: is the title you've chosen even unique within the database? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Parenthetical to TheCatalyst31: the Elkman database is a copy of the NR database setup by a Wikipedia editor, which is up-to-date through about 2010. Magic♪piano 16:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
And don't get anyone who works on US NRHP listings started on the reliability of the public interfaces to the registry. Magic♪piano 16:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Not sure what's going on with NPS Focus' search function right now, but I can confirm through Elkman's NRIS-based infobox creator that "Town Hall and Courthouse" is the official name of this building on the National Register, and that there's no other building on the NR with the same name. Since it's plausible that someone might search for the name used in the National Register listing, or link to it off-wiki, the redirect is a useful search term. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 16:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Withdraw, then. It's a screwy situation, but you're right - this apparently is what the thing is called by a reliable source. I really, really don't miss working for a national heritage organisation. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:41, 9 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.

CN-71[edit]

Officially the abbreviation refers to Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China and not the ROC, perhaps retargeting there would be an option TheChampionMan1234 00:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom. Comment you can be wp:BOLD and retarget it without bringing it to RfD -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I dropped a notice on WikiProject Taiwan suggesting that they come and weigh in on the matter. Hasteur (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. wctaiwan (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to ISO 3166-2:CN, which provides context for the code itself while linking to the corresponding articles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:40, 10 July 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).
  • 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)

Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Kinmen and Matsu[edit]

The name is not mentioned at the target, but it is at Chinese Taipei and also Foreign relations of Taiwan TheChampionMan1234 00:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

July 8[edit]

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)

籠球[edit]

Not especially Japanese. TheChampionMan1234 06:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 09:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete basketball is a North American sport invented by a Canadian in America who spoke English. This sport has no particular affinity for Japanese. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Internet in South Ossetia[edit]

WP:REDLINK TheChampionMan1234 06:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Google Japan[edit]

Not covered in target. TheChampionMan1234 06:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - Subsidiary companies should redirect to mother company *unless* the subsidiary can be set up as its own Wikipedia article. If these are deleted somebody may start a new article at those names. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
And that's a bad thing? --BDD (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note recent discussion of similar redirect: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 28#Google Australia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 07:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: information about these subsidiaries of Google is more likely to appear in main article. In such cases deletion would work against the rationale behind WP:RED. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 07:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • This may be true for a genuine subsidiary (meaning a different company with a different name producing different products), but these aren't really. This is just the same Google in different countries. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes and no. Legally these are affiliated but distinct entities, which carry out different sets of projects. Practically they are the same Google, so editors would cover activities of Google subsidiaries at Google, and only split it out if information on one of them would become overly detailed. This makes the creation of articles in these positions basically implausible. FWIW I believe that optimal solution would be to list Google subsidiaries somewhere and redirect all of these to that list. Until it's done, I believe that these redirects should point to Google per The Whispering Wind (talk · contribs)'s rationale in Robotrain discussion above. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, no information at target. This kind of redirect raises expectations that aren't met. Siuenti (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete These redirects should only exist if we have content specific to those countries on Wikipedia someplace. Without that, they are dishonest, and potentially blocking the creation of articles on these topics. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ego White Tray and Siuenti. Viable search term that article fails to adequately cover. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

List of major hotels in Busan[edit]

Not covered in the target. TheChampionMan1234 05:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Shànghai[edit]

Another one with incorrect Pinyin tone marks, (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 7#Táibèi the second syllable is the fifth (neutral) tone rather than the correct third (dipping) tone (see Standard Chinese phonology#Tones TheChampionMan1234 05:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep: The correct Pinyin is Shànghǎi, however "Shànghai" could be a typo where someone forgot to put in the second tone mark. BTW I put in this redirect on 26 December 2003‎ ... over 10 years ago. Wow. I think it may have come from a time when some diacritical characters didn't work and some did WhisperToMe (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED: keeping typos in romanization of foreign language title is only feeding novice editors with WP:BADIDEAs. Although this redirect is old, its usage is below noise level, so its deletion won't be too harmful. Also note: the Pinyin title with tone marks stripped is identical to target's title, which makes this redirect even more useless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 07:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit]

According to http://baike.baidu.com/subview/38125/5094676.htm (if you understand Chinese), it could also refer to Ningxia, furthermore, according to http://baike.baidu.com/view/497250.htm?fromtitle=%E5%AE%81&fromid=3138946&type=syn 寧/宁 could also be a surname. TheChampionMan1234 05:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate WP:CJKV , as this is an original language redirect, and there are multiple topics with articles in English that are highly related to the original language, there should be a disambiguation page. Thus create a WP:CJKV disambiguation page. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED: ambiguous in foreign language. Native language DABs are inappropriate per WP:NOTDICT, and this one in particular is ruled out by WP:PTM. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate, if you would normally make a redirect to two or more different places it's natural to make a dab. It's used by itself to mean Nanjing and presumably also Ningxia so it's not a partial title match, besides obviously needing a link to the surname page. Don't forget to add the {{disambig-Chinese-char-title}} template . Siuenti (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Jack Cuozzo[edit]

