Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

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

Administrator instructions

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you need not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. Put a request to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect.

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at a "Search results 1–10 out of 378" result instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • If a good-faith RfD nomination has no discussion, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
  • In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Reasons for deleting[edit]

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.) See also: § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply in some cases.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to itself or to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion. If not, take the article to Requested Moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. The pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.
  7. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent unregistered users from expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (Unregistered users cannot create new pages in the mainspace; they can only edit existing pages, including redirects, which they can expand.) This criterion does not apply to redirects that are indefinitely semi-protected or more highly protected.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. ClimategateClimatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately.

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Tag the redirect.

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

{{subst:rfd|content=#REDIRECT [[Foo]]{{R from move}}}}
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page.
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the rfd tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination
List the entry on RfD.

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

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

{{subst:RFDNote|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.


Current list[edit]

December 13[edit]

December 12[edit]

Bret Weinstein[edit]

Delete: Inappropriate redir (technically it's going to a #Weinstein anchor in that section). The section is not about Weinstein, who is connected to the protests, and is likely notable (due to coverage in relation to that, but probably not otherwise). This should be redlinked and an article created at some point, or be left unlinked. Evergreen State College isn't directly bound up with the subject of Bret Weinstein, and isn't going to have a #Bret Weinstein section, so this redir is just a "not how we do things" case. E.g., we do not redirect the names of 1000s of Google employees to Google, and so on.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  15:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose The subject's main claim to notability is his direct involvement in the topic at the section link. That is qualitatively different than redirecting "just because" he is employed by the university. A redirect does not prevent editors from expanding it an article; until that happens, it is an appropriate redirect. James (talk/contribs) 18:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Accept Button[edit]

Does not exactly refer to the enter key, however this is the name of an element in C#, could also refer to any button labeled "Accept" anywhere. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't seem important, and I can't remember why I created it! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. Creator is not vouching for keeping it as well --Lenticel (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

December 11[edit]

Problem Solvers[edit]

A quick Google search for “problem solvers” indicates that problem solving is closer. Problem solving is a universal skill while The Problem Solverz is a TV show. (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget to The Problem Solvers episode of 30 Rock which also hatnotes to The Problem Solverz. If that's not notable then delete, but the capital S in Solvers implies the user is looking for media of such names instead of problem solving in general. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate Between the TV episode and the series.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Zxcvbnm, but also add Problem solving to the page. ToThAc (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Earth (Ace Combat)[edit]

This is as painfully generic a redirect as you can get. You might as well have an "Earth (X game series)" for literally every game that takes place on some version of Earth. Strangereal makes sense as a redirect, as it is a term specific to the game's parallel universe, but this does not. The majority of fans refer to the world as "Strangereal" and this hardly gets any hits.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete this is confusing. Is there a video game title that goes solely by Earth in the Ace Combat series? Or a video game character named Earth? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • No, it refers to, literally, Earth, the setting of the games.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Elena, Maria[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted, G7, by bd2412.

Why women hate me[edit]

Completely unlikely target of a search, and inflammatory to boot –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought it does actually partially direct to at least hate (as a male target for hatred) and considering the possibility of someone at a future time typing the exact words into the search, would be a functional and effective redirect; as a similar function, to a search engine, but with an exact return. 23h112e (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC) 23h112e (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
c.f. the Buddha shows the way Verse 276. Buddhas Only Shows The Way - both redirects don't really answer the question, but they indicate a possible way to the truth (i.e. navigation), 23h112e (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
is though gender biased to male, does show misogyny at the first heading 23h112e (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Redirect implies the only reason women hate men is because they are misandrist. Misleading and confusing, biased to boot.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing at best --Lenticel (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Militaries of Ace Combat[edit]

The main article says nothing about any of the militaries of the Ace Combat countries. Therefore, the redirect is misleading and unnecessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I don't see anything in the setting that describes the military groups or governments. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

United States 2008 Presidential Election'[edit]

Given the apostrophe at the end. --Nevéselbert 10:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - As implausible redirect.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Likely created in error. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

United State presidential campaign 2008[edit]

Per WP:RTYPO. --Nevéselbert 10:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete As implausible redirect.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Why Abraham Lincoln won[edit]

I may be wrong but aren't redirects that pose questions usually deleted? Not sure whether this one is very helpful. --Nevéselbert 10:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

"Why did Abraham Lincoln win?" would be a question. "Why Abraham Lincoln won" is a statement answering it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Facepalm Of course, scratch that part.--Nevéselbert 10:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

U...ntial election, 1960[edit]

Quite an unlikely search term. --Nevéselbert 10:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete As highly implausible redirect.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • D...e per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete imp.....ble; w.y w...d f.r t..s? Seriously though, including dots and dashes in a redirect isn't very plausible. ToThAc (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


丁 or ding which is one of the four heavenly stems, has a different meaning than "一“ yi which means one. This redirect should be deleted. Goveganplease (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Dabify and add wiktionary link per feminist --Lenticel (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

V2 (Ace Combat)[edit]

There is no mention of anything V2 related in the target page. Unnecessary redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • delete Is this really going to be a search parameter anyone will use?Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete this was one of the missiles or something in the game. Too detailed for here as it isn't mentioned as a notable item for the franchise article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable gameplay feature --Lenticel (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Ace Combat Controls[edit]

The controls of the game are not listed in the page, therefore the redirect serves no purpose. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • delete Is this really going to be a search parameter anyone will use?Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete not a game guide. Not described on the franchise page. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

December 10[edit]

Marie Anthony[edit]

Does not seem like a useful search term, being that we already have Casey Anthony and Casey Marie Anthony redirects to the target article and Caylee's mom was never referred to by her middle name. There are also quite a few individuals named "Marie Anthony" (first and last name) that have no connections to this case, so this redirect is likely to cause confusion (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Not here[edit]

Pursuant to a recently closed move request, "Template:Not here" has been moved to "Template:Not around", due to the potential confusion with the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTHERE. The template indicates that an editor is merely away, while the policy indicates that an editor is here, but for an improper purpose (literally, "not here to build an encyclopedia"). This nomination is to close the loop on this revision, eliminating the redirects altogether (most instances have already been substituted) so that there can be no future confusion. bd2412 T 17:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

  • If deleted, aren't these likely to get recreated? How about turning them each into an error message, and linking to Template:not around from the documentation? – Uanfala (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
    • My thinking was that people would get the hint from it being a red-linked template, but an error message is just as good. I've never made one, so I am not familiar with the magic words to set one up. bd2412 T 22:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Crime in Puerto Rico[edit]

I clicked on this link looking for information about the Puerto Rican criminal justice system, and instead found this. It's a seven-year-old article that was at this title for a full two years before being moved, so I'm slightly hesitant to delete it, but ultimately I think that's what would be best, per WP:REDLINK; if anything, the relatively high traffic will make it that much more likely that an article be created. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - As stated by the nominator, this redirect which I once created is no longer needed and therefore should be deleted. The redirect was created in the first place because someone had written about the subject "Crime in Puerto Rico" indicating that "drugs" was the only criminal factor, which is not true and as such was redirected to the article "Illegal drugs in Puerto Rico". Since crime in Puerto Rico is not limited to illegal drugs, then the redirect no longer makes any sense. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Puerto Rico#Crime unless someone vouches for the need of a WP:REDLINK incentive for article creation. – Uanfala (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK, nom, and @Marine 69-71. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK --Lenticel (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


Delete nonsensical shortcut, per WP:R#DELETE #5 / CSD WP:G1: patent nonsense. Mathglot (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. I was the one who removed this from the linkbox at No original research. We already had three shortcuts of long standing, which is plenty for a linkbox, and it wasn't until I looked at the shortcut page that I realized it could mean "I saw it" in addition to "Is a wit". That said, it's kind of funny now that I know that. I have no objection to its continued existence if someone wants to use it. But I am going to !vote delete because as of now almost nobody has used it. And I don't think it should go back in the linkbox. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Make it an undocumented alias for WP:I-SAW-IT Changing my !vote per Wbm1058. Now it looks like a useful pointer to the right section in a long page. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Make it an undocumented alias for WP:I-SAW-IT, which I just created. I had the same "is a wit" puzzlement when I first saw this, which I why I added that "documentation" to the redirect when I decoded it. The new redirect I created should be self-explanatory. Its purpose is to be used as a convenient link in edit summaries that explains why you just reverted an edit that added unsourced material from someone's personal experience, which would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Make it an undocumented alias for WP:I-SAW-IT: per Wbm1058. Toddst1 (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm ok with using it as long as it exists in and points to the right section... Huggums537 (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

December 9[edit]


Useless title/redirect - The has been called "Logo-text.png" since 2008 until I just this minute moved it to a more meaningful name, nothing links to it so seems kinda pointless keeping it around, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Second Bulgarian-Mongol War[edit]

Delete them all. Wrong target, and no viable target exists. The article on the real Mongol invasion of Bulgaria and Serbia, which I have substantially expanded lately with academic sources, shows that this was the first Mongol–Bulgarian war and a single event lasting less than a year. Srnec (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Erin McGregor[edit]

Individual who is not independently notable being redirected to her brother's article where there is a single passing mention (that they're related.) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Manichaean paranoia[edit]

non sequitur likely vandalism Rhadow (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. He was apparently the first to use the term in the context of American politics [1], but given that it doesn't seem to be covered anywhere on wikipedia, this redirect will only surprise readers. – Uanfala (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Copy That[edit]

The phrase isn't used in the target article, the latter being an article about a large company. Trafford09 (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment This came up because of the Copy That meme. [2] but it hasn't hit the news articles. Unfortunately there isn't a good description of the regular use of the phrase in Procedure word AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


It doesn’t seem plausible to abbreviate the town’s name in this way, especially the first. All but one of the other redirects lead from names starting from the beginning, Llanfairpwllgwyngyll.... The last one, Gogogoch is plausible as it forms a more complete “chunk” in the brain. (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Oxygen redirects[edit]

These redirects don’t seem like plausible misspellings or typos. We don’t have misspelling redirects for other elements. (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Woem hole[edit]

Implausible misspelling; aside from the space (for which we have Worm hole), the r is replaced with the adjacent e. (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Frozen star[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: self-withdrawn

1st of May[edit]

Should redirect to May 1 in line with the other 11 “1st of month” redirects. (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Paradise Fire (2016)[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: adminstrative closure; deleted per author's request (WP:G7)

The Smurfs and communism[edit]

The second redirect was created in 2010 when the first page was moved and redirected. It goes back quite a long way, including 3 AFDs in 2006-07. The Smurfs article mentions nothing about communism; the Economy section does not seem to describe a communist society. (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

  • There used to be an article going into great (unsourced) detail about the theory that the Smurfs were communist propaganda and their clothes and actions were rife with communist symbolism. I would actually keep these redirects and mention in that section that the author has denied intending to portray the Smurfs as practitioners of communism, despite rumors. See Matt Murray, "Introduction to the Smurf King", in Peyo, The Smurfs Anthology #1 (2013), p. 66: "Despite any rumor or crackpot conspiracy theory you may have heard over the years, Реуо did not create the Smurfs with any kind of overreaching political agenda. They were not designed to indoctrinate children into communism, socialism, or any other kind of -“is,” that the Cold War gave the Western World an irrational fear of in the latter part of the 20th Century". bd2412 T 19:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

23 oktober[edit]

Implausible misspelling. The only language I can think of for “Oktober” is German, but that language almost certainly capitalizes months as we do. No WP:FORRED is appropriate here. October 28 has no similar redirect. (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment added six more similarly spelled redirects. (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Also, it appears to be Dutch. Same author created about 40 other redirects at the same time as this one for dates in januari, februari, maart, mei, juni, juli, and augustus, though none for the other months where Dutch and English use the same words. Should I add those here? (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Why is this even a redirect? We should just remove then.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Madonna (album)[edit]

There has been some controversy about where this redirect should redirect involving Netoholic and Patar knight, and now me. See the history of the redirect. Anyway, here's what I think.

