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]

September 23[edit]

Micros~1[edit]

Unlikely search term � (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete since this redirect is an example that most likely refers to Microsoft, but since very few default files or programs back during the Windows 3.1 era were actually titled "Microsoft.###", this title serves no value targeting anything. Steel1943 (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • retarget to Long filename where this naming pattern is mentioned in the lead. I remember having a directory after directory named this way in the Win 95 era. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Deseos[edit]

Not a deletion request, but a retarget discussion. From Deseos (Mariem Hassan album) to Deseo (disambiguation). No reason to redirect it there. This nomination also includes Deseos (album). © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 03:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

September 22[edit]

The Amazing Race Philippines: Biyaheng Asya[edit]

The theme "Biyaheng Asya" literally means "Trip to Asia" was the pre-season promotional title and it was never used. As the second season of the Philippine franchise starts in few days, there it no seems with the described title. ApprenticeFan work 14:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • keep. This it seems was the promotional title, and so it's a very likely search term for people who have seen the promotional material and don't know or don't realise the title has changed. This is reinforced by the 80-130 hits each month (I checked April-August). Thryduulf (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and add mention about the promotion at the target ("It was promoted before the season under the theme 'Biyaheng Asya', literally meaning 'Trip to Asia'."). 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Next Fijian general election[edit]

this redirect is currrently outdated. There is no article which regards to election after 2014 in Fiji. Aight 2009 (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • weak retarget to Elections in Fiji; ideally (as opposed to the current state of the article), this article should mention term limits (ie. length), and parliamentary procedure regarding election planning -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 07:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MONOTYPIC[edit]

Delete because misleading; there are two different sets of instructions for dealing with monotypic taxa, one for fauna and one for flora. I've set up two shortcuts WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA and WP:MONOTYPICFLORA. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • disambiguate as a likely search term for both naming conventions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems unusual to do this for a WP shortcut, but if acceptable this would be better, I agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: See the target pages of WP:DRAFT or WP:NCSPORTS. Steel1943 (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too ambiguous to be of use. Since it's a newly-created shortcut, external links shouldn't be a concern. - Eureka Lott 00:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Masshole Commonwealth[edit]

Invalid alternative name. - TheChampionMan1234 08:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Alabahmu[edit]

Name isn't mentioned at target, and invalid {{R from misspelling}} - TheChampionMan1234 08:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep this is a perfectly valid eye-dialect spelling of the target article name. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Juvenile Law in Illinois[edit]

Weak retarget to Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice, if not delete. - TheChampionMan1234 08:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • retarget per TheChampionMan1234. This was originally an unsourced stub that was boldly redirected first to Category:Juvenile law then later to the present target. I wondered about Law of Illinois as a target, but it doesn't mention juveniles at all, so I think Champion's suggestion is better. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

New Corea[edit]

See discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 15#New Korea - TheChampionMan1234 08:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment. @TheChampionMan1234:, also surely same criteria as Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_18#West_Corea? Si Trew (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Akhtiar[edit]

Name isn't mentioned at target. And I doubt that its a valid alternative name. - TheChampionMan1234 07:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Contrary to the nomination, this is mentioned at the target, so refine to Sevastopol#History (section) or Sevastopol#Under the Russian Empire (subsection) that contains the sourced statement "Sevastopol was founded in June 1783 as a base for a naval squadron under the name Akhtiar" (emphasis mine). Please engage in at least a little bit of WP:BEFORE before nominating. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Communications in Crimea[edit]

Not covered. - TheChampionMan1234 07:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak delete per WP:RED. We should have coverage of this topic somewhere, but it seems that we don't at present. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hell Hath No Fury[edit]

Not a deletion request, but retarget it: from Hell Hath No Fury (Clipse album) to Hell hath no fury. Basically, no reason given to being targeted to Clipse's album. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 03:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC) © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 03:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Kirakira[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#G6 as a redirect caused by moving a page created in the wrong namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Cross namespace redirect to article -- also there's a good chance the article itself is not notable, but I cannot currently check that Yaksar (let's chat) 01:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete DB-TEST, accidentally placed into the wrong namespace. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:59, 22 September 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.

WolVes[edit]

Deletion because it's just seems to have a completely random capital letter in it. I really think Speedy R3 is too strict for cases like this. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • comment speedy delete R3 does not cover cases like this because for the significant majority of those cases it takes a discussion to determine whether they should be deleted - indeed a majority of those redirects that are nominated here by someone thinking they should be speediable under R3 despite being old are kept or retargetted following discussion. The problem with R3 is not in its strictness, but in the over-lenient interpretation of "recent" by some administrators. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • very strong keep. This redirect has been around since 2001 - the first entry in the page history is by user:Conversion script in 2002 which converted Wikipedia from the original CamelCase links to the present free links format. Earlier history can be seen at Nostaligia Wiki which shows the page was created as "see WolF" on 3 January 2001 (redirects didn't exist until several years later) - see also Wikipedia:CamelCase and Wikipedia. Given that Wikipedia has had a page by this title for over 13 years the chances that there are links to it are very high. Stats.grok.se is case insensitive, so it's not possible to say how many of the thousands of views are for this title, but given the age we have to assume it's nonzero. Deletion would be therefore be harmful but would gain us nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    • comment I've now tagged the redirect with {{R from CamelCase}}. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    • comment The only substantial reason in your comment to keep the redirect is "the chances that there are links to it are very high". Could you elaborate on this? Links from where? There are basically no links to this redirect on Wikipedia (unless you include the deletion discussion itself). Looking at the grok stats shows that there's a steady flow of 100 views a day for "wolves". The vast majority of those one can expect are being generated by direct Wikipedia searches or wikilink clicks from other articles. A small percentage will be due to external links. A much much smaller percentage of those external links (perhaps zero) will be due to the external links using "wolVes" (which even without the redirect would be okay because most web servers treat URLs case-insensitively). I would be surprised in the extreme is this redirect is actually being used more than once or twice a year, especially since "wolVes" is not shown in either the current search engine or the one in beta testing; "wolVes" is masked by "wolves". Perhaps I'm just being myopic so if you can think of any source that would actually generate traffic from "wolVes" I'd be glad to hear it. BTW, there is also Category:Redirects with old history for old redirects. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is "implausible and not common", but the reason these "Redirects with old history" are kept is because of their "old [page] history". It is like AlgeriA, we can't delete it for copyrights. As such I prefer it to be kept. Having "a completely random capital letter in it" isn't a good argument to delete a redirect anyway. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 04:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • comment. Some old redirects are kept for copyright reasons. I don't see any copyrightable text in this redirect's history so I don't see why this argument should be accepted in this case. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Panalba[edit]

deletion; the redirection is simply wrong, as there is no relation between famotidine and panalba (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Food_and_Drug_Administration, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1979/11/upjohns-shuck-and-jive-routine, andhttp://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139&context=marketing_papers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilienfeld (talkcontribs) 21:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

September 21[edit]

Hip fracture treatment[edit]

created when hip fracture was split, and then subsequently merged. No linking pages currently Mschamberlain (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep, discussed at target, refine target to Hip_fracture#Management. Apart from being a plausible search term, it's likely that there are links from outside Wikipedia and that people have bookmarked it. Siuenti (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • keep and refine per Siuenti and the >200 views in August. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Siuenti --Lenticel (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:MAD edit history needs to be kept around if it was merged. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and refine per above. BTW calling the section "Management" sounds weird to me. I don't see how "managing hip fracture" would be a more common phrase than "treating hip fracture". 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Easter Island Syndrome[edit]

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

  • Keep. As far as I can tell, the term was coined by William E. Rees in a 2002 article published in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society.[5] Rees refers to the idea in this way: "The exuberant flowering of complex societies seems invariably to be followed by their unceremonious wilting and collapse." Rees' idea is based upon the concept of unsustainability (or non-sustainability) previously described by Jared Diamond in 1995 in an article called "Easter's End", published in Discover Magazine.[6] In 2004, economist Palanisamy Nagarajan began using the term in several of his published papers, and some others refer to his work when the term comes up.[7] Nevertheless, Amardeep Dhanju seems to suggest that Rees is responsible for the term.[8] The term was first added to the encyclopedia in 2003 by a Canadian IP.[9] In 2004, after reading the ecophagy article, I created the redirect to point to the term at that target.[10] Unfortunately, a year later, an IP erroneously removed the material from the article and it has remained deleted ever since.[11] After the deletion, the redirect has been moved, vandalized, and moved again.[12] It is very likely that the reason the redirect was changed to the current target was a result of the 2008 paper "Economic Growth and a Low Carbon Economy―Does the Earth Suffer from an “Easter Island Syndrome”?"[13] So clearly, the question isn't whether the redirect should be deleted, the question is, what target should hold the corresponding content? Furthermore, this nomination has me concerned that people aren't checking to see that IPs have deleted content that was formerly a target for a redirect. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see any mention of this theory in current target, and more importantly I see no reason to mention it there. Retarget to William E. Rees and mention. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The nominator is correct that this is clearly unhelpful and misleading right now. If it were to be mentioned at the target article or at William E. Rees, then by all means restore it. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: If this were mentioned at the current target, consensus would probably be to keep it, if it were mentioned at William E. Rees there would be consensus for it to be retargetted there. However, nobody appears to have engaged with the editors at either article, so I have relisted this to allow time for them to comment should they wish. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Preventive medicine in islam[edit]

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

  • Retarget to Medicine in the medieval Islamic world, which appears to match subject most closely. That said, I am not sure this page is worth retention: its title does not appear to be a plausible search term, and page views stats suggest that even bots are not particularily interested. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 13:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I have seen many redirects titled X in Y X of Y, List of X's in Y etc, that all redirect to Y. Is there a guideline, or at least an essay about this? - TheChampionMan1234 03:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
No, not directly. WP:REDLINK and WP:RFD#DELETE #10, especially taken together, strongly suggest deleting "X in Y" type redirects unless there's significant discussion of X at Y. See also WP:RFDOUTCOMES#With possibilities. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. And while Medicine in the medieval Islamic world does discuss preventative medicine somewhat, it's not a good match for the search term. Were I using it, I'd be expecting information on Islamic perspectives on preventative medicine. We don't have an article on Medicine and religion, though, that would discuss religious perspectives on medicine (cf. Christian Science), and we certainly don't have one on Islam in particular. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment if this kept, then Preventative medicine in islam, Preventive medicine in Islam and Preventative medicine in Islam should be created as redirect to the same target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Thry's comment. I was thinking along the same lines, but will go beyond a comment to a notvote. Si Trew (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • My comment is not an opinion that supports either keeping or deleting this redirect and so "per Thry's comment" is not a relevant rationale. My comment is merely an observation that if this redirect is useful then those others are also (engvar and capitalisation differenceS), if this redirect is not useful then those aren't either for the same reason. However it does not indicate anything regarding whether it is useful or not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Clarify my remark. I realise yor comment was not a "delete", or anything else; I just reached my opinion from your well-made points: if it sounded otherwise, I can only say sorry. Si Trew (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
        • How? My points, well-made or otherwise, do not support either a keep or a delete. Your !vote is currently "delete because other redirects will be useful if this one is" which makes absolutely no sense. Thryduulf (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't fully answer for Si, but I can infer that the absence of the redirects you mentioned suggests this isn't a very likely search term. --BDD (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Because you set out a series of propositions to which I draw a different conclusion from you. I did not want to misrepresent your opinion, so I tried to clarify that we differ. My notvote stands as delete, but your paraphrase of why I think is incorrect: I am a great fan of useful redirects. But as the search engine gets better redirects should probably be pared down, maybe in 100 years to zero. Si Trew (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Except that doesn't explain why you want this deleted. Based on all the information you have given, I can only surmise that your rationale is "delete because I disagree with Thryduulf", which is equally non-explanatory given that I have expressed nothing that can be agreed or disagreed with about this redirect. Unless the search engine improves to such an extent that it automatically gives people the exact article they were thinking of every time, without them needing to view or interact with search results, for every method of looking for a Wikipedia page (including the many that presently make no use of the search engine) then we will always need redirects from search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Because you said "if this kept, then Preventative medicine in islam, Preventive medicine in Islam and Preventative medicine in Islam should be created as redirect to the same target". And I could enumerate various others, and I am sure so could you. I am all in favour of keeping useful redirects, but all against encouraging the creation of useless ones: which occasionally means I notvote to delete an existing one. I suppose I argue from the point of view of not accidentally setting a precedent. Si Trew (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't follow either because either all four are useful or all four are not useful as they are just captialisation and engvar changes. The set is neither infinite nor divisible. The precedent for creating capitalisation and engvar redirects has been long established and repeatedly strongly endorsed. So saying you want to delete a useful redirect because it would allow the creation of other useful ones (which is the only thing I can glean from your latest comment) does not make any more sense than anything else you've said in this thread. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I am saying this is a useless redirect therefore all the other red ones are too. Si Trew (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
But why do you think it is useless? Your only rationale so far has been to say it's based on what I said, when I didn't say anything that expressed an opinion about whether it is useful or useless. I said: If X is true then Y is also true, and implied that if X is false then Y is also false. You seem to following this with, therefore X and Y are both false. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh! Because "preventative medicine" is not mentioned in the target article; neither is "preventive medicine", in Islam or otherwise. "Medicine" is not in the article text at all, "preventive" or otherwise". Refs 161 and 167 have clues, but they are refs, not article text. Si Trew (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Bawstun[edit]

Invented name. - TheChampionMan1234 00:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. This is not an "invented name" but eye dialect for the local pronunciation. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Near the Black Cat Roundabout is a village called Chawston. The history section there says it is recorded in the Domesday Book as Chauelestorne and Calnestorne. I am not sure if that is any use to say so, just sprang to mind. Si Trew (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ym Maris[edit]

What is it supposed to mean?, a Google search is no help as it returns only Wikipedia mirrors. - TheChampionMan1234 00:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't know what it is meant to mean, but it looks to me like a misspelling of the Welsh for "In Paris" (which would properly be "Ym Mharis"). Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary doesn't help with this either, there are no relevant words at either wikt:ym or wikt:Maris and no translations of Paris are given as "Maris". Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, Welsh (uniquely I think) declines at the start of words rather than the end. But misspellings of foreign language terms surely do not belong in the English language Wikipedia? Si Trew (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It's not unique to Welsh by any means, see Consonant mutation.
      Misspellings of foreign language terms can be excellent redirects in the English Wikipedia, as English speakers are more likely to make errors in spelling words in unfamiliar languages and orthographies than they are their own. However, this is only true for plausible misspellings of terms that are themselves either article titles or redirects. "Ym Maris" I would certainly regard as a plausible misspelling as "Mh" is not a common feature of English and the sound difference between "Maris" and "Mharis" is only slight and again not something typically found in English.
      However "ym Mharis" is not a useful search term so misspellings of it are not either. We do have a redirect at In Paris, but that points not to the city but to Niggas in Paris - a song by American rappers with no connection with Wales or the Welsh language I am aware of from the article (rap is not my preferred musical genre) (if it did have, then the redirect should be considered for targetting there rather than the city article anyway). We do not, and imho should not, have In Cardiff (Yng Nghaerdydd in Welsh) or In Portugal (em Portugal in Portuguese), etc, in any language without there being a specific reason for that specific case. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • delete as confusing synonym (if it can even be called as that).--Lenticel (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Where2[edit]

Name of 3rd party website unrelated to target. - TheChampionMan1234 00:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep - I'm not sure if the name is ever used without spaces, but Where 2 Technologies was a company that was purchased by google in 2004 to allow them to create google maps.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Eh, I actually agree that this should be ‹The template Strikethrough is being considered for deletion.›  deleted. Where 2 technologies should be created as a redirect, but this spacing seems to be an unlikely search, as Si Trew's comment below notes.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Now I'm neutral, decisions are hard!--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. We don't have Where 2 or Where 2 Technologies, though. "Where 2 Technologies" is indeed mentioned at the target, and I guess this could be {{R from alternate punctuation}} if those redirects were created? Stats show usually hits in the high single digits to low tens most days, but a spike to over thirty on the 20 August this year. The redirect's history does not indicate any change around that time; the target's was edited they day previously, but a minor edit (and marked as such). Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Circa 10 hits most days indicates this is a very well used redirect and should be kept if there is a suitable target and while not perfect the current one does seem to fit the bill. As for redirect tagging, I'd suggest using {{R from camelcase}} with a note explaining that it is pointing to the same target as the non-camelcase version. Thryduulf (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I note we now do have the two Rs I mentioned, which were red when I mentioned them. Neither marked with either my nor Thry's suggestion; what's the point of discussing anything? Si Trew (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

September 20[edit]

SpongeBong HempPants[edit]

Nothing links here and "SpongeBob HempPants" is not mentioned in the article. ... discospinster talk 14:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. It seems that this is a fan version of the show according to my Google search.--Lenticel (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

GNU/Linux[edit]

Propose retarget to GNU/Linux_naming_controversy � (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

List of endorsements in the British unity referendum, 2014[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; G5. Courcelles 05:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As for British unity referendum, 2014:result of reversion of a POV pushing move. BethNaught (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as POV fork, same reasons as below. No RS calls it that. JohnCD (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Delete. Nuff said. Si Trew (talk) 11:45, 20 September 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.

Opinion polling for the British unity referendum, 2014[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; G5. Courcelles 05:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As for British unity referendum, 2014: this is a POV pushing move. The referendum has not been called this by anybody. BethNaught (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as POV fork, same reasons as below. No RS calls it that. JohnCD (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete'. Nuff said. Si Trew (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete'. No merit. Chris55 (talk) 21:16, 20 September 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.

Musical score[edit]

This is an R to a section of a DAB. Separate the DABS out. Si Trew (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • speedy close - the redirect does not need to be deleted, as it can simply be overwritten with the dab content. If you think this might be controversial, then talk:Score and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation is the place to gain consensus. See WP:SPLIT. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and close for the reasons given by User:Thryduulf. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • All right,I'll go with speedy keep and close. The problem is, usually you get very little participation on DAB talk pages, and little more at their targets' pages, so I don't think I could ever achieve consensus. I might steamroller it through, though. Si Trew (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Be bold and just do it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

British unity referendum, 2014[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. G5; creation of a DavidYork71 sockpuppet. Courcelles 05:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The article should obviously be at Scottish independence referendum, 2014. I've never heard it called a British unity referendum here in Britain. Dbfirs 07:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
If a referendum results in the unity of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as this has, what otherwise should it be called?BushBandarSting (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
A "British unity referendum" (if there ever were such a thing) would presumably be held throughtout the whole of "Britain", whatever that means at the given point in time, rather than in one constituent nation. You're also missing the point that the referendum was instigated by a pro-independence Scottish Government with the objective of achieving Scottish independence. We don't call the 2011 Alternative Vote referendum the "endorsement of First Past the Post referendum", do we? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The referendum was on Scottish independence only. Who knows whether the result will improve British unity? If the referendum had been about British unity, then I, as a British citizen, should have had a vote. Please stop pushing your point of view. Dbfirs 07:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, it was about breaking up the union not establishing one. There was unity in the end but it was the continuation of the existing union since the Scottish leaders failed to get enough support to break the union up. This title is obviously misleading and is the reason that neither of the Quebec sovereignty referendums are called Canadian Unity Referendums.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dbfirs 07:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Have not found a single RS calling it a unity referendum. Unjustified POV fork. BethNaught (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Redirects don't have to be WP:RS, but "British unity referendum" does seem to be a neologism." Her Majesty called for "unity" in her written statement, but the two terms have thus been agglomerated by a well-known search engine, it seems. Neither she, nor anyone else that I can make out, called it a "British unity referendum". As an English citizen, I didn't get a vote either. Does seem a bit WP:POV. Si Trew (talk) 08:04, 20 September 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.

Russian-Ukrainian War[edit]

Google News search comes up with 1 blog and a few translations of foreign news sources for "Russian-Ukrainian War". ZERO English news sources use this term for this conflict. Both sides in the conflict are manufacturing POV-push redirects. Wikipedia should not be used as a POV-battleground.