The redirect has no history, the target article currently has no section so named, and Cuozzo is not mentioned anywhere in the article. There is a link to the redirect, but I see no value in the target. Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. FWIW, information about Cuozzo was added to the target by an IP in 2011 [6] to a section about creationist usage of the term "devolution"; the whole section was deleted about a year ago by Smk65536 with a suggestion that it might belong on a separate article [7]. But in general, I don't think that redirects from names of authors to single topics which they have discussed are necessarily helpful even when actually mentioned on the target article. quant18 (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 7[edit]

Recent deaths[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was snow keep. Nothing has changed since the previous RFD. This is a well trafficed redirect and consensus remains that the present target does the job. Each year this redirect has been updated reasonably promptly so there are no maintenance problems though methods to facilitate this are being discussed. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a very old redirect that was part of the main page portal several years ago, and still has some incoming links. It also is potentially useful for people using Search. Its got a lot of edit history, so just seeking consensus to permanently redirect this to Lists of deaths by year. The current year is always at the top of that list, "recent" can mean more than just the current year, and permanent redirection eliminates the need to maintain it. Netoholic @ 00:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. Readers seeking recent deaths want to know who has died now, not back to 1987. Landing readers on Lists of deaths by year requires them to navigate again which is an unnecessary frustration. There are many gnomes working on Deaths in 2014 and its successors who also update related pages like Recent deaths as required. The proposed redirect adds reader effort and frustration without adding any real value to the project. There is no need to broaden the meaning of "recent". WWGB (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Please say keep or delete. Oppose is vague - it could mean you oppose deletion or it could mean you oppose the redirect. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Any maybe we should make a bot to automatically update pages like this? Ego White Tray (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would like to know how the nominator's idea that "'recent' can mean more than just the current year". By definition, "recent" means "belonging to a past period of time comparatively close to the present".[8] That doesn't mean within the past 12 months or even the past 20 as listed at LODBY. — Wyliepedia 01:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Humans have conquered this world and raised this encyclopedia. By human timeframes, "recent" doesn't suggest 27 years ago, even if we're old people. Increasingly, our audience (and planet) is made of young people. For everyone who remembers 1987, there are many more who (through no fault of their own) don't remember a time before YouTube and Adderall. What counts as recent is getting smaller as the people are. Even yesterday's "so last week" (itself already an "old saying"). They need all the redirection we can muster. I'm not saying we should totally cater to Westernized youth, but they're statistically likely still "the future", so it couldn't hurt to consider them. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Extremely useful, it takes you to exactly what you are looking for, and "Deaths in X" is called "recent deaths" on the main page. Gamaliel (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I've opened a discussion about how this redirect could be automated: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Allow Current year and similar switches in redirects. This will likely be in archive 127 someday. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Necessary, useful, exact and quick. No reason to make things overly complicated as suggested. Remember Occam's Razor.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep keeping this redirect pointing towards the current year is clearly useful. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 04:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment There is also a discussion of how redirects such as this could be made easier to track: Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Redirect pages#R template for time-sensitive redirects Ego White Tray (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: "recent" hardly means "all". It is better to fix time-sensetive redirects maintenance process then to deny answers to simple questions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: I concur with all points made above by those who advocate "Keep". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep for searching purposes, no harm in it. Geschichte (talk) 12:13, 12 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.

Shake Hands With The Unemployed[edit]

No RSes that use this term, just stuff like Urban Dictionary. It's also not mentioned in the article. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Funny, but delete. JMJimmy (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also, quite frankly bogus. Not all peni used for this purpose are unemployed - she might not be in the mood, for instance.--Launchballer 20:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Well that's just a logical phallus-y. If you're using it you're employed, for money or pleasure. If you're unemployed you're going to be holding it. Either way, IT is never unemployed. JMJimmy (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: unencyclopedic. Or should I say transwiki to Uncyclopedia? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: it more commonly refers to urination than masturbation (see wikt:shake hands with the unemployed), but a disambiguation page at this title (or a hatnote on the urination article) wouldn't be any more constructive than a redirect. quant18 (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Possibly retarget? - a soft redirect to the wiktionary page could work here. Ansh666 07:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

大韓民國[edit]

Not especially Chinese. TheChampionMan1234 06:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep first one (大韓民國, which is Hanja, Chinese characters "incorporated into the Korean language"), delete other two. BTW, the second, 大韓民国 is strictly Japanese. TLA 3x ♭ 06:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Hanja title, delete Japanese and Chinese. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep 'Hanja' Hanja is Korean -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Chinese characters are (or were) common in Korean and Japanese. The first redirect here is the Traditional variant, while the other two are shorthand incorporated into Simplified (though both systems use it regularly with varying degrees of formality). Being Chinese (and therefore automatically better than the Japanese and Koreans, of course Face-wink.svg), I'm not sure whether this is also true for Hanja, though I do note that the system has largely fallen out of use. Ansh666 08:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Also, considering the decent amount of Chinese living in both Koreas, this might not fall under WP:FORRED... Ansh666 03:36, 4 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) 18:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep I tend to support the Ansh666's sound analysis above. He seems to have a point. Cavarrone 19:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep first, delete other two. Long rationale:
    1. The first redirect is hanja. Like Ansh666 said, hanja are mostly unused in South Korea today. However they've survived in a few niches ... one of which is country names in newspaper headlines (e.g. a Naver News search for 大韓民國[9] shows the most recent result to be a Chosun Ilbo headline from last week).
    2. The other two redirects are not simplified Chinese (which would be 韩国/大韩民国). They are post-WWII Japanese orthography (i.e. a way of writing that only started being used when Japanese rule over Korea had already ended).
    3. Our article on Chinese people in Korea says that they're only about 1.5% of South Korea's population and that many are descendants of earlier Korean emigrants to China in the first place. So even if any of these redirects were Simplified Chinese in the first place, I'm not sure that would make a strong argument for keeping them. And the Japanese community in South Korea today is only in the tens of thousands of people.
    4. Also, judging from Template:Overseas Chinese, there's notable communities of Chinese emigrants living in half the countries on the planet (articles on many communities probably haven't been created yet due to language difficulties). And then there's Template:Korean diaspora, Template:Russian diaspora, Template:NRI-PIO for the notoriously multilingual & multi-alphabetical Indians, etc.
Regards quant18 (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, didn't notice the difference in 韓/韩 (I don't read Simplified). Good catch. Ansh666 03:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Siberian Russian language[edit]