First, this term, Madonna (album), is currently the subject of an RM discussion at Talk:Madonna_(Madonna_album)#Requested_move_1_December_2017 where I have proposed that it be the title of that article. So really that discussion should be resolved before we change anything here, because if the proposal passes, redirect will be deleted to make room for the article to be moved here anyway.

Second, there are three potential uses for Madonna (album) - two relatively obscure albums named Madonna, and Madonna's first album. There should be no question that Madonna's album is the primary topic. That is, anyone who links with [[Madonna (album)]] would reasonably expect it to go to the article about Madonna's album (and not a subjection of some dab page). So if the RM proposal does not succeed, this should remain redirecting to the article about Madonna's album. --В²C 02:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete it. It has no incoming links from mainspace, and nor should it ever. Anyone who links to it should see it as a redlink. Anyone who types it into the search box (an unlikely event!) should have the Wikipedia search function invoked, which only happens if the redirect is deleted. Today's top five results, and daily average pageviews are:
1 Madonna (Madonna album) 521
2 Madonna 11327
3 Madonna albums discography 13156
4 Erotica (Madonna album) 11389
5 Madonna (entertainer) 9970
The #1 result is the least likely wanted on average. It is an old, not topical, album. Anyone lost or "searching" would be better served by #3.
The search function should be allowed to work, and relied upon, for everything less than obvious, and probably the obvious too. The search function algorithms, data, and live data collection and processing is far superior to a few editors guessing at PrimaryTopic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The option to delete such redirects was considered and rejected in the discussion preceding the inclusion of [[WP:INCDAB]] in WP:D. Note that that discussion applies specifically to "pages on Wikipedia that have "incomplete" parenthetical disambiguation and no clear primary topic". Unfortunately, that qualification did not make it into the WP:INCDAB text that was actually inserted, however the failed effort to make WP:PDAB a guideline, along with incomplete disambiguations of primary topics that are accepted as titles, like Lost (TV series), demonstrate where community consensus is on this issue. In any case, deleting such redirects was rejected on the grounds that others will be tempted to create articles at them. --В²C 19:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
This !vote goes against how parenthetical disambiguation work on Wikipedia. For example, a redirect like "X (foo)" is meant to search for articles named or referred to as "X" in the the field/class/medium "foo". It's essentially shorthand for "X the foo/in foo". So "X (film)" is for films named X, not films by X. "X (politician)" is meant to refer to people named X who are politicians, not politicians connected to X. Madonna (album) refers to albums named "Madonna", not albums by Madonna. And if there is a primary topic for X in the field of foo, we should direct readers there like in this case. Linking to Madonna albums discography via hatnote would be justified though (i.e. "This is about the album, for other albums by Madonna see...for other alums named Madonna see...")
The use of search results is misleading for the same reason. The proper comparison is to look at the pageviews of albums named "Madonna" from up to December 1, when the Requested Move was started and this redirect was redirected away from the Madonna album. We get 592 hits per day for the Madonna album, 17 for the ...And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead album, and 9 for the EP by Secret. The album by Alisha Chinai was only created on December 1, so discounting the first day where all the content was added in a series of edits, pageviews from December 2 to now, it averaged 9 daily hits.
So taking these numbers into account, we can reasonably divide the number of hits for "Madonna (album)" pro rata, adding 17 hits to the Madonna album, and 1 to the other uses. So finding the percentage would be (592+17)/(592+17+9+1), which gives us 96.97% of page views in favour of the Madonna album. And that number doesn't account for factors in favour of the Madonna album, such as people perhaps mistakenly going to Madonna (EP), thinking that Madonna's debut album was an EP, only to find themselves at a page about a South Korean album, or that the Alisha China album page was only created the day of the RM, meaning that it's pageviews are going to be inflated by RM participants going to that page (I know I checked that page several times during the course of the RM and this RFD). So the first prong of "what are readers likely to be looking for" of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is satisfied, and it's pretty clear that the Madonna album is the most encyclopedically notable and culturally significant of all the page.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: discussion moved from Talk:Madonna (album). feminist 03:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Madonna (Madonna album) as the overwhelming WP:PTOPIC for this redirect title. feminist 03:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Close (defer) this RfD as premature. Wait for the close of Talk:Madonna_(Madonna_album)#Requested_move_1_December_2017. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    The overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Madonna (album) is clearly the topic of the article currently at Madonna (Madonna album), as noted by Feminist above. So, yes, this redirect should, as a minimum, redirect to that article. However, as I noted in the proposal at Talk:Madonna_(Madonna_album)#Requested_move_1_December_2017 the current title of that article is unnecessarily redundant and silly looking, so this title would be a more WP:CONCISE and better choice as title of that article, not merely a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to it. That said, resolution of this discussion should wait for that one to be decided first. --В²C 05:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    This is a separate issue. Even if the Madonna album stays at its current name, this redirect is a separate page. If a search term (e.g. "Madonna (album)") has a primary topic, then the page at that term should point to the primary topic to aid our readers, regardless of the actual title of that page. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    • If it’s not to be closed ... Point to DAB page. Inherently ambiguous. No primary topic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect to Madonna#Albums and EPs - This situation is explicitly described at WP:INCDAB, with an example there which is directly on point with this. -- Netoholic @ 07:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect back to Madonna (Madonna album), or wherever that ends up. Regardless of what people think about what articles should be named, redirects are meant to aid in navigation. We should not be forcing readers using a search term for which there is an overwhelming case for a primary topic to a DAB page because of pedantic reasoning. Anyone who knows anything about music would be able to easily tell that none of the other entries at Madonna#Albums and EPs come remotely close to the level required to challenge Madonna's self-titled debut album status as the primary topic for the search term "Madonna (album)". --- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Bananana phone[edit]

Implausible typo. Aside from the space, no one would accidentally type more than two na’s, as evidenced by the nonexistence of Bananana (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: Special:PrefixIndex/Bananana lists only this and the related redirect Bananana phones, which I am also nominating. 07:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

December 8[edit]


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

FMCG (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete. The target was a dab page with 2 entries that now redirects to the primary topic Fast-moving consumer goods, which has a hatnote to the only other use. This INTDAB redirect is no longer required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Country Songs[edit]

Delete per WP:R#DELETE 8, obscure synonym. Too vague and generic to be specific. Note that country songs does not exist and country song is a dab. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Stand by Me (song)[edit]

Retarget to Stand by Me. If the consensus is that "Stand by Me (song)" is too ambiguous for the article title then it should redirect to the dab. Jenks24 (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

HMB Endeavour,[edit]

Nominated for deletion: the redirect title contains an extraneous comma, the redirect has no incoming backlinks, and HMB Endeavour already exists, so moving this page to the correct page title isn't an option. Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete Implausible and no reason for a redirect for having a comma after the title. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete as implausible (likely a typo). -- Euryalus (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Squatting Slavs in Tracksuits[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget. No reason to wait any longer before doing something this obvious. (non-admin closure) Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 13:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

December 7[edit]


Recommended for deletion because "Quasi-governmental" is not the same as "State-owned enterprise". "Quasi-governmental" may refer to various different types of organizations such as those listed here, none of which could be described as a "State-owned enterprise". A "State-owned enterprise" is only one type of Quasi-governmental body. State-owned enterprise does not actually mention the term "quasi-governmental" and defines its subject as "a legal entity that undertakes commercial activities on behalf of the state" which is not a definition applicable to all quasi-governmental organizations. JimmiCheddar (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)"

quango is an equally incorrect destination, it refers to a "quasi-autonomous NON-governmental organisation", not a "Quasi-governmental" body. JimmiCheddar (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
See Ofwat or Federal Reserve System, two entities that the quango article discusses. Both of them are quasi-governmental, and they typify the concept. They're quasi-governmental, as are all other quangos, e.g. AASHTO. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
"Quasi-governmental" and "non-governmental" are clearly not the same thing (except for Alice in Wonderland). WP does not need to link or redirect if there is no appropriate destination. There is no WP article which describes "Quasi-governmental" organizations, so lets not pretend there is. (By the way, there is no mention of Ofwat at quango). None of your quango examples are remotely similar to the international organizations mentioned in the list I referenced. JimmiCheddar (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
They're quasi-nongovernmental because they're quasi-nongovernmental; that's what "quasi" means. If you don't bother to look at the article's examples and can't find Ofwat, an entity I'd never heard of before I read the second paragraph of the History section, don't lecture me on the meanings of article I've read; I'm close to requesting WP:SK #3. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
"quasi-nongovernmental because they're quasi-nongovernmental", what does that mean?
As I said, there is no mention of Ofwat at quango, but I see that the paragraph you mentioned does talk about something called "Water Services Regulation Authority", which turns out to be also known as Ofwat, who knew? Very few Americans I suspect.
Merriam-Webster defines "Quango" as a British word: "a partly autonomous regulatory agency; especially : one in Britain organized outside the civil service but financed and appointed by the government". That is not an appropriate definition for the international organizations which are called "quasi-governmental organizations", as in the examples I have already referenced in the document above: IATA, IEC, ISO, IUCN, SITA and WADA. But it seems to me that they do all fit the Merriam-Webster definition of "quasi-governmental": "supported by the government but managed privately".
Quango and quasi-governmental refer to two significantly different types of organization, why do you find that a difficult concept? JimmiCheddar (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Curtis Newton[edit]