Delete as nominator. Alsee (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep as likely search term. Stats are in the high single digits or low tens. Si Trew (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate there have been several conflicts between Ruthenia/Kievan Rus/Ukraine and Moskovy/Great Rus/Russia. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as likely search term. Also see a discussion of a similar redirect with a different dash in the title at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Russian–Ukrainian War. —PC-XT+ 07:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

???[edit]

Is there any reason this page redirects to Three Investigators#International Publishing of all things and not, say, Question mark? --Richard Yin (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

MOHROn[edit]

What is this meant to mean? (probably some insult (moron) ) etc. That's my guess. - TheChampionMan1234 04:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@TheChampionMan1234: It's a misspelling of the name of Mongolia in Cyrillic (Монгол), similar to Poccnr for Россия. I have no idea why it exists, though. Perhaps it was once a link from somewhere. Jarble (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. So unlikely someone is going to type that. Mohron and MOHRON do not exist. Si Trew (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I have no objection to this decision. Jarble (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

WİKİPEDİA[edit]

Impossible to type. - TheChampionMan1234 03:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

What it has to do is that there is no RS that anyone uses it in this way in any reliable source. Of course "Wikipedia" is referenced in articles, and it can be because "Wikipedia" is referenced in reliable sources. But not "WİKİPEDİA". Unless you can find any. Si Trew (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: Nothing of importance links to it, nobody is going to type it out. ... discospinster talk 22:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

亞墨利加[edit]

Rare/archaic Chinese name for America, see zh:s:瀛寰志略/北亞墨利加米利堅合眾國 - TheChampionMan1234 03:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED and discussions ad nauseam here about foreign-language redirects. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Obscure and no affinity. BTW how does it ever come to using 墨 (mo)? 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

吾父甘地[edit]

Rarely used alternative Chinese name. - TheChampionMan1234 03:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED and discussions ad nauseam here about foreign-language redirects. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Article title in zh-classical wp and good redirect in zhwp, but movie has no affinity for Chinese. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

孟尼王[edit]

Not a valid name in any language. - TheChampionMan1234 03:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED and discussions ad nauseam here about foreign-language redirects. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Isolated uses in zhwp and zh-classical wp (Cambodia Commercial Bank) as transcription for a Cambodian road. I don't know whether Cambodia officially uses Chinese in tandem with other languages to sign roads (although 1% population looks thin), but if yes then this might just pass. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

愜酷[edit]

Not related to Japanese. - TheChampionMan1234 03:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

斯科特 · 凯恩[edit]

No affinity for Chinese. - TheChampionMan1234 03:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

盧金河[edit]

Name isn't mentioned at taraget, and not in a relevant language anyway, by the way, if you're wondering, I'm sorting out Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms - TheChampionMan1234 03:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED and discussions ad nauseam here about foreign-language redirects. Champ, if I can offer any help to sort the category, let me know. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete A few uses by some Chinese news outlets in 2008 ([news.sinchew.com.my/topic/node/48020]), but does not look official. Anyway no affinity with Chinese trumps over IMHO. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

芹菜糖苷[edit]

Topic with no affinity for any language. - TheChampionMan1234 03:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED and discussions ad nauseam here about foreign-language redirects. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment is there a way to copyedit the article or must the infobox occupy the entire width of my browser? -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@70.51.46.146:} Yes: the ImageSize field of the {{chembox}} governs the size of the image, I stuck that to 1px on a test edit and that pulled it in> But what seems to make it really spiel is the IUPACName; there is one <br> in there but it is still very long and I think that is what is governing the width. (I am on 1280px wide). I've played around but not with much satisfaction, I got it quite short but although I did molecular modeling for some years; I am not sure whether it is better to split before or after the hyphens in the formula.Si Trew (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's the SMILES or InChi sections... Ideally the infobox should work at no more than 50% of main page section (minus the sidenavbar) on a tablet computer held vertically. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Could be... we have to split that long formula somehow to reduce it, in all the fields then. On my screen it was not that large, so it was hard for me to test edit. I made a few test edits but mostly I would guess (without getting out my micrometer) it was about 30%, but obviously something is iffy since I don't doubt you are sincere. Is it different browsers? I tested on Firefox. Si Trew (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

馬容容[edit]

Not a valid alternative name in any language, see [14] - TheChampionMan1234 03:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED and discussions ad nauseam here about foreign-language redirects. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yo mama seems an equally likely target, although that is an R to Maternal insult: I note we haven't Paternal insult: dads may be insulted with impunity, I suppose. Si Trew (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, his name in Mandarin is pronounced "ma you you", but this is "ma rong rong". Siuenti (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Suienti. We haven't rong rong nor the song "Doo rong rong rong", which would seem likelier targets (but not by much). rong is a DAB with several Chinese entries but that doesn't help us here. Si Trew (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The closest connection I can find is in Cantonese, where 友 is yau and 容 is yong, i.e. still very far-fetched. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 15:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

姓名[edit]

This word is also used in Chinese and Japanese to refer to your full name, (as you can see from wikt:姓名 so it's not necessarily Korean - TheChampionMan1234 03:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Not sure about this one. (Saying so explicitly rather than shutting up since my notvote is generally delete in this list of them all.) Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate WP:CJKV to the three name articles -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@SimonTrew, 70.51.46.146: PLEASE CLOSE THE DISCUSSION and retarget this to East Asian name, there doesn't appear to be any problems with that target. I, as the nominator, proposes to withdraw from this discussion. - TheChampionMan1234 10:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@TheChampionMan1234: I haven't the authority to close it: I am not an admin. But I am not sure this has consensus for your proposed retarget. Si Trew (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I can agree to the retarget to East Asian name. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

黃偉強[edit]

This appears to be the name of a Chinese actor, which clearly isn't related to the target. - TheChampionMan1234 02:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED and discussions ad nauseam here about foreign-language redirects. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Really inexplicable connection. No people under close variation of that name is mentioned in the target. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

September 19[edit]

Diego Mendez[edit]

This isn't an easy call, but I think a reader would be better served with search results here. A Diego Méndez indeed was part of Columbus's fourth voyage, but he's a pretty minor figure, only mentioned once on the Columbus article. See the search results. We just really don't have enough to say about this guy to merit a redirect. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. BDD: You are impressively fastidious to raise such a question, but you worry too much. If the current mention of Diego Mendez is all that Wikipedia has, then the redirect is critical to help readers use what there is. The alternative is to write a self-standing article on Diego Mendez. Embedding his information into the article on Columbus and providing a redirect for individuals who seek information on Mendez alone is the best compromise, the best alternative. Rammer (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Moved from Diego Mendez. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Rammer, part of the problem here is that there are other people by this name. Is this one the most notable? Hard to say, though it's certainly possible. Columbus would still be high on the search results, perhaps even still first, so I don't think deletion would be overly burdensome to readers searching for that Mendez, while helping those who are searching for another. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per BDD. Hinders search. Surely a fairly common name? Si Trew (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 20 September 2014‎
Alternative. BDD and Si Trew: Your arguments are rational and cogent, but if you have other individuals in mind besides this particular Diego Mendez, perhaps the fitting resolution is to create a disambiguation page. But I continue to oppose total elimination of the redirect. That would not help Wikipedia be useful to researchers. This particular Diego Mendez's eruption in world history at a critical point with little known of him does not occasion throwing the baby redirect out with the bath. Rammer (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
But if he is not notable (as indicated by not having an article) then that engineer is hoist by his own petard. For me, on WP search I can't get past this redirect to search properly whichever way I try, but a gooo, um, well-known search engine brings me up a character from Grand Theft Auto. (Sometimes Méndez with stress mark on first E, sometimes not; we don't have Diego Méndez in EN:WP but that is easily fixed if consensus is keep). Si Trew (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Columbus - The First Spice Seeker[edit]

This bizarre neologism started life as a brief essay almost ten years ago. There's a brief explanation at Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 3#Spices of what happened. As it stands, it's an unlikely search term and misleading, suggesting, perhaps, a book by this name. But searching "the first spice seeker" -wikipedia indicates that this phrase is not used elsewhere (the few results are pretty clearly still Wikipedia mirrors or derivatives), and that's without even specifically searching for Columbus. BDD (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Since patently Columbus was not the first spice seeker – he just wanted a shortcut and completely failed to find it, as he failed in almost everything he tried – then in the absence of it being the name of a book or film it is misleading. Si Trew (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Southeastern Ukraine[edit]

I have undone this redirect of the article [15]. That is an extremely POV redirect, which appears motivated by the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and seeks to give some historical legitimacy to the Russian backed separatist Federal State of Novorossiya. The term "Novorossiya" itself was invented as a propaganda term in the late 18th century. Redirecting "South-East Ukraine" to "Novorossiya" is like redirecting "Southeastern United States" to Confederate States of America (especially if the South was in midst of another separatist rebellion) or redirecting "Southeastern Poland" to Third Reich. It's a form of irredentism. Hence, for sake of actual consensus seeking (rather than "fly under the radar redirect proposal than no one's been informed about") I am reopening this discussion. *IF* we do redirect South-East Ukraine to anything, then the appropriate article would be Wild Fields, as that is the actual historical name of the region. Although I actually don't see a need for that either. Redirecting it to "Ukraine" until someone wants to write a geographic article about its South-East part is sufficient for now.  Volunteer Marek  15:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • As a procedural matter, I've restored these to point to Novorossiya, which was decided upon through consensus by a recent RfD. As a matter of substance, at least for now, I have no opinion as to where these should point. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
To call that discussion "Consensus" is a big stretch. For example, on that very page I undid the original attempt at the POV redirect [16]. Yet I was never notified of this discussion. The discussion involved essentially two editors (plus one editor who struck their comment), one of whom was exactly the person who's tried to make this into a POV redirect in the first place. This wasn't "Consensus", this was "sneak it in quick under the radar".
At some point I used to hope that admins who close these kind of discussions would have enough content-relevant background knowledge to be able to ascertain the quality of the discussion or the policy basis of the proposal. After all, that is exactly what policy tells us - Consensus is not a vote and a closing admin should evaluate the policy reasons stated. Since this, at least to me, is just such a blatant attempt at POV pushing, as a closing admin, you should've known better. And now there's a mess to clean up and undo. Volunteer Marek  17:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Consensus isn't a vote, true, but every participant in that discussion, which ran over a month, agreed on that outcome, except for the nominator, who stayed silent after the initial nomination where he expressed uncertainty. Sure, there weren't many participants, so it's fine to have another discussion, but there was nothing illegitimate about the outcome there. I'm not going to looking for evidence of POV pushing before anyone has even brought it up.
And quite frankly, the only sense in which I "should've known better" would have been to not get near any discussion related to Eastern Europe, which are pretty consistently lightning rods for partisan debates. I thought I had found one that was otherwise—so, yes, I should've known better. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes. It helps to actually know something minimal about a subject when closing a particular discussion. Otherwise we get embarrassing results like this. Volunteer Marek  04:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense. "Bizarre" and "absurd" are about the right words to describe this redirect. That and extremely biased. Volunteer Marek  04:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Vehement delete – Absurd redirect. Firstly, this is not an area that exists. The delineations are Southern Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine, &c. There is no "southeastern Ukraine", outside the purely geographical compass directions. What's more, redirecting this to "Novorossiya" (New Russia) makes absolutely zero sense. This is not a name that is used in modern Ukraine, not a region that has any significance or currency in Ukraine at all. Whether this anachronistic region covers "southeastern Ukraine" at all is up for debate, as it includes Odessa Oblast, which is really "southwestern Ukraine" in compass terms. What's more, it also includes part of the Russian Federation and Transnistria, such as bits of Rostov Oblast. Regardless, the first time the word "Novorossiya" was used in recent times was in Putin's diatribe earlier in the year. Prior to that, it had been dead for a century at least. Sure, in the context of the recent war, "Novorossiya" is used by DPR and LPR forces. However, that has nothing to do with geographical regions in Ukraine, and it is heavily disputed. As "Novorossiya" is mostly outside their control, and given that people in areas outside their control do not use the word, it is outright absurd to even think about having this redirect, let alone the fact that "Novorossiya" isn't even geographically-related to a so-called "southeastern Ukraine". RGloucester 04:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Air Force ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation .[edit]

This seems like a bit too implausible of a typo. I might accept a full stop at the end of the title as a redirect, but a space followed by a full stop doesn't seem worth keeping to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Happy Aquarium[edit]

Appears to be some random Facebook app that we don't have an article on. - TheChampionMan1234 04:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Donetsk[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close, as the redirect has been converted into an article. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the flag of the city is not the same as that of the province, as you can see from the Donetsk article. We should delete this. There is an article about the flag of the city of Donetsk on the Ukrainian Wikipedia at uk:Прапор Донецька - TheChampionMan1234 03:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak keep a hatnote can be added to indicate Donetsk the city, where the infobox has the flag. OR, disambiguate between the city, oblast, republic. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

*Weak retarget to Donetsk, the city. Si Trew (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • @SimonTrew, 70.51.46.146: I have started a draft at User:TheChampionMan1234/Flag of Donetsk and we might have to call this a procedural close if I finish it early. - TheChampionMan1234 06:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC
    @TheChampionMan1234: fine by me. Let me know if you want me to cast an eye over it for subbing or anything. I mentioned you at a new discussion I've started at WT:NOT#Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary, which you may want to contribute to. (Not sure if this whizzy new notification system would autmatically tell you that(I ssugIt would be nice to have a specific policy/guideline for all these foreign-language redirects, rather than having to restate the case each time. (I suggested WP:NOTPHRASEBOOK as a good shortcut, but not WP:PHRASEBOOK, which I felt would not be intuitive). My wording for such is very much a draft but I think has the essentials. Si Trew (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Everyone else should bung in too of course! Si Trew (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Once you're done, I suggest we go to WP:DYK with the hook "... that the Flag of Donetsk (pictured) is not the same as the Flag of Donetsk?". I have got these kinda slightly puzzling DYKs accepted a few times: of course they have to be factually correct but to lead the reader down the garden path is allowable. I used to hang out at DYK quite a lot, and was always making twisty hooks, perhaps because I like cryptic crossword puzzles. For example you can turn marriage into bondage without actually cheating. Si Trew (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Mind you, the article has to be over 5000 characters, excluding the infoboxes etc etc. So we might not make that far. After you're done translating or whatever you're up to, I could try to expand it with more info. I haven't done an article for a while so it would be fun for me. Si Trew (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @SimonTrew: Think I'm pretty much done, please tag the redirect for speedy deletion, so I can move it there as opposed to copy pasting, however, this is all the information I can get from translating (with the help of Google) from the Ukrainian/Russian wikis. And I am not farmilar with DYK, but form what I understannd by your comment, I think it does require more expansion. Best regards. - TheChampionMan1234 07:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    • @TheChampionMan1234:I see you have already gone CSD, which of course I support and should be uncontroversial to change an R to an articlem so I just mention it here so the folks over at SPEEDY don't think there's some intrigue. Collaboration, certainly, but in the best sense. I think you can move over redirect yourself, can't you? I can and I am not a magician. Si Trew (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    • @SimonTrew:LOL, how can I do that when there is already an RfD tag placed on the redirect, and furthermore, the redirect has history, so I can't do that (I've attempted that before) - TheChampionMan1234 08:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, fair point.
I'll try to expand it once it's moved, which I assume it will be. I just wanted the above in quickly since they don't hang about over at SPEEDY. I think it could be a good candidate – especially since the affairs in Ukraine are in the news a bit at the moment. I wondered if you'd done DYK. I'll hold your hand if you want, but for me to review it would be COI of course. I have had a few over the years, and once I was complimented for always writing "hooky" hooks, that is to say intriguing but not actually misleading. However, obviously the pic would be of the flag and perhaps that might be seen as a bit too politically charged for main page though. But give it a go, eh? I'll try to expand it. Si Trew (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    • @TheChampionMan1234: I've made a number of minor subs at the draft in your userspace (added stub templates, external links, etc, corrected the aspect ratio in the infobox) and used the usual vexillology terminology I hope). Surprised the SPEEDY is so UNSPEEDY today. I changed the SPEEDY as I think you kinda listed it the wrong way round, i.e. you listed the target but not the source... I have asked at WP:HELPDESK#Interwiki links whether to add the Interwiki links since I am not sure if it is wise to add them while in draft, I don't know how the newfangled Interwiki engine would cope with that. Si Trew (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Procedural close. No longer a redirect; Was been moved over from your draft into article space just a few seconds ago. I'll close the helpdesk request, then. Si Trew (talk) 09:38, 19 September 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.

Doneck[edit]

No affinity for Czezh/Slovak - TheChampionMan1234 03:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete, via usual reasoning. Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, "c" is often pronounced "ts" in Slavic languages, so this is a plausible guess at the spelling. Siuenti (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment. Not convinced with that one. "C" in Hungarian is also pronounced (English) "ts", and that's not Slavic. The original is not in the Latin alphabet. So I see your point, but then I thought of tsunami and tsar.
I'd say the same for Done'tsk and Donet'sk which although used in articles, what is the apostrophe supposed to stand for (to someone unfamiliar with Ukranian)? glottal stop? aitch dropping? Si Trew (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Those two look wrong but Donets’k is reasonable, there is a soft sign before the "k" indicating palatization of the 'ts'. Siuenti (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment further to my keep !vote: Romanization_of_Ukrainian#Tables_of_romanization_systems has two systems where "ц" is romanized as "c". Siuenti (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep You've persuaded me. Perhaps I was wrongfotted by the comment "No affinity for Czech/Slovak" where (I think we are all agreed) it is actually Ukrainian. (Naughty Champ!) I think it is unlikely as a search term for most English speakers: but it does no harm. Si Trew (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sur America[edit]

This word order isn't used in Spanish. - TheChampionMan1234 00:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

September 18[edit]

[edit]

General topic that isn't language specific. - TheChampionMan1234 00:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Tried some targets such as cha (a DAB), but none seems useful. Si Trew (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Good idea, and I was going to support that, but (or anything similar) is not at the target. A quick search found me this tea house in Japan, "cha2.co.jp", so perhaps my transliteration "cha" is not way out and it 'is so written there, literally. But since cha,a DAB, doesn't have any reference to tea, something is a little anomalous here. dictionary.com lists "cha" as being noun, british, coined c. 1950, to mean Mandarin tea (also "chaw", another DAB that doesn't list it). Si Trew (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Mouf[edit]

A rather ridiculous redirect. Yes, an example of this dialect, but there's really very little connection between these titles and the target Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • retarget Norf london to North London - it probably shouldn't have been created, but now it does that is the best place for it to point. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • ...but now it does that is the best place for it to point Um, can you elaborate on that? Tandrum (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Agree with reasoning, but not concusion. All my family are from Norf London. I am not sure I would agree with it not being created, but in Cockney or as it is called these days Estuary English (totally different things) the "th" would be sounded "f". It may be a bit of a Private Eyeism though? (There was a strip in that called "It's grim up North London"), my subcrition lapsed but by Knife and Packer I think, which was deliberately posh types – presumably gay – who earned far too much money and were constantly doing up their place. I am not sure if that is relevant. Alan Bennett had the same theme thirty years ago about Knocking through i.e. conjoining two properties to make one large one, in Camden (Norf London). So I think this is sort of relevant, although more precision than North London would be better. London south of the Thames was technically Surrey until well into the twentieth century; so what is "North London"? Watford Gap]? Si Trew (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Mouf. I don't see value in retargetting to mouth (but I am open to persuasion otherwise). Word of Mouf is the only other vaguely realistic target, but I think that is too vague. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Londoners do know how to spell (except for greengrocers' apostrophes) but we are not a pronunciation guide any more than we are a translation service (which are perhaps the same thing!) rouf I give as a parallel, which should go to four, as it is bookmakers' slang for 4/1 against. I keep meaning to do the article for tic-tac. Si Trew (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Part of the whole reason slang is created and circulated is people want to be under a guise of exclusiveness. In other words, be a douchebag. Wikipedia prides itself on being in the know, so when typing in slang someone thinks no one will know, imagine being displayed the scholarly study on the subculture the word plays in. This user created the redirects because I assumed no one would debate this, but since it is, it should be noted that th-fronting is used in Ebonic culture as well. Thanks Tandrum (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree.
  1. We use enough slang or jargon here for example WP:RFD instead of Wikipedia:Redirects for Discussion and that is for brevity, not exclusivity. It's fine as long as everyone knows the same jargon.
  2. This is not slang or jargon, but an approximation of a particular way to pronounce something, in particular Th-fronting. While that, as a linguistic article, is fine, to add these redirects is not fine. It is, essentially, being disrespectful to my accent – which I regard as valid as any other. We don't have Way aye directing to Liverpudlian or Geordie, or indeed anywhere else.
  3. For if not, we add "fink positive" and "fird league" and so on ad infinitum. English is especially divergent in its spoken and written forms compared to most languages. Si Trew (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
But I don't think Wikipedia is meant to be a comedy. A tragedy sometimes, certainly. Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Weak retarget both to Mockney. Si Trew (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Although I was just thinking, the P. G. Wodehouse "Jeeves" character Gussie Fink-Nottle presumably is some kind of suggestion of "think not at all" (he being good natured but a bit dim), but neither the author not Gussie is remotely "common". Si Trew (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Commonwealth flags[edit]