There is no such thing as this. Probably retarget to Siberian languages or similar? TheChampionMan1234 02:57, 25 June 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) 18:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

פֿאַרבאַנד פֿונ סאָציאַליסטישע ראַטנרעפּובליקנ[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 both. for the first one things are obvious since it is not related to the subject. For the latter there is a weak connection but it is not clear that this establishes the term as a valuable search item. Recreation of the latter can be done if a stronger relation is proven. Magioladitis (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Not in a language that was official in the USSR TheChampionMan1234 04:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Help us out, dudes - what language is it? Ego White Tray (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ego White Tray: The page says its Yiddish, but I highly doubt it as google saerch for that term does not return anything meaningful, also the corresponding page on the Yiddish WP is yi:סאוועטן פארבאנד TheChampionMan1234 06:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED: whatever language it may be (and whatever the titles may stand for), it is definitely not one of official languages of Soviet Union – non of them used this script. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 09:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The two redirects say farband fun sotsialistishe ratnrepublikn and ratnfarband which mean something like ‘Union of Socialist Soviet Republics’ and ‘Soviet Union’. Yiddish was an official language in parts of the union so per WP:FORRED they should be kept. Nevertheless, delete פֿאַרבאַנד פֿונ סאָציאַליסטישע ראַטנרעפּובליקנ: the final ⟨נ⟩s ought to be ⟨ן⟩s (this mistake is sort of like miscapitalization: it’s the right letter but the wrong form). Even after fixing those letter forms, Google finds nothing useful. However, keep ראַטנפֿאַרבאַנד, which is well-attested; cf. Official names of the Soviet Union. Gorobay (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Yiddish was co-official language in one of the regions in one of the Soviet republics. It also was co-official in another Soviet republic, but was dropped before USSR was established. To me this does not seem to be a significant connection, particularily given that language retains no official status in ex-USSR countries. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 06:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment: It is Yiddish, though spelled with the unique Yiddish orthography (formerly?) used in the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, lacking final forms. (See Yiddish orthography#Reform and standardisation) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I didn’t know that. Official names of the Soviet Union uses (incorrectly?) the final forms. Still, Google provides no evidence (besides Wikipedia mirrors) that the first nominee for deletion was used to refer the Soviet Union. Gorobay (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
        • The final-less Soviet orthography of Yiddish was adopted in 1932 and abandoned, partially, in 1961 ([10], [11]), so both both orthographical variants were used historically. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
        • As for the first nominee for deletion, Google search does not handle Hebrew diacritics well: searching "פארבאנד פון סאציאליסטישע סאוועטישע רעפובליקן" (of which "... ראטנרעפובליקן" is a logical variant) brings up many results. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:23, 26 June 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) 17:58, 7 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.

Mexican Monkey[edit]

Not mentioned at target article. I suspect it may have had a section called "Internet meme", but I can't be bothered to trawl through individual revisions and no edit summaries suggest its existence. Launchballer 17:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete - It refers to a misheard lyric for that song - variations of "I smell a..." "We're up a...", "Rub the..." ...Mexican Monkey. Don't get it personally but definitely not worth a redirect. JMJimmy (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
More specifically the misinterpreted line in the original song is "...night to get lucky". This "meme" was extremely topical since the name of the song "Get Lucky" had not been revealed yet, and a few people were trying to discern the heavily vocodered lyrics from the teaser trailer. jhsounds (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Divergent (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 deletd (CSD G6). (non-admin closure) TheChampionMan1234 04:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Automatically retarget ed by a bot, but I think a retarget to Divergent (film) is useless, as the page has already be created and unlikely search term. TheChampionMan1234 08:52, 7 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.