Doesn't seem to be any primary target; the redirect goes to a fictional character while the incoming links are all of a football player for the Toronto Argonauts. ansh666 03:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE item #2, "The redirect might cause confusion". When a fictional character shows up in a list of football players (and because of an alternate name, not his article's actual title), and it's not vandalism, there's no might about it causing confusion. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a regional bias here. American football is a very local thing in the US and Canada, while the appeal of Captain Future is worldwide. In addition the notoriety of this player will also be punctual in time. So I would tend to replace this by a redirect page to Curtis Newton (American football player) and Captain Future. Hektor (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I tend to agree with Hektor. Decades later, this name for the character still gets mentioned in reliable printed sources [3]. That demonstrates some modicum of long-term significance, at least compared to a footballer who doesn't even have an article. The incoming mislinks all come from {{Toronto Argonauts roster}}, and can be disambiguated easily; none are "organic" links. (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep it's primary until the football player meets notability. The player is on the practice squad for a CFL team so he hasn't met notability yet. Curtis Newton is the title character for Captain Future. That's like saying Clark Kent should not redirect to Superman because there is an athlete of the same name in a football squad. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only link was via {{Toronto Argonauts roster}}, which I have replaced with Curtis Newton (Canadian football) (without prejudice).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with AngusWOOF. Is primary target until football player is notable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general elections[edit]

The United Kingdom did not exist prior to 1801. --Nevéselbert 21:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep all as valid {{R from error}}. The etymology surrounding England/GBR/UK is often confusing to people, and these redirects gets readers to where they want to be. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all as {{R from incorrect name}} per Patar knight. The United Kingdom may indeed not have existed prior to 1801, but Britain was already in the process of unification since the Tudor dynasty in 1485. ToThAc (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all Agree it is R from incorrect name. Does indeed help searches and help get people where needed - not everyone knows what date united kingdom formed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Word War 1[edit]

Recently created redirect. Searches for Word War 1 point to some non-notable educational typing software, books. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I've checked for similar "Word War" redirects, and found Word War I, Word war II and Word War Two Trenches. Also note that Word Wars is a documentary. -- Tavix (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: Sounds more like a little joke than anything that might be useful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Yup, obscures searches for those other stuff too. May want to bundle the others in Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It took me a while for me to figure out why people were opposing this redirect. I thought it made perfect sense. I created the Word War 1 redirect. But I did not realize that I had made a typo. I meant to write "World War 1" but apparently I missed an L. I was surprised as to why there was not already a redirect for "World War 1". Apparently there was. I have no opinion weather or not to delete it. Torr3 (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete As confusing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Gradwell, Taupo[edit]

delete. There does not appear to be a suburb of this name in Taupo, although there is a minor street called Gradwell Place. See also the recent history at Taupo. gadfium 19:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Characters in devil may cry[edit]

Implausibly capitalized redirect. Barely gets any page views whatsoever. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep, harmless {{R from other capitalization}}. -- Tavix (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Tavix: Note that it's not just "other capitalization" but the "of" has been replaced with "in". Anyone searching for the same name of the article won't come across the redirect. They would need to type "in" and not capitalize the name either... which is extremely implausible.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
      Characters in Devil May Cry is a current redirect as it's a reasonable way to do it. Characters in devil may cry is also reasonable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Tavix. Not completely random or obscure capitalization either - pretty reasonable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Women in Devil May Cry[edit]

There is no particular purpose for this redirect to exist, as there is nothing special about women in the series, with regards to their characters, that would merit more attention than the men. Implausible; gets almost no page views. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete this isn't a grouping for this franchise. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Keith Young[edit]

WP:R#D2 confusing. Not the target's name, but the name of other potentially notable people. (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete also kind of WP:XY because of multiple non-notable people with this name. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, due to not being the target's name. Also likely a significant number of Keith Youngs who don't (yet?) have articles. Egsan Bacon (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hsu Hsiung[edit]

WP:XY wrong name of multiple people (e.g. Hsu Feng-hsiung or Hsu Wen-hsiung); you can't drop parts of Chinese names like this. (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Just convert it into a disambig page if there are multiple possible targets. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. We don't create dab pages for non-stand-alone parts of names. – Uanfala (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


Should this title redirect to Oradour-sur-Glane (commune) or Oradour-sur-Glane massacre? Redirecting to the massacre was the result of the last discussion on this at Talk:Oradour-sur-Glane massacre#Requested move but an editor keeps redirecting it to the town. Jenks24 (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I prefer the town. The commune is the only thing called "Oradour-sur-Glane". While the massacre is the most notable thing about the place, the massacre is not called "Oradour-sur-Glane". —Kusma (t·c) 09:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment if the massacre isn't WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for Oradour-sur-Glane, then we should move the commune there rather than retargetting. (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The commune should be moved over the redirect and a hat note should be there linking to the massacre. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Move commune / town over redirect. Keep a hatnote to the massacre. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Move commune / town over redirect. Other communes of France don't have (commune) in their title. Givibidou (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
See Special:WhatLinksHere/Oradour-sur-Glane. Almost all links point to the village. Givibidou (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

December 6[edit]

The General Election 1906[edit]

The definite article in front makes this a pretty unlikely search term. --Nevéselbert 23:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom as it is not referred to with the definite article capitalized as such, and could refer to any of the 1906 elections. The event Liberal landslide would be a better informal title that points specifically to that UK general election. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • If this isn't deleted—and I'm not saying it shouldn't be—List of elections in 1906 would be the appropriate target. --BDD (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect I cut and pasted "the General Election" from some article somewhere and probably from the context added 1906. If I had instead inserted 1906 to create "the 1906 General Election", would there be a problem? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: Bosley John Bosley created "The 1906 General Election" as a redirect to List of elections in 1906 right after commenting here. I'm including it in this discussion for completeness. -- Tavix (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Security barrier[edit]

Since this redirect currently targets a disambiguation page, it could be considered confusing. In addition, I'm not finding a specific target which this redirect could be considered exclusive to in its meaning. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. If there's no specific article then a redirect to a dab page seems sensible. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) The problem with the current setup is that there are no subjects at the target dab that are called "security barrier". In a case like this, it could be more helpful for this redirect to be deleted so that Wikipedia's search function can help readers find what article they are looking for, rather than being redirected to a disambiguation page which may not contain the subject which they are trying to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The dab page provides a number of different types of barriers used for security. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

José Correira[edit]

Not mentioned at the target article. I had to Google this, but a person by this name apparently killed someone else in the area with an ax, which helped lead to Borden's acquittal. Is this worth incorporating into the article? There's also a mention of a Portuguese athlete by this name on Wikipedia, but he probably isn't suitable for retargeting. BDD (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Add back to the article a sentence or two about him. --RAN (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


Was listed at MFD by mistake. Rationale was "Unused, nonexistent acronym only used to disparage current/former graduates of George Mason University. Nothing redirects here and the acronym is not a likely search term." Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 22:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. The existence of this acronym was what prompted the current name of the law school as opposed to the original one. This scenario is mentioned in the first footnote. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment added ASSoL and A.S.S.O.L. to this discussion. (These were all created at the same time, along with ASS Law, ASSLAW, and ASSLaw, following an AFC request in April 2016.) The acronyms themselves aren't mentioned at the target. The erstwhile full name "Antonin Scalia School of Law" is only mentioned in a footnote. (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep ASSOL and ASSoL which made news [4] [5] and Snopes [6]. Delete A.S.S.O.L. as the version with the periods was not propagated in news sources. Add the appropriate tag as would be used for working titles. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Not likely a search term and any references can be made in the article. Disparaging redirects are not encyclopedic. This was never the name of the target and was used purely for disparagement by detractors. Fits #3 of WP:R#DELETE. --DHeyward (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Am I being detained?[edit]

This question isn't unique to "sovereign citizens", but is a question asked by anyone who isn't sure if they are being detained or not. The most appropriate target would be Detention (imprisonment) (the target of Detainment), but the question isn't mentioned there either. That leaves deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Stop and identify statutes as the best target. --RAN (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Detainment. Searchers are looking for what detainment is, like Indicted goes to Indictment. If the statutes article has a list of common phrases, then consider hatnote to it, but there is no such list there. The phrase "Am I free to go?" can redirect there since it is posted there. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. This redirect is too vague, as hinted by the several different options for retargeting presented in this discussion thus far. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


No such section exists in the article. (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

2018 T10 Cricket League[edit]

Per WP:CRYSTAL. Störm (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't really care whether you delete it. I realized that it was a mistake to create the redirect but I can't delete pages. Fcbbminiestadi (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

December 5[edit]

Tea shops[edit]

These two redirects have different targets, which is problematic. feminist 10:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Redirect all to Teahouse since it covers all tea shops, tea houses, and tearooms with the exception of the British and American variant, which seems to be on another page for some reason. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


Delete as erroneous and per WP:REDLINK. Bhesan, not Bhestan (which actually does seem to be in Surat), seems to be a city not part of Surat, but rather on the other side of the Gulf of Khambhat. Steel1943 (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Junagadh district which mentions a Bhesan taluka. There is a Bhesan Village in Chorasi Tensil, Surat, but it is not mentioned in the article. If it is notable to add, then this can be a two dab. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – I've added the links of two village articles to the List of villages in India. BTW, Bhisan sub-district was already mentioned at Junagadh district, and I made it red linked. So now there are three acceptable entries per MOS:DABMENTION. The three DAB entries will look something like the following:
NitinMlk (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I find that solution acceptable. Thanks for your work, -- Tavix (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
List of villages in India is worse than useless, but the subdistrict is a helpful entry. No objections to turning this into a dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 02:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate – per above discussion. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Not menu[edit]