Disambiguate the Commonwealth has had two flags per Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations, and there are multiple flags at the current target. The term "Commonwealth flags" is usually meant to refer to the flags of the members of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth itself (such as shown on flagpoles in a Commonwealth conference). The article Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations has their flags. 70.51.46.146 (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate per nominator. The singular Commonwealth flag correctly redirects to the Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations, but the plural is more ambiguous and a good title for a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Retarget to Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. It just made me think, I have not actually heard any policy whether Scotland, if it leaves the United Kingdom today, intends to be part of the Commonwealth. Si Trew (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • off-topic. Your comment made me realise I hadn't either, so I googled it. The question seems to have arisen in August 2013 and the SNP/independence campaigners are clear they want to continue as members. The consensus at the time seemed to be that membership would not be automatic, but largely a formality - only rUK would likely have any cause to object and it seems that the most they could realistically do would be to delay a decision until the next CHOGM (2015 Malta or 2017 Vanuatu), but there is no precedent. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Woo hoo. My pension should be in Malta by then, so I could perhaps bribe them with drinks. Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Commonwealth Flag[edit]

Retarget to Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations, as that is commonly known as the Commonwealth Flag, and the flag of the entity commonly known as the Commonwealth. Alternately disambiguate if this isn't retargetted. There are/have been many commonwealths. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • retarget per nominator, the flag of the commonwealth of nations is clearly the primary topic here. A hatnote can be provided to the current target, or to Commonwealth flags if that is disambiguated as proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Note also that the sentence case Commonwealth flag already redirects to the proposed target. I don't think this is a case where different capitalisations having different targets is justified. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Retarget per nom and the reasons Thry states; alt caps should go to same target unless there is a pressing reason otherwise, and "flags" plural surely is better to distinguish than just literally one bit of difference between "F" and "f". My inclination to add {{R from alternate capitalization}} seems pointless, though I am hard pressed to think why I am arguing with myself about that. Si Trew (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Dhoom 4[edit]

Meaningless redirect. Not links to any "possible sequel" section. UBStalk 06:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note this was originally transcluded on tomorrow's log page (September 19), but it's still several hours before it's 19 September anywhere in the world, and over 12 until it's then in UTC which is what matters. Thryduulf (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh:, I didn't notice this and I was awake all night (at UTC+2, but basically all night anyway, gnoming). No harm done, I think. Si Trew (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete. We haven't Dhoom 1, but we have Dhoom 2 and Dhoom 3. Those are articles (not redirects) that both their opening lede sentences say respectively ("English: Blast 2") (and "English: Blast 3") (also have "confused" tags for Doom 2 and Doom 3). So I guess this is just WP:CRYSTAL. Si Trew (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
keep per Title already registered by Yash Raj with lead actor Salman Khan

. 23.236.124.150 (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

برتغال[edit]

The creator of this redirect has created many foreign language redirects to Portugal, see [17] I can't obviously nominate all of them. - TheChampionMan1234 05:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Well you ca (nominate them all individually). It would seem to me sensible to group them. However I know other editors disagree (or did in the past) and argued that each redirect must be discussed seperately – I was not part of that consensus, but have to live with it. I may be thinking of AfD, I dunno – but there is I believe a feeling that each must be discussed separately. I would say, try it and see! You'll probably then be grumbled at for flooding RfD (and I would be the head of that queue!) So you are in a bit of a double bind. Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Grouping is not prohibited, indeed it is encouraged in some cases, but it needs to be done with some thought. Only similar redirects should be grouped (they need to have the same rationale, normally the same target and/or be of the same format, and where it is unlikely that people will have different opinions about them, and groups shouldn't be too large (no more than about 10-20 at once I'd say). It is also often advisable to spread the nominations over several days to avoid overwhelming a single day at RfD. In this case, grouping similar languages is probably the way to go (don't include Spanish and Navajo in the same nomination for example). It is important though that every redirect that is nominated is individually tagged for RfD - if you are nominating many at once (as groups or otherwise) it is fine to ask for an AWB user to help you, just note it in your nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Thought? Are we talking about the same Wikipedia :) "Don't get it right, just get it written" - James Thurber, Fables for our Time. Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all per The Champ. Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Peurangseu[edit]

Please see Special:Contributions/68.72.116.165 and also user talk:68.72.116.165. This user has appeared to have created may redirects from Romanized Korean. I know this because I can see the "rollback" button on my contributions page. I think I have discussed this at a previous RfD but I cant find it. - TheChampionMan1234 04:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per The Champ. Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

West Corea[edit]

West Korea and East Korea were already deleted, this is just an alternative spelling. See discussion at Symbols of Corea - TheChampionMan1234 04:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. There's a lot of "Corea"n redirects that should probably go, I don't know why that would be considered a reasonable alternative spelling. (Kanada and Kameroon aren't redirects, for example). For some, I could see Cornea or corona] could be better assumptions as {{R from typo}} them. <FeebleJoke>Your west cornea is in your left eye and your east cornea the right.</FeebleJoke> Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    "Corea" is a plausible misspelling of "Korea" because they would be pronounced the same way. BTW Kanada (disambiguation) mentions "Canada". Siuenti (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I knew of the DAB: I only said Kanada wasn't a redirect (which it ain't). But Kanada and Canada are completely separate subjects – so I am not sure if that helps or hinders our decision here.
Comment'. The root of all of these is presumably the DAB at "Corea" which I don't think anyone has mentioned in these various discussions? That's been pretty stable (The Champ edited it on 1 July this year, to change "an alternate spelling" to "a misspelling", but since then just bots and other tidywork). With this edit on 16 September an IP ed changed an entry at Corea from Correa to Corea, which was not helpful but has stayed. Si Trew (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Portland School of Art[edit]

The target is a school in Portland, Maine. That is not where I expected it to be (in Portland, Oregon). The target is marked for neutrality issues. I found this while doing the AfD delisting for Pok Pok, for which I think my fears for WP:PROMO seem unfounded (we can speedily close the RfD entry here now, I think). Perhaps I am biased but I would tend to think of either Portland Bill or Portland, Oregon, though I have never seen either. Portland is a DAB(the two US names listed first and second, with poor old England limping in third as usual). The target itself is tagged with neutrality issues. I can't put my finger on it but it just seems a bit of a WP:SURPRISE to me. Si Trew (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate. The current target is appropriate (this was the institution's name between 1972 and 1992), but a quick search finds also Art Institute of Portland, Pacific Northwest College of Art, Oregon College of Art and Craft and maybe Portland Institute for Contemporary Art. Thryduulf (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    Disambiguate per Thyduulf. Yeah, I found those on my search. Seems a sensible way to go. The talk at the target grumbles about it being WP:NPOV for over two years – but I don't think that's our problem. I tried various essays/guidelines listed at WP:SCHOOL (in particular WP:NHS) but I think this falls outside their boundaries. Si Trew (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I've drafted a disambiguation page below the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Looks good. With this edit I have changed your titles into section headings. I presume you didn't add any detail after the entries for Oregon schools since basically the titles are self-explanatory? Si Trew (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Indeed, and I'm not aware that any of those institutions have used this exact title (although I didn't look very hard). Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

September 17[edit]

Oh Cecilia (Breaking My Heart)[edit]

Cecilia (Simon & Garfunkel song) is one of my favourite records and I do not believe there is enough original content in this song to classify as an original record. Therefore, this should be redirected there rather than at Meet the Vamps. Launchballer 18:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: At present I would agree with you, but once it is released as a single there will probably be enough information (tracklisting, chart positions, etc.) for it to have its own article like the other singles from Meet the Vamps, so it wouldn't need to redirect to either of the other two articles. It might just need a temporary redirect for a few weeks. Richard3120 (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
retarget per nom. The redirect can be overwritten with an article (with a hatnote to the Simon and Garfunkel song) if the single becomes notable enough for a stand alone article. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Retarget per above. One of my favourites, too. Si Trew (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak keep If I saw the phrase "Oh Cecilia (Breaking My Heart)", I would indeed think it referred to the Simon and Garfunkel song. But I would never search for it under that title. Is there any evidence that the classic song is actually known by this name? I don't doubt that it's the better known of the two, but I strongly suspect most readers using this search term will be looking for the Vamps song, and retargeting is just going to frustrate or confuse them. All else being equal, we should assume a search term is not a mistake. A {{redirect-distinguish}} hatnote might alleviate any potential confusion. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Waze & Odyssey[edit]

WP:UNDUE Launchballer 17:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete, doesn't appear to be mentioned at target. Anyone using this redirect would be misled into wasting their time looking for discussion of the topic. Siuenti (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom and Siuenti. Si Trew (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Ky-geo-stub[edit]

Orphaned redirect, uses non-standard stub tag name, Ky isn't even a standard abbreviation for Kentucky (KY is, in all upper case). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep Ky is the AP abbreviation for Kentucky, and even if it weren't, it's simply a lowercase variant of the more common KY. This is doing no harm, and may do some good. --BDD (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ky is a perfectly standard abbreviation and is the automatic reformatting of lowercase ky. — LlywelynII 15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Does no harm. I think the "perfectly standard" abbreviation was set by the US Board of Geographic Names (as part of the United States Postal Service), which according to Bill Bryson could not even decide what to name itself (Geographical or Geographic, etc). But patently this is how it has settled down in real life. A quick Google Images search for "I love KY" amply demonstrates this.The caps, as hinted, is simply how WP does it. ("I love WP" seems to be rarer.) Si Trew (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Feisbuk[edit]

Appears to be some uncommon internet slang - TheChampionMan1234 10:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Facebook calls itself that in some languages, it seems, (I don't use Facebook but did a quick search). Oddly the Google search gave me it for Italian and Spanish (at es-es.facebook.com and it-it.facebook.com and tried en-en.facebook.com, but that last does not work; I imagine you could find many others that do).
My suggestion is that Facebook has registered or injected into search engines any possible likely misspelling. That doesn't mean we have to encourage it. Si Trew (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I asked the missus, and she has never heard of it being used in Hungarian, Croatian, Slovakian, etc. If nothing else it is a neologism, and we are WP:NOT a dictionary. Si Trew (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Mikhaylovich[edit]

There are lots of people with the patronymic Mikhaylovich (or rather Михайлович). I'm not sure if this should be turned into a dab page listing those or just deleted so that people can search for the right person. Directing to "Michael" seems to be the worst choice, even if that's the origin of Mikhaylovich. ospalh (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC), edited 08:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete with Ospalh. "-ovich" means roughly "from the family" or something like that (hard to translate exactly) doesn't it? Michael is definitely the wrong target, Michelson would be better, but sorta worse as more misleading. Hence delete and let the search engine do it. Si Trew (talk)
  • I think I forgot to sign the previous. On second thoughts, the DAB at Michelson cross dabs to Michelson (disambiguation) (why?) and Michaelson (disambiguation). There are too many DABs going on there, DABs to DABs are surely a sign of slack thinking. But I bet they have a hidden past. Si Trew (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Dabs linking to dabs is not a problem if there are two many entries to cover on a single page or they are conceptually related ambiguous terms. Linking to a (disambiguation) redirect is correct per WP:INTDABLINK. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, but I don't think that's the case here. I am on a laptop which is 1024x768 screen, I have a wider screen etc. But even on the small one I can see all the entries. For if not, what are scroll bars for? Si Trew (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
We don't have -vich either. That's probably a worse omission. I wouldn't be qualified to write that. Could maybe go to Russian declension or Russian name? For example "Anna Karenina" means "daugher of Karenin" and in many languages is just "Karenin" but because in English we don't have these agglunitative suffices we have to kinda back translate them. For example because we don't have the Russian diminutive, we have to say "Little child" or "Little woman" etc which is a bit false but the nearest we can get. -ette for example is an R to diminutive. Si Trew (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • comment Mikhailovich (the more common romanization) also redirects to Michael. Mangoe (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Mangga[edit]

Appears to be Indonesian for "mango", weak retarget to manga as typo - TheChampionMan1234 07:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm with you either way. manga as typo was the first thing that came to my mind.you I note we have 漫画, as a DAB which lists two topics: Manhua for Chinese comics and Manga for Japanese comics. That falls under WP:TWODABS I think, but that's another can of worms. I don't know about you, but I always felt that Rs and DABs are kinda siamese twins so I don't mind discussing them here. Si Trew (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Where do you suggest the DAB be, mangga? Si Trew (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Well I originally though yes, but then I found Mangga Buang language listing "Mangga" exactly as a name. Maybe make the language the primary topic and start Mangga (disambiguation)? 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 07:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment. What a tangled web we unweave. We have also Mangga language and Buang language and Buang languages. The first is a redirect to Mangga Buang language, the others redirect to South Huon Gulf languages (where Mangga Buang language is linked). I would be inclined at first to reverse the redirect at Mangga language as the shorter title, as there don't seem to be any other Mangga language, but I note the official ISO name is "Mangga Buang Language" (code MMO). an evangelical bible study site here kinda implies that "Buang" is a geographical, rather than linguistic, adjective ("British English" springs to mind as a parallel) – but I'm not entirely convinced of that. We don't have plain Buang, for example.
To complicate things, we also have Manga language, which is a DAB with two entries Mangga Buang language and Manga language (Tibeto-Burman) which is of course not closely related. But the existence of the DAB surprised me, as I was expecting it to be something about the graphical and narrative "language" of Manga comics, although I couldn't think of a good word for that - "Style" I suppose I mean, but a bit more than that: the readers expect certain conventions to be held, just as they do with a whodunnit.
Most of these language articles are stubs with very little real useful info.
Si Trew (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
There also exists Manga (disambiguation) that didn't mention Manga language but I've just boldly merged Manga language there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Gosh, how dare you be bold? I guess you get away with it because you are an admin. It is just one piece of hay we have found in an enormous stack of needles, though. Si Trew (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Struck I meant it jokingly but it might seem otherwise. SiTrew.

IPhone 6C[edit]

Nonexistent product which there hasn't even been rumours about. - TheChampionMan1234 04:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Not mentioned at target. I see no point in retargeting it (e.g. to iPhone 6, deliberately I am not linking so as not to get false positive hits), since there is a proliferation of these Rs. Did you know the Sinclair ZX82 never came out either, even after all the success of the Sinclair ZX81?! (It did, but was called the Sinclair Spectrum. Example to show CRYSTAL. Apple might suddenly have a fit and call it the MyPhone or Blower or DogAndBone or the Pangalactic Gargleblaster VII or whatever, for all we know.) Si Trew (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Deleteas above. Cult of Green (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seriously, can we start salting these redirects after they are deleted until a valid page is created in the "Draft:" namespace? This is getting a bit ridiculous. Steel1943 (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Rather than salting all these potential titles, it may be better/easier to use an WP:edit filter to prevent the creation of articles entitled "iPhone <number>[letter]" (any capitalisation) by non-administrators except in the user, user talk, draft and draft talk namespaces. If this is possible? Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf: I'm going to post my response to this on your talk page so that the possible discussion that may take place doesn't clutter this RFD. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, for the purpose of this discussion ... even if it is possible, I would oppose the idea of an edit filter for these titles since it would basically act as preemptive creation protection of the titles, which from what I understand, is against some sort of long-standing consensus. Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I've responded on my talk page, but regarding your comment here. Pre-emptive creation protection does exist for some titles, see MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. I guess that would be better than edit filters. Thryduulf (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf: I discovered that page literally right after I posted the comment here, but thought that page was more for abusive titles. But, anyways, per my comment on your talk page (sort of), should another discussion be started somewhere to get this title combination added to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist? I'm not sure if this RFD is the proper venue, so maybe MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist? Steel1943 (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, it is for abusive titles and titles that have been abused. The MediaWiki talk is probably the best location, it's advertised here, and it'll also be worth dropping a note about it on the talk pages of the iPhone articles. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

September 16[edit]

Soulja Boy's fourth studio album[edit]

If/when album is released, an article can be created using its actual title - at the very least, when it has a title, a redirect to the main article can be made there instead. Redirect is overly specific, lengthy, and not needed at this time. As someone else pointed out in its edit history, this topic currently fails WP:NALBUMS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. I haven't been able to find redirects named according to this pattern, so I assume the precedent is to get rid of them - this isn't a likely search query at all. I doubt we'd keep such a redirect simply because it was made in advance of the target album's release; we certainly don't make them retroactively. I don't know if any information currently exists on this topic, but even if there is, it can probably be included on the main article (which is currently lacking in that department), which the redirect implies has already happened. LazyBastardGuy 18:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. Wikipedia articles on forthcoming albums often have this kind of title, making it a plausible search term. In fact there seem to be a lot of redirects like this, for example Coldplay's fifth studio album and Madonna's 11th studio album. Also, there is information in the article about an alleged forthcoming article, you can find it by searching for "promise". Siuenti (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
But you are hoist with your own petard. "You can find it by searching for 'promise'" indicates the R is not helpful to the search! And Madonna's eleventh studio album doesn't exist, nor Coldplay's 5th studio album. Where is the policy that says where we go from ordinals to numerals? Show me that. Si Trew (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The redirect tells you there is something to look for. It could be targetted to the section entitled 2011–present: Various mixtapes, EP's & next album Siuenti (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
That's another thing I'm concerned about - if we include a certain redirect, we're basically including a certain kind of redirect and might have to account for its various typos and other variations. That seems pretty counterproductive to me, because I don't think people are actually going to be thinking about it this way. If people want to know what his Xth album was, I have a feeling they're probably just going to search Soulja Boy and look for wherever it lists his albums. I don't think people are going to think, "Oh, I don't remember the name of it but this song comes from his second album," and then search anything containing the phrase "studio album". LazyBastard
  • Sorry. I think in editing I may have removed the back end of Lazy's signiature by mistake. There is no point in me restoring it, because that would seem like socking. But sorry, Lazy did have it in full. Si Trew (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Guy 15:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

*gasp* How DARE you?!?!?!?! ;) LazyBastardGuy 01:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

IPhone 7[edit]

Nonexsistent product without even rumours. - TheChampionMan1234 07:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete per Champ. WP:CRYSTAL.Si Trew (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete No guarantee that such a product will be released, or that it will be called such in any way. LazyBastardGuy 18:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete unlike the Iphone 6 case there is nothing to indicated that this will be announced any time soon.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete and probably should salt until a valid draft is created. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
If salted, I would suggest salting for further redirects (e.g. iPhone 8 and so on). LazyBastardGuy 01:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure about salting. F'rexample, Microsoft Windows 2000 was released before Microsoft Windows 7; patently these are marketing terms that cannot be predicted. But equally, we can't predict what terms should be salted. I think we should take them case by case as they are invented. Si Trew (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
On that note, I think this is more easily anticipated because Apple does use sequential numbering in addition to unpredictable lettering. I suppose it could be a question of equal treatment (i.e. we salted these terms, why not these other terms which as you suggested we cannot anticipate). Nonetheless, I think salting the basic ones will prevent those ones from being made, because anyone attempting it will find the basic ones don't exist so there won't be a point to making those more-unpredictable ones if their basic equivalents aren't allowed. LazyBastardGuy 15:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Barcelone[edit]