Táibèi[edit]

The tone marks in this transcription are incorrect, it uses the fourth tone, in contrast to the correct their tone in the second syllable, the correct one would be Táiběi. See Pinyin TheChampionMan1234 08:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED: typos in romanization of foreign titles are well beyond the margin. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 14:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. However, no prejudice to re-targeting to a place that actually has these tone marks in its pinyin name. TLA 3x ♭ 20:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    @The Last Arietta: lol, I don't think that there is such a place TheChampionMan1234 04:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, what an abomination! Ansh666 01:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Age of maturity[edit]

I believe the redirect should be retarged to Age of majority. Currently it targets a very narrow definition which refers to a religious law with the same legal meaning as "Age of Majority" (within the context of that religion). As addressed in detail here the two terms hold the same meaning in different regions/legal sytems/time periods/religious laws. There is definitely some overlap between "age of maturity" and "coming of age" (re: Jewish tradition, debutantes), however, there is also overlap between many of the coming of age topics and age of majority (example: Jewish law vs tradition both relate to the age of maturity). It could also aid those in finding the article who only know the more common meaning of Majority JMJimmy (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose JMJimmy's suggestion above: Here is a WP:Permalink to the discussion JMJimmy linked to above. Like I stated there, I believe that including "age of maturity" as the WP:Alternative title is WP:Undue weight. JMJimmy stated, "The two terms do hold the same meaning depending on the law and/or region." I told him: What we are supposed to have are WP:Reliable sources that specifically state that "age of maturity" can mean the same thing as "age of majority"; otherwise, we are engaging in WP:Synthesis (see what that policy relays) by stating so. I still see no indication that "age of maturity" is commonly used to mean "age of majority." I'll likely research the matter myself later today or some time next week. "Age of maturity" clearly can mean other things, especially in relation to puberty, as seen by it currently redirecting to the Coming of age article (an article that addresses a different definition of "age of maturity" and indicates that the term might refer to some other aspects there). Because of that, especially because of where "age of maturity" currently redirects, it does not belong bolded in the lead as a WP:Alternative title...and perhaps does not belong in the lead at all. If you can find WP:Reliable sources stating that "age of maturity" means the same thing as "age of majority" in some contexts, and in more than just an Iranian context, I might be fine with it being noted in the lead, but not as the alternative title (meaning I object to it being bolded there and listed right after "Age of majority")...without sources showing that it is a common alternative title for "age of majority." And if it is common, we shouldn't bold it and list it right after "Age of majority"...considering where "age of maturity" redirects and why it redirects there). Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: Againme created the "Age of maturity" redirect, and JMJimmy informed Againme of this discussion; however, the Againme account has not been active since April 14, 2014. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Also note: What JMJimmy means by "Currently it targets a very narrow definition which refers to a religious law with the same legal meaning as 'Age of Majority'" is that Againme redirected "Age of maturity" to "coming of age#Religious coming of age#Baha'i Faith"...a heading that no longer exists. There is obviously still a Baha'i section in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate aside from age of majority, there's also the maturation date in various securities, Maturity (finance), and age of sexual maturation and age of biological maturity. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I would not be opposed to disambiguation of the term itself (Age of majority, Age of maturity (biblical), Coming of age, Adulthood, Legal age, etc). Not sure about including other concepts like financial maturity. Either way, re-target or disambiguate works for me. JMJimmy (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Another note: JMJimmy also took this matter to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard; a WP:Permalink for it is here. Since this discussion is still going on, I think it would have been best if czarkoff (Dmitrij D. Czarkoff) had created the disambiguation page in his WP:User draft instead of taking it to WP:Main space. It being there in WP:Main space helps bias the discussion toward the creation of a disambiguation page for "age of maturity," especially since it's already there. Like I stated at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, even if we leave out "age of maturity" as a synonym for "age of majority" in the Age of majority article because it is against the WP:Synthesis policy (unless it's acceptable to take JMJimmy's alternative approach and simply note in the Age of majority article that "age of maturity" is another term to indicate the age of adulthood, not that the terms are synonyms), we currently have a disambiguation page listing "age of maturity" as a synonym for "age of majority." Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I did not take this issue there, I wanted third party help understanding the issues related to alternate title. As I stated before, disambiguation is fine by me. Which page it redirects to with a disambiguation is I suppose still at issue and I would like to see it changed but that's of less import JMJimmy (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no need to state that you are pissed. Addressing the topic in another place is taking the matter to another place (yes, of course it is looking for other opinions); so I don't understand your semantics on that. Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
They are separate matters. Regardless of any outcome of either this matter or the alternate title issue I wanted a better understanding for myself. I was looking for a place to discuss the issue that did not involve some sort of dispute resolution process (3rd party/RfC etc). The noticeboard seemed to be the place to do that ("Noticeboards on Wikipedia are pages where editors can ask questions and request assistance from people who are familiar with the policies and guidelines covered by each individual board. They are to be used for specific problems that editors encounter in writing and maintaining Wikipedia articles.") - I'm pissed because you seem more intent on tossing WPs around and cross-referencing my every move. I'm sorry if I'm not living up to the ideal of wiki civility at the moment but I am restraining myself as best I can. JMJimmy (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't see the "matters" as separate simply because you were looking for more opinions or a place where you wouldn't have to debate the topic. Both discussions primarily have to do with the article title and WP:Synthesis. Same thing. And the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard is a form of WP:Dispute resolution; read that page. Of course, debate was going to be involved there. And as far cross-referencing, if a matter is scattered across multiple places, I'm going to note it (except for maybe if the matter is being discussed on your own talk page, a talk page that I see the WP:Synthesis policy was addressed to you before). Such cross-referencing is my way of helping to centralize the matter; see WP:TALKCENT. Ideally, discussions about a topic should be centralized. If they are not, then so that others are aware of where else the topic was discussed, I point to it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I do see them as separate. If this gets disambiguated and not retargetted that does not preclude a resolution to the alternate title issue. Perhaps it doesn't get resolved as an alternate title, maybe it gets put further down the page. Maybe it doesn't get resolved. Resolution of one does not preclude a resolution of the other. The notice board was my attempt to understand where YOU were coming from by getting a better understanding for myself. Had it been a dispute issue I would have done as the instructions state and notified you. My issue throughout this entire ordeal has not been with any matters of wiki policy or coming to any sort of consensus - I've tried to be open minded and assume it's my fault since you obviously have more edits than me. My sole issue is your behaviour, unfortunately the dispute mechanism for that is complex, requires more than just myself, and basically says don't bother if the person you have an issue with has a high edit count. 01:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMJimmy (talkcontribs)
I don't see them as significantly separate; I already explained why above. As seen, I also explained my reasoning for cross-referencing. I did not mean to upset you, and am sorry that I have done so. I was simply going about my usual way of editing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@Flyer22: my drafting of the DAB does not bias towards any particular result. If DAB was unappropriate result, the DAB draft would bias against it. That's why drafting DABs under redirects is useful in RfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 07:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see it that way, but I appreciate you taking the time to reply. Flyer22 (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation drafts have been created after an RfD nomination, underneath the RfD banners several times at RfD, to provide a sample draft disambiguation, that hasn't prevented them from being deleted as the outcome of the RfD in the past. Per DCD, I don't see a problem with a draft dab page appearing underneath the nominated redirect. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if the disambiguation page already existing had anything to do with Magioladitis making this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I am confused. Is this a redirect with content below or a dab page with a falsely placed redirect tag above? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Magioladitis, see czarkoff (Dmitrij D. Czarkoff)'s comments above. The redirect existed first. Was then nominated to be changed, which is why it's listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, and then Dmitrij D. Czarkoff created a disambiguation page for the redirect after "voting" above that it be turned into a disambiguation page. Flyer22 (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22 thanks. Sorry for removing the tag. I thought it was misplaced. - Magioladitis (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem; your mistake is understandable, and helps prove my point about it not having been a 100% good idea to create the disambiguation page in the middle of the discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