The user that created this page added a WP:NOTMENU link to the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy page (diff, which I reverted) and created this redirect, but no rationale was provided in the edit summary for why this was performed, other than "valid". As such, this is entirely ambiguous, and could refer to the contents of any article that contains any mention of foods that companies or organizations purvey. Furthermore, such changes to policy pages should be performed after a consensus is formed to do so, rather than unilaterally. I have also posted a note regarding this matter at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § Revert. North America1000 06:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep as there is no provided policy basis on deleting a redirect, a redirect that anyone can start, see for example, WP:Not guide. The current WP:Not guidebook actually mentions a menu and food as part of its criteria: not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait....not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc.". That a restaurant, hotel or venue is an excellently valid redirect. This satisfies our principles of Help:Redirect#Purposes of a redirect. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • CommentWikipedia:Consensus is a policy. Consensus should be obtained before adding ambiguous entries to the WP:NOT policy page and creating redirects to the content that was added without consensus. North America1000 07:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete No mention of "not menu" at WP:NOT. Seems to be part of a mass editing by creator to remove mention of products from restaurant articles (such as this edit), which seems to conflict with WP:PRODUCT: "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself". More guidance is needed than to merely point to a policy page with no mention of menus.—Bagumba (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Note: Notice of this discussion has been placed at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink.—Bagumba (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't make sense redirecting when there hasn't been discussion in the policy page. Stickee (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete since it doesn't clearly pertain to the material there, and we do not have any extant, regular problem of people a) trying to add menus to articles on restaurants and other food services (already covered under various rules about trivia and promotion, at WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#ADVERT, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, etc.), or b) anything else that "menu" could refer to, e.g. badly rewriting articles on software to be stepwise catalogues of their menu items (which would already be covered by WP:NOT#MANUAL).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete This was very clearly created in an attempt to create their own policy. A quick look at their edit history shows they are just going through and deleted tons of content from restaurant articles, and wanted something to support their claim. - GalatzTalk 15:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep On its merits, an appropriate redirect. It's exactly the sort of contents we do not usually include. I think it was always assumed before, but it seems to be clearly needed now.It exactly matches the other similar statements, all of which are basically extensions of NOT INDISCRIMINATE to the usual special cases. DGG ( talk ) 16:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete – Since this is "Redirects for discussion" (italic emphasis mine), and since I did not explicitly state "delete" in the original post, I would like to clarify that I am for deletion. Key points about the foods and fare that companies and food manufacturers create and purvey should not be wiped entirely from articles. Conversely, I also understand that articles do not need to go into great intricate detail covering every foodstuff a company/organization is involved in. These types of matters in articles should be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than by the ambiguous ten-character phrase, wp:notmenu. North America1000 11:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I can't see any great harm in this, any experienced edit will recognise the different between a typical menu item and a full listing, just as we can tell the difference under the product heading between "Bloggs Ltd makes widgets" and "Bloggs Ltd makes widgets, including blue widgets, green widgets, UV widgets etc." Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • inclined to keep This guy's edits are a bit of a problem but it's reasonable (and I feel a consensus for this) to assert that if we are talking listing particular dishes they should be part of their fame and not listings from the menu. Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep From what I see, we can all agree that NOMENU should be a thing. What I think the issue here is, was the way it was overly boldly implemented, without discussion. We put the cart before the horse on this one, but unless I'm missing something, we do have consensus at this point, albeit not formally. The reason I'm weak about this is probably why people voted delete, and if I'm honest, it's probably to discourage this as a precedent. As a small aside, and I don't think this is case here, but I also don't want to encourage people slashing entire sections when they could be rewritten more concisely to conform. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Drewmutt, with a note that the word menu should be included in the target page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment @Jimfbleak, Mangoe, Drewmutt, and Piotrus: DGG mentioned above that this would be more relevant when considering "NOT INDISCRIMINATE", in which case the redirect should be to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (not it's current target of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal) As a few of you mentioned, there should be mention of menu somewhere in the target, and guidance as to the extent of what NOTMENU means (e.g. WP:NOTSTATS is not carte blanche to remove any and all stats). Otherwise, we get this removal of independently-sourced prose on a restaurant's core offerings.—Bagumba (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Bagumba: I agree that the diff you provided directly above is of concern. The content removed (which you restored) is not a long bulleted directory list of menu items, it is sourced content that is relevant to the topic, as per WP:PRODUCT. This example is in part a reason to be wary of vague additions to Wikipedia policy pages that have a potential to be significantly misinterpreted, leading to the blanking of entire sections of sourced content (and the work of our valued editors) at the push of a button, without appropriate due consideration of the content's relevance relative to a particular topic. Such content can also be copy edited to address concerns with intricate detail, rather than blanked in a rapid, drive-by manner. These types of matters in articles are better considered on a case-by-case basis. North America1000 11:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, the troubling part is the edit summary read, "... Pricing and menu is an immediate violation".—Bagumba (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
it might make more sense to say, details of pricing and menu. The general level of pricing is appropriate, the type of food served is appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 14:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I would tend to point at WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which has relevant wording already. Mangoe (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no reason why we shouldn't include this into our policy, and it's definitely something that isn't controversial because of personal opinion or bias. It's something that adds value to Wikipedia policy and it should be encouraged for Wikipedia's welfare. Today, we now see paid editing of all kinds and we should prepare for it, and this includes spamming us with menus. One comment here says this should be deleted because there hasn't been any discussion on the policy page, but there indeed is, so this doesn't add anything into why the redirect should still be deleted alone. Several years ago, the community was free to implement anything it wanted to, since the community has a choice of making it. I recently participated in a discussion about an article where menu product spam like this was added in, and this redirect fits in perfectly with solving that issue. Trampton (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bagumba. There's no mention of menus at the target, so someone is free to interpret the redirect however they want. This isn't helpful as the above diffs have shown. -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and retarget to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a place to house an eating establishment's menu, ennumerating the offerings being provided. The content must be encyclopedic, i.e. the special dish should be noted in 3rd-party, independent sources, rather than routine reviews, such as what's common in local press. That's the very definition of indiscriminate. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - This seems a reasonable use of a redirect. Not sure why it has been nominated for deletion. At worst it is harmless and it may well be useful.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
None of those would ever be suggests as they're not relevant. Not menu is a reality though in regards to article, but "Not teacher" or "Not your mother" is certainly not. The comments above clearly gave examples of why it's in fact valid, so simply stating "implausible" isn't showing how they're irrelevant. Also, as for the formatting an article, adding content without a table of contents, is against WP:MOS. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete If the menu issue isn't mentioned in WP:NOT, it's not appropriate to have a redirect there under this title. First get the menu-related text added to WP:NOT, then create a redirect. (And then I'd probably vote keep.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. NOT BURo. We all do agree it's a good statement of policy, so why delete it only to remake. it? Just edit the policy page to include the statement. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Duplicate vote: DGG (talkcontribs) has already cast a vote above.
    • However, there is no consensus on the policy talk page at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#NOT.23MENU to include anything about "Not Menu"—Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Indeed, this redirect was created entirely out-of-process. I am surprised that people are advocating for a WP:NOTMENU redirect to the WP:NOT policy page when the policy page has no content qualifying the redirect. Furthermore, edits to the policy page should be performed by consensus, rather than arbitrarily. In this ambiguous manner, "WP:NOTMENU" could refer to any content in any article that even has a mention of cuisine. North America1000 03:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neither the target section or WP:NOT has any mention of menus, which means that this redirect cannot be interpreted. Since this is a redirect to NOT, one of the central policies on Wikipedia, and one which is frequently used to delete content, this is problematic. As Bagumba showed, this leads to abuse of the redirect to give the weight of policy to actions which are in fact not justified by policy. This is not to say that this redirect should never exist. But if "menus" become mentioned, (WP:INDISCRIMINATE) seems like a good section), then this can be recreated. But RFD is certainly not the place to decide the contents of NOT.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 01:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Note to closer Since this is a redirect into policy page WP:NOT, I hope this can be closed as a definitive keep or delete, and otherwise invite you to !vote if you feel there is currently no consensus. (Of course to me, it seems like WP:COMMONSENSE that WP:R#DELETE should have covered redirects created with no consensus, whose existence could lead to misinterpretation of Wikipedia policies.) Thanks for your consideration.—Bagumba (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Note to closer – Ambiguity such as this can create problems. E.g. let's delete all of the Michelin Starred restaurant articles, as per WP:Not menu. Since the WP:NOT page has no qualification for the redirect, anything could arbitrarily be applied. Also, a discussion regarding this is occurring at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Revert. It may be a good idea for the closer of this discussion to also make a determination and close the other as well at the same time, to end this matter of having two separate discussions on two separate Wikipedia namespace areas about the same topic. North America1000 13:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Pop culture news media events[edit]

The current target does not provide a list of this nature. -- Tavix (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: This redirect is a {{R with history}}. Looks as though it was an article during 2005–2006. Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Based on revision history searches on popular culture around 2006 for phrases from the list, I don't see that anything from the list ever actually got merged, so there's nothing to preserve. Even if we did need to preserve the page history somewhere for attribution purposes, it wouldn't need to be preserved at this particular title; it could go at some talk:popular culture subpage. (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 01:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


Unprotect and undelete. At the time of the previous RfD, we didn't have the current convention of redirecting from emoji, and some votes were based on how the symbol appeared on certain platforms before it was properly standardized. This is one of the few emoji that can have a useful redirect and currently doesn't. NeonMerlin 07:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Support but target to Japanese postal mark instead, which specifically discusses this character. --NYKevin 01:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia is not Emojipedia. Has anything suggested since the previous RFDs in 2015 that this icon has become more trendy and needing to be searched more? Has the icon appeared in news articles? There's a unicode on Japanese postal mark that was added in January 2016 [10]? Should similar tables be created for all the other Emojis? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It may be based on the postal mark, but it's a post office emoji. It's mentioned in both articles, (see Japan Post#Postal symbol) and in Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs, and should redirect somewhere. Japan Post is probably the most relevant, although there is currently more information at Japanese postal mark. WP:XY isn't a reason to delete here as this is one thing, although mentioned in more than one article, and there are no search results. Peter James (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I support the recreation somewhere, but I'm not sure where that would be. The emoji is Japanese Post Office, but I do not think there is an obvious article that fits the description. Japan Post was in service from 2003–2007. Japan Post Holdings is the current Japanese postal company, but the article doesn't provide much. It does mention that Japan Post Network runs the post offices, which is technically the closest to the emoji definition. However, that article is a one sentence stub. I'm thinking what needs to happen is to create an overview article (eg: Postal services in the United Kingdom as the closest current article that I can find). Anything from Japan Post not directly related to the 2003–2007 company would go there (including the section on the Japanese postal mark), along with the history (I can't find anything pre-2003 so that would need to be researched). Thoughts? -- Tavix (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 01:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