Not especially French. - TheChampionMan1234 03:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@70.51.46.146:, I don't think its a plausible typo as 'e' in English is never pronounced "Ə" at end of words. - TheChampionMan1234 05:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Week Keep. I think it is a plausible typo. When I chucked in Barcelon into WP's search engine add-in for Firefox, it said "Did you mean Barcelone"? It did not say "Did you mean Barcelona". I note that in Catalan the accents would be different, anyway (and the pronunciation of the C is very different, in English a "th" not a hard "S"). Si Trew (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Actually Catalan doesn't have the "th" sound, it would be a hard "s". Siuenti (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You're right, I got it the wrong way round. Si Trew (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment unstressed "e" and unstressed "a" are often pronounced as a schwa (Ə) in Catalan, so "Barcelone" and "Barcelona" would be pronounced the same way. I don't think many words end in "ne" but a lot end with "re". Siuenti (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment . The thing is, is it a likely search term in the English Wikipedia? That it comes up on the search engine before Barcelona, the obvious target, is not a reason to keep: it is a re iason to moan about the search engine. Bartholomew came up for me on that search before Barcelona but it would seem obvious to me Barcelona was primary. But actually in my search Barcelone, the R, is more prominent. Perhaps it is because I am on a Hungarian IP address: Your results may differ. Si Trew (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I must admit I have a bee in my bonnet about this one. Do you want, by queer logic, Acetona to redirect to Acetone?. Si Trew (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:WAX and there is a long-standing principle at RfD that not deleting something once it exists does not automatically endorse the creation of similar redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Indeed. But the fact that, when searching, the kinda well-known name for the city is eclipsed by the R is somewhat surprising. But that really is just one of the random things of the search engine, which let's face it has got a lot better over the last couple of years no doubt thanks to lot of gnomes that we always moan about anonymously. But still is no match for intelligence. Si Trew (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure what to say about this one. From the typo standpoint, I would agree - until I look down at my keyboard and I see E & A separated by a few keys. I could understand adjacent keys accidentally interfering as typos, but E & A are not really adjacent. If the only thing left is that it's from another language, I say delete since (per my reasoning given all over this page alone) this is the English Wikipedia, full stop. LazyBastardGuy 01:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Dʒenive[edit]

We don't keep redirects from IPA. - TheChampionMan1234 03:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I am adding this entry to the same RFD as this looks like a redirect from pseudo-IPA instead of actual IPA. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment is that SAMPA ? -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • delete all per nom. IPA is not found in isolation and anyone who can read it will have the word in at least one language nearby. Thryduulf (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Thryduulf and all above. Create an IPA Wikipedia if youn want. Even IPA is not an exact guide to pronunciation either: for example most English speakers pronounce "pronunciation" as if it were "pronounciation". I don't know whether to blame Webster or the OED for that, but it isn't "pronounciation". So we are in a meta-argument here; IPA would probably give the received pronunciation but that is not how people actually say it. For example for me "hat" is a silent H and a glottal stop on the T, "'a'", but IPA does not record it that way. Si Trew (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment. That's a bit unfair of me on IPA. The article at glottal stop has the example for "cat" which is broken down for various English speakers (Cockney, Estuary, US etc). I was more having a go at dictionaries: which tend to record one or two at the most. Si Trew (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think Austin Powers in one film points out that Geneva is named after Jenever whereas of course Gin etc are in fact named after Juniper I think this false etymology is on the same lines. (Powers was just showing his complete poshness but underlying ineptitude, of course on purpose.) Si Trew (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Paises Bajos[edit]

  • Weak retarget to Netherlands. Pays-Bas is a redirect to there, for example, but Pays Bas without the hyphen leads you to the internal search engine. "Netherlands" literally means "Low grounds", as we all know. Is it a likely search target? I see no harm in keeping it. Paises Bajos is Spanish and Portuguese. To throw an iron in the fire, Esperanto does not mention at all, even in Esperanto, that it means "Low Countries" (which more generally would be Benelux). This is our responsibility at EN:WP, we are the world language. Si Trew (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I commented below on other redirects to this article that someone searching for them in a language not really used here on the English Wikipedia probably wouldn't get much use out of an English-language article on the subject. Awhile ago, a number of redirects came up that turned out to be either translations or transliterations (I don't remember exactly) of certain people's names and the consensus was to delete them. Personally, I think that applies here too. I don't see the sense in having multiple-language redirects on the English Wikipedia. I know OP is asking whether it should be retargeted, but I think it should be deleted. Of course, there's probably some reason I'm wrong and consensus will be to keep them in some form or another, but I don't really care... just thought I'd weigh in. LazyBastardGuy 18:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I pretty much agree with all you say there. It is occasionally useful to have an {{R from alternate language}}; I tend to do so when I have translated an article so that the article has both the title from e.g. FR:WP as a redirect. (And also {{R from title without diacritics}} etc. if necessary.) However, we are the English Wikipedia, that is to say English language. In all its stupid varieties. So to start adding foreign words, I cannot see the point: I would think it hinders a Spaniard trying to search for an article that is better served at ES:WP. Those in other alphabets are just totally spurious, how would someone with an English keyboard layout possibly type them? Si Trew (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
All very excellent points there, my friend. This is also why I don't think we should have wikilinks to other-language Wikipedia articles within enwiki articles - it just doesn't serve the English-speaking reader well. Plus, it opens a whole new can of worms when it comes to whether or not we should include one specific language edition instead of another - I mean, what's the criteria there? LazyBastardGuy 15:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Ahem. "What's the criterion" or "what are the criteria". Blimey! Si Trew (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC) (Sings, you say potato and I say patatas.... you say the beano and I say bananas.... oh call it all off shall we?)
I was aware it wasn't grammatically correct, but for some reason it just sounded better in my head ;) LazyBastardGuy 01:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


Contraversies about the Netherlands[edit]

Note that there is a typo in the title, but not only that, no plausible target can be found. - TheChampionMan1234 03:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I would read them. What fascinates me is in countries that are exclusively metric, the TV screen sizes are in imperial (17 inch screen etc). Which was nominal for CRTs, but is even more arbitrary for these newfangled flat screen thingies. You should hang out at Template talk:Convert more! Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Ha ha, I will give that a try! LazyBastardGuy 05:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Champ, how do you find these things? Si Trew (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Such redirects will encourage strange links in articles and next comes its own entry. Kill it while small. gidonb (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Der Nederlands[edit]

Imitation of someone else's accent, not funny. - TheChampionMan1234 03:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • comment wikt:der -- "der" is an article in Dutch (like "the"), "Nederland" is the Dutch spelling, so, looks like a typo to me. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Then it would come under WP:TITLE for not starting titles with "The". It has always bothered me a little that the article is at Netherlands whereas in English we generally say The Netherlands, (or of course Holland which is technically incorrect as it is only one part of The Netherlands); the problem we have is how much are we "correct" and how much do we reflect what people actually say? I doubt an English-speakin person would put in Der Nederlands, however much they have a cold in their nose.
But there are always exceptions, of course, Das Kapital or The The or whatever. It's not a hard and fast rule. Si Trew (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Some people will search for article titles with "the" though (not everybody is familiar with Wikipedia article title policy) hence why we have redirects like The Netherlands. Thryduulf (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely right, and I see no harm in that redirect. But how likely are they to search for "Der Nederlands"? I know what you said about it not setting precedent etc but unfortunately in practice it does, and the next thing you know the D disk back at Wikipedia Central gets full up with der der der or da da da). Si Trew (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete This isn't the Dutch Wikipedia, this is the English Wikipedia. Someone searching for it in Dutch isn't likely to get much use out of the article to begin with. LazyBastardGuy 18:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep or retarget. This a very plausible rendering of the country's native name. Someone looking on en.wp for this will almost certainly be looking for English language content having seen or heard something in Dutch they have not interpreted quite correctly (native names are long established as good redirects). Alternatively we could point it to the Nederland disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I'd use Google Translate for something I didn't know, as I don't think Wikipedia should be anyone's translating service, but that is just me. No strong opinion here. LazyBastardGuy 19:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I have a suspicion (not that I would ever be able to prove it) that one of Google Translate's sources is the Interwiki links on Wikipedia, especially if marked (as I do) with the required {{translated page}} tags, etc: since if it is roughly a parallel text it's a good crib. Of course, when I translate I move things around a little to conform to EN:MOS as best as I can hit that moving target, but I bet that they use WP a lot as a crib and e.g. shared pictures on WP:COMMONS gives a good hint at the translation for the captions. I know it is statistical machine translation, but sometimes one can see in the back-translation a hint of one own's style, and "every man likes the look of his own handwriting like everyone likes the smell of his own farts" (W. H. Auden). Declaration of Interest: I studied Machine translation under one of the leading lights in that subject, in a futile attempt to get my girl. I learned a bit of Japanese and Spanish, but I never got the girl. Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I think I see what you mean regarding the hint of one's own style (sometimes I'll run a translation of something I know and it comes up exactly as I would have translated it, but that's pretty rare). I don't think girls know how smexy machine translation studies can be... LazyBastardGuy 01:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thry's convinced me (unwittingly) to cast my notvote as delete. Totally agree with LazyBastard. Not a question of nations or racism etc but of language. Otherwise, we might as well merge all the wikipedias into one. I suggest One Nation Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Not in any language, let alone English. gidonb (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

September 15[edit]

Languages of Crimea[edit]

We need to delete this because, as many of you know, there is a territory dispute going on in Crimea, and we at Wikipedia do not want to take part in either side of the dispute. - TheChampionMan1234 23:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget. While we do indeed not want to take part in either side of the dispute, that does not necessarily require the deletion of a redirect that is actively used (between 20 and 50 hits each month since March). After less than 2 minutes looking - literally one click away from the Crimea article - I found Demographics of Crimea#Ethnicities & languages which would seem to fit the bill perfectly. Please try a bit of WP:BEFORE in future. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Demographics of Crimea#Ethnicities & languages —PC-XT+ 03:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, or perhaps retarget' per PC-XT (with {{tlx|R to section, please!).
I'm inclined to say this is deliberately introduced as a politically loaded phrase and thus delete.
Scotland has the Scottish vote for independence (oh, a redlink: Scottish independence referendum, 2014 is the article but is probably short on redirects, even allowing WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS) on Thursday but the English are not massing at the borders (I am well out of it, I am in Hungary, but as an Englishman I don't get a vote to keep the Act of Union 1707, only the Scots do – and even they are vote franchise in the Highlands and Islands, besides being over-represented in the United Kingdom House of Commons). Berwick FC has changed what side of the border, what football league, it plays in several times. Witout a single ounce of lead being fired. The Scots almost invented democracy, after we lost it when the ancient Greeks died out.
I draw that as a parallel: this Union that Scotland and England have had for four hundred years and ten, could disappear on Thursday. But we are not fighting guns at each other, nor even making pointless redirects. (Champ will probably now find 700 biased Scottish redirects: and all the better if he does!) We have Scots Gallic Wikipedia, we have Irish Gaelic Wikipedia, and Lallans and all sorts of stuff like that. Who made the Erie Canal? Mostly Scots protestants. I have no trouble with the Scots. "Wha' da' meddle wi' me'?" Si Trew (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm at a loss to understand the relevance of the Scottish independence referendum to this redirect, which has existed uncontroversially since 2007? Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't trying to use this as a soapbox. What I was trying to say is people on either side of the Scots vote have not been bombarding EN:WP with loaded redirects, but people in that battle patently have been. I didn't put it clearly. It was a bit of a ramble, and muddied the waters maybe, I was attempting to draw the parallel, but evidently failed. Si Trew (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that this was created as part of any bombardment, or that the creator saw this as a loaded term (WP:AGF). In 2007 Crimea was unambiguously part of Ukraine just as Corsica is unambiguously part of France as of 2014 so a Languages of Corsica redirect to Languages of France created today would not be partisan or bad-faith creation even if the island's status becomes disputed 7 years hence. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Uragan (spaceplane)[edit]

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

The ip's request has now been archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 38#A very small tropical disturbance —PC-XT+ 21:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • According to Gleb Lozino-Lozinskiy this project never existed. Apparently there was a project of space rocket Uragan, which would serve an good target for this redirect if "(spaceplane)" disambiguator was not attached – space planes and space rockets are sufficiently different topics. Reported off-site link for this subject deserves some explanation; I can't find any appropriate target, so I could suggest to retarget this redirect to Uragan DAB, where its entry should be changed to
    • Uragan, rumored, reportedly non-existing Soviet project of spaceplane
    On the other hand, incoming links for baseless speculations should be punished, so it could make as much sense to delete this redirect per WP:CRYSTAL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I would support either of those options. —PC-XT+ 05:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • The DAB would need changing, either way, because a red link would encourage article creation. We could retarget to the DAB, which will also have the rocket, but I assume the displayed deletion log would link here for explanation, as well, so the difference between the two options seems basically moot. The DAB may be more user-friendly, but this discussion provides more information than a DAB would, more of it relevant to the subject, if the people know to click the discussion link. —PC-XT+ 07:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Make a DAB at Spaceplane (disambiguation). spaceplane mentions several (I worked for a little while on HOTOL, for example.) can scrape many out of the article, hatnote etc, but the article would seem primary. I don't do these things while they are under discussion, but I am quite happy to do the gnoming once we have a consensus. Si Trew (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
That may be acceptable, too. As I said, the Uragan DAB would need changing, either way, but a spaceplane DAB may be useful. I'm not sure which would be a better target for this redirect, or if the DABs should link to each other. The Uragan DAB would include the rockets, which may be more directly related to this redirect than other spaceplanes, though. Otherwise, we could make a list of spaceplanes that includes more information, perhaps including spaceplane concepts (or fairly notable rumors) that were never produced for one reason or another, if there are enough sources. —PC-XT+ 05:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Would you include the British Rail flying saucer on that list? ;) Thryduulf (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Haha, that would be a fun list —PC-XT+ 06:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Well it's OK for you to laugh, you never had to travel with them. The nearest I got to the British Rail flying saucer was having a cuppa in the restaurant car of the Advanced Passenger Train as it tried to get around a curve. Si Trew (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Come to think of it maybe I make an article on British Rail jokes. They were a bit of a stock-in-trade joke, like mother-in-law jokes. I am not sure how encyclopaedic I could make it though. Si Trew (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
F'rexample:
"This is the age of the train" – ours was about 62.
The British Rail Sandwich, improved by Clement Freud, was a stock joke
In Open All Hours the stuttering shopkeeper Arkwright states "I would not do that for all the tea in ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch, all the tea in ch-ch-ch-ch, all the tea in British Rail.
Their 80s slogan "We're getting there" was frequently graffito'd "eventually".
.... and various others. But I would find it hard to RS these. Some are in books by Nigel Rees, but I haven't them on me and no way to get hold of them. Stacks of cartoons by Ed McLachlan (strangely redlink, that) and [[|Matt Pritchett|Matt]], the pocket cartoonist for the Daily Telegraph. Si Trew (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Al-qaida in iraq[edit]

Old redirect, not used, wrong caps. ~Technophant (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep per nom, old is not a deleiton reason, not used is not a deletion reason, alternate formats are why redirects exist, and the target was formerly known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • NOTE nominations merged. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per 70.51.46.146. These redirects are classic examples of ones that should exist. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. There does not seem to be Al-Quaeda in Iraq, Al-Quaida in iraq, Al Quaeda in iraq and so forth. Arabic is always difficult to transliterate; how many perms and combs do you want? The Q is only an approximation (e.g. Qatar doesn't have the "u" following it; Caliph is not spelt Qalif).
Patently we have to stick to WP:CAPS, Q should be cap, hyphen permissible. But surely we can't do every possible transliteration. The search engine will find it, and the Rs defeat its purpose. Obvious case of overdoing it. {{R from alternate capitalization}} is possible, but tricky when it is a transliteration to start with and Arabic alphabet does not have caps s such but front middle and end forms for letterforms. None is marked as such. Si Trew (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • More info. In mid 2014 User:Xqbot fixed a bunch of redirects. He is a good little bot but it would be good to search out the bot request that did so – I am not suggesting the bot itself is at fault but there must have been a request somehow. For example before that used to point at Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (an even more bizarre search term for an English-speaking audience I would think). And yet now they all point at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? The "old" argument, at least for some (I haven't checked them all) does not hold water because the creation was back in 2007, agreed, but the redirects have been redirected/retargeted (typical message "fix double redirects" where I am not sure they all were) in mid 2014 and something fishy is going on. Si Trew (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
With this change the second nominated was changed from Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn to [[Al qaida in Iraq, in 2007. That was not controversial, it seems; and presumably rearely read, since the next we hear is that User:EmausBot on 10 Nov 2003 "fixing double redirect", then User:Xqbot doing the same. I state explicitly: I am not fingering the bots or their owners, in case there is any doubt. But it does seem fishy to change these things after (as upwards) they were stable and I imagine low traffic for about 7 years. Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Reverse redirect. between Al-Qaida in Iraq and Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn. That is a ridiculous title for an article, for all kinds of reasons (MOS:TITLE and so on), but Al-Qaida in Iraq would be the better title. I don't know if English-speaking Arabs e.g. in the United Kingdom would think of using that exact transliteration. For example al-Rafidayn seems a bit out to me. Do we have a kinda "standard" transliteration like we do with romaji etc? I don't think we do... so there tend to be all these variances, especially for the front and back voiced fricatives that we don't really have in English. ("Q" being one such transliteration). When I was growing up in Cairo we tended to transliterate as "Kh", or "Gh" as you see in words like Khan or Ghee. The phonetics community has changed all the bloody terms but I would call them voiced fricatives. "Q" (Kh) is perhaps a back labial sounded plosive, which sounds like something you get when you put in a search term into Google, but it is not a glottal stop, which as a Cockney I do all the 'ime. (i.e. T is swollen in the back of the throat rather than pronounced as a front dental plosive). I only do it in English, I don't do it when I speak other languages. I'm entitled to my accent. I am a bit worried about the phonetics articles that all these redlinks are not there; that was what I was taught half a life ago but the terminology has changed. Not sure that helps our readers. Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Gurjia[edit]

A google search for this term returns many things, most notably a town in Nigeria, but it does not appear to mean Georgia in any language - TheChampionMan1234 04:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK - we should have an article on that town in Nigeria. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thryduulf (If, somehow, this does have something to do with Georgia, it could be a DAB page) —PC-XT+ 22:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Si Trew (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Learn Japanese[edit]

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


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete. The best way to take this is to find parallels, I think. Learn French, Learn Hungarian, Learn Russian, Learn English, Learn Ancient Greek, Learn Latin, Learn Spanish, Learn Italian. All are common languages, but all are redlinks – and I don't imagine by accident. Si Trew (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is especially applicable to redirects. Siuenti (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to where learning Japanese is discussed. Siuenti (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. You mean Japanese language#Study by non-native speakers? That would seem a reasonable {{R to section}}, or were you thinking elsewere? I chucked in "Japanese for foreign speakers" into WP's search and I think the hits above this (which is 5th on my results) are not as relevant. Si Trew (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian Coup[edit]

This is nothing but an attack page. It is not used by reliable sources to refer to these events, other than by some WP:FRINGE sources that we don't cater to. This redirect is implausible. RGloucester 02:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep The descriptions in the PROD request tag and the nomination above are incorrect. This is a commonly used term to refer to the events in Ukraine in early 2014. There are over 1 million hits on google for Ukrainian coup - many of them in reliable sources. There have also been numerous discussions on the Ukrainian Revolution page with regards to the name of that article with substantial support (but alas no consensus) for a change. A re-direct from Ukrainian coup to 2014 Ukrainian revolution seems like an obvious solution to this issue. Certainly this isn't an attack page due to the masses of sources that refer to this event by this name. I'll also point out that this re-direct has been in existence for 5 months (created 14 April 14). Also i'm not sure that Prod is the way forward for this - maybe it should go through the whole AFD process.----GreatestrowereverTalk Page 03:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a bunch of nonsense. The only "sources" that refer to this as "Ukrainian Coup" (which is not a proper noun, anyway) are unreliable WP:FRINGE conspiracy sites and Russian state media, which one will find if one does take a look at search results. These are not reliable sources, as has been established at WP:RS/N numerous times. Regardless, even if "coup" is used in reference to these events, it is not used in the proper noun form "Ukrainian Coup", which is nonexistent. This redirect only exists as an attack page and for PoV pushing. RGloucester 03:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