July 6[edit]

Tom Walsh[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. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Target article deleted following discussion 5 July 2014. AldezD (talk) 17:33, 6 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.

File:Cxwms.jpg[edit]

redirect orphan Mschamberlain (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Anton Karlsson (ice hockey, born 1996)[edit]

Delete; no primary target. Article on a clearly non-notable player created specifically to get the first edit on the page. Met with both PROD and PROD2 tags, causing creator to simply redirect it to a random related article with no clear evidence that this particular article is better than 2014 NHL Entry Draft, Sweden men's national junior ice hockey team, 2014 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships, 2014 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships rosters or 2014–15 Arizona Coyotes season. Dolovis has pulled this stunt before, e.g.: Victor Rask, Eamon McAdam, Yan-Pavel Laplante. As with those examples, this page is better off as a redlink until the player gains notability. Resolute 15:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Also going to add Matthew Mistele, which was redirected the same way by the same person with the same problems. Resolute 15:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

GNU+Linux[edit]

GNU/Linux redirects to Linux, and "GNU+Linux" is basically another way to say the same thing. At the same time, while "GNU/Linux" is commonly used, "GNU+Linux" is mostly used by Free Software Foundation and friends, so retargetting to GNU variants#Linux variants may also make sense. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Should redirect to Linux. GNU+Linux refers to the operating system formed by the GNU operating system and the Linux kernel. Wikipedia's article about that combined operating system is Linux, so that's where GNU+Linux should point to. (The Linux article should be titled GNU/Linux, but that's a different discussion; regardless of the current name of that article, the content of Linux corresponds with GNU+Linux.) Gronky (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Linux per Gronky. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:27, 7 July 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 expecting 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)

July 5[edit]

GNU Linux[edit]

This is a misnomer of GNU/Linux, and Richard Stallman believes that it mistakenly suggests that the Linux kernel itself is a GNU package (see GNU/Linux naming controversy § Pronunciation). Also note, there is Linux-libre, which is GNU package. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep (1) the target is not about the kernel, it is about linux "OS"es in general (2) the distros commonly available are GNU/Linux derivative, and the target article deals with that in general. (3) the common usage in the world at large is the topic of the article Linux. (4) pedantically, "Linux" is just the Linux kernel, but that is not the topic of our article at Linux, which also covers the territory of GNUpackages+Linux. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry, what "common usage" do you talk about? I've never seen any usage of "GNU Linux", as opposed to "GNU/Linux" or "GNU+Linux". For the same reason I wonder how you determine what the title is about. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • "GNU/Linux", "GNU+Linux", "GNU-Linux" and "GNU Linux" should all point to the same place, Linux. "GNU Linux" does appear outside of Wikipedia [12] . On Wikipedia GNU_Linux is the same as GNU Linux, and "GNU_Linux" is used in the world outside Wikipedia [13]. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I don't see "common usage" but rather several typographical errors, bunch of usernames and partial software titles matchs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:R#DELETE criteria 2 and 8: causes confusion between GNU/Linux and GNU Linux-libre (on top of general confision between GNU/Linux and Linux kernel), with off-site usage falling under either of erroneous/obscure term or typographical error, as demonstrated in evidence by IP. Disambiguation is ruled out by WP:PTM. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Gemmes[edit]