Not mentioned in target article. Without mention in its target page, this redirect has no notability outside of the Rick and Morty universe, and is the equivalent of a WP:NOTWIKIA issue. Also, the history of this page was a recreation of an article deleted and redirected at AfD; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plumbus. Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I had a very similar thought process. In fact, the redirect is only one letter off from plumbous, an adjectival form. -- Tavix (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Retarget to Lead This would work since Plumbous and Plumbus sound the same and have been used in some books. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Striking previous vote. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully this relist will lead to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment: After giving this some consideration, I oppose retargeting to Lead. Though connecting the nominated redirect to Rick and Morty without mention is a WP:NOTWIKIA issue, the connection between the redirect and Rick and Morty is still notable. Instead, Wikipedia's search function should be utilized to help readers find what they are looking for when searching this term. However, in the spirit of the AfD discussion that resulted in the redirect having indefinite full protection, I now suggest this redirect be deleted and Plumbus be salted. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you throw in a redirects here and then hatnote to Rick and Morty? It'd help if Plumbus was mentioned at least somewhere on the Rick and Morty article. If the verbiage is there it can take the redirect. There are news articles that refer to it: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC) update 23:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect to Rick and Morty per the articles listed by AngusWOOF. However, also note in the Rick and Morty article that “Plumbus” and “Plumbous” sound familiar (Plumbus redirects to “Rick and Morty”; not to be confused with “Plumbous“.) Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 13:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment "Plumbus" in the Rick and Morty sense is mentioned at How It's Made#Parodies. -- Tavix (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 01:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
If plumbus can be integrated into the Rick and Morty main article, like how Futurama#Setting and Futurama#Hallmarks introduces readers to the terms, then it would be more useful than the hatnote proposal I had. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Affluenza in Australia[edit]

The word "Affluenza" is not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm not opposed to that option, but I find it a bit odd that this redirect is the only page that starts with "Affluenza in". I do not understand why Australia would have a redirect for this and not other countries. But, then again, it could just be a case of nothing else being written yet. Steel1943 (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete This isn't the title of the book so it doesn't help to redirect to the book itself. But the section doesn't really focus on the effects of alluenza on Australia or cite statistics, and only vaguely states a line about Australians trying measures to counter affluenza, so I would change the section header itself to Analysis or Criticism of affluenza. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per the IP. It's the only "Affluenza in" redirect, but it's also the only specific country that has a section in the Affluenza article. -- Tavix (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per AngusWOOF: the "Australia" section is mistitled, and its current content will only disappoint readers looking for information on affluenza in Australia. – Uanfala (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 01:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


This emoji depicts an upside-down smiling face. It is often used to represent silliness, but it has no clear meaning so it is used in other ways too. The current target does not discuss upside-down faces. I do not think any article discusses this character or its meanings, so delete or redirect to Emoji. Gorobay (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Something like wikt:Appendix:Unicode/Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs? -- Tavix (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Tavix: That's probably a good start. Maybe bring it over here, redirect all emoji titles to the sections/anchors that represent them, and call it a day. Then, we can stop having these discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as the best available target since it discusses smiles, and this emoji is smiling. Do not retarget to emoji because that does not describe this particular emoji. -- Tavix (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This is in Emoticon and Emoticons (Unicode block) but not in Smile. There are no descriptions in the articles but the tables link to the Unicode website which shows the emoji and describes it as "upside-down face". Peter James (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The emoji depicts an upside-down face and we don't seem to have articles discussing either upside-down faces or their use in emoji. The fact that the face also happens to be smiling is incidental. – Uanfala 10:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • If you're going to keep this, you'll have to add a Unicode section as with Japanese postal mark. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to emoji, per Uanfala's comment; emojis with varying appearances shouldn't go to a particular subject. All emojis should exist, if nothing else because a redirect helps those of us using computers incapable of resolving the image. All I see on this computer is a little box, so if there's not a single relevant topic, redirecting to emoji demonstrates to me that the little box is an emoji. I'm not opposed to an alternate useful target, e.g. what Steel1943 is talking about, although it needs to be some sort of topical thing; if you send it to a comprehensive list of miscellaneous symbols, this won't help people figure out what it is, since anyone can guess that an unresolved little box is some sort of miscellaneous character. Nyttend backup (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 01:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

List of newly-formed bus routes in Brooklyn[edit]

Not a useful search term as we do not have a time frame for "newly formed." Also, we do not have a similar redirect name to other bus route list articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 01:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


Not listed or mentioned in target article. ... discospinster talk 20:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. This term was on the list of phobias and was cited from here (deemed an unreliable source by an involved editor) and here, p. 157 (although reliable, this turned out to be a vague reference, so barophobia was ultimately removed from the list). I was unsure whether this was a "related term" (related to basophobia), an "alternative spelling" (of basophobia) or a "misspelling", and finally categorized it as a related term, perhaps incorrectly. After looking at it again, I suggest we keep this redirect, focus the target to the "B" section of the list of phobias, where basophobia is entered, and recategorize it as an "alternative spelling". Good search term.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 17:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and treat as proposed by User:Paine Ellsworth. Good analysis. bd2412 T 18:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It is perfectly fine the way it is. Yes one can take any word and attach phobia to it. So? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete unless a mention of it is reinstated in the list. If there's no mention there, then the redirect is just confusing: I can't see how it can be an alternative spelling for Basophobia: s and r don't really alternate in such contexts, and the concepts are quite different: the imagined fear that gravity might go wonky is different from the inborn fear of falling. – Uanfala 11:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uanfala. The term is not mentioned at the target, so someone searching it will not be helped by the target. -- Tavix (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Just a gentle reminder that redirects from misspellings and some alt spellings are often not mentioned at their targets. This does not negate their value as search terms.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  05:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I disagree that it's a misspelling or alt spelling. When I search the term, it comes back as a "fear of gravity" [21] [22], which is distinct from a "fear of falling", which is what's listed at the List of phobias page. -- Tavix (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes you are right to question that, and yet I've also considered that the distinction between "fear of falling" and "fear of gravity" is a very thin line indeed. If we keep in mind that there is little or nothing in the official, "expert" sources about the fear of gravity, then perhaps its not such a grand leap at all?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  00:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 01:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


Article deleted via AfD, redirect is useless because it's not even mentioned there. ... discospinster talk 20:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I lean towards deleting the redirect as not many people would search for 'antlophobia' in Wikipedia search bar as it is not a commonly known term. Though there is the article on antlophobia I wrote in Phobia Wiki. PlanetStar 06:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 17:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • To AngusWOOF: kudes to you for the excellent research! The first link you give spells it differently... ANTIOPHOBIA (typo?), and while the other links may or may not be reliable, the editors involved with the phobia list seem to prefer at least some mention in expert literature about any given phobia name and definition. It does appear that such a reference should exist, because the people in your news links and such are getting the phobia name from somewhere. The question is 'Where?'  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, just fyi, WP:NOTDICTIONARY was cited at the AfD, which just means that the deleted article was believed to have failed that test. ref.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, lots of phobia lists in the books such as [28] [29] but there are hundreds of entries and no detailed research on it, well, it might need further digging. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It is perfectly fine the way it is. Yes one can take any word and attach phobia to it. So? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 01:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


Weak retarget to respective Wiktionary entries, but I'm not really sure about these, are they mentioned in a broad sense because the terms seem dubious to me. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  • delete - the terms are not covered in Conservatism, and the implied relationships may be considered offensive. Batternut (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think these terms are dubious, I've heard "ultra-conservative" used quite a few times. There are a few articles that source the term "ultra-conservative" in reference to a group or movement, including: Wahhabism, Salafism, and Iranian Principlists. Arch-conservative didn't sound familiar to me, but a quick search shows it to be well-used. I found Arch-conservative targeting Reactionary, and I've added it to the discussion. Dumping these to Wiktionary is okay I guess, but I do not think someone searching this would be satisfied with what Wiktionary has to offer (ultraconservative means "extremely conservative"—if you are familiar the prefix ultra- you already knew that...). WP:REDLINK deletion is probably the better option as I can easily see scope for an article on ultraconservatism, describing the history, politics and groups associated with it. In the meantime, search results catch the few articles where the term is mentioned. -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Radical conservative also exists and that points to Far-right politics, not sure if it should be nominated separately because radical right seems a good target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 01:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete "Arch-conservative" doesn't seem to have a fixed meaning beyond "conservative politician who is famous/powerful"; there's really no way to add encyclopedic content about it anywhere, so we have nothing to offer the reader besides disappointment. "Ultra-conservatism" seems to be more of a coherent concept, and perhaps deserves its own article; hence it should also be deleted per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Added Ultra conservative. (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


Possible targets: Dell, Dell EMC or Dell Technologies. feminist 06:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Dell Technologies, which is the company that resulted from the merger. It's also easy to find the Dell EMC subsidiary page from that parent company article anyway. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Classic WP:XY. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Dell EMC, which is the closest match and makes the most sense to me (EMC, as a subsidiary of Dell). Either way, a link to the other is going to be prominent. -- Tavix (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 01:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Dell EMC as most sensible target. It would be different if there were other EMCs in the general Dell article where it would apply. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The Hitachi[edit]

Does not specifically refer to the product. feminist 06:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep Plausible redirect. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget, probably Hitachi (disambiguation). Suffice to say I've known some folks who own a Magic Wand, and while they'll frequently refer to them as a Hitachi, they don't say "the Hitachi". The only thing on the dab I can see that would definitely be called "The Hitachi" in normal conversation is Hitachi (Japanese train), so I could also support pointing there. My first thought was just plain Hitachi, but I couldn't think of a good reason for that. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 01:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to dab, since that mentions a more plausible use. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to dab Searches for "The Hitachi is" or "The Hitachi was" show a bunch of different topics. The current target shows up in those search results reasonably often, but not to the extent of being "more likely than all the other topics combined". (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to dab. If the context has specifically foregrounded vibrators, then the Magic Wand is the logical referent, but in most contexts the logical response to reading or hearing "the Hitachi" is "the Hitachi what?" Depending on the context, it could be a copier, a lathe, a medical MRI machine, or even a backhoe. —Syrenka V (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Baol Bardot Bulsara (singer)[edit]

Unnecessary disamb page. Home Lander (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 01:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete in the case that the AfD for this redirect's target reaches its current consensus: a redirect to TNT (band). Notability is not inherited, plus it doesn't seem appropriate to have more than one redirect for a single subject. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 00:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Azerbaijan (wine)[edit]

Misleading redirect. With such a parenthetical disambiguator it creates the expectation that it will lead to an article about a brand of wine called "Azerbaijan", or maybe a grape cultivar. Instead, it leads to the generic article about wine from Azerbaijan: this is upside down from the usual relation that is expressed by parenthetical disambiguators. The redirect had two incoming links, which I've fixed [30] [31]. Similar redirects were discussed last month. – Uanfala 14:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