Potentially it could be changed to Ukrainian coup if it is normal form on Wikipedia not to capitalize article titles - I am unaware of the nuances of this area of Wikipedia policy. ----GreatestrowereverTalk Page 03:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate what about the Orange Revolution ? -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC) h
  • Delete. This is an encyclopaedia not a newspaper. It was created on 14 April 2004, so hardly has a history to it. Call a war what you want, but this is not what most people call it. I can elaborate if necessary. Dmitri with (I assume) his knowledge of Russian language may have something to add. Si Trew (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a commonly used term backed up by over 4 million English language hits on google. As per the discussion on the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution page there is a strong argument to include the term Ukrainian coup in that page so having a re-direct to the page makes sense --71.110.128.41 (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
When I do a general Google on "Ukrainian coup" I get 29,100 hits, not the 4 million you asserted. (Nor the "over 1 million hits" Greatestrowerever asserted.) Browsing those 29,100 hits hits I see a substantial proportion of false hits using the words in a way that contradicts the application here. The remainder look rather unreliable. Fringe, obscure, and/or translations of foreign sources. Alsee (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • DELETE My Google News search on "Ukrainian Coup" came up with 12 hits. There did exist some insignificant foreign-source-suplied-in-English usage... the only "Native" English sources included at least one Blog, one source that had photoshopped Obama next to Hitler, and another was a UN-Communist source outraged that action might be taken against the terrorist group ISIS. I can hardly imagine more obscure, insignificant, and fringe sourcing for this term. "Ukrainian Coup" is not remotely accepted as an English term for any current or recent event. Alsee (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Having a redirect from Ukrainian Coup is fine because the term is currently in use in English language sources [18]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Absurdity incarnate. Are you being dense? Your search proves absolutely nothing, because it is not narrowed down at all, and includes any pages that include the phrase "Ukrainian coup" (much of it not referring to Euromaidan). Secondly, no reliable sources use "Ukrainian Coup" to refer to Euromaidan, which one will see if one look at your search. Some blogs and Russian state media do, but they are not "reliable sources". Is this anti-Semitic tripe of a blog your definition of a reliable source? If so, I have nothing else to say. RGloucester 20:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
No, there are many sources which qualify as RS, for example that one. Actually, the "coup" could be even a standalone article (rather than redirect) - as a notable conspiracy theory promoted by state-driven propaganda (source above). There is nothing wrong with having articles about notable conspiracy theories. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Absurdity. RGloucester 20:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as I don't find this redirect particularly useful, but too close to WP:OR and non-notability. Some may find it useful, though, or want to try to make it into an article, so I make my !vote weak. —PC-XT+ 08:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Еmperor of Bulgaria[edit]

Note that this begins with a Cyrillic character. - TheChampionMan1234 00:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. I believe you. The cyrillic K on another you listed I could very vaguely distinguish on my screen, this I can't distinguish from a Latin E at all, pixel for pixel, with my eyeglass and zoom etc, rendered at 12 point. That has to be a WP:SURPRISE if nothing else. Si Trew (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
To emphasise, or perhaps the opposite, a screen reader for those with visual impairmants would not pick tis up.. (Don't worry I just wear glasses). It wrongfoots to the extreme, it should go. I know a bit of various languages for people who have lost one of their senses (I for example have lost the sense of smell, so what?) and this kind of thing is completely wrongfooting. WP is designed, if it is written correctly, to make it accessible to as many people as possible. This kind of redirect defeats that. Delete with extreme prejudice. Si Trew (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @SimonTrew:, absolutely correct, and, believe it or not, there are about 20 articles on Wikipedia with this misspelling, as can be seen here. I just can't believe it - TheChampionMan1234 23:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have a very useful firefox extension installed called "Character Identifier" which reports the first character to be "U+415 CYRILLIC CAPTIAL LETTER IE" while all the other characters are latin small letters as expected. I don't know why redirects like this exist (some sort of input method switching error perhaps?), but I don't know of any reason for them. If for some reason this is kept, it should point to Emperor as Bulgaria is not the only country that uses the Cyrillic alphabet to have had an emperor. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • While this redirect should clearly be deleted, if kept it should not be retargeted, since the title includes the word “Bulgaria”. Gorobay (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per above (NVDA reads this redirect title as Cyrillic Yeahmperor of Bulgaria, which sounds more like a political slogan) —PC-XT+ 03:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
@PC-XT: LOL, I can't possibly imagine what it might sound like, but this is even more ridiculous, as you probably cannot make out the first word. - TheChampionMan1234 05:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Depending on the language, the letter is named either Ye (or Ie), (pronounced similar to the word yeah, [at least, with this accent,] or yes without pronouncing the s,) or E, pronounced without the initial consonant Y sound. So it could be transliterated Yemperor of Bulgaria, Iemperor of Bulgaria or Emperor of Bulgaria, the last one apparently being least common, ironically. —PC-XT+ 07:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Haha PC-XT, it sounds more to me like the name for a Soviet puppet government! Perhaps it should stay after all then! Si Trew (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Ahaha, true! Though, even as a joke redirect, I'd still say delete. —PC-XT+ 06:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Clarify mine. When I said screen reader I was probably thinking more of an Optical Character Recognition type rather than one that reads the Unicode text in the XML/HTML/whatever document at the back end. I accept the latter could tell the exact Unicode if it was coded correctly, but this is obviously deliberately coded incorrectly. You can do tricks like that with Turkish Dotted_and_dotless_I, for example: but we do not serve our readers by playing tricks. I am all for a joke but don't tend to do it in mainspace. (You all have to suffer them instead.) Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

徐穹[edit]

Not a valid name in any language, neither [19] or [20] finds anything relevant - TheChampionMan1234 00:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Seeing the old name Seorabeol/徐羅伐 in Seoul, I wonder if this is some obscure/deprecated hanja form for "Seoul", because they both start with Seo- (for the 徐 character?). 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 01:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Take ít to the Japanese Wikipedia. I am not going to reiterate the point beyound saying English Wikipedia is for English speakers; other Wikipediae exist. Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-English —PC-XT+ 05:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Spanje[edit]

Not especially Dutch. - TheChampionMan1234 00:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment once upon a time, there was a Spanish crown holding called Spanish Netherlands, which is what is now Belgium and parts of the Netherlands; there were quite a number of wars over the place; since Belgium is partly Dutch-speaking, and Holland is Dutch-speaking, there is a relationship. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Champ, the argument is not that it is especially Dutch, but it is definitely not English. This is the English WP. Interwiki links help; redirects don't. Si Trew (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-English —PC-XT+ 05:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Tokei[edit]

This appears to mean "clock" in Japanese, but I don't see how it could be linked to Tokyo. - TheChampionMan1234 00:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep. The etymology doesn't say that, Lenticel, it says during that period it was called "Tōkei". Not "Tokei". Now either your computer has knocked off the diacritic or you have; still it demonstrates the point it should be {{R from title with diacritics}}. I tried Tokuo or Tokyt as possible mistypes: Tokuo is a DAB with two topics (which should come under WP:TWODABS anyway but I can't change the whole world to revolve around me right now); the other Tokyt is a redlink. (Wouldn't surprise me if it is not when someone else reads this back.) Si Trew (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Johall Bal[edit]

Does not appear to be a valid alternative name, see "Johall+Bal"&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=rcs&start=10 - TheChampionMan1234 00:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Uniquely Penang[edit]

Some random advertising slogan which isn't mentioned in the target, plus an unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 00:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per Champ. I looked up, as a first guess, "Secondarily Penang" and my first hit was an academic paper at Mosquitos of Urban Penang: Abundance and Control". So, uniquely to Penang, as far as I can tell from reading the paper, it has the highest rate worldwide of people dying of mosquito bites. Other than that, I think it is claim to uniqueness might be exaggerated. Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

September 14[edit]

Next Swedish general election[edit]

this redirect is currrently outdated. There is no article which regards to election after 2014 in Sweden. Aight 2009 (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Elections in Sweden, where term limits and election scheduling are dealt with. So someone can extrapolate the date of the next election from the details provided there. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wolverine: First Class[edit]

In the history of this redirect, it has targeted various articles such as X-Men: First Class and X-Men Origins: Wolverine, neither of which seem to be useful or correct. A few minutes ago, I decided to retarget the redirect to the only useful target I could find: Wolverine (character)#Wolverine: First Class; however, not even that target seems completely useful since the redirect's subject is not explained in enough detail at this target, but rather just lists a few of the issues of what I found to be a comic book series starring the character. For this reasoning, I believe that the redirect should be deleted per WP:REDLINK to promote article creation. Steel1943 (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Or redirect to lupine. Malformed in the first place. Si Trew (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Some redirects to Hi-hat (instrument)[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. The concerns addressed below have been resolved by Hyacinth‎; information has been added to the lead paragraph of Hi-hat (instrument) which explains these terms/redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm having a difficult understanding the usefulness of these redirects. In the target article, these specific terms (with the adjectives) are not mentioned specifically in a manner in which to explain the subjects of the redirects. For this reasoning, I have to believe that these should be deleted, or at least, add to the article to explain why these terms redirect to the article and/or create proper section redirects where these terms are explained. Steel1943 (talk) 05:10, 14 September 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.

Sanjubrokkasen[edit]

I just fixed a whole bunch of redirects that were redirected to Fujiwara no Kintō a few months before a better target article was created. But I noticed these three odd ones in the process. The correct romanized spelling of the Japanese name is "Sanjūrokkasen" (two ks, one s, no b). One most QWERTY keyboards, "Sanjubrokkasen" is a pretty unlikely misprint. "Sanjū rokkasen" is an acceptable spelling, but does anyone aim for the space bar and hit "b" by mistake? "Sanjurokassen" is a bit more likely, but a quick Googling indicated that it is actually the name of an almost-unrelated series of images whose name translates to "Thirty-six Honourable Battles". The name of that series is probably a pun on the currently-redirected article, but I guess until the Thirty-six Honourable Battles gets its own article I guess the current redirect status is best for a pretty likely misspelling of a foreign name. On the other hand "Immortals of poetry japanese" is ambiguous, since we also have an article on the "Six Immortals of Poetry". I'm pretty sure the word "japanese" at the end makes this a pretty useless redirect either way, though. I'm not sure what to make of these, but at the moment I would say delete "Sanjubrokkasen" and "Immortals of poetry japanese", but keep "Sanjurokassen" for the time being. What does everyone else think? Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Definitely delete the one with the "b". Being very lenient, none of the four surrounding letters are even close to "b" on Qwerty. No comment on the 1k, 2s form, especially with the lack of an article on those battles. For the last one, I am thinking of creating a dab on Immortals of poetry between 6IoP and 36IoP (and maybe also include Li Bai who is named 詩仙/poem-immortal in Chinese literature) and then retarget to that? 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 13:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per proposer. @Hisashiyarouin:, can you add your thoughts to the RfD today (17th) on mangga? Si Trew (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I probably hould have done this more justice. The "-kk-" is not romaji is it (one K is enough), although I note Nikkei and Nikkai have it. I agree the one ending "japanese" without initial cap seems pointless (English caps language names; I know many other languages that don't, I would think it natural an English speaker to type in the cap, unless they are REALLY lazy). The others I have no opinion on –I don't know who the thirty-six immortals are, which is revealing my ignorance even more than usual. Si Trew (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Sanjurokassen because missing a "k" is a very plausible misspelling. The paintings appear to be called "Meiyo sanjurokassen" not just "sanjurokassen" so that's a partial title match and doesn't need attention, but in any case a hatnote to Utagawa Kuniyoshi would be sufficient. Siuenti (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

September 13[edit]

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic[edit]

WP:REDLINK - TheChampionMan1234 21:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Now maybe nominator could offer a coherent explanation as to why WP:REDLINK justifies deleting this redirect. Maybe the rest of us would find that explanation convincing. But, unless the nominator offers a convincing explanation I think the redirect should be kept. Geo Swan (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, you would probably be better off doing a piped link. But since it is there, and in use, it does no harm to stay but causes harm to remove. So I change my opinion to Keep. Si Trew (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic is already a redirect to Transnistria, and the meaning of the PMR is explained in the target article. That should allow you to write 'the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic', which should be enough to identify the reference. An entire redirect devoted just to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs seems like overkill, especially when the article you are using as a target, Transnistria, doesn't have any text about the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Don't count me twice, by the way, but this is not an opinion poll). It is there and used in articles, Geo says on his (or my?) talk page, articles that he has made or improved. I don't see it is politically loaded and nobody has suggested so, so I think we can all discount that. It is used on articles and makes Wikipedia better. A WP:PIPE would have been better, maybe, but this does no harm, however sesquipedalian it is. Geo says on our brief convo on talk, "I wasn't expecting it to be searched for, but that I used it in articles for linking" (not Geo's exact words but I hope the meaning). That can ony be a good thing to improve English Wikipedia's coverage of articles related to Moldavia. Si Trew (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • With regard to piped links versus redirects. For my first 5000 or so edits, back in 2004 and 2005, I did use piped links, as you suggest. In particular I made dozens of piped links to the article on the old reliable Soviet assault rifle known as, either, the "Kalashnikov", or the "AK 47". The source documents I was using spelled the rifle's name a dozen different ways, including: "AK 47", "AK-47", "AK47", "AK 74", "AK-74", "AK74", "Kalashnikov", "Kalishnakov", "Kalishnikov", and "Klash-n-krors". After creating those dozens of piped links I decided I had followed a wrong-heated approach. One of the reasons I decided is in WP:Piped link#When not to use, which explicitly says:
      {| class="wikitable"

|

...It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page...

|}

An additional reason to prefer redirects over piped links is that when you use a redirect you don't have to care where the material on that topic is.
  1. If the target article pointed to by a redirect is moved, we have a robot to take care of that. This nice well behaved robot spends its time cleaning up double redirects. I don't believe there is a corresponding robot prowling our documents, fixing piped links.
  2. Using redirects reduces the cognitive burden on contributors. Should I have to remember where the base article is, when it could have been renamed at any time? Or consider the AK74. I am not a real weapons expert, and, at first, I thought it was just a mis-spelling of AK47. Actually, it is a more recent rifle, that looks almost identical to the original rifle. If I link to the name I find in the document, it is a lower cognitive burden. I don't have to be a weapons expert who knows that AK74 is not a typo, and is really a different rifle. Geo Swan (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, certainly piped links can be WP:ASTONISHing, and I'd rather have things being more obvious; at least at the top of the article it will say "redirected from Xanadu (China)" or whatever, whereas pipes are essentially hidden (sure, depending on your browser they may be in the infobar or whatever, but that is rather subtle to most readers I imagine: and invisible to people with a printed copy). If the target makes sense I like to pipe, but for trivial kinda things, like when the automated pluralisation after a link foxes it: never to disguise or surprise. Your example of AK47 I think is very good, I imagine all are likely search terms. Si Trew (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Jin Zhengri[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: Participants should "Per WP:FORRED" is a weak argument when not accompanied by a reason why it applies in the specific case. That guideline says that such redirects "should generally be avoided unless a well-grounded rationale can be provided for their inclusion." Here, a rationale for inclusion has been provided and so it should be discussed whether that rationale is sufficient to justify the redirect or not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Altamel. Geo Swan (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Кarl Marx[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. Magioladitis (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that this begins with a Cyrillic character. - TheChampionMan1234 11:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete per The Champ. Unlikely typo. Si Trew (talk) 13:27, 13 September 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.

国庆节[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

트위터[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Not especially Korean. - TheChampionMan1234 07:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. Si Trew (talk) 22:16, 13 September 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.

Руссия[edit]

This does not appear to be a valid alternative name in any language. - TheChampionMan1234 02:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. I may well be mistaken here, but I think it may be a brand of vodka made in the UK. For some reason UK vodka tends to be this cod-Cyrillic with reversed Rs and Ns and so on even though it is made in Luton. But I couldn't guarantee or check this. Anything that says "Imperial Russian Vodka", especially if it has lots of seals and stuff to Nicholas II of Russia or whatever, is almost certainly not Russian. Just somehow this rings a bell. My first hit on Google was to YouTube here which has the title both in Cyrillic/Russian and English ("Иисус, Россия, водка!"/ "Jesus, Russia, vodka!"). How faithful that is I am not qualified to say, but there might be some bones in it. Si Trew (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually I see now it is not "Руссия" but "Россия"; but it did get me my first hit via Google. Whether that makes it a candidate for being an {{R from misspelling}} I shall leave to others. My own inclination is that it is wandering too far off the beaten track. Si Trew (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Human life cycle[edit]

Not synonymous. I failed to find where in the article it talks about a human life cycle. Maybe this redirect should be expanded into an article of its own? Mr. Guye (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I like this new idea. Maybe. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Human life, although I could also see us having an article on this. It would say something like, The Human life cycle is the biological life cycle of human beings over the course of the human lifespan, etc., and would cover the biological life cycle stages as they occur in human life - birth, maturing, mating, raising a family, aging, death. - WPGA2345 - 22:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
But that would be pretty much the lifecycle of any animal, be it a louse or a chimpanzee. I think "human" is the keyword here, and why "biological life cycle" is too vague. Nothing wrong with that article existing, but "human life cycle" is overspecific to redirect there. Might as well R to My Grandfather's Clock,, by your reasoning. Si Trew (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

September 12[edit]

曼谷[edit]

Not especially Chinese - TheChampionMan1234 07:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • How is this an unlikely redirect? Languages of Thailand says that Chinese is spoken there. - Eureka Lott 01:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Not especially" means it is not English and has no place in English Wikpedia. English speaking readers are unlikely to type it, and Chinese speakers are likely to go to the Chinese Wikipedia: having this actually hinders Thai or Chinese speakers finding the article in their own language, since it will show up prominently on a Web search.
I don't like the shorthand of saying "Not especially" rather than "Not English" (which is shorter, actually), but the Champ is a lot bigger than me and tends to knock me out in round 2, so I kinda put up with it. Champ, wouldn't saying "Not English" be more concise and more understandable? Si Trew (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations[edit]

As per WP:CNR. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Between May 2012 and January 2014 this redirected to Sockpuppet (internet), before and after then it pointed to it's current target. Both changes were made according to WP:BOLD afaict. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't care either way that it is going, but I would slightly prefer it go to link that it was at between 2012 and 2014, since that's the best link to place it at. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget back to Sockpuppet (internet).--Lenticel (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete, I think arguments exist against both its current target and Sockpuppet (internet), so this redirect should not exist anymore because of the potential for confusion. Jinkinson talk to me 21:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget back to Sockpuppet (Internet), which already has a hatnote pointing to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (and also eliminates any CNR concerns). - Eureka Lott 01:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anyone who knows the slang "Sockpuppet" (in the Wikipedia jargon) doesn't need to find an article about sock puppets or anything else; this is patently the correct target, WP:CNR though it be. Declaration: I've been through one and banned as a sock, but it is hard to sockpuppet oneself; but since I roam and use different internet providers I see how it could look suspicious. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Quest (rapper)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Not the same person. I talked to the redirect's creator who says they made it because they're on the same record label. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Two diff people. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete. At Quest (disambiguation) we have Quest (singer), an R&B singer (and presumably not the same either). Is this just WP:PROMO or what? oogle gives me e.g. [[26]] to QuESt with the odd capitalisation, which we would normalise (and is a sign of non notability if you ask me if you have to do your caps that way). If the chap hasn't an article, or even much of an online presence, there is no use it being redirected to a different person. His agent probably added it. Created on 12 September 2014 by User:Nba-fan-11, listed immediately by nom here. Si Trew (talk) 09:39, 17 September 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.

Tempalte:Did you know nominations/Singapore Flyer[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G6 which covers redirects created when moving a page created in the wrong namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete this recently created cross-namespace redirect. Gorobay (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as a page obviously created in error. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:09, 12 September 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.

September 11[edit]

Wikipedia:Damianos Sotheby's International Realty[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. Redirects created when moving pages unambiguously created in the wrong namespace can be speedy deleted under criterion G6. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect (article is now at Damianos Sotheby's International Realty). DexDor (talk) 19:31, 11 September 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.

Olga Aleksandrovna Sedakova[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. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

different Olga Sedakova than ru:Седакова, Ольга Александровна gobonobo + c 03:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, entirely my fault. Should be deleted until the correct article has been created.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Now corrected, can be speedy kept.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The redirect is good now. I withdraw this. Thanks Ymblanter. gobonobo + c 14:18, 11 September 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.