This is not a French equivalent of the English name, it means "gemstone". TheChampionMan1234 01:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Number 57 17:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Element-arch-stub[edit]

Non-standard stub tag name (we don't have an {{arch-stub}}), left from a page move in 2008, no longer used. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep unless this name is needed for something else. The template is called by this name in numerous revisions of articles, so deleting it will break history. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Number 57 17:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Windows NT 7.0[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 Windows 7. This was a tough one because no one supported the status quo, though only the nominator advocated deletion. I've considered the idea that this redirect could propagate rather than alleviate confusion as was discussed. All parties seem to agree that a reader searching for this term wants Windows 7, so that's where it will point. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirect from a greatly incorrect name, which is actually harmful to Wikipedia — we don’t have a Windows 7.0 one, Microsoft is free to create a future 7.0 version which has nothing to do with Windows 7, an anyone familiar with the NT term is likely to know the actual version numbers. � (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Windows NT#Releases: there was common misconception around Windows 7 (Windows NT 6.1), which was believed by some to be trade name for Windows NT 7.0. This redirect appears to be created under this misconception. I believe the deletion of this redirect would cause more confusion then retargetting it to version history of Windows NT until version 7.0 of NT would be released. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 07:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Wouldn’t it violate the principle of least astonishment? � (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I see what you mean, but I don't think this will indeed violate principle of least astonishment. Target section gives enough context to unambiguously answer the question, which the reader poses by typing in "Windows NT 7.0" query: no such thing was released. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 20:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Windows 7 as an {{R from incorrect name}}, until such a time as 7.0 is released, then a hatnote can be added at NT7 for Win7. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    • This is irresponsible. If done so, "Windows NT 7.0" queries on several sites (eg. in DuckDuckGo search engine) will bring Windows 7 as a search result, which is rather misleading. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Number 57 17:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Windows 7 How many of our readers know that technically Windows 7 equals NT 6.1, or however the hell that works? The answer is close to zero. Nearly anyone hearing of a Windows called 7 will think Windows 7, and any other target would violate the principle of least astonishment. If there is an NT 7 someday (unlikely) then we can change it, but there isn't. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:31, 6 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.

Various nonexistent Windows year-names[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. I've tagged 97 and 99 as incorrect names and 93 as a former name; Windows 95 indicates that 93 was a predecessor or working title. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

No such OSes, name never used by Microsoft. Compare Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 30#Windows 2007 and Windows 2009. Note i am not proposing the deletion of Windows 96, since that was an actual project (eventually released as Internet Explorer 4 instead of a whole new OS version). � (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: preview versions of Windows 95 and 98 were frequently labeled as Windows 93 and Windows 97 on pirate CDs. I recall at least two CDs with "Windows 97" back in the day. Windows 99 was a pirate name for Windows 98 SE, and I also recall the time when nearly every pirate POS had a disk with this label. These redirects could be helpful to those comming across such disks or ancient forum threads. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 07:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Different suggestions:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Number 57 17:47, 5 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.

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)

July 2[edit]

Template:Pmid[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 Template:PMID after every transclusion of the template was replaced. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Retarget to Template:PMID, to match how {{doi}}/{{DOI}}; {{pmc}}/{{PMC}}; {{bibcode}}; {{arxiv}}/{{arXiv}}; {{issn}}/{{ISSN}}; act. All current tranclusions of this template redirect would be replaced with direct transclusions of {{cite pmid}}. PMIDs are journal reference ID#s. The citation template should explicitly use "cite" as the plain "pmid" name should directly link to PMIDs as an external link template. The divergent behavior between DOI and PMID templates is a bad discordance. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • NOTE: This redirected template is currently fully protected (cascade), so I couldn't add the RFD banner, can someone do that for me? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg DoneScott talk 21:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Bypass everywhere, then retarget per nom: consistency improves usability. Also, WP:SURPRISE applies. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with the retargeting, but could someone remove the redirect tag from the template? It's breaking half a bunch of articles. Notice at the cite foobar pages / template talk pages is more than sufficient for something this technical. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:34, 8 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.

Power Morphicon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Power Morphicon

Principal agent[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) 16:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The target involves "principal", "agent" and "principal–agent" (the relationship between the two nouns) but not "principal agent" (a noun phrase comprising an adjective and a noun). "Principal agent" has other uses, including in espionage (see e.g. this piece). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete had this been "Principal-agent" then I could argue a keep. However, this phrase on its own is a bit vague.--Lenticel (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: too generic to be retargetted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 07:47, 3 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.