  • These exist for other countries. Wine has regions as well as brands and cultivars, and it can be labelled with the name of a country instead of a specific region, so this isn't misleading. "Country (wine)" is wine with the name of that country on the label, regardless of where it is sold; "Wine (Country)" would be that country's definition of wine - what can be produced or sold as wine there, regardless of where it is produced. Peter James (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, from that point of view, yes, it seems less misleading. And yes, there are quite a few redirects like this but they have all been created by a single editor, and from what I've seen so far, their purpose has been to make it easier for them to produce links using the WP:Pipe trick: typing Country (wine)|]] to create a link displayed as the country name and pointing to the article about the wine from that country. – Uanfala 11:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I feel like Peter James makes a good point. At wine stores, the labels for sections are often just the names of countries (e.g. Australia, South Africa, France, etc.) And unless there is a brand of wine that goes by the country's name, these would unambiguously point to the correct target.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 01:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment it may be suitable as an WP:ATDAB alternative. If a particular brand that goes by the country name is present, then it can be further discussed whether the (wine brand) is needed or what scheme the hatnotes should be to accommodate it. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Harrie Jekkers[edit]

No longer mentioned in the target. Originally targeted Herman Brood, which was implausible; no other suitable target exists. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 02:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete appears to be a Dutch music artist. I don't see any suitable targets though. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 01:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Wikipedia has no information about her, so we have nowhere to send the reader. (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Szechuan sauce[edit]

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

Andover Townsman[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. AFAIK, the newspaper is owned by North of Boston Media Group. Lordtobi () 19:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 01:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

December 4[edit]

Josef Fritzl[edit]

Should redirect to the subsection Fritzl case#Josef Fritzl. Redirect is full-protected, so I cannot make this change myself.  ONR  (talk)  20:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose Most people searching for this name will do so because of the case. No one is interested in him outside those crimes. So the redirect to the main article makes more sense than a redirect to the section of the main article. Regards SoWhy 12:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I came here from a request at RFPP to remove protection, which I declined because the protecting admin had not been contacted and because this discussion is open. NawlinWiki is not very active, but their entry in the protection log reads "no reason to edit or move this redirect without discussion" (emphasis added), thus I presume that they're okay with whatever the result is here. Also note that the creator of the redirect was notified, but he died a year ago. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove all protection. When this redirect was vandalised by an IP when the topic was in the news more than nine years ago, some form of protection made sense. But definitely not full protection and definitely not for such an extended period. – Uanfala (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Redirects to List of dog crossbreeds[edit]

None are mentioned in the target list article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep: The reason that so many of these exist is that, if they don't, they tend to pop up again...and again... and again... I'd prefer that we better clarify that there are a zillion possible invented names and they're not all going to be here in WP. Over time, clearly these articles have changed focus. In list of dog crossbreeds, we might want to better emphasize the link to Dog crossbreed, which discusses the whole portmanteau "designer dog" breed naming thing. We can't possibly list all of the possible crossbreeds, as there are hundreds of dog breeds and people aren't even consistent in how they refer to the breeds (once upon a time we tried, but soon became clear that there was no way...). However, by keeping redirects, we can (hopefully) prevent people from recreating the articles--if you check their history, they pretty much all started with some random person creating a new article for said "name" and we'd catch it and change to a redirect. Elf | Talk 20:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@Elf: If an unwanted article is repeatedly recreated, the proper solution would be to apply WP:SALT. Someone can overwrite a redirect with an article, so keeping redirects simply to prevent article creation seems counter-intuitive. -- Tavix (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Along those lines--while trying to clean up some now-incorrect links that I found by pulling this thread and watching things unravel ;-), Chiweenie wa to be a redirect to dog hybrid (which would now be dog crossbreed) in 2008. That was quickly overwritten by someone replacing the redirect with "these dogs are cool" or like that, which since then has turned into a really bad stub article, most of which is opinion, no references--on the other hand, a web search 9 years after that redirect decision, chiweenie appears zillions of times on the web. How to proceed from here? Elf | Talk 20:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I've been out of the loop for a while--how does SALT protection work? Prevents recreation and also redirects to an appropriate page? What's the template -- pp-protected? If so, I couldn't figure it out and I have to get back to actual work. Sorry. Elf | Talk 20:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Salt prevents anyone except administrators from creating the title. See Special:ProtectedTitles for examples. If there are reliable sources for the crossbreed, the best thing to do would be to create the article, or at the very least add it to List of dog crossbreeds. At least if it's added to that list, there will be encyclopedic content for the redirect to link to. -- Tavix (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
If chiweenie isn't worth an article, you can bring that up separately for AFD. Right now neither the chihuahua nor weiner dog articles mention this crossbreeding, so it wouldn't survive this RFD. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: Some comments that begin with the wording "Note: much more common name is" were added to the list of redirects above the nomination statement. These comments were added by Facts707. (I'm in the opinion that they should be moved down here for clarity, but am not going to do that myself as that may be considered refactoring.) Steel1943 (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Change two entries and keep Dorgi: Added comments to the redirect list to two entries that have another much more common name, which I will repeat here for clarity and at suggestion of OP (thanks). Facts707 (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: For "Chihueagle", a much more common name is "Cheagle" (Chihuahua/Beagle cross) Google
Note: For "Pompchy", a much more common name is "Pomchi" (Pomeranian/Chihuahua cross) Google
I also think Dorgis should be Dorgi (singular) and I think we should keep it too given its mention in a few hundred books on Queen Elizabeth's dogs.
Maybe the litmus test could be 100 references in Google Books and then the cross gets a mention under a new section "Other crossbreeds" such as "Cheagle | Chihuahua | Beagle". Just a thought. Facts707 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget some at least boldly retarget ones that are spelling variants to breeds listed in articles. I've boldly retargeted Malt-A-Poo to Maltipoo. I've also retargeted Lhatese to Kyi-Leo. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
    • @AngusWOOF: I just withdrew the two redirects you mentioned. Thanks for resolving them. If you find any more, I'll withdraw those too. (Unfortunately, when I made this nomination, my ability to perform WP:BEFORE was limited; worse case scenario, these redirects can be recreated if the end up pointing to an appropriate target or if content identifying the redirect is added to the target article.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I did a scrub of the rest of the list and highlighted some more to keep or consider. The rest can be deleted and if need be can be added back with references and mention. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete those not mentioned anywhere as someone searching these would not be able to find any information on what they are searching for. That being said, I think a lot of these could or should be mentioned at the target, it'll just take some effort to figure out which ones are attested. -- Tavix (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist so that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 6 can be closed. Per WP:RELIST, this discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I think the rest can be deleted if they are not specifically redirected above. Some of the cross names are still vague like French pug: could be French bulldog x Pug or French poodle x Pug AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, most of those are non-notable hybrids created by people desperate to give their mutts some kind of cool Labradoodle name, and will never be searched again, nor have articles written about them. Athough I appreciate the sentiments of some of the comments dog articles on WP are positively plagued with this nonsense among other issues. --TKK! bark with me! 18:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

MLG parodies[edit]

For the same reason as Montage Parody. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 11:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment some editors added a paragraph on MLG parodies in August, but it was deleted for lack of sources then added a back again in November with a single source to a random blog (Cherwell), other than that, it still lacks secondary sources, so the notability is highly questionable. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Unlike Montage parody, this is more specific. There is currently a section called "In popular culture", but if that gets deleted then I'm weak delete. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


It looks like these originally redirected to the Glog article deleted in 2006; Glog was recreated as a redirect to the article about mulled wine but these redirects are not useful. For "Gamecast" there's ESPN GameCast but it redirects to a page that doesn't mention it, and there's Gamecaster but that's the name of a company. There's also Broadcasting of sports events but that also doesn't mention these. Peter James (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • This appears to be originally about game logging or glogging, so I would recommend:
Retarget gamecast and gamecasting to Video game live streaming [32] There's also a non-notable GAMECAST concept but that didn't really take off. [33] Add hatnote to the ESPN GameCast which redirects to Gamecaster company can be a hatnote as well.
Retarget matchcasting to Jean M. Muller who invented the technique and tag as typo? alternative name? (term is technically "match-casting") . Add "redirects here" and hatnote for MatchCast to
I think this would work for now. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

URI scheme[edit]

I think we should bring the article back in some form. It is definitely a notable subject, and it would also help readers narrow in on their search. I am ok with having us start by using the version in the revision history, but it likely needs a lot of edits.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm not sure an RfD discussion is likely to attrack the needed feedback for such a proposal. Maybe discussing it on the talk page of the target could be more productive? – Uanfala 14:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment: @Mr. Guye: You mention that "it likely needs a lot of edits". Are you volunteering to do that? If so, it might help to draft what the article would look like. I'll also ping Scott, who carried out the merge, to see if he has any input. -- Tavix (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping Tavix. Sorry Mr. Guye, but I'm not convinced. As you can see from my edits in the version history, what was there before was either awful (that giant table) or redundant to Uniform Resource Identifier (as evident when David Condrey proposed the merge in October 2014). To "help readers narrow in on their search" is kind of vague as well - can you show that anyone is really looking for some distinct subtopic of "URI schemes" that isn't well enough served by the main article? Let's not do unnecessary work on the basis of conjecture.  — Scott talk 11:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Universiteit van Korea[edit]

No relation with the Dutch language. feminist 14:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete could not find any affinity with the Netherlands or any other Dutch speaking country. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


Delete I didn't think we had redirects where the plus sign replaces a space. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

" Royal National Institute of the Deaf"[edit]

Delete The quotes and the odd initial spacing warrant the deletion of this redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Too many implausibilities. Also the R name is not the same as the target, making it more implausible. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Unlikely stylization for the organization. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

List of video game mascots[edit]

Delete The target article isn't a list, nor describe video game mascots. NotCory (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It could use a severe pruning. Just because a character appears on the game cover or artwork does not make it a mascot. There should be sources that indicate it is a mascot for the franchise or the system. Top lists such as [39] [40] or [41] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Restore Couldn't agree more with @Tavix:. That version should be used, with some pruning. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Restore and add sources. --Ne0 (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I've restored the history of the original article at this title. There may be material worth keeping in there if this list is to be rehabilitated.  — Scott talk 14:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

December 3[edit]

Charles Boynton (American football)[edit]

I am not seeing anything in the target article to suggest that the subject was known as "Charles". Probably delete both. bd2412 T 23:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Cambridge Scholars Publishing[edit]