User:CakeProphet[edit]

User:CakeProphet does not exist. KonveyorBelt 02:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Bypass all incoming links and delete since this username is available, so someone taking it will have an inappropriate redirected user and talk pages -- 70.51.201.202 (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • strong keep. User:The prophet wizard of the crayon cake linked to their userpage via this redirect in their signature so deletion would break hundreds of links in old discussions. My understanding is that the system will not allow this username to be registered while the redirect to another username exists (I can't test this while it is not a redirect though) so the anon's concerns will not happen. While these links could be retargetted, old discussions should not be edited without a very good reason, and I do not see this as a good reason let alone a very good reason. Thryduulf (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Register and keep Prophet wizard needs to register the username if they use this redirect. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Unlikely, as they haven't edited for...5 years? Ansh666 18:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Фонд Викимедиа[edit]

Not especially Russian - TheChampionMan1234 01:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  • No needed in this wiki; delete. --Kaganer (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. ru:Фонд Викимедиа already exists and is Interwiki linked. Perhaps I shouldn't grumble, but the way now Interwiki links are done rather than adding them manually like we used to do in the good old days, tends to multiply useless Interwiki links. Now, doing the IW was a right old pain if one had a few languages one had collated an article from; but it had the advantage that one could pick and choose (and not necessarily direct to the exactly parallel topic but to a near but more informative topic); it was quite frequent to go around the houses, for me, from English to German to Spanish to French to Hungarian or whatever, then back to English, and find myself going from London Transport to LPTB or whatever, in a series of Chinese whispers. I am not sure that was a bad thing, on the whole; as BD pointed out recently elsewhere and which I wholeheartely agree with, we are here to serve readers looking for information, and I am not sure that this automatic IW stuff helps that: it saves editors some effort, but harms readers searching. (End of diatribe.) Si Trew (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

國際象棋[edit]

Not especially Chinese. - TheChampionMan1234 01:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Question would the Chinese term be better off retargetted to Xiangqi? --Lenticel (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It means ‘international xiangqi’, i.e. Western chess, so it should not be retargeted. Gorobay (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If there is a part detailing (speculation follows) how "xiangqi" has been taken to mean Xiangqi and therefore authority has to settle with adding "international" to the Chinese name then it is possibly OK to redirect to that section. Otherwise delete per not translation dictionary. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Accurate, obviously useful and used according to page stats. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 21:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, but is it used by mistake? We don't have stats on how long someone stays on the target page. (We could implement some naughtiness to do a watchdog timer, but that would be against WP philosophy, I think.) My guess is they are better served at zh:國際象棋. Si Trew (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Most likely intentional, as the 'en' article will be more informative. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 21:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Daegu International Film Festival[edit]

There is no such festival, this just reveals pages mirroring Wikipedia such as OneLook dictionary, it isn't the first time I've seen this. - TheChampionMan1234 00:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Weird. —mako 22:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Note the creator of this article made a whole bunch of these at about the same time. It might be good to figure out what what was going on? —mako 22:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    You're right. This is a bit odd I looked at Ping'an for example and it is a DAB, almost all of which are redlinks (which obviously a DAB should not have). That might be an exception, because most of the entries at that DAB are to places in China, not North Korea. Busan International School is an R to Busan Foreign School which is in South Korea (so it says). That is just my plucking examples more or less at random; I am sure others would tend to the same conclu. All in mid-2007. Something is a bit fishy here. Si Trew (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    Going round the houses, 1999 IIHF Asian Oceanic Junior U18 Championship exists via R to DABs to Rs to DABs etc. The Champ is probably the best to judge this (I don't write Chinese or Hangul, but can parse katakana and hiragana) but I doubt an English speaker would ever think to type that title into a search bar. These were created en masse in summer of 2007, but I would not like to judge by whom. As a native English speaker, they seem very well written in English: and all tied up etc (wish I was that good an editor) but I would guess either China or North Korea. Some are to South Korea but that is perhaps just a bit if diplomacy (there was a superb statement from North Korea yesterday which BBC Monitoring picked up, for example, that a British citizen had been given hard labour for six years for some bit of naughtiness and the British are asking for him back to serve the time in the UK: the question in my head is why would North Korea be so nice rather than just take him out the back and put a bullet through his head, no questions asked? Something fishy with that one too. Ambrose Bierce defines Diplomat in the Devil's Dictionary as "A man sent abroad to lie for his country"). Si Trew (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    Second guess. Most of the entries are for schools of some kind (with extreme prejudice, I suggest a Diploma mill). For example Exeter Academy redireects to Phillips Exeter Academy, based in New Hampshire (whereas I would have thought WP:PRIMARY would be to Exeter University in southwest England, now part of the University of the West of England, so my genuine certificate from them is worth bugger all then!) Si Trew (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    Your cub reporter is on the case, as you see. Give me the tools I shall do the job. Not found a geographical IP for it yet. Vermi, Verbum: probat. To be clear, I got Exeter Academy after jumping through hoops of the various DABs and Rs that Benjamin pointed to. Deliberately I am doing it here without links so we don't weave the web closer. Si Trew (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    Re "without links" - are you aware that if you link to [[:Foo]] the colon means it doesn't show up in Foo's what-links-here list? DexDor (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Nah, I was not aware of that. I always sign for myself and suffer the consequences! I only use that form for Interwiki links etc. That spins another yarn, then. That might be quite relevant, DexDor, because tracing the creator of these Rs to articles (that I tink are WP:PROMO) has taken me a lot of time but I got nowhere. Should we take the articles themselves to AfD? Then obviously the Rs follow. It seems like a promo for various language schools. Si Trew (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

September 10[edit]

Korean History in Manchuria[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 Manchuria that contains relevant information. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No good target can be found. - TheChampionMan1234 23:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • What about History of Manchuria? Why not retarget there? Korea borders Manchuria: there have been kingdoms that have had territory in both, and some Koreans do live there still. Ansh666 23:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to History of Manchuria as per Ansh. That article mentions Korea bottom to top. Is there a reason I don't see to not redirect it there? —mako 01:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to History of Manchuria as above. Makes much more sense. Si Trew (talk) 13:44, 13 September 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.

Replacement parameter[edit]

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus to delete, but where it should point is not so clear. The disambiguation suggestion may also be worthy of further comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. This surely is redundant. What else would a parameter do other than have the symbol being replaced by what it stands for? I thought that was the definition of a parameter, more or less. Si Trew (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Harstings[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 Resolved. (Nothing else to see here, really.) (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This does not make sense. - TheChampionMan1234 07:39, 10 September 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.

English words that change meaning with accents[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 disambiguated. As it is no longer a redirect it is now out of scope for this page. Anyone who wishes is free to nominate the dab page for deletion at the appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The target has a different scope than the subject title suggests. While the list has some words that match the description, they aren't the focus of it or especially highlighted. Not helpful for the reader. Fram (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • comment the page title is not very clear as "accents" here could mean several different things, see Accent#Speech and language. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment on scope: Well, the reason I pointed this phrase at the target was that it was the only page that actually had the information I was looking for. The best internal link, English terms with diacritical marks, doesn't have this information. If there's a better external link, feel free to suggest it. Maybe the best solution is to split the Wiktionary page into sections and point the soft redirect at the section that now has only the information of interest...just implemented that change; is that better? -- Beland (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment on ambiguity: I changed the redirect into a disambiguation page that also points to Heteronym (linguistics). I think that covers everything someone who types this as a search term might be looking for? -- Beland (talk) 15:46, 11 September 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.

IPhone 6S[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This does not direct users to the information they are looking for, furthermore its too early to create this redirect. - TheChampionMan1234 07:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I did a search for "iphone 6S" out of habit when I meant to search for the 6+. I seem to remember it not bringing up the iPhone 6 page at all, only some other unrelated pages that had the word iPhone in them. I created the redirect so that people would at least get to the iPhone 6 page, since at least some of them could be confusing the name of the phone for the simple plural of 6. So I don't see what you mean by either of the things you mention in the deletion statement. It does direct users to the information at least some of them are looking for, and it is certainly not too early to create a redirect since the names of the phones are set in stone now. Soap 12:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to IPhone 6 Plus or delete. WP:CRYSTAL comes to mind to why it should be deleted. But, on the other hand, someone could be using this term to look up the "advanced" model. However, since these iPhone redirects come up all the time during the year before September, might be best to delete AND salt this title until a proper article draft can be created at Draft:IPhone 6S around September 2015. (Seriously, this pattern is so common that I'm starting to think that all iPhone titles with previously-used naming conventions should just be given creation protection until a draft with references is created.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. We don't know if this version will even be released --Lenticel (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lenticel. WP:CRYSTAL, surely? Si Trew (talk) 14:19, 15 September 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.

Long swordsman[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 Longsword. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this redirect makes a lot of sense (longswordsmen in general have little to do with a single video game title), and I think it would be better off retargeted somewhere. I'm not sure where, though - somewhere like Swordsmanship (where Swordsman redirects) or Longsword? Ansh666 06:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. The term is so ambiguous that a disambiguation page wouldn't even help. Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Swordsmanship, on the chance that someone looks up the word at all. bd2412 T 22:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Longsword --Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I am fine with that also. bd2412 T 15:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Comment. Surely "Longswordsman" would be better (one word), but it's quite a fine balance between Longsword and Swordsmanship. Certainly either is better than the current target, but to choose which is a bit of a double-edged sword... Si Trew (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Comment perhaps a dab between the two terms would cut it? --Lenticel (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
          • I would consider the swordsman to be a subtopic of the sword (without whom, there is no swordsman), and not an ambiguous concept. bd2412 T 01:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Is it useful to make a parallel with Longbow and Bowman? Longbowman is blue, for example; and is an R to Longbow; Bowman is a DAB. Si Trew (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
          • On the other hand, Musket and Musketeer are distinct articles; bombard and bombardier are both DABs. I don't know really which way to fall, but to me the target is obviously far too specific for this R. Si Trew (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Courtesy note. I have put a talk at WT:MILHIST directing back to here. They might have some ideas. Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 17 September 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.

Jin Richeng[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No affinity for Romanized Chinese. - TheChampionMan1234 00:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per Champ. Nuff said. Si Trew (talk) 10:32, 17 September 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.

Lúí[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Target is a disambiguation page. I don't see the connection (although it has unusual diacritics), and would create Lui (disambiguation) as a redirect target. bd2412 T 00:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom Delete per my following comment. It's not clear why the redirect targets its current target, and it doesn't seem like there are any topics current on Wikipedia that use these specific diacritics. Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    • A Google search for "Lúí" brings up some pages that indicate that this is an Irish name derived from "Lug", but I can see no connection with any specific "Lugaid". bd2412 T 22:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as per BD2412. —mako 01:52, 11 September 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.

ハワイ[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) 15:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No affinity for Japanese. - TheChampionMan1234 00:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - see Japanese in Hawaii, especially the last paragraph. Ansh666 06:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep it seems that there's a substantial number of Japanese people on the islands.--Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep — There are a lot of Japanese people, and a lot of Japanese, in Hawaii. Tons of affinity. —mako 01:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary and certainly not a translation dictionary. (And yes, I understand the katakana). For if not, let us use the Hawaiian alphabet here at EN:WP. But we wouldn't get very far, because as the old joke goes, the Hawaiian alphabet only has 20 letters, because they don't do anything after T. It may belong in Japanese Wikipedia or Hawaiian Wikipedia or both; but does not belong in English Wikipedia. It hinders a search for Hawaiian or Japanese people using an external search engine if their results list the English Wikipedia prominently. Si Trew (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Redirects don't show up in search engine results. Searching for this in Google (for example) gives a ton of pages in Japanese, including the ja-wiki one. Ansh666 00:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
      • THey do on mine. And they show up on Wikipedia's search engine. Si Trew (talk) 10:30, 17 September 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.

Victor Alpha[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 VA (disambiguation). JohnCD (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 00:21, 10 September 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.

September 9[edit]

Pokpok[edit]

No mention of this Tagalog term in the target article. (An article at this title had been PRODded as being just a dictionary definition, but was turned into a redirect). PamD 21:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Prostitution isn't necessarily only a Filipino thing. Besides, the term is closer to "slut" than "prostitute".--Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Question — Wait, does the term not even mean prostitution? The only real link I can find is here on Urban Dictionary (and of questionable veracity). If it means "slut" it might better be redirected there although the term is not mentioned there either. It's hard to see a strong argrument for keeping the redirect but it's certainly wrong to keep it pointed to an article that doesn't even correspond to the terms meaning. —mako 01:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Here's the wiktionary entry. It's more of a pejorative. It might not be a good idea to retarget it to slut since as you said, it's not mentioned there. BTW, what if we Retarget it to Pok Pok instead as a plausible misspelling? --Lenticel (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a great idea! I actually found quite a bit on Pok Pok while googling for the term but I just sort of assumed that even a well known Thai restaurant in Portland, Oregon wouldn't have a Wikipedia article. Retargeting to Pok Pok is a fantastic suggestion. —mako 06:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)6
Well that's lovely if you live in Portland, Oregon. I am only 10 time zones away. Nice for you to point it out, since it seems blatant WP:PROMO and I am inclined to take it WP:AFD]. Si Trew (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Urban Dictionary is not RS; neither is Wiktionary as that is just navel gazing (Wikipedia looking at itself). Puk puk is red, alas. Pop pop as my dialect is a small motorbike but Pop-Pop is a computer game. I feel it should go to Auto rickshaw or something, rather than its current target. I don't go to prostitutes, I haven't the money after my wife has cleared me out for fixing the roof; I can't even afford it through cheap redirects (maybe I should hire a Tuk tuk, which redirects to Auto rickshaw). Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The restaurant does have an article, and blatantly WP:PROMO; the references are restaurant reviews from the local press. I've taken it to WP:AFD. Single use editor with no other contributions. Si Trew (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Artemis Fowl (series[edit]

Unnecessary redirect. DexDor (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible typo. - TheChampionMan1234 03:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral — It sure seems like it should be unnecessary but... where is the stream of traffic to this redirect coming from? It's not showing up in the search box so it seems unlikely to hurt. —mako 01:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Buttcoin[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-notable spoof � (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment FYI what I found: (1) Critical site bought by Bitcoin company to better reputation [27] [28] (2) Hacked content by Bitcoin creator (looks passing) [29]. Possible redirect to that company should it warrants one? 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 15:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete unless or until the Bitcoin article contains information about Buttcoin. Untitl then, this redirect is just going to confuse people and/or not give them information about what they are searching for. —mako 01:42, 11 September 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.

Udsa[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

An Internal WP search mainly returns results about "UDSA Agricultural Research Service", which I assume would be a typo for USDA, but I don't see how this could relate to South Africa. - TheChampionMan1234 07:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete UDSA apparently stands for United Democrats of South Africa in this context. They seem to have a facebook page and nothing else and so are not notable (I don't think it's the same thing as the United Democratic Movement, which is). There are a host of other very minor non-notable uses, and a very common typo for the USDA. I do not recommend though targeting this as a typo as it will just cause confusion if any UDSA does become notable. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thryduulf. I was thinking of retargetting this to USDA's target article, but Thryduulf's reasoning for not is sound. Steel1943 (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thryduulf. --Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thryduulf. —mako 01:35, 11 September 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.

Kÿowia[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. Mentioned at the target so readers would not be misled. Harmless and over 7 years old so WP:RFD#HARMFUL applies. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A Google search mainly returns results from TheFreeDictionary and similar sites that simply mirror Wikipedia, so I have no clue what this might be. - TheChampionMan1234 07:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • According to Kiev#Etymology, Kÿowia is an early transliteration for the region around the city. Gorobay (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral — As per Gorobay, it is currently pointing to the correct place and the term is mentioned in the article. It seems unlikely that it could possible conflict with anything else. That said, it seems unlikely to help people and the traffic to it seems near enough to white noise that it's not doing much good either. I won't fight to keep it. —mako 01:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep for the simple lack of benefit in deletion. This is pointing to the right place and doesn't conflict with anything else, so deletion will gain us nothing. Having this redirect doesn't bring much benefit, but that is still more than none so there is reason to keep it. Thryduulf (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Thry. Si Trew (talk) 23:21, 17 September 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.

Speedy Delete[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. CNRs though discouraged are not prohibited and the consensus is that since this redirect is both useful and harmless, as being an unlikely search term outside a Wikipedia context, it should be kept. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate redirect to project space. - TheChampionMan1234 07:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep per the outcome of the previous discussion and the lack of evidence that anything has changed since then - this is still getting many hits (77 in August for example) and is seemingly taking people to where they want to go. Not mentioned in that discussion were the new users who see a speedy deletion tag on their contribution and want to know what it is - we should have minimal barriers to this information and requiring knowledge of namespaces is a pretty big one for new users. I shall notify all the participants in the previous discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Notifications now left. I omitted the nominator as they have been indefinitely blocked since 2011. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Many times I have had trouble locating precedural things like this on Wikipedia. It's easier for me now that I know, but this redirect will help others. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. The top Google results indicate that the term is almost entirely used in the context of deletion processes on wikis, so I doubt the redirect is impacting any encyclopedic coverage of it. New users who aren't familiar with things like namespaces are going to be disproportionately affected by speedy deletion and I don't see any damage in keeping this there for them. Hut 8.5 17:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per my vote last time, which I quote: Keep per WP:IAR if nothing else...I don't remember seeing this term commonly used outside Wikipedia, so it's reasonable to assume that the majority of those who use this title want information on Wikipedia's speedy deletion process. If you're a new user unfamiliar with what's going on, you might well look for "Speedy Delete" in the search bar or go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Delete to figure out the situation. As Hut notes, such people often don't understand namespaces, so deleting this redirect will hurt them without particularly helping anyone else. Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per my vote last time when I said: Cross-namespace redirects are discouraged by not categorically disallowed. Indeed, there are many many exceptions. These kind of CNRs are generally allowed when the phrase in question is common search term, is unlikely to be confused for an article in the encylopedia, or if the redirect have been around for a long time. The stats shows show consistent daily usage of this redirect. My guess is that almost all of these people searching for "speedy deletion" would be annoyed if they were redirected to the article on Deletion instead of WP:CSD. Let's not let uncritical adherence to a normally very sensible policy of avoiding CNRs lead us to doing things which are bad for the encyclopedia. Nothing I said last time has changed? Why should the decision be any different this time? —mako 01:22, 11 September 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.

Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

Inappropriate redirect to Category namespace. - TheChampionMan1234 07:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. I say "weak" because the situation's different from Speedy Delete given above — newbies aren't likely to be familiar with this terminology, so it's only going to be used by experienced users who are able to find CAT:CSD through other means if necessary. Still, I don't believe that deletion will help them or anyone else, while its users will suffer (mildly) if we delete it. "Speedy deletion candidates" quite clearly refers to CAT:CSD and nothing else; it's not as if it's preventing people from finding an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The category will almost never be used by the new users noted in the above discussion, so we don't need it so they have an easier time finding it. This then becomes an article to workspace redirect that isn't helpful. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete cross-namespace redirects are generally frowned on and this one is unlikely to be used by new editors (the target page is mainly of interest to admins). Hut 8.5 06:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep - The reasons to keep this are more or less the the same as listed on the discussion for Speedy Delete above but weaker since the page seems like more a stretch and less likely to be bumped into by accident. Additionially, the traffic to this is minimal but there's at least somebody hitting this link every day. To extent that people are coming from the search box, they'll probably be just as happy hitting the CSD from Speedy Delete assming that stays (it sure looks, as I write this, like it will). CSD are not ideal but their harm is extremely minimal. On the margin, this one sure seems like it is more likely to help than hurt or confuse. —mako 01:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Tokió[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 Tokio. JohnCD (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No affinity for Hungarian. - TheChampionMan1234 07:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete or Redirect to Tokio which is closer (just minus diacritic) and includes the many dab targets there. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 15:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Tokio; it's not hurting anything, and it's similar enough to Tokio that keeping it will (at the worst) have no substantial effect. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Tokio and tag as misspelling.--Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to Tokio as per 野狼院ひさし. This seems very little traffic and is likely doing extremely little good. If we keep it, Tokio seems like a reasonable target. —mako 01:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. My Hungarian-English dictionary does list it as Hungarian: Tokió (and in Hungarian an "ó" and an "o" are distinct letters, not treated as just a modifier/diacritic). But I am not sure that means it is entitled to hang around in the English-language Wikipedia; {{R from alternate punctuation}} etc would not seem to be merited since in Hungarian, as I say, they are distinct letters. Si Trew (talk) 13:52, 13 September 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.