Le cut inside man[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 per WP:CSD#R3 (Recently created, implausible redirect). Performed by Peridon (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This came to my attention as the result of a humongous edit-war - now I find myself wondering whether it should even exist as a redirect. As far as I can tell, this is just a 4chan term for Arjen Robben, and not something one would expect to locate in an encyclopedia. There's no mention of it in the article on Robben - seems to me this is an entry of Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia. Yunshui  08:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with this. Delete per nom. --hmich176 23:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm posting here as just an IP which will probably make my argument worthless in the eyes of others, but I think I have a serious point in favour of this redirect. As per Wikipedia:Redirect, deletions are appropriate if it is a very obscure synonym. However, it also states that if the redirect makes finding an article easier, it can be kept. In this case, the expression comes from 4chan, which is not very obscure any more to begin with, and which exposes a lot of non-football users to football during the world cup. These people will probably only ever hear "Le cut inside man". The fact that this nickname is not mentioned in the article it redirects to is not relevant, and finding an appropriate source to add it to the article is nearly impossible. But the redirect itself still has use for people. 178.82.85.17 (talk) 17:21, 5 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.

Hohochiminh[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. Though I would certainly be inclined to delete this as an implausible typo otherwise, the evidence of China Eastern Airlines still using it convinces me that this redirect is doing more good than harm. While people are reading about flights to "Hohochiminh," they're going to wonder what the heck that is, and some of them may turn here. --BDD (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that 'Ho' is repeated, I dont think its worth retargeting to Ho Chih Minh because of this repetition. TheChampionMan1234 07:31, 2 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.

Gaosyong[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not particularly Korean. [14] TheChampionMan1234 07:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep - This is Tongyong Pinyin (a Chinese romanization system that used to be common in Taiwan) and not Korean. http://www.romanization.com/tongyong/differences.html - The Hanyu Pinyin for "Kaohsiung" is Gāoxióng, so using the table you get Gaosyong (xiong = syong). So, two things:
  • For Chinese redirects keep Tongyong Pinyin in mind and use the table I bring up.
  • Please use more clear language in that sort of deletion rationale. Your job is to convey the meaning to the outsider; it's not the outsider's job to guess at what you mean by "Not particularly Korean"
WhisperToMe (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per WTM, all Taiwanese topics would be capable of sporting Tongyong Pinyin (and HK and Macau topics prior to the agreements settled to hand them over to PRC) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Tongyong Pinyin was never used in Hong Kong or Macau; such redirects would be confusing and useless at best. quant18 (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per WhisperToMe.--Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as WhisperToMe said, not Korean; an alternative Chinese romanisation system which was actually used in the place to which this title redirects. quant18 (talk) 01:17, 3 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.

People's Republic of Kalifornia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#People's Republic of Kalifornia

June 27[edit]

Template:Cleanup-lead[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

All three of these redirects with a similar purpose have multiple different targets. This can be confusing to an editor trying to use cleanup tags for the lead section of a page, but does not know about which cleanup tag these redirects target. I recommend that each of these should target the same page, but possibly all target Template:Introduction cleanup maintenance templates to sort of act as a disambiguation page for these terms. Also, the redirect Template:LEAD exists, but Template:Lead is about the chemical element. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget "Cleanup lead" to template:lead-rewrite, as that would be cleanup, in all cases -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Retarget "LEAD" to template:lead, much easier to keep track of this this way, and as it has no indication it is a cleanup template, it is better this way. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Delete "Lede" no indication of what this is for from the name. Could easily be for {{intro missing}} -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: I see nothing wrong with inconsistence of these redirects. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • As this discussion got relisted, I might need to expand my rationale a bit: these redirects can be found in old revisions of multiple pages. When someone looks up such old revision, the transclusions are rendered as they stand now, so any change of template redirect target results in perverted display of historical revisions. At the same time, these templates are there mostly to request some action on the article; so changing redirects would break sequence of events and severely damage the ability to investigate history of particular pages, which is IMO much more important then local consistency between these three redirects. Furthermore, template redirects mostly serve as shortcuts, being memorised by editors and used to save typing; editors, who used them in the past, may continue doing so even not noticing the change of target. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dmitri. Templates are hard: now that you can script em every little script kiddie writes them. but they used to be very hard even as a professional programmer to get the syntax right etc: anything that made it easier was worth it. It is not as if they are in mainspace. 85.238.64.128 (talk) 09:36, 11 June 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) 16:40, 27 June 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.

Georiga State Route 213[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 because no valid grounds for deletion have been presented. The default for redirects is to keep. This is not a recently created redirect. Such redirects are only deleted if they are in some way harmful. WP:RFD#HARMFUL states "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.". In any case, the fact that the redirect was originally created with this title shows some plausibility for the misspelling. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This redirect is an implausible misspelling and should be deleted. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment for what it's worth, I created this redirect because I made this typo while trying to create the correctly spelled version. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 9 June 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) 16:32, 27 June 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.

Doggy woggy[edit]