There is no indication that this "independent academic publisher" (see has any connection with the University of Cambridge other than using the word "Cambridge". To make it a bluelink redirecting to the university is misleading. PamD 17:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  • It's connected to the university in that their writers are all lecturers and researchers from there. However, that not a tight enough link for a redirect, so delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Oiyarbepsy: Where did you find that information? On their website I can find no such statement, and they even say "However, we will always consider a proposal submitted by a non-academic specialist, ...". Looking at their books, authors include "Doctoral Fellow at the University of Hyderabad" [42]. PamD 23:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Chill out, Pam, we agree on deleting it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Pam, the About link you provided above states, "Founded by former lecturers and researchers from the University of Cambridge, we publish original academic work across a wide range of subjects in four key areas: Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS); Health Sciences (HS); Physical Sciences (PS); and Life Sciences (LS)." Since Cambridge Scholars Publishing was founded by former lecturers and researchers from the University of Cambridge, why shouldn't it redirect to the University of Cambridge article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Because this is a very loose connection, the target doesn't, and shouldn't, contain any information about the publishers. – Uanfala (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Uanfala, given that Cambridge Scholars Publishing doesn't have the connection to the university that Cambridge University Press does, I understand your point. Maybe there will be a day that it will be appropriate to mention Cambridge Scholars Publishing in the University of Cambridge article. After all, it does currently have a "Notable alumni and academics" section. Either way, I don't feel strongly about the redirect. It simply made sense to me at the time that I created it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading. – Uanfala (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yulia Romero, regarding this and other places you've linked "Cambridge Scholars Publishing," I'm just letting you know here that it will be deleted. So you might want to stop linking it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Ficha de libro[edit]

Spanish. Wikisaurus (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. I created this template and many like it because editors copy and paste articles from foreign-language Wikipedias. Rather than create an unhelpful redlink, this template and the templates like it create a skeleton of an infobox and (typically) place the page in an error category (e.g. "Infobox person using unknown parameters") that brings it to the attention of gnome editors who can translate or substitute the template. Foreign-language translation templates are useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Delete, as the parameters in Spanish template are Spanish, not English, so it would only create an error. Wikisaurus (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
      As I explained above, deleting the redirect would cause an unhelpful redlink for editors whose first language may not be English. Keeping the redirect causes a minimal template to appear, along with a helpful error category and an error message in Preview mode that leads editors to an explanation of how to fix the problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete in the spirit of WP:FORRED. This is not the Spanish Wikipedia; the redirect would possibly be searched and useful there. Steel1943 (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    • FORRED is an essay about articles, not helpful template redirects. WP:R#DELETE lays out common reasons to delete a redirect; none of them apply here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
      • The above comment sounds like a good example of Wikilawyering; I said "in the spirit of WP:FORRED" since the likelihood of this redirect being used on the English Wikipedia is quite unlikely and even unhelpful for someone trying to find this template on the Spanish Wikipedia. The argument you present has been superseded by the existence of Wikipedia:Wikidata; before Wikidata existing, I could see a rationale for this redirect existing, but not anymore. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
        • As I indicated above, I created these templates, and templates like them, because they were being used on en.WP and were listed at Special:WantedTemplates. (See also templates in the {{citar web}} family, which are more sophisticated because they are copied and pasted even more often, and templates like Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Légifrance, which I created because it was being copied and pasted from fr.WP.) How do you propose to assist editors who copy and paste templates from WP in one language to another? – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
          • You have essentially presented an "apples to oranges" argument. Template:Légifrance is a template, not a redirect. In fact, it seems that template has affinity to the language which it is in ... which is perfectly acceptable. However, these redirects' targets, Template:Infobox library, Template:Infobox university, Template:Infobox actor, and Template:Infobox scientist have no affinity and are not exclusive to the Spanish language. If an editor needs to find the the proper template to use on a foreign-language Wikipedias, that's what Wikidata is for. Steel1943 (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
            • To expect regular human editors to somehow use Wikidata at this point in its early development is unrealistic at best. These redirects do their job well as bare-bones translation templates for normal humans. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I WP:BOLDly merged these four discussions together as they were all the same. Steel1943 (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Kristine Butler[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. She is mentioned at List_of_San_Francisco_Ballet_2016_repertory#Corps_de_Ballet and List_of_San_Francisco_Ballet_2017_repertory#Changes_from_2016_season mentions her move. I would either retarget to the 2017 page which gives more information though deletion per WP:XY might be preferable since the search result would return both pages. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable. News searches point to people in other states with the same name [43] [44] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox website[edit]

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

Template:2017 CONCACAF League bracket[edit]

This redirect seems not related, so I think it should be deleted. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


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

December 2[edit]

Boeing 767-233[edit]

A redirect does not need to exist for the highly specific instance of a derivative aircraft model that is unlikely to be searched. Delete, or be consistent and similarly create thousands of redirects for other customer codes that are unlikely to be searched. -- Acefitt 22:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment This model number is mentioned in articles about a notable incident, from which the redirect was recently removed ([45] [46]) - one of which links to several redirects for other specific models such as Boeing 737-222 and Boeing 737-282. I'm not aware of any proposal to create "a redirect for every explicit Boeing customer code". However, I checked a pattern search on article titles and found we do have hundreds more. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, harmless and on topic, but don't create similar redirects en masse. Wikipedia is not consistent, and any attempts to make it consistent are doomed to fail. —Kusma (t·c) 09:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: This redirect, and many like it, was created so that a reference within an article to a particular model could be linked as a whole and send the reader to the appropriate article. Alternative - but undesirable - methods are to link only part of the model number or to pipe the link. Both would be very poor choices. The point of this sort of redirect is twofold: it crystallises the specialist knowledge of the editor who created it - the title of the article which describes a specific model is not necessarily just the high-order part of the model number; and it externalises the linkage between the mention in an article and the actual location that describes that topic. Not only is it not a problem if WP has hundreds of redirects from specific model numbers to the appropriate article, it is a positive benefit, the very reason for which redirects exist. I would strongly encourage the creation of as many such redirects as may be needed; every time a specific model number is mentioned in an article, it should be linked as a whole, with a redirect to send the reader to the appropriate destination. And this is not just my opinion - it is policy - see WP:NOPIPE. And for the reasons stated, I would strongly discourage misguided attempts to replace redirects with piping. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @Colonies Chris:WP:NOPIPE is not policy, unless I'm reading the header of that page wrong. In any event, given that they have the same target, creating multiple redirects in the same article seems in contradiction to WP:DUPLINK, as no additional benefit is provided. You've clearly stated your personal preference, but I still see no benefit of entire redirect page when a couple piped links create only additional syntax, and in latter instances of the link, less syntax. I see no advantage to creating an entire page to serve the purpose of one single piped link. I haven't a clue what you mean by "crystallising the specialist knowledge of an editor" but piping a link when only a few instances will link to a given redirect still seems easier for all parties. For these reasons, I strongly maintain that redirects should not be needlessly created, and given that it does not contravene policy, I will refrain from fixing redirects but continue to pipe links instead of needlessly creating redirects. -- Acefitt 15:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Not official policy, but nonetheless widely agreed - that's why it's been there and stable for many years. Perhaps it would be useful for me to clarify the contrasting purposes of redirects and piping. The function of piping is to make a more precise link than the visible one; an example is [[Boeing 747|747]], where the context only requires '747', but the wikilink requires more detail. By contrast, the role of a redirect is to take a reader from a precise visible link to a more general article - in the case of Boeing 767-233, it goes to an article which covers the visible topic in a larger context. WP:DUPLINK has nothing to do with it - that's talking about multiple links to the same item; the fact that several links to different items may be covered by the same target article has no relevance at all. Redirects should not be seen as an overhead or as a problem - on the contrary, redirects allow flexibility and reduce maintenance overhead. A redirect page costs virtually nothing, and the action of redirecting a clicked link also costs virtually nothing. Set that against the cost of adding some piping, which might seem small but in fact you incur a significant cost because it's part of the history of a larger article. What do I mean by 'crystallising your specialist knowledge? I'll give you an example. You may know, as a plane expert working within Wikipedia, that the plane model Douglas C-54D-15-DC is covered by the article Douglas C-54 Skymaster, and you may add some piping into an article that mentions it, but that doesn't help anyone outside the context of that specific article. If you instead make a redirect, then anyone else can go straight from that specific model to the appropriate article without having to have your specialist knowledge; by adding the redirect you've 'crystallised' your knowledge, made it available to everyone, not just in one article, but across the whole encyclopaedia. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
        • It's specifically of Boeing customer codes that I'm speaking of, though. If one were to search for Douglas C-54D-15-DC, an actual variant of the airplane, it's entirely reasonable for them to be redirected to the appropriate article. Boeing customer codes, on the other hand, do not denote a specific variant and are insignificant to the extent that they have been ditched entirely in newer models. Boeing customer codes crystallize nothing but confusion... heck I'd prefer for the type parameter on Gimli Glider to simply say "Boeing 767-200" and not even have to distinguish. -- Acefitt 18:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
          • That's exactly the kind of specialist knowledge I was meaning. You're aware that 767-233 is a customer code, but the average reader or editor won't know that, and thanks to the redirect, they don't need to - they'll be taken to the right place, where all that is explained if they want to know. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: It is extremely unlikely the average Wikipedia user will come in and search for a Boeing aircraft by both model and customer code. The customer code isn't even necessary on articles about aircraft incidents, though there's no harm in listing it there. But that doesn't justify having these redirects, and no new redirects like this should be created. Aviation article maintainers know how to link to the appropriate aircraft page, and we don't need to create endless redirects for something editors handle every day. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    • In a case such as this, it's possible someone mght search by that code, because that's a plane that was involved in a widely reported incident. But more importantly, why the opposition to the redirect? It's useful for the reasons I've explained above and its cost is insignificant. Why deny readers and editors the benefit of the knowledge 'stored' in that redirect? An aviation editor has a choice; they can pipe a model number to the appropriate article, or they can create a redirect. The cost of either option is trivial, but the redirect has a wider benefit, so why not use it? Colonies Chris (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirects are intended for more than the "average" user, they are for any reasonably likely user, and if I ever saw this term, yes I would look for it, as I did not know the meaning of customer codes in this context until I saw this discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Air Canada#Fleet as the customer code indicates that the user is searching for Boeing 767 aircraft operated by a specific airline. feminist 15:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
    That is a bit confusing, as there is no mention of 767-233 in that section and no indication that "233" is related to Air Canada. —Kusma (t·c) 21:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

quotient representation[edit]

Should be deleted since (1) not every representation is a representation of a Lie group and (2) a quotient representation is a specific construction and thus unreasonable to discuss in a general article. Taku (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