September 8[edit]

Template:1966 NBA Draft/Ken Wilburn[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. DrKiernan (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

better to move the history to userspace or draftspace, without the redirect. Frietjes (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Improper cross-namespace redirect to the user space. In all honesty, I thought that this redirect could qualify for some sort of speedy deletion criterion, but I was wrong. Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 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.

Redirects to STAR (interbank network)[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. After the point made by Rfc1394, and the vote before them that sounds more like a "keep" vote than a "delete" vote, it's clear that these redirects are useful, and will most likely never have articles. Best leave everything as is. (However, I think that the disambiguator "(ATM Network)" is a bit ambiguous, but that's a discussion for another day.) Steel1943 (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete all per WP:REDLINK. These redirects' subjects aren't explained in enough detail to warrant redirection to this page. Best to delete these redirects to promote article creation. (Note: Some of these redirects have several incoming links, but most, if not all, links are due to them being linked on the transcluded template {{Interbank networks}}. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Agree. I created one of these links, but only because the others existed. STAR interbank network obviously took over and absorbed a lot of small networks as it developed that are unlikely to be noteworthy in their own right and are unlikely to become so in the future. These should be mentioned in the STAR history section but apart from that I agree that the redirects can be deleted. Sargdub (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Extremely Strong Oppose - I vehemently disagree. All of these links are for now defunct ATM networks which were eaten by Star System and subsequently vaporized by the Death Star (pun intentional). Deleting these links to Star System, the surviving network, will not cause people to create articles for those now-defunct Automatic Teller Machine networks, it will simply leave nothing. For example, there is an article here on Southern California Rapid Transit District, the local bus company that served the City of Los Angeles, California from 1964 to the late 1980s. The only reason that article exists is because I was there in the 1970s and early 1980s and entered the information (as well as material from supporting websites) because I cared and was passionate about it. I strongly doubt there would be any passion to write about any of these now-defunct ATM networks and deleting the redirects loses important information, since at best these would mostly be tiny stub articles and the full information about any of them could be included in the main article about Star System.
Deleting these links will not encourage article creation, with these networks now long dead - I think MOST, for one, has been gone since before 2000 - all we will get is a deleted redirect and nothing to replace it. If the original subject has been gone for nearly 15 years and no one has done anything to write an article about it, destroying the redirect is unlikely to encourage that condition of no existing article on the subject to change.
Further, if these redirects are deleted, then in the future someone might come here, look for the MOST network (the one for my area, the Washington, D.C. metro area) find nothing, and thus presume there never was a MOST, (or MAC) network, and someone mentioning it was mistaken or lying,
Back in the 1980s, shortly after the aborted rescue attempt to retrieve the hostages being held at the American Embassy in Teheran, Iran, Bob Hppe told a joke about the failure, saying "That's what we get for letting Chrysler build our helicopters." The joke bombed, and probably caused Hope to drop it from his records. Since the joke is not popularized on the Internet and doesn't show up in a search, there are people who don't believe me when I mention how Bob Hope told that joke on a TV special.
This is why I think it's extremely important these redirects stay; if they're not here, a good source of history will be lost and many may subseqently believe erroneously that these now defunct ATM networks never existed, because there's no reference to them in Wikipedia. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, partly per Rfc1294. Basically I don't think these bank networks are notable enough for standalone articles, at least initially, and information should instead be added to the present target. At the very least there should be a list of networks that were amalgamated into it and what areas they served (shouldn't take more than a few minutes for someone who knows where to look) that we can point these redirects to. Thryduulf (talk) 08:27, 10 September 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.

Template:Revisionuser[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Procedural close/wrong venue. This discussion is no longer in the scope of WP:RFD since the redirect is now a template. I will be moving this discussion shortly to Template talk:REVISIONUSER to achieve a more thorough resolution. (I was WP:INVOLVED in this discussion, but the discussion to resolve this issue really needs to be on the proper forum for prompt resolution.) (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 23:42, 8 September 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.

Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

While this is not as generic as the other related redirects nominated below, it is now ambiguous between Prince George and his forthcoming sibling so the current target is not really appropriate. I'd rather this not be deleted, as it is a used search term, but I can't find a suitable place to retarget it to - British Royal Family#Members is the best I've come up with but that doesn't really give people much information. I'll advise Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty of this and other nominations on this page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 8 September 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.

Mark Jeffrey Miller[edit]

This actor had a minor role in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, one of many such roles he's had, so a redirect from that actor to that one movie isn't appropriate. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Royal baby[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:14, 17 September 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.

Baby Cambridge[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:15, 17 September 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.

Þýskaland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No affinity for Icelandic. - TheChampionMan1234 00:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per champ. I note that Icelandic has is:Þýskaland; :Faroese has fo:Týskland. But that is no reason for it to be in English WP. Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 13 September 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.

韓国語[edit]

This is an exclusively Japanese title. - TheChampionMan1234 00:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment (1) jawp seems prefers 朝鮮語 slightly over 韓国語 by the looks of article title. (2) According to zhwp (zh:朝鮮語) Korean language in Korean is 韓國語 in hanja (note 國/国). Probably delete because of this though. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 07:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

September 7[edit]

Nordkorea[edit]

No affinity for German. - TheChampionMan1234 23:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. de:Nordkorea is the Interwiki link for North Korea in German. Also in Swedish, sv:Nordkorea. Norwegian in both varieties has it as no:Nord-korea and nn:Nord-korea, but I couldn't find any others closer (Dutch for example has it as nl:Noord-Korea, and others get farther apart; Romance languages tend to be on the pattern "Korea in/of/at the north"). We could mark as {{R from alternate language}} or some such, but that is what the Interwiki links are for: this hurts search and is not suitable for EN:WP. Si Trew (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

北韩[edit]

This name is exclusively Chinese. Not hanja or Japanese. - TheChampionMan1234 23:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Kommunismus[edit]

General topic with no affiliation for any language. - TheChampionMan1234 23:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment – What do you mean "General topic with no affiliation for any language"? Kommunismus applies in multiple languages, with the primary language given being German. Could you elaborate? Dustin (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dustin V. S.'s question. The language which these words are in has historical significance specific to the language. Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete all three. Marx, and Engels, wrote the Communist Manifesto, in English, while living in London, didn't they? Certainly he is buried in Highgate Cemetery in northwest London. I would guess that Kommunismus is a back formation and not a particularly useful one on the English language Wikipedia. I could be wrong, though... but I think he had a lot of trouble even getting it published in German. There is no particular affinity to German. The "-i" and "-isme" forms are simply wrong. Si Trew (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment As a perverse inverse, we don't call Engels Fred English, for example. It's fair to call a book Das Kapital ("On Capital", or perhaps "On Capitalism"; variously translated) but I think this pushes it a bit too far, in my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Islamic state (disambiguation). JohnCD (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

From 2007 to 2014, this redirect pointed to Islamic state, an article on the general concept of the form of government. Following the rise of one particular entity, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, there has been much back and forth revising of the redirect to point to that entity, the disambiguation page Islamic state (disambiguation), and the original usage. As there have been numerous uses of the phrase historically, I believe that pointing to one particular organization is POV, as it suggests that Wikipedia recognizes some unique legitimacy to their usage of it, and as it occurs only in the context of events within the past few months, is an exercise in WP:RECENTISM. I propose restoring the status quo ante, and further note that pursuant to WP:CONSENSUS, an absence of consensus as to a change away from the original longstanding usage requires reversion to that usage. bd2412 T 21:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirect should be to the all-inclusive Islamic state (disambiguation) page, where the reader would choose exactly what he wants to read. werldwayd (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment We're here to serve and to make life easy for readers. This article will be a popular search at the moment. I suspect a substantial tranche of readers seeking the ISIS article will put Islamic state into the search box. Whilst I agree that there is recentism in giving that article pre-eminence for that search term we need to recognise the reality of how readers most likely are using the search engine. I suggest a reasonable compromise is for it to redirect to Islamic state (disambiguation). DeCausa (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I have no objection to a redirect to Islamic state (disambiguation), as the capitalized term may refer to any entity that has in the past so titled itself. bd2412 T 22:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks bd2412 T. I find werldwayd's argument plausible, but I am neutral at this point until more arguments from informed editors with cons and pros are presented. Worldedixor (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Islamic state (disambiguation) sounds good to me. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/ISIS). Remember that Islamic state (no cap "S") is already a generic article about Islamic state governments. Yes, I do think that users that type "Islamic State" into the search box should be redirected to the group that has officially adopted this name since June. I don't think the other "Islamic State of..." articles are of enough significance to have a this come to disambiguation. Also, it's important the intra-article links from the groups proper name should redirect to the proper page, without having to use [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|Islamic State]]. As of today this redirect has no "what links here" in article space.~Technophant (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Islamic state (disambiguation) - There have been lots of entities known as "Islamic State" (capital S) in history. While ISIS is in currently in the news, the encyclopedia should be written with a historical perspective. Retargetting to ISIS now is WP:RECENTISM. Perhaps with time it will become clear that ISIS is the primary topic of "Islamic State", but I don't think that can be concluded from a couple months of heavy news coverage. TDL (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Target to ISIL/ISIS. Googling "Islamic State" -wikipedia and it's ten out of ten results for the militant group. Readers who type in "Islamic State" expecting to get something other than ISIS are mistyping. We can't protect readers from their own mistakes! This is the hottest topic in the news and we are deliberately steering readers to a place other than the one they quite obviously want to go to. That this idea is even being considered represents DAB worship gone mad. Somebody needs to read WP:RECENTISM instead of simply citing it. Hint: It is not an essay about redirects or primary topics. La crème de la crème (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice User:Kauffner. Now perhaps I could suggest some reading for you? How about WP:SOCK? TDL (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • ISIS as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:DIFFCAPS Red Slash 03:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Except it's not, per the several failed move requests at ISIL/ISIS's talk page. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the disambiguation page, it's too similar to a more important topic (Islamic state), and a generic name such as this shouldn't redirect to one example of it, even if it's the topic that readers are most likely to be looking for right now. Withdrawn (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. There was an interesting half-hour programme on the BBC World Service this morning, about exactly this controversial naming – at about 2am GMT (UTC) this morning (Saturday), interviewing BBC editors and journalists who have been having this trouble with what to call them.
It was basically agreed, as far as I heard it, that the "Islamic State" call themselves as such as they do not recognise international borders, there is "only one state" under the sight of God/Allah. I don't want to offend anyone's views, just this naming stuff: if the BBC can't make up its mind what to call them then I am not sure what hope we amateurs have.
I note we do have Islamic state in Palestine as a redirect to Hamas Covenant. There is also Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (of not in) which R's to where you imagine but I suppose should be encompassed by this discussion. ISIS is a redirect to DAB at Isis (disambiguation): whereas Isis is the Egyptian/Greek/Roman god of health, marriage and love.I agree that Islamic State seems overwhelmingly the most likely search term for this organisation. Si Trew (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
This is just a redirect, so what they call themselves and what we should call them is not at issue. The question is, “What are readers typing in “Islamic State” likely to be seeking?” If they go to the trouble of capitalizing the "I" and the “S” and lower casing everything else, the likelihood that they are seeking the militant group is nearly 100 percent. La crème de la crème (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be a fairly important topic right now, though I don't have a view on the redirect but agree with TDL, and I don't think it's appropriate that a community banned user should be having a significant say. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
In ictu oculi This user hasn't been confirmed to be a sock. It seems inappropriate to make such accusations here.~Technophant (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The account has already acknowledged the SPI. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ~Technophant (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. ~Technophant (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ~Technophant (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ~Technophant (talk) 23:32, 16 September 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.

Alberta Arts District[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 Alberta Arts District (Portland, Oregon). The discussion consensus was that the targeted article was the most appropriate destination. However, after the page move this is also clearly a good search term. Any ambiguity can be resolved by editorial means with a post-RFD hatnote but none seems obvious. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

When I hear "Alberta Arts District", I don't think Portland, but Calgary or Edmonton which are actually in Alberta. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you google "Alberta Arts District" the first two pages (at least) are about Portland, OR neighborhood. If you google "Alberta Arts District canada" they are also mostly about Portland, OR Gaff ταλκ 11:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
"Alberta Arts District calgary" search doesn't yield much either. Gaff ταλκ 11:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - all the search results I can find refer to this area of Portland, Oregon despite what the nominator may think. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Keeping with convention, target page moved to Alberta Arts District (Portland, Oregon) Gaff ταλκ 18:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am probably putting the cart before the horse here, but has this anything to do with Pok Pok, also at RfD? I have no idea if that is in the "Alberta Arts District" hence the point; was it sneakily added? I checked the talk at Pok Pok and it is just more restaurant reviews in local press, that is a separate point, but I just wondered if somehow this added legitimacy. It is not WP:WORLDWIDE. I have no idea if it falls in the "Alberta Arts District" or not. There is a nice arts district in Szolnok, but we haven't Szolnok Arts District. In Stevenage we called the town centre underpasses the "arts district". Mostly graffiti, we never got a Banksy! Si Trew (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what WP:WORLDWIDE has to do with this? If the subject is notable enough for coverage on Wikipedia (and nobody afaik has questioned this) then it is eligible to have redirects pointing to it from terms that are in use, even if those terms are only used in one variety of English. WP:WORLDWIDE is about avoiding systematic bias by having coverage from a global perspective in articles about global concepts (e.g. Milk, Gravity, World War I, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 07:07, 18 September 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.

September 6[edit]

Wikipedia:Concision razor[edit]

Pointless cross-namespace redirect that defeats the purpose of the userspacing. This MfD concluded in favor of userspacing it, because it was a one-editor-WP:OWNed essay that conflicted with consensus, yet being cited by author as if it were (and confusing others into thinking it might be) a WP guideline or a supplement essay that represented consensus. In closing, however, User:Salvidrim! declined to go with the userspace-without-redirect option favored in the MfD, on the basis "that would orphan a very large number of links found in talkpage discussions and I think keeping a project>user redirect is less harmful than creating potential confusion in the histories of hundreds of discussions." But there are no such "very large number" and "hundreds of discussions". Not counting MfD itself, only 18 pages link to it at the title Wikipedia:Concision razor or WP:Concision razor, and all of these can be refactored to refer to the current location in a total of 5 minutes or less. See also the user-spacing-without-redirect of same editor's other two controversial essays, here and here.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

  • No reason to delete, defaulting to Keep - I agree that my initial assessment that it would "orphan a significant amount of incoming links from discussions" may have been exaggerated slightly, but as I said on my talk page when SMcCandlish brought it up, per WP:R#DELETE there does not seem to be a reason to delete it, and redirects from project-space to user essays are generally accepted as non-harmful, and I would add it is especially relevant to conserve the redirect in the case of former titles of moved essays. Even I have a handful! I also strongly disagree that the MfD for this essay presented consensus for userfy-without-redirect as SMcCandlish implies. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  00:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Um, 18 pages that can be fixed in minutes vs. a "very large number of links" in "hundreds of discussions" is not what I think anyone would call "exaggerated slightly". Again, the entire point of the MfD was that the essay was being cited at the WP:-namespace location misleadingly, and preserving the redirect defeats the purpose of the MfD, which concluded that this was in fact the case.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Without arguing on the specifics of what constitutes "a very large number" vs. a few in regards to the 20-something links in question (as I think that is besides the point of either deletion discussion), I object to a deletion closure of this RfD on the rationale that WP>User CNR redirects to user essays are harmful by "giving the wrong impression"; what may "give the wrong impression" is whether the actual essay is in a user's userspace or in general projectspace, and that was what the MfD was primarily about -- getting the essay itself out of projectspace. However, I will acknowledge that the community's consensus on this particular redirect (both in this RfD and in the MfD) seems to leans in favor of removing said redirect. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  05:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
"I object to a deletion closure of this RfD on the rationale that WP>User CNR redirects to user essays are harmful by "giving the wrong impression"" indeed, my and Si Trew's comments explicitly noted that our delete opinions apply only to this specific redirect and not the general case. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete the redirect as it can give a wrong impression of the nature of the page. Omnedon (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am normally of the opinion that redirects like this should be kept, as there is no policy or precedent against "WP:" shortcuts pointing to userspeace and misuse should be countered by dealing with the person doing the misusing rather than the redirect they misused. However this case, like WP:YOGHRTRULE by the same author, is different in that there is an active consensus of editors that this contradicts existing policies and guidelines and changes to those to reflect this essay have been overwhelmingly rejected. The one person who inserts this shortcut into pages consistently uses it inappropriately to suggest his minority view represents a consensus of editors (exactly as they did with YOGURTRULE). As such the encyclopaedia is best served by deleting this shortcut. Thryduulf (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. I tend to favour keeping harmless redirects. However, this now is a CNR to an essay and that's pushing it a bit, I think. I was wondering whether to suggest retargeting to Occam's Razor, also a CNR of course; but that seems probably inappropriate also, since the essay is about concision in article titles, not in text generally. Si Trew (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Single authored disputed essays should be userfied without redirect. The few incoming links can be fixed if desired. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Illinois-by a 5 grader[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Some primary school student appears to have put an essay on Wikipedia, it would be better if its deleted. - TheChampionMan1234 12:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. This has no encyclopedic value with its title, and has no encyclopedic value in its edit history. Steel1943 (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:33, 7 September 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.

תפוח[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No significant ties with Hebrew. - TheChampionMan1234 12:34, 6 September 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.

4pp13[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Pure leet, unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 12:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. No internal links (except gnoming at this page etc.) Si Trew (talk) 14:15, 13 September 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.

Beethoven 5. senfoni[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete inappropriate redirect. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, let alone a foreign language dictionary: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: this is English Wikipedia, and this Turkish terminology for a well-known piece of music is not found anywhere in English usage or literature. Smerus (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Si Trew (talk) 14:16, 13 September 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.

Ts'ai Tai-wan te Chung-hua Min-kuo[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. Of little utility but technically correct. Harmless and, since it is over 10 years old, therefore WP:RFD#HARMFUL wins out. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This romanization system is little used nowadays, and furthermore, the corresponding term in Chinese characters (在台灣的中華民國 )does not exist as a redirect. Neither does the form in the currently accepted romanization system (Zài Tái Wān De Zhōng Huá Mín Guó). Also, this does not appear to be a likely search term on the English Wikipedia - TheChampionMan1234 05:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep per nom. Nom states that it is correct. Nominator should create the Chinese character redirect, and the new romanization style redirect. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per nom and 65.94.169.222. "Little used nowadays" does not mean never used, and indeed makes it more likely that people encountering this term in older literature will want to look it up. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    Comment, I couldn't find any uses of this romanisation system to express this term, see [32] - TheChampionMan1234 11:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    An old romanisation system is significantly more likely to be represented in offline environments than it is online. Thryduulf (talk)
    Comment. Yeah, I found what Thry found; but it seems harmless to keep it. Whether anyone would actually type it is another matter, but it is doing no harm. The online dictionary references essentially refer to, or are scraped from, Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. Si Trew (talk) 14:21, 13 September 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.