Internet slang again. TheChampionMan1234 09:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep, plausible search term. More childish language than internet slang, but harmless either way. Siuenti (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wiktionary:doggy woggy: target page does not explain connection between search page and target. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 13:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
    The problem is that such a redirect would not work. See WP:REDIRECT TheChampionMan1234 05:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    Such redirect would work as soft redirect, which is better then nothing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    Technicalities aside, it wouldn't work since the user wouldn't learn anything or otherwise get anything of value out of it. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    I can't agree with you. While it is obvious slang, there's nothing suggesting that it means dog in general as opposed to puppies, oddly looking dogs, huge dogs, etc. While this term turns out to have no encyclopedic meaning to have article about, there's nothing particularly wrong with taking reader to the place where he can get the information he came here for. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I would prefer outright deletion given that anyone can pretty much figure out that this is baby-talk but I would accept the wiktionary redirection if it could be made to work. Mangoe (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Implausible search term, and too obscure to be a good candidate for a soft redirect to Wiktionary. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 27 June 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) 16:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary, plausible search term as it has several thousands of Google entries as well as an entry in our dictionary. I do not oppose to keep the redirect to dog as a second choice against deletion. Cavarrone 08:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICT. � (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
in fact, this is a good argument for a soft redirect to the Wiktionary. Cavarrone 18:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
While I can't find documentation on this either way, practice has been to use soft redirects to Wiktionary sparingly, such as for highly likely search terms or to replace longstanding DICDEF articles. NOTDICT certainly does not mean we should always redirect there if a term can't be treated encyclopedically. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
... as well as NOTDICT certainly does not mean we should delete plausible search terms in the face of plausible targets. --Cavarrone 19:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW assessing plausibility is a difficult task, prone to heavy influence of subjective factors. The only objective factor we have – stats – show 6 hits per month, which is below normal noise volume. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Μάρτυς[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) 18:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete. The targets are not more relevant to Greek than to any language. Gorobay (talk) 14:19, 27 June 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.

Power sharing in nigeria[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 refine target to Nigeria#Government and politics that has relevant material. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Not covered in target TheChampionMan1234 11:43, 27 June 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.

아르헨티나[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) 18:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


Not especially Korean. TheChampionMan1234 07:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per OP. TLA 3x ♭ 07:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:FORRED. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete not Amerind or Spanish, therefore has no particular affinity to Argentina. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as stated above, no particular affinity to Argentina. Cavarrone 08:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • delete per above.--Lenticel (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: not relevant to context. Mariano(t/c) 10:36, 30 June 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.

پرتغال[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) 18:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevent language. TheChampionMan1234 07:15, 27 June 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.

大韓民國[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 7#大韓民國

Mumbaī[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 as a plausible search term and no other grounds for deletion. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk)

Unlikely search term. TheChampionMan1234 06:28, 27 June 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.

Tenjikukoku[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 Tenjiku. As long as there's an article on a Japanese name for India, it's a logical target. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete This is a transcription of a Japanese name, Japanese is not a language of India whatsoever. TheChampionMan1234 06:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 20:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Japan did not conquer India in WWII -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Retarget to Tenjiku per Hasirpad. Though the article "Tenjiku" seems worthy of deletion as a dicdef; I assume this is supposed to be 天竺国 (Tenjiku Country) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget: to Names of India#Tianzhu or Tenjiku, as the many names of India seem to have historical significance, which makes it a plausible search term. (I, for one, was curious why Tenjikukoku was the Japanese name of India upon seeing this RfD.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
    • This particular form is not mentioned there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 04:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      • But Tenjiku, of which Tenjikukoku seems to be an obvious compound, is. For that matter, Tenjiku is a better target, though perhaps the latter article should be merger to Names of India#Tianzhu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by הסרפד (talkcontribs) 04:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Google Translate says it is "India country". Unlike "天竺" DAB, page with title "天竺国" apparently does not exist on Japanese Wikipedia, so most likely it is not exactly the way India is called in Japanese. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
          • The term is definitely used in English: searching the English spellings "Tenjikukoku" and "Tenjiku koku" does bring up some English-language results; but almost all results refer to the Japanese title/version of one book. I can also find some scattered references (at least one source in German and Italian each) that discuss the term "Tenjikukoku" itself. I do not know if that is worth a redirect. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
            • Most likely this way of calling India is correct. The problem here is that not all correct names are worth redirects – only well-established. I see no proof that this particular way is well-established. FWIW literal translation suggests that 天竺国 relates to 天竺 the same way Mumbai city relates to Mumbai. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:33, 30 June 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.

Stalin's Russia[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 History of the Soviet Union (1927–53) as being the target most likely to provide the information being sought. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk)

Misleading, perhaps retarget to Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic TheChampionMan1234 06:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Russia is particularly senseless in this case since Stalin was Georgian. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand you. What connection do you see between his Georgian ancesty and his rule of USSR? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 06:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • opposekeep I doubt that anyone following such a link/search is looking for the name of one administrative unit of the USSR. Mangoe (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Wait - does "oppose" mean delete, retarget or keep? Ego White Tray (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per DDC. "Russia" is frequently used as a synonym for the Soviet Union, and contemporaneously with Stalin as well. Stalin, after the dark days of the Great Patriotic War used much Russian iconography to shore up support, so his being Georgian was being buried under his promotion of Russianness. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to History of the Soviet Union (1927–53) per WP:LEAST. � (talk) 21:06, 5 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.

Hasakesitan[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) 18:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I know that this is a transcription from the Chinese name 哈薩克斯坦 using Pinyin, thus this is pretty much unrelated to the target. TheChampionMan1234 06:14, 27 June 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 Jazz Bass players[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 G8'd. No prejudice against creating a new redirect to somewhere else. WilyD 15:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to deleted page should be deleted also. Mikeblas (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to list of jazz bassists. Siuenti (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    • "Jazz" in the context of this redirect refers to the model name of an instrument, not a type of music. Your suggested redirect refers to a type of music, so I don't think the re-targeting you describe is appropriate. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:48, 27 June 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.