December 1[edit]

Boothworld Industries[edit]

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


A dispute has arisen as to whether Deccan should continue to redirect to Deccan Plateau, to which it has pointed for about eight years. An editor has sought to retarget the redirect to the disambiguation page, Deccan (disambiguation), which would be WP:MALPLACED, requiring the disambiguation page to be moved to Deccan if the current target is determined not to be the primary target of the term. bd2412 T 20:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I think the underlying issue can best be solved by moving Deccan Plateau to Deccan, as suggested by Utcursch at Talk:Deccan Plateau#Target of the redirect Deccan. – Uanfala 20:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I had retargeted the page to the disambiguation in response to another editor tagging it for speedy deletion for the exact reasons described by the nominator. While I did not think of WP:MALPLACED in doing so, I am also not opposed to moving the disambiguation page to this title as well should consensus result in such. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 20:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Do we have any evidence (pageviews, Google hits, references in books) from which to determine whether there is or is not a primary topic of the term? bd2412 T 20:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
      • This I cannot comment on. I will have to ask Deccania to back their case, as the user who's insisting on changing the primary topic. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes, evidence is generally required to change a longstanding status quo ante. bd2412 T 20:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Deccan is a word that is derived from the Sanskrit word Dakshina meaning Southern[1]. People who do not have in-depth knowledge of things will make errors that will end up creating disambiguation and new erroneous synonyms leading to the denigration of a language. In fact, calling our Wiki Disambiguatiom pages as such with so many unrelated words which start or contain the same name is also not something properly done because disambiguation means to remove uncertainty of meaning from a word or sentence, but we (including me) seem to be creating more ambiguity by creating the Wiki Disambiguation pages. These pages are mostly containing wiki article names that contain the title we are searching on, that is all, and not really removing any ambiguity of the word in context otherwise we would not be having this discussion. Deccan must not redirect to Deccan Plateau but redirect to the Disambiguation page as far as I think. What I said also holds true for the usage of the word Deccan and Deccan Plateau as synonyms, somebody made an interpretation mistake and the mistake is being continued. Deccan contains a plateau which is referred to as Deccan plateau. Deccan also contains plains and coasts and mountains and rivers and other geographical entities. Deccania (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
          • In all rightness, Deccan must redirect to a new article called Deccan Peninsula. Deccan Peninsula is the peninsular India located south of the the Satpura and Vindhya Ranges.[2] Deccania (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • From my British perspective, Deccan (or, rather, the Deccan) is the historical geopolitical region. Its human history (currently section 8 in Deccan Plateau) is the most important topic, and should be much nearer the top of the article. I find the title "Deccan Plateau" confusing; it misleads the reader into thinking that this is an article primarily about geography or geology. Support utcursch's proposal on the Talk Page, i.e. move Deccan Plateau to Deccan and keep Deccan Plateau as a redirect to it. Narky Blert (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with what you said, that is Deccan is the historical geopolitical region and about the title Deccan Plateau being confusing. If there is an article on Deccan, geographically and politically and historically it must include all about Deccan Peninsula in entirety and it should not be redirected to Deccan Plateau. Yes you are also right from my opinion that the current article on Deccan Plateau has to be moved to Deccan because the contents of it are that of the whole of Deccan Peninsula. Finally, Deccan Plateau and Deccan Peninsula must be articles only about the geography. Deccan must be an article about the geographical (briefly), political and historical aspects of Deccan Peninsula. At that point there will be no need for redirection at all. Deccania (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I think that is an excellent solution - move Deccan Plateau to Deccan and expand its contents to be about the entire peninsula. bd2412 T 18:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Comment. I agree with everything in Deccania's reply to my post, and note BD2412's concurrence. I failed to say in my earlier post a thing I had in mind: as Deccania has pointed out, utcursch's solution would free up Deccan Plateau for possible expansion into a standalone article. Narky Blert (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. See also Talk:Deccan Plateau#Target of the redirect Deccan for an alternative proposal about the topic structure. – Uanfala (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as it always has been (probably) There seems to be some wierd POV effort to redefine "Deccan" to cover the WHOLE of southern India, ie South India. The disam page has been changed to begin "Deccan means Southern part in ancient India, south of the Satpura and Vindhya ranges. Deccan includes the east and west coasts and plains, the plateau and mountain ranges of the ancient Southern India." - a hugely contentious definition, and not very relevant to what most readers are looking for. A look at a google search shows that "Deccan Peninsula" may be defined this way, but is a term very largely restricted to geology and eco/biological sciences, and needs to be fully specified (ie "Deccan Peninsula" not just "Deccan"). Even in these uses, the definition seems to vary a lot, as to whether Tamil Nadu and Kerala are included. It is certainly not what people mean when talking about "the Deccan", even when dealing with ancient Indian history. Currently Deccan Peninsula redirects to the plateau, but there is a 3-line draft of an article (taking the same sort of definition quoted above). A section in Deccan Plateau, or a shortish article explaining the "Deccan Peninsula" concept would be useful. I don't at all mind moving "Deccan Plateau" to "Deccan" per se - there is probably a better case for moving to The Deccan - but not if that leaves User:Deccania to do a POV fork of South India at Deccan. People may find it instructive to look at his edit history - there isn't much of it, beginning on 1st December with arguing about redirects etc on this topic. Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • hmmm, thank you for bringing a good point about South India. If you look into history, Dakshinapatha was the oldest term used in Indian literature and the term meant beyond Vindhya etc mountains. Then after hundreds of years, we see the term Deccan used by the Muslims rulers which also meant the same as Dakshinapatha. However, the use of the term "South India (literally may mean Dakshinapatha)" by the British and most people from then has been limited to the linguistic family, differentiating Dravidian people from the Indo-Aryan Northern and Central Indian linguistic people. So presently or from the time of British, Deccan was never used interchangeably with South India because deccan always included both Dravidian and Indo-Aryan linguistic regions. I therefore think Deccan (Deccan Peninsula) has to be a separate article from Deccan Plateau and South India. Deccania (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
      • What it might have meant in north Indian languages over 1,000 years ago is beside the point. The definitions you have added at Deccan (disambiguation) and the peninsula draft include Tamil Nadu and Kerala, which may indeed be part of the "Deccan Peninsula" in certain scientific usages, but not part of "the Deccan" in normal use in English. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


        • Here is the usage per some dictionaries, leaving aside oldest or true or sensible (seems like some dictionaries are using the sensible meaning) meaning of Deccan being South and so the entire peninsular India. In addition, I have already mentioned about the difference between a plateau and a peninsula. Geographically Deccan consists of Deccan Traps, Deccan Plateau, Deccan Peninsula, Eastern Ghats, Western Ghats, and the Coastal Plains, etc.

According to Deccan in British, noun, the Deccan (two meanings) 1. a plateau in S India, between the Eastern Ghats, the Western Ghats, and the Narmada River 2. the whole Indian peninsula south of the Narmada River According to (two meanings) A plateau of south-central India between the Eastern Ghats and the Western Ghats. The name is also used for the entire Indian peninsula south of the Narmada River. According to (only one meaning) A triangular plateau in southern India, bounded by the Malabar Coast in the west, the Coromandel Coast in the east, and the Vindhaya mountains in the north. According to (only one meaning) plateau region of south central India lying between the Eastern Ghats and the Western Ghats

Note, Deccan is used differently by different people, it may mean so many things for Historian, another thing for a Geographer, another thing for a Politician, another thing for a Teacher, another thing for a Poet, another thing for a truth-seeker, another thing for a Linguist, another thing for a debater.

Some maps: Deccania (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Ecem Cömert[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted, G7, by Longhair. -- Tavix (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Ding Fries Are Done[edit]

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

Doing My Country Thing[edit]

Non-notable early independent album. Removed from target article as the album's existence was largely unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Is there some concern that the below easily-located sources are in fact WP:CIRCULAR citations? I can't find any prior discussion about failed attempts to verify this album's existence. (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Harrison, Thomas (2011). Music of the 1990s. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780313379420. Neotraditionalist Mark Chesnutt recorded an independently released album, Doing My Country Thing (1989), before receiving national attention on Too Cold at Home (1990). 
    • Sault, Spring (2016-06-01). "Texas Troubadour Mark Chesnutt Continues With Traditional Country". Texas Hill Country. Retrieved 2017-11-23. Chesnutt’s country music career formally began with the release of his first album in 1988, Doing My Country Thing (the vinyl version of which is now a collector’s item.) 
    • "Country star Mark Chesnutt headlining Saline County Fair". KOLN/KIGN. 2016-07-04. Retrieved 2017-11-23. Chesnutt’s national country debut came with the single, Too Cold at Home, the debut single from his second album, came several years after his first album titled Doing My Country Thing entered the Billboard Country charts. 
    • The fact that the sources can't agree on its release date, as well as the fact that the last source falsely claims that Doing My Country Thing charted, casts doubt on the album's existence. Only one print release has bothered to mention it, and the other sources you linked don't seem reputable. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

On My Highway[edit]

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

Template:Infobox video games[edit]

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

Reba (fashion)[edit]

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

Mr Snrub[edit]

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

November 22[edit]

Flag of the District of Columbia.[edit]

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

Back and to the left[edit]

This was flagged for a merge, but it appears the title was only redirected. It's very unlikely that a reader could use this search term and learn more than he or she already knew about the phrase. It's not used in either article, and since the film article is a GA and the assassination article is quite extensive, I doubt there's much to be said in either place about this movie line. Note that the "Back and to the left" article was never much more than a list of references to the phrase in pop culture. --BDD (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep - it's an iconic phrase, that clearly refers only to the assassination of JFK. It is mentioned in Oliver Stone's film JFK, as well as a Seinfeld episode, and so on. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to JFK (film) as the specific phrase is used in the film IndieWire article, showing transcript of film where Costner's character repeats it like a mantra. I don't see the phrase used among general transcripts for the assassination, so it wouldn't be appropriate to put it there until sources are provided to indicate otherwise. The use in Seinfeld is based on that film [47] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Apologies for my sloppy copy-paste job; the variant with a comma already targets the film article. I want to stress, however, that if we don't mention the quote there, it's little more than an easter egg. --BDD (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's unusual to relist for a third time, but participation has been low, and I've just left a note at Talk:JFK (film) with the hope that this could get the attention of editors in the subject area.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 11:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: Can this be redirected to a specific section on the Assassination article, that then would also have a link to the specific section on the film article? Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 15:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

5 Star Wrestling[edit]

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


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 5#Dell/EMC

The Hitachi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 5#The Hitachi[edit]

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