Táiwan[edit]

Note that the tone mark (pinyin) for the second syllable is missing, the correct form is Táiwān - TheChampionMan1234 05:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Why keep? It is an unlikely typo, see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_8#Shànghai - TheChampionMan1234 11:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Dropping an accent is a highly common type of typo. Just look at languages with accents on the internet, and see how people spell accented words on internet forums. There's quite a lot of typos of this sort. As this is a transcription with accents, it would be even more likely as no one writes this in everyday speech as their primary form of communication, so even more likley to drop accents -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • keep. An English speaker missing a diacritic, particularly one they wont be familiar with from French or Spanish words and borrowings, is a likely typo or thinko. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    Comment @Thryduulf: @65.94.169.222:} You obivously haven't read the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_8#Shànghai , people unfarmilar with the original language will type the title without the tone marks in the first place, and note that the target's title is the same if you remove the tone marks, this redirect is not getting a lot of hits, so deletion won't hurt. - TheChampionMan1234 23:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    I've explained above why I believe this is plausible, and stand by that - just because most people will enter both or no tone marks does not mean that all will. This does not get many page views but it looks to me like it is above the level of just bot visits, and so deletion will harm the encyclopaedia by making it harder for people to find the content they are looking for (seeing search results is not guaranteed, some methods of navigation will result in an invitation to start the page or just a note that there is nothing and would you like to search?). As deletion will harm the project while bringing no benefits, this is a clear keep. WP:WAX arguments are irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thry. It is not just a case of being an unfamiliar diacritic, but English people might know it but not be able to find it easily on their keyboard; this is why we have {{R from title without diacritics}} and so on, and it's standard to create those Rs when one creates an article with diacritical marks in it. I have to switch between a couple of keyboard layouts, neither of which has a cedillafor example, so although I know better I just bung in the C without the cedilla. That is not stupidity; that is expedience. Si Trew (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redirects from typos are no longer appropriate because the Wikipedia search function does a better job. These redirects disable the default search function behaviour and can provide misleading text and hover text. Stop embedding misinformation, leave it to the search engine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The Wikipedia search function is only one of many ways that people use to locate Wikipedia content (and even then search suggestions only work for people with javascript enabled) - bookmarks, links (internal and external), external search engines, browser plugis, directly typing the URL, are just some of the others. If a page does not exist you are only sometimes shown search results (which are not guaranteed to be relevant) other times you are invited to search, invited to create the page, or just told that there isn't a page with this title. Redirects from typos are still very much needed. Thryduulf (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
      • But in my testing, a logged out Wikipedia search (actually a "go") for "Táiwan" produces a single page, someone's manual best guess, that today is a pretty ugly page. If it weren't for the redirect existing, the default search would be the proper search, which gives a page full of useful links, automagically ranked in order of likelihood, as best determined continuously by the AI. I don't think javascript or pluggins are relevant to this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Javascript is not relevant to that method of searching, correct. However you are forgetting that that is not the only method of finding Wikipedia articles. Other methods include, but are not limited to: typing in the search box and selecting from the drop-down list of suggestions (requires javascript), directly entering the URI (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/like_this_one or en.wp.org/like_this_one ), using an external search engine (Google, Bing, etc, etc), using a browser search plugin (some are listed at [33], there are others), scrolling through a list of article titles, following a link on an external website, following a link from another Wikipedia page, opening a previously bookmarked page and searching from the URL bar of your browser. Depending which method you use, if the title you are searching for does not exist you will either be taken to the search page (as you desire to be) and either shown search results or (as I just was shown a red error message saying "An error has occurred while searching: HTTP request timed out.", told "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Like this one in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings. " and invited to start the page directly or using the article wizard, or taken to the edit window to start creating a new article. If a search term has a single most likely term, then it should redirect to that page; if it has multiple equally likely targets it should either be a disambiguation page or a redirect to a disambiguation page at a different title. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Single purpose account[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate redirect to project space. - TheChampionMan1234 05:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

  • And a somewhat plausible article topic even (or at least plausible redirect to something else in mainspace; [[Throw-away account]] redirects to [[Disposable email address]], for what it may be worth). Delete. Keφr 07:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • comment. If this is redirected somewhere, a {{selfref}} hatnote to the current target should be provided. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete if kept, retarget to disposable email address -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete redirect should not cross the namespace. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:01, 11 September 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.

Capitals of North Korea[edit]

This states that the counntry has more than one capital, when it does not. - TheChampionMan1234 09:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Some countries do have more than one capital, and this is also a reasonable typo. Furthermore redirects do not have to be correct and anyone deliberately using this term is quickly educated by the target article that Pyongyang is the only national capital of North Korea. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheChampionMan1234 04:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

- TheChampionMan1234 04:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete: Too implausible an error.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete. A nonsense 'redirect'.--Smerus (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to NK, since patently they are the capitals in North Korea. (Ducks.) Si Trew (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete, as above. Si Trew (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Symbols of Corea[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This just uses a differenty spelling. Delete per discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 12#Symbols of Korea - TheChampionMan1234 04:46, 6 September 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.

September 5[edit]

Virginia Panhandle[edit]

Virginia sort of has a panhandle, though we don't really call it that. West Virginia itself has another panhandle, so absent evidence this one is commonly called "Virginia Panhandle", this redirect should be deleted. BDD (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment West Virgina was part of Old Virginia prior to the Civil War, so, what was this back then? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Looking at a map, yes, this was perhaps the only thing that might have been called "Virginia Panhandle" at the time. But for modern readers, it's more likely to mislead. However, if we had evidence that pre-Civil War sources referred to this area by that name, it might be worth keeping. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 16 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, Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Reverse redirect to "Northern Panhandle", which then would match the lede. I was expecting there to be other northern panhandles, but there are not (at least, not yet). Si Trew (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Parallels would be, I assume Ohio panhandle does not exist, but Oklahoma panhandle does, or perhaps where Pennsylvania takes a cut to get to Lake Eire, would that be a panhandle? Pennsylvania panhandle? But it would be a pan hung up on a rack. We are not here to make up words, leave that to the primary sources: Gerrymander springs to mind.Si Trew (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Huh? Si, are you recommending retargeting to another redirect? --BDD (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure yet. I still think Northern Panhandle of West Virginia is superflous – I probably did not make that clear. But Northern Panhandle covers it for a search term and matches the lede, which does not refer to it as the "Norther Panhandle of West Virginia" but the "Northern Panhandle". Opening sentence, "The Northern Panhandle is..." (not mentioning WV at all).
So to me patently there is some tidying up to do but entirely uncertain how. Virginia panhandle would seem to be the best, really: there are other panhandles so I don't see why it should be WP:CAPS. But of course that would be ex carborundum ad feo, out of the frying pan, into the fire. I note also "Panhandle" is very much U.S. Englsh and rarely used outside the U.S; we don't call the Lizard peninsula the Cornish panhandle, for example (and the former is a redirect to section at Cornwall), even though Lizard is on the Weather reports from coastal stations and inshore waters four times a day from BBC Radio 4. So perhaps WP:WORLDWIDE comes into play.) But I agree, BDD, R to R would be the worst solution. (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Now I probably have to refimprove the frying pan one. "Out of the frying pan" is in Fowler[1], to correct some small error but leave a larger one in its place. Oh! My ears and whiskers! O Tempora! O Mores! the old poet sung. ("Oh The Times, oh the Daily Mirror".) Si Trew (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ H. W. Fowler (1926). "OUT OF THE FRYING PAN". Modern English Usage (1st ed.). Great Britain: Clarendon. p. 416. 
Sort of. I think we are kinda all on the same side here but I am being clumsy in saying so. I hing Northern Panhandle of West Virginia is superflous, and said so. I would move the article to make it match its lede, Northern Panhandle. But I don't do these things when they are under discussion. I would then fix up the necessary redirects for {{R from alternate capitalization}} and so on. But we need to sort it out here first. Sorry to ramble so much, this is just so obvious to me what needs to be done that I kinda steamrollered into it, or perhaps more of a blunderbuss. Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

David Salzberg[edit]

  • Deletion. David Salzberg is a filmmaker, on The Hornet's Nest. Moreover, IMDb lists rather extensive credits. This redirect, to a differently named person, causes confusion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep/Replace: This redirect was likely put there to catch misspellings of an article title already present. Simply deleting the redirect does not improve Wikipedia. If David Salzberg the filmmaker is notable enough, replace this redirect with an article about that person. Otherwise, leave the redirect until Salzberg can meet notability guidelines--RadioFan (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: RadioFan (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. ~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn in Montreal (talkcontribs) 17:52, 6 September 2014
  • Keep, very plausible misspelling. It's unfortunate that the filmmaker is also a possible search target, it would be great if someone could make a stub to prove he's notable, then both articles could be hatnoted. Siuenti (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SURPRISE. There is a high possibility that this is not a misspelling. � (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Identical (2013 film)[edit]

Deletion. Per the page author's comment: "Film is not started filming or production yet so redirect to its lead actor". The film is now in theatres and has its own page at The Identical. The redirect target's page points to the film's page. Morfusmax (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to The Identical per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    • If "per nom" means "in accordance with the nomination", I'd like to point out that my nomination was for deletion. I didn't say the current link should point to the correct page; I said the current link points to a page that itself points to the correct page. The redirect points to Ray Liotta, but his film credits point to The Identical. IMO, it's more confusing to have both The Identical and The Identical (2013) come up as search options, and pointless to have one redirect to the other. Morfusmax (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I should have been clearer. My comment means that I believe the redirect should be retargeted to The Identical for the reasons you gave in your nomination, even though you feel that those reasons mean it should be deleted. Having two similar titles come up as search options is a tiny inconvenience to some people and is far outweighed by the much greater convenience to others I describe below. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to The Identical per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why delete instead of "retarget"? The film was released in 2014; the more accurate disambiguator for the redirect would be "2014 film", making the redirect's title The Identical (2014 film). So, I say create the aforementioned redirect (or not) and delete the nominated one. Steel1943 (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Because being one year out is an extremely plausible thinko, with the liklihood of it increasing as time passes. We don't need to pre-emptively create redirects like this, but when they exist deletion brings no benefits (and may break any external links) wheras keeping it has real (albeit small) benefits and costs us nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe the nominated redirect is harmful since it contains the wrong date, and after a quick search on a popular search engine, the date that shows up on basically all examples with a year is year 2014. The search engine shows no proof that the existence of the nominated redirect will benefit our readers. In addition, any currently existing external links would be wrong anyways since they would direct the reader to the actor Ray Liotta rather than the film. (There are some cases where a redirect tagged with {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} is helpful to our readers: This isn't one of them.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The current target is unhelpful, which is why I'm recommending it be retargetted above. Redirects do not have to be correct, as {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}, {{R from typo}}, etc. demonstrate. People arrive at Wikipedia through many different routes, not just by looking up their search term in a search engine first, so I stand by my argument for this being useful above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree the current target is unhelpful, but retargeting it to the film is problematic, as I stated above. From what I have seen, the Rcat tag {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} is only used if the disambiguator is correct but doesn't follow standard Wikipedia naming conventions, and {{R from typo}} is supposed to be used if the typo that exists doesn't affect the accuracy of the target article's description (which is not the case here since the typo contains the wrong year). In fact, most (if not all) {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} contain disambiguators that accurately describe the subject, such as "dog", "cat", or "movie". Allowing the nominated redirect to exist could potentially result in consensus to create date disambiguators that are +/-1 year in difference from the correct year, and that is unhelpful. Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad[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) 16:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Related topic, but not exactly the same, I am nominating this because I was removing a link to this redirect when I was editing the target page. - TheChampionMan1234 03:55, 5 September 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.

September 4[edit]

Pékin[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 Pekin. Deletion has garnered no support and this represents the consensus target. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No affinity for French. - TheChampionMan1234 23:56, 4 September 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.

Frankreich[edit]

Not especially German. - TheChampionMan1234 23:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Can you be more clear in your explanation? Before you mention it, WP:FORRED is just an essay, not a rule, and it is not applicable here anyway. Olivier (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 22#Verenigde State van Amerika. Olivier (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per Olivier's link, and the redirect does meet any reason for deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Alsace and Lorraine (region) are in France -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete German-language redirects to Alsace and Lorraine topics are fine, since those areas have been German. (Compare, for example, to Danzig.) But occupation aside, France as a whole isn't German, and "Frankreich" wouldn't have any official usage in France. And again, I think Olivier is putting way too much stock in one discussion from three years ago that stands in direct opposition to clearer, more recent consensus on such redirects. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as likely search term. The fact that the Academie francaise might frown on it does not mean we should. It is used readily enough in English in Mein Kampf, in the Ford translation, for example. France hasn't been a kingdom since, er, about 1789. But it is a common enough word in English, I'd say. Si Trew (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

FRance[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 'FRance' and retarget 'Franc3' to France 3. The question of plausibility is only relevant in the case of recently created redirects. In this case the redirects are nearly 10 years and over 3 years old respectively. 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.". No suggestion of harm has been made nor has any other policy-compliant reason for deletion been adduced. The destination of 'Franc3' has attracted little comment, so it can be relisted if anyone feels strongly that the retarget is wrong. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Implausible typo. - TheChampionMan1234 23:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  • KEep. FRance is a very common typo. Olivier (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Why the hell do you want to delete a non-harmful redirect that gets ten thousand views per day on average!? ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Salvidrim: stats.grok.se is case insensitive, so all this is telling us is that France itself gets that many views. The typo is not that common. There's a newer, less well publicized tool at wmflabs that is case sensitive, though, which can be accessed at [http ://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiviewstats/ ]. I don't see a way to directly link to results, but it showed 30 hits in August, omitting August 1 for some reason.
And the links for Franc3 weren't set up correctly. I've fixed them, so you can now see that one had seven views last month. I don't think either of these should be deleted, but the statistics as presented by default were pretty misleading. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks for the rectifiction; I still think double-caps is a common enough typo to justify keeping FRance, and Franc3 to France 3 seems like a reasonable, non-harmful suggestion. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  17:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as plausible typo.--Lenticel (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment stats.grok.se apparently has some bugs, since it also claims that the non-existent FRAnce gets ten thousand views per day [34]. (That said, these are indeed plausible typos.) 61.10.165.33 (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't possibly imagine how they can be plausible typos, they are not all caps, which is plausible, nor are they something like Gremany either, and furthermore, the second one in this nomination looks like pure leetspeak to me. - TheChampionMan1234 03:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for FRance. You have no idea how many times I "double cap" in a day. When you type fast it is possible your "letter finger" click for the second letter before your "Shift finger" lifts off the Shift key. Franc3 not so much. 3 and e can be deemed close on QWERTY but not that close IMO. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 06:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep "FRance" -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:57, 5 September 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.

Jaws 19[edit]

I don't see any point to this redirect. Jaws 19 is not mentioned even once in the target article and there are no incoming links to this title. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  23:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep, as Jaws 19 is seen in the film in question. Although, a sentence or two regarding Jaws 19, maybe in the Plot section or perhaps the Production section, should be added to the article as well.-- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 23:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep this is why redirects should be allowed to carry documentation when needed. "Jaws 19" is a scene featuring a fictional film within the film's 2015, so a viable search term -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, but don't mention it in the article, that is minutia that doesn't belong. This discussion will be the "documentation" when it closes. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. Readers should not be required to delve into project space to find out why a redirect's title points where it does: it should be apparent from the redirect itself and from the target article's content. Either delete the redirect or add this information to the article. Keφr 17:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Jaws: The Revenge#Legacy where the term is explained. Sorry, but I see no basis on which the present target can be kept. If a reader has heard or seen the term taking them to a page where there is no mention of any version of Jaws would just leave them baffled and that is the mark of a really bad redirect. The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • That also seems reasonable. Keφr 18:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh yes! Retarget to Jaws: The Revenge#Legacy. Perfect target for this title. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  03:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - As a BTW, often adding something relevant to the target is a good solution. However, here the editors of the target have been consistently removing plot additions to keep the plot short. In this case, therefore, if the editors of that article don't consider the reference to Jaws 19 sufficiently important it will just come out again. The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per The Whispering Wind. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Fountainhead[edit]

Should be either redirecting to Fountainhead (disambiguation) or alternatively move the dab into base position at Fountainhead. Per WP:THE In ictu oculi (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep with no change. I don't know why WP:THE is invoked in the nomination, when it says nothing about redirects. This is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT situation. Here are the 90-day traffic stats for the current target, the proposed target (the dab page), and all the dabs listed therein:
In case it isn't clear, the current target gets about 3 times as much traffic as all the alternatives combined. --RL0919 (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Replace with disambiguation page. The usage stats do not indicate that people searching for "The Fountainhead" use "Fountainhead". We disambiguate using "The" because of that fact. (We also use that fact to segregate the many subjects that in natural speech carry "the" but don't do so with articles in Wikipedia, should all have cleared the "The" title variations instead of allowing alternate topics to occupy such titles) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • FWIW, Ilan Kidron links to Fountainhead; can anyone disambiguate this? Though I suspect it's just another red-link band he's been a member of.
And, here I unlinked "fountainhead" as an overlink. So, are concrete or carved rock lions with water flowing out of their mouths called fountainheads or fountain heads?
Fountainhead has been viewed 1478 times in the last 90 days. It may be difficult to determine what those folks are looking for. The vast majority looking for the novel and film seem to search on "The". How would this topic be indexed? Under "The Fountainhead", or "Fountainhead, The"? Wbm1058 (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • More mixed signals: Google search shows the novel to be clear primary topic, but Ngrams show the generic word is primary. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Capital "Fountianhead" clearly tracks—and leads "The Fountainhead".
Keep with no change. Don't fix what's not broken; this redirect has been stable for ten years. The rationale for moving it needs to be more convincing. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Get rid of the "The" (e.g., reverse the redirect or DAB it). Very much an outside bet, but baptismal font or fount of honour might do, but I am not recommending them. It is patently NOT WP:NOTBROKENWikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles specifically says not to start article titles with "The". Ten years ago we did lots of things which we would not do now – and on Wikipedia, too. I don't see longevity being a reason to argue against policy. Si Trew (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The Fountainhead is the title of a novel, which is an explicitly stated exception to starting article titles with 'The'. Also, the generic meaning of the word 'fountainhead' is the source or origin of something, not a font or fountain. --RL0919 (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Right, DAB it then. It's also the name of a boozer in Cambridge. That does not make it WP:PRIMARY, but I think you are right, make The Fountainhead primary and DAB the rest at Fountainhead (disambiguation). Si Trew (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ligue Nationale de Basket (Switzerland) team redirects[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) 16:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete per WP:REDLINK. These two redirects represent the names of teams in the league (the redirect target), but the target article doesn't describe the referenced teams in the least. Steel1943 (talk) 20:11, 4 September 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.

États-Unis d'Amérique[edit]

Not especially French/German, whatever... - TheChampionMan1234 03:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep the French, it has some legal standing in Louisiana, where they've adopted bilingual traffic signge recently. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk)
  • Comment is this Pennsylvanisch and also German? Or is it not Pennsylvanisch at all? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • NOTE only the first of these listed redirects was tagged. I have now tagged the others and informed the creators. Thryduulf (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • NOTE Verenigde State van Amerika and Verenigde State were kept at RfD when discussed in 2011: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 22#Verenigde State van Amerika. Thryduulf (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep the French and German. 7&6=thirteen () 13:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 22#Verenigde State van Amerika. Olivier (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per Olivier's link, and the redirect does meet any reason for deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep the French ones, as there's some scattered official usage in the US. Delete the German ones, as the US is not a German topic. I'm not convinced that a discussion from three years ago should be given more weight than the dozens of WP:FORRED-backed deletions that have taken place more recently. Foreign-language redirects can be harmful, as I've opined at WT:FORRED. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. As far as I understand it, the United States has no official language. I lived in Texas for a bit, and Spanish was common there: I travel(l)ed to New Orleans every Mardi Gras and spoke some French but it is very different from French French or Canadian French: and no more "official" than English. Perhaps at a state or county level it has official recognition, but I don't think at federal level? For example, England has no official language (although Wales has two). I was taught French French, and it was just "États-Unis"; is it really necessary to disambiguate with the "d'Amérique"? But WP is WP:NOT a translation dictionary, anyway. The Dutch and others have no place in EN:WP, they belong in NL:WP and so on. Si Trew (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep:It helps those unfamiliar with the English language or with elementary English language skills. Redirects to an article that may be frequented by these types of users. Probably (?) more helpful than harmful. I think I'd find it helpful, personally, but that's a sample size of one. Less-used redirects I would not oppose deletion.--Porsche997SBS (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Bandarikin[edit]

Not particularly Icelandic. - TheChampionMan1234 03:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOT a translation dictionary. No particular affinity for Icelandic from the US -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 22#Verenigde State van Amerika. Olivier (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Consensus has changed since that discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per Olivier's link, and the redirect does meet any reason for deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Incorrect. It should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. We don't want to give editors the incorrect idea that we will have a foreign language redirect for every possible topic. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
      • "Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary" has nothing to do with keeping or not a redirect. We are not talking article space here. Olivier (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The US is not an Icelandic topic. I'm not convinced that a discussion from three years ago should be given more weight than the dozens of WP:FORRED-backed deletions that have taken place more recently. Foreign-language redirects can be harmful, as I've opined at